Agroforestry systems are rapidly being adopted in many countries of the world. In New Zealand, temperate agroforestry systems have been found to be preferable to agriculture or forestry, given specific circumstances such as good site conditions for forestry, favourable price scenarios and location close to the market. Assessments in the UK based on simulation models suggest similar conclusions. The development of agroforestry technologies in New Zealand was a market-led phenomenon designed to produce clear knot-free timber for the finishing timber market. This approach could be implemented in the southwestern maritime fringe of Europe, where tree growth rates are relatively high. There is however a role for governments to play in taking a much more long-term and imaginative view of agroforestry, and not merely seeing it as a means of reducing short-term agricultural surpluses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonD. (1987) The economics of afforestation – a case study in Africa.World Bank Occasional Paper No. 1, New Series, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
2.
Anon (1974) Another look at Douglas fir. What's New 42.Forestry Research Institute, Rotorua.
3.
Anon (1985) Evaluation of agroforestry at regional and national levels. In: McDermott Associates, Proceedings of the Agroforestry Workshop. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Dunedin.
4.
Anon (1989) The F.R.I. Radiata Pine Modelling System.Forest Research Institute, Rotorua.
5.
Arthur-WarsopM.J. (1985) An economic evaluation of agroforestry: The national view point.New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Science19, 99–106.
6.
BarbierE.B. (1988) Sustainable agriculture and the resource poor: policy issues and options. LEEC Paper 88-01, IIED/UCL London Environmental Economics Centre, London.
7.
BaumolW.J. (1968) On the social rate of discount.American Economic Review, 58.
8.
BrazierJ.D. (1985) Growing quality hardwoods.Quarterly Journal of Forestry4, 221–226.
9.
BrownS.P.A. (1983) A note on environmental risk and the rate of discount.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management10, 282–286.
10.
CAS (1980) Strategy for the UK forest industry. CAS Report 6. Centre for Agricultural Strategy, Reading.
11.
CooperC. (1981) Economic evaluation and the Environment.Hodder and Stoughton, London.
12.
FarnsworthM.C. (1985) The social impact of forest development in Northland.New Zealand Journal of Forestry28, 246–254.
13.
FentonR., and SuttonW.R.J. (1968) Silvicultural proposals for radiata pine on high quality sites.New Zealand Journal of Forestry13, 220–228.
14.
ForbesR.N. (1984) Cost Benefit Procedures in New Zealand Agriculture, Volume Two. Economics Division, New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
15.
Fundacion Chile (1986) Sus excepcionales prospectivas en el comercio mundial de productos forestales. Departmento Forestal Publicacion Technica, No. 17.
16.
GoossensR., SteenakersV., and Van SlyckenJ. (1988) Provisional yield levels of the unal poplar clones: ‘Primo’, ‘Ghoy’ and ‘Beaupre’. Proceedings of the 18th Session of the International Poplar Commission, Beijing.
17.
HeadyE.O. (1952) The Economics of Agricultural Production and Resource Use.Prentice Hall, New York, pp. 201–276.
18.
KnowlesR.L. (1989) Agroforestry, the New Zealand experience. In: Proceedings of an International Conference on Agroforestry – Principles and Practice. Journal of Forest Ecology and Management (in press).
19.
PetersG.H. (1970) Land use studies in Britain: a review of the literature with special reference to the applications of cost benefit analyis.Journal of Agricultural Economics21, 171–214.
20.
PigouA.C. (1929) The Economics of Welfare, 2nd edn.Macmillan, London, p. 29.
21.
PriceC. (1973) To the future; with indifference or concern? The social discount rate and its implications in land use.Journal of Agricultural Economics24, 393–398.
22.
PryorS.N. (1986) The silvicultive and yield of wild cherry.Forestry Commission Bulletin No. 75. HMSO, London.
23.
SibbaldA.R. (1990) Land use research in the hills and uplands of the UK, with particular respect to farm forestry. In: Marginal agricultural land and efficient afforestration. Commission of the European Communities Report EUR 10841, Brussels.
24.
SmithB., and WilsonP. (1982) Attitudes to growth and development in New Zealand's far north.New Zealand Journal of Forestry27, (1).
25.
StewartK.M. (1985) Economics of agroforestry: The farmer's view point.New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Science19, 3, 107–111.
26.
StockingM., BojoJ., and AbelN. (1990) Financial and economic analysis of agroforestry: key issues. In: PrinsleyR.T. (ed), Agroforestry for Sustainable Production, Economic Implications.Commonwealth Science Council, London.
27.
SuttonW.R. (1975) An evaluation of New Zealand's forestry export potential. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford.
28.
ThomasA.V. (1967) Properties of the timber of Leyland Cypress (Cupressocyparis leylandii).Quarterly Journal of Forestry4, 340–342.
29.
ThomasT.H. (1989) A spreadsheet approach to the economic modelling of agroforestry systems. In: Proceedings of an International Conference on Agroforestry – Principles and Practice. Journal of Forest Ecology and Management (in press).
30.
ThomasT.H., KellasJ., and PenalosaR. (1990) Evaluating the economics of temperate agroforestry using sensitivity analysis: a case study of poplar, cereals and livestock in the lowlands of the Welsh borders. In: Marginal agricultural land and efficient afforestation. Commission of the European Communities Report EUR 10841 Brussels.
31.
WoodP.J., and Burley (1989) The potential of agroforestry. In: BurleyJ., and WilsonN. (eds), Agroforestry. Potential, Current UK Expertise, and Research Needs: A Guide to OD A Strategy. ODA Expert Seminar, Oxford Forestry Institute, Oxford.
