At the same time, there have been efforts to develop practical alternatives to
prevailing forest–agriculture practices (usually slash-and-burn) in the humid tropical
forests of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (ASB 1995, 2000; Instone 2003a; Gockowski
et al. 2005; Palm et al. 2005; IFAD 2012). So far, the conventional thinking and
practical solutions have tended to separate forests and agriculture spatially, administratively and conceptually into two separate units (Diaw et al. 1999; Oyono et al.
2003a; Mala 2009; Kaufmann 2014). This has been counter-productive in the smallscale, agricultural settings of the humid tropics, where agricultural systems are
embedded within a cropping fallow forest conversion cycle (Diaw 1997; Carrière
1999; Oyono et al. 2003a; Mala et al. 2010, Mala 2016, 2017). As a result, various
forest–agriculture technologies seeking to improve soil fertility, crop varieties and
the consumption of plant-based protein have been abandoned (Nolte et al. 1997;
Mala 2009; Diaw et al. 2018).
In a way, the limitations of the current approaches that have been segregated by
agriculture and forest conservation in the humid forest areas of SSA reveal the gaps
between (a) the concepts of forest–agriculture or swidden agriculture (Diaw 1997;
O’brien 2002; Colfer 2005; Mala 2009), (b) the theories and school of thoughts in
ecology and agricultural sustainability (Pretty 2002; Altieri 2002; Altieri et al. 2015)
and (c) the forest–agriculture practices and local natural resource management
options (Diaw and Oyono 1998; Carrière 1999; Chirwa and Mala 2016; Mbolo
Abada et al. 2016).
There are three specific reasons that raise doubts about the ability of conventional
forest–agriculture approaches to meet human well-being and biodiversity conservation objectives in the region, namely: (a) the disconnection between rural development and forest management policies, (b) inconsistent scientific thinking and
research/management practices and (c) inappropriate innovations at the interface
of agriculture and forest conservation (Danielsen et al. 2014; Namirembe et al. 2014)
(see also Chap. 3, Vol. 2).
However, there is a gradual shift towards development, transfer and implementation of alternative forest–agriculture policies, practices and technologies (Willems
et al. 2015). This often happens at the local level, and sometimes creates enabling
conditions for local community empowerment and livelihood improvement (Diaw
et al. 1999; Prabhu 2003; Colfer 2005; Berkes 2009; Biggs et al. 2015). Some
examples include local and community-based natural resource management options
(e.g. community forests) that allow local communities define the use of common
pool resources and negotiate appropriate management options (Oyono et al. 2007).
Yet, several contradictions and paradoxes remain at the interface of agriculture
and forest conservation in humid tropical forests of SSA, including (a) the rhetoric of
biodiversity conservation (Van Vliet et al. 2012; World Bank 2012), (b) the lack of
farmer capacity (and of capacity-building efforts) to adapt to new challenges such as
climate change (FAO 2010, 2011a; Munang et al. 2013, 2015; Altieri et al. 2015)
and (c) the clash between participation and institutional change, with strong social
demand for short-term innovations (e.g. agricultural inputs, market opportunities,
improved crop varieties) (Cormier-Salem 1999; Conley and Udry 2001; Van
318
W. A. Mala et al.
prevailing forest–agriculture practices (usually slash-and-burn) in the humid tropical
forests of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (ASB 1995, 2000; Instone 2003a; Gockowski
et al. 2005; Palm et al. 2005; IFAD 2012). So far, the conventional thinking and
practical solutions have tended to separate forests and agriculture spatially, administratively and conceptually into two separate units (Diaw et al. 1999; Oyono et al.
2003a; Mala 2009; Kaufmann 2014). This has been counter-productive in the smallscale, agricultural settings of the humid tropics, where agricultural systems are
embedded within a cropping fallow forest conversion cycle (Diaw 1997; Carrière
1999; Oyono et al. 2003a; Mala et al. 2010, Mala 2016, 2017). As a result, various
forest–agriculture technologies seeking to improve soil fertility, crop varieties and
the consumption of plant-based protein have been abandoned (Nolte et al. 1997;
Mala 2009; Diaw et al. 2018).
In a way, the limitations of the current approaches that have been segregated by
agriculture and forest conservation in the humid forest areas of SSA reveal the gaps
between (a) the concepts of forest–agriculture or swidden agriculture (Diaw 1997;
O’brien 2002; Colfer 2005; Mala 2009), (b) the theories and school of thoughts in
ecology and agricultural sustainability (Pretty 2002; Altieri 2002; Altieri et al. 2015)
and (c) the forest–agriculture practices and local natural resource management
options (Diaw and Oyono 1998; Carrière 1999; Chirwa and Mala 2016; Mbolo
Abada et al. 2016).
There are three specific reasons that raise doubts about the ability of conventional
forest–agriculture approaches to meet human well-being and biodiversity conservation objectives in the region, namely: (a) the disconnection between rural development and forest management policies, (b) inconsistent scientific thinking and
research/management practices and (c) inappropriate innovations at the interface
of agriculture and forest conservation (Danielsen et al. 2014; Namirembe et al. 2014)
(see also Chap. 3, Vol. 2).
However, there is a gradual shift towards development, transfer and implementation of alternative forest–agriculture policies, practices and technologies (Willems
et al. 2015). This often happens at the local level, and sometimes creates enabling
conditions for local community empowerment and livelihood improvement (Diaw
et al. 1999; Prabhu 2003; Colfer 2005; Berkes 2009; Biggs et al. 2015). Some
examples include local and community-based natural resource management options
(e.g. community forests) that allow local communities define the use of common
pool resources and negotiate appropriate management options (Oyono et al. 2007).
Yet, several contradictions and paradoxes remain at the interface of agriculture
and forest conservation in humid tropical forests of SSA, including (a) the rhetoric of
biodiversity conservation (Van Vliet et al. 2012; World Bank 2012), (b) the lack of
farmer capacity (and of capacity-building efforts) to adapt to new challenges such as
climate change (FAO 2010, 2011a; Munang et al. 2013, 2015; Altieri et al. 2015)
and (c) the clash between participation and institutional change, with strong social
demand for short-term innovations (e.g. agricultural inputs, market opportunities,
improved crop varieties) (Cormier-Salem 1999; Conley and Udry 2001; Van
318
W. A. Mala et al.