3. Barriers to adoption

Despite their many benefits, silvopastoral systems have only been adopted to a limited extent (Dagang and Nair, 2003). National-level data typically do not distinguish land uses with a sufficient level of detail, but Table 2 shows average land use in the Quindío, Colombia, RISEMP project site. Pasture with no or low tree density dominates all other land uses (Mejía, 2004). Overall tree cover is low, although there is a significant amount of forest remnants, most of which is riparian forest. Permanent crops, mostly coffee, account for about 10 percent of the area. Coffee was once the dominant land use in this area, but it has been replaced by pasture in the last decade due to low coffee prices. Fodder banks are practically non-existent: only 7 in 110 farms surveyed had any, with an average of less than 1 ha each.

Table 2. Average land use in farms in Quindío, Colombia

An important constraint to the adoption of silvopastoral practices is their limited profitability from the perspective of individual land users. Establishing silvopastures can entail high initial costs, as shown in Table 3. Increasing the livestock herd to take advantage of the increased fodder production entails additional costs. In addition, there are opportunity costs resulting from the time lags before the systems become productive (particularly important in systems with substantial tree components).

Table 3. Initial investment costs for selected silvopastoral practices

Figure 1 illustrates the typical time profile of returns to adoption of silvopastoral practices. The example shown is of a 20 ha farm in Nicaragua raising livestock for milk and meat. About 15 ha are used for unimproved pasture, with 2 ha devoted to cultivating basic grains for the household’s own consumption and 3 ha in brush. As shown in the figure, current land uses generate a net farm income of about US$800 a year. The proposed investment involves switching 3 ha of pasture to improved pasture with low tree density, and establishing a 0.75 ha fodder bank. This would allow an increase in the livestock herd from 14 to 15, but more importantly it would result in a substantial increase in the productivity of the herd due to the greater availability of higher quality fodder and the shade provided by the trees. Milk production would increase from just under 2,000 liters annually to over 4,000 liters. Once the silvopastoral systems have been established, net farm income would rise to about US$1,200 a year—a 50 percent increase. In the first years, however, farm income would be substantially lower because of the up-front investment costs and the time lag before the trees grow sufficiently to provide benefits. Only in the fifth year following the initial investment would farm returns rise above those of the current land use practices. As a result, these investments are financially marginal: in this case, the rate of return to adoption of silvopastoral practices is less than 12 percent, and the net present value is only US$440 (over 50 years, at a 10 percent discount rate).

Figure 1. Typical time profile of benefits of silvopastoral systems

Note: 20ha farm in Matiguás, Nicaragua

The low rates of return to the adoption of silvopastoral systems are typical. Estimates prepared for the RISEMP show rates of return of between 4 and 14 percent, depending on the country and type of farm (Gobbi, 2002). Other studies found similar results; White and others (2001), for example, found rates of return to adoption of improved pasture in Esparza, Costa Rica, of 9 to 12 percent. These estimates, of course, only consider the on-site benefits of silvopastoral practices. The biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration benefits are not considered in the farmers’ decisionmaking.

This problem is compounded by a lack of awareness by farmers of some of the on-site benefits offered by silvopastoral systems, such as reduced dependency on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, savings in water for irrigation, soil protection and enhanced fertility, and the potential for additional incomes from harvesting fruit, fuelwood, and timber. Limited knowledge of these on-site benefits further reduces the perceived benefits to land users.

Even if silvopastoral practices are financially viable, the high initial investment costs required pose problems for credit-constrained land users. In the Quindío project site, only 25 percent of households had access to credit in the past five years (Mejía, 2004). Access to credit is higher in the Matiguás-Río Blanco area in Nicaragua, thanks to presence of several NGOs that offer credit. About 50-75 percent of households in this area report having used credit in the past five years (Ramírez and others, 2004). However, credit is often only available for specific purposes and with collateral requirements that are difficult for farmers to meet.

The long-term nature of investments in most silvopastoral practices means that tenure security is an important factor in their adoption (Deininger and others, 2003, Meinzen-Dick and others, 2002). Tenure is not a constraint in the three study sites, however. In the Costa Rica and Colombia project sites, all farmers have formal ownership of the land (though they may not all have titles). In the Nicaragua project site, most ranchers occupy public land, but long-term occupancy gives them secure tenure.