Rural people traditionally use trees and shrubs as an integral part of their daily lives. They make use of a range of leaves, shoots, roots, bark and types of wood. The variety of individual trees available often determines seasonal food, fodder and fuel supplies; potential types of housing, grain storage containers and tools; and production possibilities - for example, whether a farmer fences and therefore protects a garden and/or makes a boat in which to fish. In groups, trees and shrubs help to sustain soil quality, manage water and provide habitat for wildlife. The presence of trees and shrubs reduces risks, especially in times of stress such as drought.
Until recently, dependence on this range of perennial indigenous plants and trees for maintaining the quality of life often went unnoticed by development planners. Many agricultural and forestry projects therefore had an overall negative effect on rural people's lives. Multipurpose and hearty species have been cleared, even where lands were fragile and the weather unsure, to be replaced by more expensive and vulnerable monocultures which, even when successful, failed to satisfy the multiple-use and conservation roles of the indigenous trees and shrubs.
To complicate matters, a number of institutional changes have weakened the ability of farmers and herders to maintain or reintegrate these species. In the past, tree cutting and land-carrying capacity were carefully controlled in many regions by traditional leaders or institutions. However, some management systems were overwhelmed by population and other pressures. Even more were weakened or taken over by overextended governmental agencies that lacked the same effective control previously exerted by community consensus. In other cases poorly planned privatization programmes resulted in land monopoly. When land is controlled by government or by a powerful few, the majority has little motivation or possibility to assure continued soil fertility or to maintain perennials.
FAO's Forestry Department has begun to focus attention on meaningful ways of reintroducing trees and shrubs into agricultural landscapes or, conversely, on devising ways to integrate stable farming systems into forest areas. The Department has completed a comprehensive study designed to understand the socio-economic and institutional environments where rural people actively manage their tree resources. It has also begun to look more widely at the role forestry can play in reducing nutritional risk and increasing food security.
Several articles in this issue of Unasylva focus on trees in relation to local needs and production. The lead article by. Raintree entitled "Agroforestry pathways: land tenure, shifting cultivation and sustainable agriculture" discusses agroforestry, a promising approach to improved integration of trees In farming or range management systems. The author points out some of the related socio-economic or institutional issues that must be addressed before improved technological innovations have a chance of success. An article by Vasilios P. Papanastasis entitled "Integrating goats into Mediterranean forests" illustrates the potential for this integrated approach in sylvipastoral systems in the Mediterranean region. A third article by Janet Persson entitled "Trees, plants and a rural community in the southern Sudan" documents the range of items from natural vegetation upon which local residents depend in their daily lives.
It is in the context of looking at new ways to address the multiple needs of rural people in a sustainable manner that a number of member countries have requested FAO's assistance in designing new forestry or agroforestry programmes.
If forestry is to live up to its potential for resolving urgent rural development issues the complementary robe of forestry and agriculture must be retained. It is through this more holistic approach that forestry can make its rightful contribution to food security and the quality of life.
