The role of agroforestry in farmers' strategies and its contribution to the well-being of rural people in Timor-Leste

• Published in: Forests, trees and livelihoods Vol. 33; no. 1; pp. 42 - 67
• Main Authors: Cogné, Marguerite, Lescuyer, Guillaume
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bicester Taylor & Francis 02-01-2024; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Agricultural economics; Agricultural practices; Agroforestry; basic necessities; Crop fields; Crop rotation; Crops; Development policy; Development strategies; Farm income; Farming; Farming system; Farms; Gardens & gardening; Harvesting; Households; Intensive farming; Intercropping; livelihoods; Pastoralism; Pasture; Rural areas; South east Asia; Sustainable development; Timor-Leste
• ISSN: 1472-8028; 2164-3075
• DOI: 10.1080/14728028.2023.2298986

Many countries have integrated agroforestry into their sustainable development policies, particularly in Southeast Asia. In Timor-Leste, the national strategy to promote agroforestry has adopted a modern, technique-oriented approach focused on crop rotation, intercropping and agro-silvo-pasture. In so doing, it has largely overlooked the pre-existence, diversity and performance of traditional agroforestry systems (AFS). The data collected in seven villages located in four districts of the eastern municipalities of Timor-Leste identified five common AFS: home garden, crop field and fallow, young agroforest, forest garden and silvopastoralism. The combined use of the customary AFS by rural households depends on the households' ability to access the four types of capital (land, financial, labour and social) underpinning their development strategies. Four rural household archetypes were therefore distinguished. Six farming strategies used by these archetypes were identified: cattle specialisation, palm and tree product harvesting, crop intensification, diversification of off-farm and on-farm income, abandonment of farming, and survival. Each of these farming strategies combine certain customary AFS. The diversity and complexity of AFS require a better description of how they function and a better understanding of how they fit into the heterogeneous development strategies of rural households before actions are considered to improve their performance.