3 V. GUTIERREZV. VELEZ, IMAGE COURTESY GOOGLE EARTH Managing landscapes for greater food security and improved livelihoods

C. Padoch and T. Sunderland

The research and development he “sustainable intensification” of The interpretation of sustainable community should focus more agriculture is being advocated as intensification appears to differ consid- effort on reintegrating food the optimum means to advance erably depending on the programme, but production and conservation in Tand reconcile two pressing global issues: invariably it involves the goal of producing smallholder-managed landscapes. the need to protect ever-decreasing more food without clearing new areas of forest lands, and the imperative to feed natural vegetation or further degrading the the growing human population. The environment. At first glance this goal seems sustainable-intensification paradigm laudable and compelling, yet a number has come to dominate the discourse of of important issues arise concerning the many institutions devoted to economic assumptions and meaning of sustainable and agricultural development, including intensification (Rudelet al., 2009; Collins the research centres of the CGIAR1 and Chandrasekaran, 2012). In this article (Pretty, 2009).

Above: A diverse smallholder landscape 1 CGIAR, of which CIFOR is a member, is a in the Amazon, Brazil. Approaches that global partnership aiming to unite organizations maintain or increase the diversity of land engaged in research for a food-secure future. uses and land users in landscapes offer an Christine Padoch and Terry Sunderland The name CGIAR comes from the acronym alternative to “sustainable intensification” are at the Center for International Forestry for the Consultative Group on International in achieving food security, but they need Research (CIFOR) in Bogor, Indonesia. Agricultural Research. more attention from researchers

Unasylva 241, Vol. 64, 2013/2 4 FAO/S. KAMBOU

A farmer inspects the foliage of we ask why the intensification of agricul- (Evenson and Gollin, 2003). The use of a cassava plant in an intensive agricultural approach in Niamy, Chad. tural production – or, for that matter, any these technologies have greatly boosted In many parts of the world, large single solution – is being championed as food supplies in many – but not all – increases in production have been the only pathway to meeting sustainable regions of the world, but it has also led to a achieved per unit area using a suite of modern technologies and tools, production goals for agriculture. And we broad range of environmental ills, such as but there are doubts about a sole explore an alternative paradigm that could reduced biodiversity and increased carbon focus on this approach in efforts to lead to improved outcomes. and nitrogen pollution (Godfray et al., achieve global food security 2010; Collins and Chandrasekaran, 2012). QUESTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE Some important questions about sustain- ecosystems, including forests, from further INTENSIFICATION able intensification remain to be answered. encroachment and conversion (Pinstrup- The intensification of production is hardly Will the same technologies and approaches Andersen, 2013). On the contrary, more a new idea; it has been an important – employed in the previous intensification production per unit area sometimes appears indeed dominant – trend in agricultural era continue to be used in “new” efforts to lead to more areas being cleared for development for many decades (Tilman to achieve sustainable intensification? Is production, due to lower labour inputs and et al., 2002). Large increases in grain pro- it possible to deploy them in more envi- greater yields and the associated increase duction per unit area have been achieved ronmentally benign and effective ways? in profitability (Angelsen and Kaimowitz, using a suite of technologies and tools, Doubts about an overemphasis on sustain- 2001; Barretto et al., 2013; Chappell et al., such as high-yielding planting materials, able intensification are fuelled by empirical 2009; Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2010). increased irrigation, and large quantities evidence that does not always support the There are also questions about those of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides – the seemingly logical notion that increased regions in which intensification technolo- very essence of the Green Revolution production per unit area will spare natural gies have until now led to few benefits.

Unasylva 241, Vol. 64, 2013/2 5

Solutions to the apparently complex and produced, as well as reducing waste, are LAND-SPARING VERSUS multiple reasons why the Green Revolution equally or more important (Tscharntke LAND-SHARING bypassed some of the poorest regions of, et al., 2012). We also need to know whether The way in which most proponents of for example, sub-Saharan Africa continue the estimated 842 million people who suf- sustainable intensification have presented to confound those who have attempted to fered from chronic hunger in 2011–2013 their plans conforms to what has been raise yields and benefits for local producers (FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2013) did so mainly labelled a “land-sparing” approach to in such areas. Producers continue to be because of inadequate quantities of food reconciling production and conservation challenged by the high costs and unreliable or because they could not access the priorities, in which a greater yield is availability of the inputs required and the food that was actually produced (Rocha, achieved on a smaller area of land, thus limited capacity of government extension 2007). If the problem is largely one of “sparing” the conversion of natural systems. agencies (Evensen and Gollin, 2003). access to, rather than the total supply of, There are alternatives, however (e.g. Many of the questions being asked food, how will sustainable intensification, Phalan et al., 2007), such as land-sharing about sustainable intensification, however, and a focus on production, resolve that? approaches in which environmental and address the fundamental assumption that it Moreover, the quality of food may be just production functions are more closely is the production of more food, especially as important as its quantity: in the view of more calorie-rich grains, that should be our many nutritionists and others, the provision Behind these huts in Song Thanh, Viet Nam, major focus in achieving global food secu- of more nutritious food rather than simply the hills show the complex mosaic landscape rity (Sayer and Cassman, 2013). Arguably, more calories is the most pressing global typically created by shifting cultivation in a land-sharing approach, with fields under the objectives of obtaining more equitable challenge (Welch and Graham, 1999; active annual cropping interspersed with access and distribution of what is already Brinkman et al., 2010). areas in various stages of regrowth and with older forest on the hilltops © L. PREECE

Unasylva 241, Vol. 64, 2013/2 6

integrated at the landscape scale. Using and conservation. In addition to arguing LANDSCAPE APPROACHES both ecological theory and empirical that integrating production and conserva- Landscape-scale approaches that embrace data, a number of researchers have sug- tion can improve the outcomes of both, a land-sharing philosophy have recently gested that land-sharing may generate Perfecto and Vandermeer (2010) pointed gained traction in debates as an alternative better food-production and conservation out that land-sharing often allows for a to the more conventionally imagined outcomes than approaches that aim to greater diversity of both land uses and sustainable-intensification pathway (Sayer isolate and intensify both production land users. et al., 2013). Producing food in diverse, multifunctional landscapes challenges dominant agricultural development paradigms, but it also presents issues and difficulties. For example, many types of integrated landscape approach have not been studied by scientists, and the existing research and policy framework may be insufficiently integrated to improve either agricultural production or environmental protection in such diverse landscapes (Tilman et al., 2011). The lack of rigorous research is con- cerning and needs to be addressed. A central problem for advancing landscape approaches may be that they combine agricultural production and environmental conservation in ways that are unfamiliar to specialized scientists, who have made many of the recent advances in agronomy and conservation; the unfamiliar is rejected or, more likely, ignored (Sunderland, Ehringhaus and Campbell, 2008). But the farming of diverse landscapes has long been the dominant smallholder paradigm. There is much practical experience to build on, therefore, in both management practice and governance.

Addressing access and diversity Even if landscape approaches are less of a sure thing for directly increasing the global supply of familiar commodity crops, they have great potential for resolving other issues that are central to the food security of some of the world’s most vulnerable people. Landscape approaches are already known by many of the people who tend to

A farmer collects leaves of the kibembeni tree to make an organic insecticide in the village of Msewe, the United Republic of Tanzania. Diverse, locally adapted production and resource management systems tend to increase

FAO/G. BIZZARRI the resilience of rural households

Unasylva 241, Vol. 64, 2013/2 7 © K. RERKASEM© K.

A mosaic of more and less traditional land be the targets of development programmes, panoply of environmental, demographic, uses in a landscape in northern Thailand. Realizing the promise of integrated landscape especially those who have benefited little social, political and economic changes approaches requires the willingness and from previous initiatives. They offer prom- that is sweeping across much of the less- ability of researchers to work across sectoral, ise for solving some food-related problems developed world. Diverse, locally adapted academic and ideological boundaries that have proved to be more intractable production and resource management than the basic task of producing more systems tend to increase the resilience community will require a reorientation of calories – such as improving access to of rural households in the face of such research ideas, ideologies and priorities. food and nutrition through the provision of changes (Scherr and McNeely, 2008). While the challenge is undoubtedly com- a diversity of products, and thus improving plex, making use of existing experience diets (Scherr and McNeely, 2008). Reorienting research will help. It is estimated that 40 percent of Realizing the promise of integrated land- all food in the less-developed world origi- More effective in marginal lands scape approaches, however, requires the nates from smallholder systems, and many Landscape approaches, especially those willingness and ability of researchers to of these depend essentially on diverse land- that are developed locally, are often work across difficult sectoral, academic scapes (Godfray et al., 2010). Smallholder more suitable for lands where previous and ideological boundaries. Working farmers worldwide and throughout history agricultural intensification has been to improve existing locally developed have managed landscapes for food and unsuccessful, for example on sloping lands and locally adapted production systems other livelihood needs. Forests, woodlots, and in other areas that are marginal for to increase incomes and improve nutri- parklands, swidden-fallows and other tree- conventional approaches. The diverse tion rather than “reinventing” landscape dominated areas are integral parts of many production activities that such systems approaches to fit the constructs and precon- smallholder landscapes and household comprise are often well adapted to the ceptions of the research and development economies (Agrawal et al., 2013).

Unasylva 241, Vol. 64, 2013/2 8

Smallholder-managed landscapes are, of to increased levels of connectivity and SHIFTING CULTIVATION course, variable in spatial extent, complex- mobility within forest–field landscapes In most discussions of successful land- ity and management, among other things. (Pinedo-Vasquez et al., 2001). Farmers, scape approaches, however, there is a One of the few generalizations that can be who simultaneously are also foresters, conspicuous omission. Shifting cultivation, made about them is that they tend to be fishers and hunters, transform and manage also known as swidden or slash-and-burn diverse, complex and dynamic, which is these landscapes, often making them more agriculture, is an integral part of many, the main source of their strengths and also ecologically diverse and thus providing if not most, tropical forest landscapes of their weaknesses (van Vliet et al., 2012). favourable habitats for fish (Goulding, crucial for biodiversity conservation and Smith and Mahar, 1995), wildlife (Bodmer watershed protection, including those in Amazonian floodplain farmers and Pezo Lozano, 2001), trees (Pinedo- the Amazon Basin, Borneo and Central On the Amazonian floodplains, small- Vasquez et al., 2002) and fruit trees Africa (Ickowitz, 2006; Padoch et al. 2007; holder farmers have created heterogeneous, (Hiraoka, 1992). Mertz et al., 2009; Schmidt-Vogt et al., mosaic landscapes characterized by high The diverse patches of smallholder 2009). But this manner of managing forests levels of ecosystem and species diversity mosaics provide ecosystem services in and landscapes for food and other human at different spatial scales (Padoch and ways that are poorly understood. Such needs has been criticized, condemned and Pinedo-Vasquez, 2000; Sears and Pinedo- services may include, for example, micro- in some cases criminalized (Fox et al., Vasquez, 2004). To manage the natural climatic effects that make agricultural 2009; Mertz et al., 2009). variation of complex floodplain environ- production possible or more profitable in Few of the features of shifting cultivation ments, farmers in these agro-ecological times when extremes in temperature or seem to fit into any conventional category landscapes integrate strategies of pro- humidity would otherwise prevent farm of sustainable production or landscape duction, use and conservation to serve production. Among the many ecosystem management. The cutting of trees, the multiple objectives, and they adapt their services that small forest stands supply to burning of fields, the comparatively low management to seasonal or even diurnal agricultural fields and the families who production of staple crops and the appar- (in the estuary) fluctuations in water level. manage and share the space are a reli- ent abandonment of fields after a year Their plots are not randomly arranged, and able supply of water, shade and forage for or two of cropping – all highly visible nor are they “primitive” or “unproductive” livestock; refuges, food and breeding sites features of many such systems – are largely versions of modern or industrial-scale for fish; and a variety of valuable forest regarded worldwide as primitive, waste- farm fields. Smallholder strategies of land products to support farmer families in ful and destructive. Efforts to eliminate use and resource management are often times of climatic stress. such practices have been central to many based on the concurrence of intensive The effects of diverse patches on seed national and international conservation and extensive activities that simultane- availability for the restoration of forest and development programmes (Cramb ously minimize risk and maximize species and hence of soil fertility may et al., 2009; Fox et al., 2009). labour opportunities while allowing for often also be among the crucial but hidden But beyond the smoke and the prejudices adaptation to opportunities and problems benefits of diverse, smallholder-developed inherent in a term like “slash-and-burn”, as they emerge. and -managed landscape mosaics. it is clear that many shifting cultivation The adaptive management practised by Typically, several of the patches in a given systems could be valuable components Amazonian floodplain farmers results in human-modified landscape on the Amazon of a landscape approach to agricultural multifunctional farming systems in which floodplain will comprise highly diverse production in forested regions. Including the production of a diversity of goods and agroforests that include timber trees and them would require a willingness to reject services is integrated and the particulars other economically valuable trees and the lure of simplicity that alternative of the system are attuned to biophysical, herbaceous species. There will also be solutions offer. social and economic conditions that vary, multistoried and fruit-rich homegardens Shifting cultivation is complex on several often dramatically, over time and space. in and around human settlements, levels (van Noordwijk et al., 2008; Padoch This multipurpose management is one of which are particularly valuable for food et al., 2007). The biodiversity of some the characteristics that best distinguishes security and nutrition. Institutions and of these systems is almost legendary. smallholder systems from the simplified non-governmental organizations devoted When the shifting cultivation systems of practices of large-scale agriculture and to landscape approaches to agricultural the Hanunoo people of Mindoro island industrial farming and forestry. development often promote agroforests in the Philippines were studied more Transformations resulting from farming and homegardens as being particularly than half a century ago (Conklin, 1957), and other resource-use activities often lead valuable (Sayer et al., 2013; Scherr and they were found to involve more than to increased habitat diversity as well as McNeely, 2008). 280 types of food crop and 92 recognized

Unasylva 241, Vol. 64, 2013/2 9

rice varieties, with several dozen of these The above figures are only for crops products, including such nutritionally usually showing up in any one field. More in farm fields: the landscapes of the valuable products as wild meat. Forest recently, research in the upland rice fields Hanunoo shifting cultivators also included fallows also often provide ecosystem of Southeast Asian farmers has commonly extensive areas of forest of various ages services that are less easily perceived identified some 30 species of staple crops, and with significant levels of biodiversity and measured, such as pollination and 30–40 species of vegetables and 25 spe- (Rerkasem et al., 2009). Although such the maintenance of water quality and cies of herbs and spices (Anderson, 1993; areas in these landscapes are commonly supply. Recent research has determined Sutthi, 1995; Dove, 1985; Colfer, Peluso referred to as fallows, many are managed that forest–field mosaics such as those of and Chung, 1997). intensively for economic and other the Hanunoo often sequester high levels

Hillside swiddens in Nam-Et Phou Louey, northern Lao People’s

© T. SUNDERLAND© T. Democratic Republic

Unasylva 241, Vol. 64, 2013/2 10 © J-C. CASTELLA © J-C.

A hillside subject to shifting of carbon, especially in the soil (Zeigler Can shifting cultivation be sustainable if cultivation in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic et al., 2012). This may surprise many it includes slashing and burning woody researchers and policy-makers because vegetation? slash-and-burn is widely condemned as Many shifting cultivation systems cultivation systems emerges when it is a particularly environmentally damaging worldwide have adapted successfully to seen at broader spatial and longer temporal form of agriculture. larger human populations, new economic scales: shifting cultivation, in common The greatest obstacle to including demands and the directives of anti-slash- with many smallholder-influenced land- shifting cultivation in the new landscape and-burn policies and conservation scapes, is constantly mutable. paradigm, in the eyes of both development prohibitions. Such adaptation has taken professionals and conservationists, is not, a large number of pathways, of which Negative impacts of replacing shifting we suspect, the illegibility of its patchy the more active management of fallows cultivation landscapes (see below) or the complexity of has perhaps been the most important. An important new study (Castella et al., its management, but its inherent dynamism. Examples include the management of 2013) analysed changes in the patterns Change is what defines a system as shifting rich mixtures of marketable fruits and of forest–field landscapes that occurred cultivation: annual crops are moved from fast-growing timbers in Amazonia and as environmental and socio-economic plot to plot every year or two; and as forests the production of rubber and rattans in change transformed the territories of seven regrow in one sector, they are felled in Southeast Asia (Sears and Pinedo-Vasquez, villages in the northern uplands of the another. Can so much dynamic change 2004; Cairns, 2007). These adaptations Lao People’s Democratic Republic over a be tolerated in a “sustainable” landscape? suggest that the sustainability of shifting period of 40 years. In this region, where a

Unasylva 241, Vol. 64, 2013/2 11

tradition of shifting cultivation had created TRADITIONAL APPROACHES ARE A planning and design processes grounded intricately patterned landscapes of forests, VALUABLE RESOURCE in improved multistakeholder negotiation fallows and farms, such landscapes are We do not suggest that existing smallholder mechanisms to enhance landscape multi- now being radically altered by policies practices, no matter how diverse, complex functionality and thereby increase the aimed at increasing forest cover and and dynamic, are invariably ideal or well- capacity to respond to unforeseen change”. promoting intensive commercial farming. adapted to rapidly changing conditions. The challenge to improve food security in Shifting cultivation, with its complex We do suggest, however, that this potential the face of great global uncertainty is too landscapes, is deliberately being replaced resource of knowledge, practice and big for the resource offered by traditional with a land-sparing model of agriculture. products should not be ignored. systems to be ignored by research institu- This is because the segregation of land Efforts at agricultural development and tions (Opdam et al., 2013), including the uses is perceived as most efficient for biodiversity conservation (e.g. “social centres of the CGIAR. The challenge achieving multiple objectives in the context forestry”) have often failed to take is also too complex to be met solely by of a growing population, and shifting advantage of the resource that existing following the pathway of sustainable cultivation is widely viewed as “primitive” patterns and practices offers. There are intensification. u by government and other institutions. many reasons for this failure, including Based on extensive field research, a misunderstanding of the diversity that however, Castella et al. (2013) found that characterizes such patterns and practices, by imposing strict boundaries between and their dynamism. Public policies tend to agricultural and forest areas, interven- be sector-oriented and unsuited to manag- tions in the name of land-use planning ing integrated systems. Such systems are have had significant negative impacts essentially “illegible” to outsiders (Scott, on the well-being of rural communities 1998), and local landscape management References and especially on their ability to adapt systems are therefore often ignored, to change. Farm and forest products that denigrated or criminalized by government Anderson, E.F. 1993. Plants and people of previously were “intricately linked at both actors and policies. As in the Lao People’s the Golden Triangle: ethnobotany of the landscape and livelihood levels, are now Democratic Republic, development efforts hill tribes of northern Thailand. Bangkok, found in specialized places, managed by have led to specialization that often limits Silkworm Books. specialized households” (i.e. the domes- the capacity of smallholders to cope with Angelsen, A. & Kaimowitz, D. eds. 2001. tication of non-wood forest products) and risk and uncertainty. Agricultural technologies and tropical are collected by specialized traders. The deforestation. Wallingford, UK, CABI authors argued that “this trend may have Landscape research should build in Publishing. negative consequences for the resilience traditional systems Agrawal, A., Cashore, B., Hardin, R., of the overall landscape as it reduces its What is urgently needed is research that Shepherd, G., Benson, C. & Miller, D. 2013. biological and socio-economic diversity builds on these traditional systems, that Economic contributions of forests. United and therefore increases vulnerability to values what these patterns and practices Nations Forum on Forests background external shocks” (Castella et al., 2013). provide and achieve, and that succeeds in paper no. 1 (available at: www.un.org/esa/ Productive, complex and dynamic improving them to provide the additional forests/pdf/session_documents/unff10/ landscapes in the Lao People’s Democratic food, feed, shelter, income and resilience EcoContrForests.pdf). Republic and elsewhere lend flexibility that smallholders need in a rapidly Barretto, A.G.O.P., Berndes, G., Sparovek, to household economies and contribute changing world and to which they have an G. & Wirsenius, S. 2013. Agricultural to appropriate responses to climatic and intrinsic right. It remains to be seen whether intensification in Brazil and its effects on economic perturbations. Programmes agricultural and forest research institutions land-use patterns: an analysis of the 1975– of directed change, such as the one can respond successfully to this challenge. 2006 period. Global Change Biology, 19: promoted by the Lao Government, attempt Reforms to landscape governance are 1804–1815. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12174. to create distinct zones for agricultural also imperative to allow systems that Bodmer, R.E. & Pezo Lozano, E. 2001. Rural intensification and forest conservation. Up embrace landscape complexity, dynamism development and sustainable wildlife use in to now, however, they have not led to more and multiple objectives and engage all Peru. Conservation Biology, 15: 1163–1170. sustainable resource management, and stakeholder groups in collectively managing Brinkman, H.J., Pee, S., Sanogo, I., Subran, L. the simplified, intensified agro-ecological diverse, multifunctional landscapes. & Bloem, M. 2010. High food prices and the systems that have been advocated have not We echo the conclusions of Castella et al. global financial crisis have reduced access benefited local people. (2013) in calling for “more integrative to nutritious food and worsened nutritional

Unasylva 241, Vol. 64, 2013/2 12

status and health. Journal of Nutrition, 140: Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. & Perfecto, I. & Vandermeer, J. 2010. The 1535–1615. Toulmin, C. 2010. Food security: the agroecological matrix as alternative to the Cairns, M. ed. 2007. Voices from the forest: challenge of feeding 9 billion people. land-sparing/agriculture intensification integrating indigenous knowledge into Science, 327(5967): 812–818. model. Proceedings of the National sustainable upland farming. Washington, Goulding, M., Smith, N.J.H. & Mahar, D.J. Academy of Sciences USA, 107: 5786–5791. DC, Resources for the Future. 1995. Floods of fortune: ecology and Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. & Castella, J-C., Lestrelin, G., Hett, C., economy along the Amazon. New York, Green, R. 2011. Reconciling food Bourgoin, J., Fitriana, Y.R., Heinimann, A. USA, Columbia University Press. production and biodiversity conservation: & Pfund, J-L. 2013. Effects of landscape Hiraoka, M. 1992. Caboclo resource land sharing and land sparing compared. segregation on livelihood vulnerability: management: a review. In K. Redford & Science, 333(6047): 1289–1291. moving from extensive shifting cultivation C. Padoch, eds. Conservation of neotropical Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Padoch, C., McGrath, D. to rotational agriculture and natural forests forests: working from traditional resource & Ximenes-Ponte, T. 2002. Biodiversity as in northern Laos. Human Ecology, 41: 63–76. use. New York, USA, Columbia University a product of smallholder response to change Chappell, M.J., Vandermeer, J.H., Press. in Amazonia. In H. Brookfield, C. Padoch, Badgley, C. & Perfecto, I. 2009. Wildlife- Ickowitz, A. 2006. Shifting cultivation and H. Parsons & M. Stocking, eds. Cultivating friendly farming vs. land sparing. Frontiers deforestation in tropical Africa: critical biodiversity, pp. 167–178. London, ITDG in Ecology and the Environment, 7: 183–184. reflections. Development and Change, 37: Publishing. Colfer, C.J.P., Peluso, N.L. & Chung, C.S. 599–626. Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Zarin, D., Coffey, K., 1997. Beyond slash and burn: building Lynam, J. & Herdt, R. 1989. Sense and Padoch, C. & Rabelo, F. 2001. Post-boom on indigenous management of Borneo’s sustainability: sustainability as an objective timber production in Amazonia. Human tropical rain forests. New York, USA, New in agricultural research. Agricultural Ecology, 29: 219–239. York Botanical Garden. Economics, 3: 381–398. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 2013. Can agriculture Collins, E.D. & Chandrasekaran, K. 2012. Mertz, O., Padoch, C., Fox, J., Cramb, meet future nutrition challenges? Special A wolf in sheep’s clothing? An analysis of the R.A., Leisz, S., Lam, N.T. & Vien, T.D. debate section. European Journal of ‘sustainable intensification’ of agriculture. 2009. Swidden change in Southeast Asia: Development Research, 25(1): 5–12. Friends of the Earth International (available understanding causes and consequences. Pretty, J. 2009. Sustainable intensification at: www.foei.org/en/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing). Human Ecology, 37: 259–264. of agriculture. Natural Resources Forum, Conklin, H.C. 1957. Hanunoo agriculture: Opdam, P., Nassauer, J.I., Wang, Z., 21: 247–256. a report on an integral system of shifting Albert,C., Bentrup, G., Castella, J.C., Rerkasem, K., Lawrence, D., Padoch, C., cultivation on the Philippines. Rome, FAO. McAlpine, C., Liu, J., Sheppard, S. & Schmidt-Vogt, D., Ziegler, A.D. & Bruun, Cramb, R.A., Colfer, C.J.P., Dressler, Swaffield, S.2013. Science for action at the T.B. 2009. Consequences of swidden W., Laungaramsri, P., Trung, L.Q., local landscape scale. Landscape Ecology, transitions for crop and fallow biodiversity Mulyoutami, E., Peluso, N.L. & Wadley, 28(8): 1439–1445. in Southeast Asia. Human Ecology, 37(3): R.L. 2009. Swidden transformations and Padoch, C. & Pinedo-Vasquez, M. 2000. 347–360. rural livelihoods in Southeast Asia. Human Farming above the flood in the várzea of Rocha, C. 2007. Food insecurity as market Ecology, 37: 323–346. Amapa: some preliminary results of the failure: a contribution from economics. Dove, M.R. 1985. Swidden agriculture in Projeto Várzea. In C. Padoch, J.M. Ayres, Journal of Hunger & Environmental Indonesia. Berlin, Mouton. M. Pinedo-Vasquez & A. Henderson, Nutrition, 1(4): 5–22. Evenson, R. & Gollin, D. 2003. Assessing eds. Varzea: diversity, development, and Rudel, T., Schneider, L., Uriarte, M., the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to conservation of Amazonia’s Whitewater Turner II, B., DeFries, R., Lawrence, D., 2000. Science, 300(5620): 758–762. Floodplain, pp. 345–354. New York, USA, Geoghegan, J., Hecht, S., Ickowitz, A., FAO, IFAD & WFP. 2013. The state of food New York Botanical Garden Press. Lambin, E., Birkenholtz, T., Baptista, S. & insecurity in the world 2013. The multiple Padoch, C., Coffey, K., Mertz, O., Leisz, S., Grau, R. 2009. Agricultural intensification dimensions of food security. Rome, FAO. Fox, J. & Wadley, R.L. 2007. The demise and changes in cultivated areas, 1970–2005. Fox, J., Fujita, Y., Ngidang, D., Peluso, N.L., of swidden in Southeast Asia? Local realities Proceedings of the National Academy of Potter, L., Sakuntaladewi, N., Sturgeon, J. and regional ambiguities. Geografisk Sciences, 106(49): 20675–20680. & Thomas, D. 2009. Policies, political- Tidsskrift – Danish Journal of Geography, Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., economy, and swidden, in Southeast Asia. 107: 29–41. Pfund, J-L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Human Ecology, 37: 305–322. Padoch, C. & Pinedo-Vasquez, M. 2010. Venter, M., Boedhihartono, A.K., Godfray, C., Beddington, J., Crute, I., Saving slash-and-burn to save biodiversity. Day, M., Garcia, C., van Oosten, C. & Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J., Biotropica, 42: 550–552. Buck. L. 2013. The landscape approach: ten

Unasylva 241, Vol. 64, 2013/2 13

principles to apply at the nexus of agriculture, 2012. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and other competing land-uses. conservation and the future of agricultural Proceedings of the National Academy of intensification. Biological Conservation, Sciences, 110(21): 8349–8356 (available 151: 5351g. at: www.pnas.org/content/110/21/8349.full. Van Vliet, N., Mertz, O., Heinimann, A., pdf+html). Langanke, T., Pascual, U., Schmook, B., Sayer, J. & Cassman, K. 2013. Agricultural Adams, C., Schmidt-Vogt, D., Messerli, P., innovations to protect the environment. Leisz, S.J., Castella, J.C., Jørgensen, L., Proceedings of the National Academy of Birch-Thomsen, T., Hett, C., Bech-Bruun, Sciences, 110(21): 8345–8348 (available T., Ickowitz, A., Vu, K.C., Yasuyuki, at: www.pnas.org/content/110/21/8345.full. K., Fox, J., Padoch, C., Dressler, W. & pdf+html). Ziegler, A.D. 2012. Trends, drivers and Scherr, S. & McNeely, J.A. 2008. Biodiversity impacts of changes in swidden cultivation conservation and agricultural sustainability: in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: a towards a new paradigm of “eco-agriculture” global assessment. Global Environmental landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of Change, 22: 418–429. DOI: 10.1016/ the Royal Society B, 363: 477–494. j.gloenvcha.2011.10.009. Schmidt-Vogt, D., Leisz, S., Mertz, O., Van Noordwijk, M., Mulyoutami, E., Heinimann, A., Thiha, T., Messerli, P., Sakuntaladewi, N. & Agus, F. 2008. Epprecht, M., Cu, P.V., Vu, K.C., Hardiono, Swiddens in transition: shifted perceptions M. & Truong, D.M. 2009. An assessment of on shifting cultivators in Indonesia. trends in the extent of swidden in Southeast Occasional Paper No. 9. Bogor, Indonesia, Asia. Human Ecology, 37: 269–280. World Agroforestry Centre. Scott, J. 1998. Seeing like a state: how certain Welch, R. & Graham, R. 1999. A new schemes to improve the human condition paradigm for world agriculture: meeting have failed. New Haven, USA, Yale human needs: productive, sustainable, University Press. nutritious. Field Crops Research, 60: 160d Sears, R.R. & Pinedo-Vasquez, M. 2004. (available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ Axing the trees, growing the forest: S0378-4290(98)00129-4). smallholder timber production on the Ziegler, A., Phelps, J., QI Yuen, J., Webb, E., Amazon varzea. In D. Zarin, J. Alavalapatti, Lawrence, D., Fox, J., Bruun, T., Leisz, F.E. Putz & M.C. Schmink, eds. Working S., Ryan, C., Dressler, W., Mertz, O., forests in the American tropics: conservation Pascual, U., Padoch, C. & Pin Koh, L. through sustainable management? pp. 258– 2012. Carbon outcomes of major land-cover 275. New York, USA, Columbia University transitions in SE Asia: great uncertainties Press. and REDD+ policy implications. Global Sunderland, T.C.H., Ehringhaus, C. & Change Biology, 3087–3099. u Campbell, B.M. 2008. Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes: a time to face the trade-offs? Environmental Conservation, 34(4): 276–279. Sutthi, C. 1995. Swidden crop germplasm in the highlands of Thailand. Chiang Mai, Thailand, Tribal Research Institute. Tilman, D., Cassman, K., Matson, P., Naylor, R. & Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418: 671–677. Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. & Whitbread, A.

Unasylva 241, Vol. 64, 2013/2