World Development 122 (2019) 339–348

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

World Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

Environmental performance of agroforestry systems in the Cerrado

biome, Brazil
Gabrielli do Carmo Martinelli a, Madalena Maria Schlindwein a, Milton Parron Padovan b, Everton Vogel a,
Clandio Favarini Ruviaro a,⇑
a
Agribusiness Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Grande Dourados (UFGD), Rodovia Dourados/Itahum, Km 12 – Unidade II, Caixa Postal: 364, Cep 79.804-970,
Dourados, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil
b
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), Rodovia BR 163, Km 253, 6 – Cx. Postal 449 – Zona Rural, Dourados, MS 79804-970, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Agriculture and land use practices must be significantly improved to satisfy the needs of future genera-
Accepted 6 June 2019 tions without placing further pressure on global ecosystems. Agroforestry systems (AFS) have been
quoted as one of the best options to mitigate environmental impacts and at the same time, improve
smallholders’ livelihoods in agricultural areas. However, studies investigating the environmental aspects
Keywords: and yield of agroforestry systems in rural settlements, established by governmental initiatives, are still
Food production uncommon in the literature. Therefore, the goal of this paper was to assess the contribution of five bio-
Preservation of resources
diverse AFS, located in the Cerrado biome, to global warming mitigation and the provision of ecosystem
Biotic factors
Productive diversification
services to smallholder farmers. Additionally, the importance of agroforestry projects to family farms in
Bioeconomics Brazil was discussed. Relying on data from forestry inventory and in-depth interviews with farmers, the
crop yield (including fruit) was estimated; and the life cycle assessment method was used to determine
the Global Warming Potential (GWP), accounting for all emissions to establish and manage the AFS up
until the date of analysis. The results show the significant capacity of AFS sequester carbon, represented
by the negative values of GWP, ranging from (
263) to (
496) t CO2 equivalents per hectare. Each farmer
adopted different tree and crop species at the AFS establishment what influenced yields and GWP. The
high number of fruit trees contributed positively to the AFS outputs, allowing farmers to consume and
sell a large variety of products. Furthermore, the households also benefit from microclimate and aesthetic
benefits provided by the AFSs. Future agroforestry projects in rural settlements can contribute signifi-
cantly to improve household livelihoods, as well as environmental protection. However, efforts should
be taken to provide farmers with sound knowledge, financial support, and access to markets to thrive.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Agriculture and land use practices must be significantly
improved to satisfy the needs of future generations without plac-
ing further pressure on global ecosystems. Although agriculture
and forestry are vital for human survival, they are responsible for
significant environmental impacts, the consequences of which
reach local, national and global levels (Foley et al., 2011; Godfray
et al., 2010; Guillaume et al., 2018). Activities such as logging
and burning forests, management and fertilization of agricultural
⇑ Corresponding author at: Faculdade de Administração, Ciências Contábeis e
Economia, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Rodovia Dourados / Itahum,
Km 12, Caixa Postal: 364, Cep: 79.804-970 Dourados, MS, Brazil.
E-mail addresses: madalenaschlindwein@ufgd.edu.br (M.M. Schlindwein),
miltom.padovan@embrapa.br (M.P. Padovan), clandioruviaro@ufgd.edu.br
(C.F. Ruviaro).
soils, and animal husbandry may lead to habitat loss, soil erosion,
and species extinction (Duffy, Godwin, & Cardinale, 2017; FAO,
2017; Lemaire, Franzluebbers, Carvalho, & Dedieu, 2014; Salton
et al., 2014). Also, global agriculture is responsible for about 24%
of all Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from anthropogenic activ-
ities, and therefore one of the main contributors to global warming
(Foley et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2014).
Furthermore, smallholder farmers in tropical developing coun-
tries are considered the most susceptible to the consequences of
climate change (FAO, 2017; Shikuku et al., 2017; Wood, Jina, Jain,
Kristjanson, & Defries, 2014). Extreme weather events, such as
droughts, floods, severe high and low temperatures have increased
in the last half century (Lobell & Field, 2007; Lobell, Schlenker, &
Costa-Roberts, 2011; Nicholson, 2014). This can lead to an increase
in diseases and pest outbreaks, livestock mortality, crop failures,
human migration, and ultimately to more poverty (FAO, 2017).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.003
0305-750X/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
340 G.C. Martinelli et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 339–348
While there is no single solution to this devastating problem,
agroforestry1 has been quoted as one of the best alternatives for sus-
tainable agriculture and enhancement of livelihoods in developing
countries (Matthews et al., 2014; Nair, Nair, Kumar, & Showalter,
2010). Consequently, international agreements, such as the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and
the Kyoto Protocol, led governments and international agencies to
add agroforestry to their official agenda. With the Clean Develop-
ment Mechanism (CDM), projects aiming at carbon sequestration
have grown considerably in developing countries in the late 1990s
(Boyd et al., 2009; Mori-Clement, 2019). In addition, in 2005 the Uni-
ted Nations launched the REDD programme (Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) which is considered
one of the most relevant ecosystem protection projects, with the
objectives of rewarding developing countries for avoiding forest
degradation and using sustainable agroforestry practices (Duchelle
et al., 2014; Ickowitz, Sills, & de Sassi, 2017; Matthews et al.,
2014; Thangata & Hildebrand, 2012).
Brazil has engaged with several projects in order to reduce GHG
emissions and improve livelihoods in rural areas (e.g. REDD and
CDM) (Ickowitz et al., 2017; MMA, 2018; Mori-Clement, 2019). In
addition, the country also promoted projects for environmental
conservation and agricultural development (e.g. Low Carbon Emis-
sion Plan) (MAPA, 2017), and approved the Law No. 12,805 of 2013,
which formalized the National Policy for Integrated Crop-
Livestock-Forestry Systems (BRASIL, 2013). These actions are
incredibly relevant to further support 5 million rural households
across the country (Medina, Almeida, Novaes, Godar, & Pokorny,
2015). Also, Brazil is one of the largest agricultural producers in
the world, and is hence one of the most significant contributors
to GHG emissions. In 2016, agriculture, livestock husbandry, and
deforestation were responsible for approximately 70% of the 2.3
billion tons CO2 equivalent emitted by the country (SEEG, 2017).
There were many approaches to understand the consequences
of agroforestry projects to the environment, and people living in
rural areas (Mbow, Smith, Skole, Duguma, & Bustamante, 2014;
Rasmussen, Watkins, & Agrawal, 2017; Scherr, 1995). The signifi-
cance of AFSs to carbon sequestration has been identified and con-
firmed by several review studies (Abbas et al., 2017; Albrecht &
Kandji, 2003; Kim, Kirschbaum, & Beedy, 2016; Nair, Kumar, &
Nair, 2009; Thangata & Hildebrand, 2012). More recently, research
also has confirmed the AFSs’ contribution to a more extensive
range of ecosystem services (ES) (Cerda et al., 2017; Jose, 2009;
Torralba, Fagerholm, Burgess, Moreno, & Plieninger, 2016). While
from the environmental viewpoint, agroforestry projects show sig-
nificant superiority compared to commercial farming — at the
socioeconomic side — there is still evidence of adverse outcomes,
which affect directly the poorest households in rural areas
(Duchelle et al., 2014; Euler, Krishna, Schwarze, Siregar, & Qaim,
2017; Jindal, Kerr, & Carter, 2012; Kansanga & Luginaah, 2019).
The origin of these negative consequences may arise at different
levels (local, regional, national and international) (Reynolds,
2012), and emerge due to various reasons (e.g. site-specific seques-
tration conditions, uncertainty in carbon sequestration, project
structure, cultural reasons, governance structure, land tenure and
economic incentives) (Gren & Zeleke, 2016; Ickowitz et al., 2017;
Jindal et al., 2012; Scherr, 1995).
1
Nair (1993p. 14) explains that despite of many definitions formulated over the
years, agroforestry can be understood as ‘‘. . . an approach to land use involving a
deliberate mixture of trees with crops and/or animals”. Further, Leakey (1996) suggests
that agroforestry should be seen as ‘‘. . . a dynamic, ecologically based, natural resource
management system that, through the integration of trees in farm- and rangeland,
diversifies and sustains smallholder production for increased social, economic and
environmental benefits”.
In Brazil, agroforestry related studies investigated mainly pro-
jects with a dominant crop, such as cacao, rubber, oil palm and cof-
fee (Alvim & Nair, 1986; Brienza Junior & GazelYared, 1991; De
Souza, de Graaff, & Pulleman, 2012; Gama-Rodrigues et al., 2010;
Jagoret, Kwesseu, Messie, Michel-Dounias, & Malézieux, 2014;
Monroe, Gama-Rodrigues, Gama-Rodrigues, & Marques, 2016;
Ramos, Vasconcelos, Kato, & Castellani, 2018) or the outcomes of
international projects such as REDD and CDM (Duchelle et al.,
2014; Sunderlin et al., 2014). However, the benefits of biodiverse
AFS to environmental protection and smallholder farmers in rural
settlements, established by governmental initiatives, are uncom-
mon. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to evaluate ecosystem ser-
vices provided by agroforestry systems located in a rural
settlement. This namely applies to crop and fruit production, and
net carbon offsets using the global warming potential indicator.
Also, we discuss the benefits of AF projects for the provision of
ecosystem services in rural settlements.
Several methods and tools have been developed to assess the
impacts of human actions in the environment (for an overview
see Ahlroth & Finnveden, 2011; Finnveden & Moberg, 2005; Ness,
Urbel-Piirsalu, Anderberg, & Olsson, 2007; Sala, Farioli, &
Zamagni, 2013). As a result of the economic development and glob-
alization experienced over the years, methods that are able to
assess the performance of a system or product across different
scales have become vital (Roy et al., 2009). The Life Cycle Assess-
ment (LCA) approach is an environmental impact evaluation tech-
nique that allows the measurement and comparison of
environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of systems or
products (ISO 41404, 2006; ISO 1440, 2006). LCA has been used
successfully to quantify and communicate environmental impacts
from agricultural supply chains (Buratti et al., 2017; Goglio,
Brankatschk, Knudsen, Williams, & Nemecek, 2018; Roy et al.,
2009; Ruviaro, Gianezini, Brandão, Winck, & Dewes, 2012), and
more recently, forestry and fruit production (Eldesouky, Mesias,
Elghannam, & Escribano, 2018; Paolotti, Boggia, Castellini, Rocchi,
& Rosati, 2016; Utomo, Prawoto, Bonnet, Bangviwat, & Gheewala,
2016).
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the area
of study and the life cycle assessment methodology; Sections 3 and
4 present the results and discussions; and Section 5 presents some
limitations of our research and further recommendations.
2. Methods
2.1. Study area
The agroforestry systems (AFSs) studied are part of the Santa
Lucia Rural Settlement (SLRS), located in Bonito, state of Mato
Grosso do Sul, Brazil, Fig. 1. Bonito’s economy is based on eco-
tourism and agriculture, mainly, beef cattle, maize and soybean
production. The micro-region’s climate is humid tropical with an
average annual temperature of 20°
22 °C. Annual precipitation
varies around 1.500 mm and the rainy season occurs from Novem-
ber to April. The predominant vegetation is the Cerrado biome,
composed of deciduous and semideciduous seasonal forests
(Grechi, Lobo, Martins, & Lunas, 2010). According to the
Ecological-Economic Zoning of the State of Mato Grosso do Sul
(ZEE/MS, 2009), about 3.81% of the area occupied in the state cor-
responds to Red-Yellow Ultisols, which is the type of soil predom-
inant in the study area.
The SLRS was established as part of the Brazilian agrarian
reform program. An original area of 1026 ha was divided into
37 plots of 16 ha each, plus a common area for environmental
protection (i.e. Legal Reserve). The plots were then distributed,
in 1998, to selected landless householders, under the supervision
 G.C. Martinelli et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 339–348
Fig. 1. Geographical location of the municipality of Bonito-MS. Location of study area Santa Lucia Rural Settlement. Source: IBGE digital mesh, 2010.
of the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform
(INCRA).
Given the ecological and economic importance of the regional
ecosystem, in the same period of the rural settlement establish-
ment, an environmental protection project was launched in the
region, i.e. the Integrated Management of the Rio Formoso River
Basin (GEF Rio Formoso). The project’s objectives were to recover
degraded areas, preserve the environment, and at the same time,
improve farmers’ livelihoods in the region. The World Bank
financed the project and it was managed by public institutions
such as the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa),
Agrarian Development and Rural Extension Agency (AGRAER), and
Environment Institute of Mato Grosso do Sul (IMASUL). For a com-
plete overview of the project’s actions (cf. World Bank (2010)).
Consequently, the new farmers from the SLRS also received the
benefits from the GEF Rio Formoso. Between the years 2000 and
2005, farmers agreed on establishing AFS and managed them
under agroecological principles. All the resources needed for the
AFS establishment were supplied, for free, as part of the project,
e.g. seedlings, organic fertilizer, machinery for soil preparation.
Also, training and technical support, during the implantation per-
iod, were provided by rural extensionists. When selecting seed-
lings for their AFS, farmers freely opted for exotic and native
species with a large variety of fruit trees (Coutinho, 2011).
2.2. Forestry inventory and carbon estimation
To understand the AFSs’ progression, in 2010, Embrapa sur-
veyed the SLRS in collaboration with AGRAER, the NGOs Brazilian
Neotropical Foundation, and the Institute of Águas da Serra da Bod-
oquena. During the survey, Embrapa’s team identified 15 AFS still
standing. These AFS varied in size, reaching a maximal of 2.5 ha.
They were classified as biodiverse (multispecies) and semi-open
341
(not homogeneous blocks), with the predominance of native
species.
Furthermore, in 2016 Embrapa selected five AFSs, ranging from
0.5 to 2.5 ha and conducted a detailed forestry inventory, including
species’ botanical classification, trees circumference, height, and
accumulated litter biomass. All tree and shrub species higher than
1.5 m were sampled. Also, interviews were conducted with the
households were conducted to identify what management prac-
tices farmers used and what were the benefits they have with their
AFS. Area of the AFS and species richness were the criteria adopted
by Embrapa professionals to select the five AFS to be inventoried
(Nascimento, 2016). The AFSs are identified and located at the fol-
lowing coordinates. Latitudes and longitudes (AFS I) 21°210 29.200 S
and 56°350 11.900 W; (AFS II) 21°210 40.700 S and 56°350 48.100 W; (AFS
III) 21°210 36.800 S and 56°350 31.400 W; (AFS IV) 21°200 23.700 S and
56°350 05.300 W; (AFS V) 21°210 40.300 S and 56°350 49.800 W.
For the AFS carbon (C) estimation, we evaluate four C pools,
namely, aboveground biomass (AGB), below ground biomass
(BGB), litter, and soil organic carbon (SOC). The wood basic density
(g cm
3) for each species was identified, then AGB was estimated
then using the equation described by (Chave et al., 2005), Eq. (1).
The BGB was estimated as 28% of the AGB (Mokany, Raison, &
Prokushkin, 2006). AGB and BGB were multiplied by 0.47 to find
the total carbon biomass (IPCC, 2006). The litter carbon was
derived directly from the inventory and laboratory analysis
(Agostinho, 2017).
Carbon stored in soil was estimated based on secondary data.
The difference between final carbon stock in AFSs (120 t C ha
1)
(Iwata et al., 2012; Rocha et al., 2014) and carbon in soil under con-
ventional tillage (68 t C ha
1) (De Assis, Jucksch, Mendonça, &
Neves, 2006; De Freitas, Blancaneaux, Gavinelli, Larré-Larrouy, &
Feller, 2000) generated a value of 52 t C ha
1 that was used as
proxy in our study. The biome, climate, and vegetation studied
342 G.C. Martinelli et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 339–348
by the authors correspond to the area investigated in our study.
Finally, to calculate the total carbon dioxide of each AFS, the
amount of carbon is multiplied by 44/12 (stoichiometric weight
of CO2 relative to C) (IPCC, 2006).
 0:916
AGB ¼ 0:112  qD2 H
where:
q = density (g cm
3)
D = diameter of the tree (cm)
H = tree height (m)
2.3. Life cycle assessment
The life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology follows a structure
composed of four phases which are described in ISO standards. A
whole LCA includes all stages of a system or product, from raw
material extraction, transportation, production, consumption, and
disposal, often known as a cradle-to-grave approach (ISO 41404,
2006; ISO 1440, 2006). For additional details regarding the LCA
structure and methods (cf. Finnveden et al., 2009; Guinée, 2002;
ILCD, 2010), and for comparison of LCA with other environmental
assessment methods (cf. Finnveden & Moberg, 2005; Sala et al.,
2013). The four phases of LCA according to ISO are described as
follows:
i) Goal and scope definition: This phase includes the descrip-
tion of the system boundaries, Functional Unit (FU, is the ref-
erence unit to which the inputs and outputs are calculated
for, e.g. one hectare), and impact categories.
ii) Life Cycle Inventory (LCI): A detailed inventory, of all inputs
and outputs related to the system under study is conducted.
iii) Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA): With the inventory of
emissions, the life cycle impact assessment is modelled
according to impacts categories.
iv) Interpretation: the results are critically reviewed, to provide
direction for further developments.
2.3.1. Goal and scope
In addition to identifying the contribution to crop and fruit pro-
duction, the goal of this study is to assess the global warming mit-
igation potential of agroforestry systems, based on their capacity
for storing carbon. The primary function of selected agroforestry
systems is to recover the degraded area, conserve biodiversity
Fig. 2. System boundary. Indicates the inputs and outputs of the analyzed agroforestry system (system size 1 ha).
and preserve the environment. Therefore, the FU is a one-hectare
standing AFS. The allocation of environmental burdens is all
addressed to the standing AFS. The system boundary included all
activities and materials inputs to produce the seedlings, prepare
the soil, establish and manage the AFS, up until 2016, the year of
ð1Þ our analysis, Fig. 2.
2.3.2. Life cycle inventory
To complete the LCI phase, an inventory of material and energy
flows was conducted, to calculate the relevant GHG emissions and
offsets for each AFS. This phase was modelled according to IPCC
(2006) and Nemecek and Kägi (2007). Direct measurement of
emission caused by agricultural practices are sometimes not possi-
ble or too costly. In this case, models are used to estimate emis-
sions within the system boundary (Nemecek & Kägi, 2007).
Therefore, we use preliminary field documentation, survey infor-
mation, and the forestry inventory to model the emissions associ-
ated with the AFSs. Also, in March 2017, we conducted in-depth
semi-structured interviews with the head of the householder to
cross-check existing information and gather more data on actual
management practices and fruit production in the AFSs. Data
cross-checking was supervised by an Embrapa agronomist, an
AFS expert, as suggested by IPCC guidelines (IPCC, 2006).
To estimate emission from background processes (i.e. emission
upstream in the supply chain not directed generated at the agro-
forestry system), we used secondary data and the EcoinventÒ data-
base v. 3.2. Secondary data was used to model seedling production
at nursery, which included the amount of fertilizer, lime, water,
soil and non-toxic polypropylene tubes for growing seedlings
(Instituto Brasileiro de Florestas, 2017; Macedo, 1993; Oliveira
et al., 2016; Roscoe, Buurman, Velthorst, & Vasconcellos, 2001).
The emissions associated with transportation, lime production,
diesel production, and machinery operation were retrieved from
Ecoinvent Centre (2018).
2.3.3. Life cycle impact assessment
In the LCIA phase, characterization factors are used to convert
the LCI results into the potential for environmental impact. For this
purpose, we used the SimaProÒ v. 8.2.0 software (PRé Consultants)
selecting the mid-point method Global Warming Potential (GWP),
over a 100 year period. The characterization factors for each kg of
CO2, CH4, and N2O emitted to atmosphere equals to 1 kg, 25 kg
and 298 kg of CO2, respectively (IPCC, 2013).
 G.C. Martinelli et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 339–348 343

3. Results Table 2
Life cycle inventory for the production of 1000 seedlings with six months.

In this section, we first present the main characteristics of the Inputs Unit Amount
farms and AFSs, followed by the modelled LCI for the nursery Dolomitic limestone kg 1
phase, as well as the LCI regarding the five AFSs. Finally, we present NPK (4-14-8) kg 5
the results of the LCIA related to the establishment and manage- Water m3 1.8
Soil kg kg 197
ment of the AFSs, namely Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq.).
Tubes* p 63
Outputs
3.1. Farm and agroforestry system characteristics Seedlings p 1000
*
Used for 16 production cycles.
The AFSs were established strategically around the house and
range in area from 0.5 ha to AFS II and V, 0.6 ha and 1 ha to AFS I
and III, respectively, and 2.5 ha for AFS IV. Regarding the original
area (16 ha), farmers opted to dedicate 3–15% of their land to agro- ploughed and harrowed, then lime and cattle manure was applied
forestry. Farmers’ main income is from milk production, mainly and incorporated. Seedlings were then planted in the area. During
grass-fed cows. However, during the dry season, farm outputs the first three years, farmers were encouraged to plant green man-
are used as supplementary fodder (e.g. sugarcane, fruit). Also, pigs ure crops (Crotalaria juncea, Cajanus cajan, Mucuna aterrima) along-
and chicken are kept in order to provide meat and eggs. side annual and bi-annual crops, hence cycling nutrients, keeping
The main characteristics of the AFSs are presented in Table 1. A the area free of spontaneous weeds and while having some staples
large variety of fruit trees were planted to provide farmers with and fodder. After the AFS establishment, the main activities con-
fresh fruit, either for households to consume or to attend to the ducted by farmers were: pest control (with home-made products);
demands in the touristic town. Farmers sell the product as fresh fertilization with farm yard cattle manure (first three years); prun-
fruit or processed products (e.g. dried fruit, jam or liqueur). Also, ing and harvesting, conducted manually.
fruit that falls before ripe and bad fruit is fed to cattle and pigs. The impacts associated with cassava and sugarcane ‘‘stem-
All farmers adopted inter-cropping during the first three years seeds” were not included in the inventory (they are propagated
of the systems. They used both, annual crops such as beans and by vegetative means, and the stems for planting were acquired
corn, and bi-annual crops such as cassava and sugarcane. Beans from older plantations located in the neighbouring farms. There-
and cassava are mainly used for human consumption, while corn fore, due to the lack of information on these neighbouring farms,
and sugarcane are used as animal feed. As the AFS canopy became associated emissions could not be accounted for).
dense, production of these staples moved to the area surrounding
the AFS. Farmers also benefit from other ecosystem services (ES)
provided by their AFS. The most evident benefits enjoyed by the 3.3. Global warming potential
households are shade and the aesthetic benefit of the AFSs.
After subtracting all negative impacts associated with the
3.2. Life inventory assessment results inputs needed to establish and manage the AFSs (Table 3), from
the CO2 captured and stored in the systems, we found the global
The nursery process modelled to represent seedlings production warming potential of (
279); (
496); (
433); (
475) and
is presented in Table 2. (
263) t CO2 eq, for AFS I, II, III, IV and V, respectively, (i.e. CO2
The LCI data related to the AFS establishment and management was stored in the systems, represented by negative emissions),
are summarised in Table 3. For the AFS establishment, first soil was Fig. 3.

Table 1
Characteristics of the agroforestry system studied in Santa Lucia rural settlement.

Characteristic Unit AFS I AFS II AFS III AFS IV AFS V

Age years 10 12 15 14 10
AFS area ha 0.65 0.50 1.00 2.43 0.50
Density trees 390 730 410 662 546
ha
1
Number of un. 41 40 66 80 38
species
Composition % native 65 50 64 74 61
% exotic 34 50 36 26 39
Height * m 3.74 (2.31) 5.23 (4.65) 5.02 (2.61) 8.24 (4.86) 3.92 (2.02)
Diameter * cm 13.4 (12.0) 16.6 (15.7) 18.9 (14.7) 18.4 (14.5) 13.7 (9.7)
Average density g cm
3 0.80 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.51
Fruit species Species – Acrocomia – Anacardium – Acrocomia aculeata – Acrocomia aculeata – Acrocomia aculeata
aculeata occidentale – Anacardium – Anacardium – Anacardium
– Citrus reticulata – Carica papaya occidentale occidentale occidentale
– Citrus sinensis – Citrus reticulata – Citrus reticulata – Carica papaya – Annona muricata
– Dipteryx alata – Citrus sinensis – Citrus sinensis – Citrus reticulata – Citrus reticulata
– Mangifera indica – Cocos nucifera – Cocos nucifera – Citrus sinensis – Citrus sinensis
– Persea americana – Dipteryx alata – Dipteryx alata – Cocos nucifera – Dipteryx alata
– Psidium guajava – Jacaratia spinosa – Genipa americana – Genipa americana – Jacaratia spinosa
– Mangifera indica – Mangifera indica – Jacaratia spinosa – Mangifera indica
– Musa paradisíaca – Musa paradisíaca – Mangifera indica – Musa paradisíaca
– Persea americana – Psidium guajava – Persea americana – Persea americana
– Psidium guajava – Psidium guajava – Psidium guajava

* Values in brackets represent standard deviation.

344 G.C. Martinelli et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 339–348

Table 3
Life cycle inventory for the production of a one-hectare standing agroforestry system.

Amount Amount
Inputs Unit AFS I AFS II AFS III AFS IV AFS V
Land ha 1 1 1 1 1
Seedlings p 429 803 451 728 600
Maize seeds kg 19 14 15 20 16
Beans seeds kg 5 10 13 18 13
Dolomitic limestone kg 1300 2000 1500 2000 1600
Cattle manure kg 2400 6600 2700 3300 3900
Diesel (soil preparation) kg 30 30 30 30 30
Transport, freight, lorry 3.5–7.5 metric ton t km-1 6 12 7 11 9
Carbon stored in live biomass t 20 80 61 73 16
Carbon stored in litter t 4 3 5 4 4
Carbon stored in soil 0–40 cm t 52 52 52 52 52
outputs
Production of fruit t 52 176 27 76 80
Production of corn t 3.4 2.5 2.7 3.6 2.8
Production of cassava t 13 10 11 7 10
Production of beans t 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5
Production of sugarcane t 10 12

Fig. 3. Global warming potential of agroforestry systems.

4. Discussion
4.1. Global warming mitigation potential
Emissions associated with AFSs occurred mainly during the
establishment phase, and the following three years, when inter-
cropping was practiced. This is consistent with past findings
regarding agroforestry (Albrecht & Kandji, 2003), forestry
(Brunori et al., 2017), and agricultural production, where soil man-
agement, diesel burned in machinery, and liming and manure
application drive most of the emissions (De Figueirêdo et al.,
2013; Nemecek, Dubois, Huguenin-Elie, & Gaillard, 2011; De
Santos, Nunes, Giongo, Barros, & de Figueirêdo, 2018). Emissions
associated with transport and seedling production were very low
compared to liming and diesel emissions. Nevertheless, given the
negative values of GWP, the final results confirm the capacity of
biodiverse AFSs to mitigate emissions from the initial phase and
reach positive C storage throughout their life cycle.
Conducting direct comparisons among LCA studies would be
incoherent since they usually differ in many methodological
aspects (e.g. goal and scope definition, functional units, impact cat-
egory, and study region). Nevertheless, the results of some studies
are presented to give an idea of the GWP from AFSs in our study
and other agricultural and forestry activities. We found values
between
263 and
496 t CO2 eq. per ha in this study, while
results for soybean production in Mato Grosso State, Brazil varied
from 0.33 to 1.11 t CO2 eq. per ha (Raucci et al., 2015); in the Brazil-
ian Northeast region, melon production presented 21 t CO2 eq. per
ha for conservationist system to 25 t CO2 eq. per ha for the conven-
tional system (De Santos et al., 2018). In peach production in Spain,
emissions varied from 4.6 to 6 t CO2 eq. per ha, depending on the
year (Vinyes, Gasol, & Asin, 2015). In different farming systems
in Switzerland it varied from 2.1 to 4.4 t CO2 eq. per ha
(Nemecek et al., 2011).
Furthermore, in forestry, the production of eucalyptus (average
annual increment 10 m3 ha-1) and maritime pine (average annual
increment 6 m3 ha-1) in Portugal presented maximal emissions of
0.02 and 0.01 t CO2 eq. per m3 of eucalyptus and pine respectively
(Dias & Arroja, 2012). For 50 years normalized value, pine forest in
the Pacific Northwest of North America, emissions reached 8.6 t
CO2 eq. ha, of which 84% results from management practices
(Sonne, 2006). A 34 year-old English oak plantation in Italy pre-
sented values of
339 t CO2 eq. per ha, with values of carbon stocks
reaching positive balance after the fourth year after establishment
(Brunori et al., 2017).
4.2. Food, fodder, and other ecosystem services
Although the AFS have a significant potential for storing carbon,
farmers must have other strong motivations to maintain the sys-
tems standing once they receive no payment for carbon sequestra-
tion and face high land opportunity costs (Ickowitz et al., 2017;
 G.C. Martinelli et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 339–348
Scherr, 1995). We identify that farmers derive their main benefits
by using the fruits produced in the systems (Table 1). Farmers
derive direct economic benefits by selling fresh fruit, homemade
jelly, and jam to the local Farmers Market. In addition, they also
supply their products to public schools. This is made possible by
the National School Feeding Program (PNAE), which supports the
commercialization of family farm’s production for schools in Brazil
(FNDE, 2014). Also, there are indirect economic benefits by avoid-
ing expenditures with food for the household or fodder for animals.
By using LCA and allocating the environmental burdens to the
standing trees, we identified that the fruit from these AFSs might
be considered carbon-neutral (Birkenberg & Birner, 2018; Tilman,
Hill, & Lehman, 2006). Aligned to the fact that the AFSs have an
agroecological character, carbon-neutral fruit and bioproducts of
the systems could benefit from eco-friendly labels (e.g. organic,
carbon-free), and therefore reach better prices in the market
(Kilian, Hettinga, Jiménez, Molina, & White, 2012; Schaefer &
Blanke, 2014).
In addition to fruit provision, we identified that farmers motiva-
tions to maintain their AFS are also related to other cultural and
regulating ES. First, the households benefit from the fact that the
AFSs were established around their homes. Thus, the trees create
a microclimate that alleviates heat stress, especially in hot summer
days. This is an important characteristic of the AFS since there is
strong evidence linking the presence of trees to human health
(Donovan et al., 2013; Suminah, Sulistyantara, & Budiarti, 2017).
Second, the aesthetic benefits households derive from the AFSs
stands as an important characteristic for them; they appreciated
the green around their house, as in a home garden, and have
favourite trees that have particular value because of their blossom
(e.g. Handroanthus ochraceus, and H. heptaphyllus).
Although farmers have benefited in many ways from the AFSs
from the establishment up until now, the following research
should be carried out in the next few years, as the systems mature,
to confirm their capacity of contributing to environmental benefits
and livelihoods in the long term (Reed et al., 2017). For example,
forestry inventories should be carried out more frequently, in order
to provide a better understanding of AFS growth dynamics and to
assess the maximum capacity of these systems to store carbon.
Efforts also should be taken to assess the AFSs’ contribution to
the household, in economic and nutritional terms, originating rel-
evant information to policymakers (Rasmussen et al., 2017).
4.3. GEF Rio Formoso
This study does not allow a complete evaluation of the success
or failure of the GEF Rio Formoso project; however, under the
scope of the present analysis, we see the outcomes as very positive.
The focus on local environmental protection through agroforestry,
promoted local direct and indirect benefits to households, as well
as public goods, through carbon sequestration. In addition to the
diffusion of biodiverse agroforestry systems, the project also pro-
moted social learning among farmers at the SLRS. The possibility
of selling products at farmer markets was also identified as a pos-
itive way for social interaction and experiences exchange
(Borremans, Marchand, Visser, & Wauters, 2018). Despite the
recognition that the AFSs require more labour than common
monoculture crops, all farmers visited show satisfaction with their
SAF.
Furthermore, this was a voluntary-adoption project that pro-
vided only initial financial and technical support to farmers, and
therefore seems less bureaucratic than projects focusing on long-
term payment for ES, which needs a great deal of governmental
and institutional organization to succeed (Alemagi, Duguma,
Minang, & Nkeumoe, 2015; Cerbu, Sonwa, & Pokorny, 2013;
345
Murdiyarso, Brockhaus, Sunderlin, & Verchot, 2012; Reynolds,
2012).
However, in order to reach success, agroforestry projects must
be supported by national and regional environmental and agricul-
tural policy (Simelton, Catacutan, Dao, Dam, & Le, 2017). Despite
many advances in agricultural and environmental policies in Brazil
in the last decades, at the ground level, many rural households are
still far from receiving benefits considered essential to thrive, such
as technical assistance and financial support (Flaviana, Antonio, &
Ana, 2018; Medina et al., 2015). This consequently hinderis the
country’s sustainable development. With more than 4.3 million
family farms in Brazil, there are many opportunities to establish
small-scale biodiverse agroforestry projects. For instance, in rural
settlements, there are 972.289 households countrywide, that could
benefit from agroforestry (INCRA, 2017). Also, AF in rural settle-
ments, aiming at food, wood and fodder production, could help
to avoid the exploitation of the communal legal reserve (Alif,
Sahide, & Giessen, 2015; Boffa, Kindt, Katumba, Jourget, &
Turyomurugyendo, 2008; Garrastazú et al., 2015).
5. Conclusions
Facing the global challenges regarding poverty in rural regions
and environmental impacts from agriculture, the results of this
study confirm the importance of agroforestry systems for family
farmers in a rural settlement regarding the provision of food, fod-
der and other ecosystem services. Farmers may have many motiva-
tions to keep their systems standing, however, the project’s design,
focusing on financial and technical support during the establish-
ment, nonetheless played a central role in their decision. Moreover,
fruit production and access to markets contribute positively to the
outcomes described.
While Brazil increases the efforts to avoid environmental
impacts from agriculture, either by new environmental agree-
ments or laws, we cannot forget that around 29 million people
are living in rural areas across the country and that most of them
rely on agriculture and natural resources (IBGE, 2010). Therefore,
projects focusing on sustainable agriculture, such as the low car-
bon agriculture, should consider environmental and socioeco-
nomic impacts simultaneously, to improve the environment and
livelihoods (Jung, Rasmussen, Watkins, Newton, & Agrawal, 2017;
Medina et al., 2015). As economic feasibility of AFS projects have
been confirmed across the country (Arco-verde, 2008; Dube
et al., 2002; Martinelli, Schlindwein, Padovan, & Gimenes, 2019;
Nunoo & Owusu, 2015), attention should be increased to provide
farmers with comprehensive technical knowledge to establish
their AFS, and the development of markets for agroforestry prod-
ucts (Flaviana et al., 2018; Rasmussen et al., 2017; Wittman &
Blesh, 2017).
The Life cycle assessment methodology proved to be an effec-
tive technique to assess the environmental performance of AFS,
mainly due to its capacity for accounting for other source of emis-
sions associated with AFS establishment and management (e.g.
upstream emissions, land use, land use change), which is a concern
regarding agroforestry projects (Albrecht & Kandji, 2003; Jindal
et al., 2012). Therefore, LCA can give a more precise estimate on
net global warming mitigation potential from AFS and AFS prod-
ucts. This is a relevant topic, as LCA is the standard tool to assess
the environmental performance of agricultural products and grant
them with Environmental Product Declaration (EPD), i.e. type III
environmental declaration (Cerutti et al., 2014; Schau & Fet,
2008). Although still challenging, future studies should use a life
cycle thinking approach, including in addition to environmental
aspects, economic and social impacts assessment, under the same
scope.
346 G.C. Martinelli et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 339–348
Among the limitations of the present study, the uncertainty that
always arises when using models is worth mentioning — for exam-
ple, the carbon estimation through allometric equations
(Ketterings, Coe, Van Noordwijk, Ambagau, & Palm, 2001), or dur-
ing the life cycle inventory construction (Henriksson, Guinée,
Heijungs, de Koning, & Green, 2014). Also, by inventorying the
most biodiverse AFS we identified the best outcomes of the project,
however, this approach did not enable us to further discuss the
reasons other AFSs have not reached the same outcomes (i.e. spe-
cies richness and size). Furthermore, in order to evaluate the suc-
cess of the GEF project, as a whole, more detailed socioeconomic
data should be collected, expanding the sample among adopters
and also including a control group of non-agroforestry adopters.
However, due to technical and time limitations, we were not able
to broaden the study’s scope.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgment
This research was funded by CNPq (Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnologico), especially for the mas-
ter’s scholarship. We also thank a Brazilian Agricultural Research
Corporation (EMBRAPA AGROPECUÁRIA OESTE) for providing the
data that supported the elaboration of this research. We also thank
Arun Agrawal and two anonymous reviewers for comments and
suggestions that significantly improved the paper.
References
Abbas, F., Hammad, H. M., Fahad, S., Cerdà, A., Rizwan, M., Farhad, W., et al. (2017).
Agroforestry: A sustainable environmental practice for carbon sequestration
under the climate change scenarios—A review. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, 24(12), 11177–11191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-
8687-0.
Ahlroth, S., & Finnveden, G. (2011). Ecovalue08-A new valuation set for
environmental systems analysis tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(17),
1994–2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.06.005.
Albrecht, A., & Kandji, S. T. (2003). Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry
systems. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 99, 15–27. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00138-5.
Alemagi, D., Duguma, L., Minang, P. A., & Nkeumoe, F. (2015). Intensification of
cocoa agroforestry systems as a REDD + strategy in Cameroon: Hurdles,
motivations, and challenges. Agricultural Sustainability, 13(3), 187–203. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2014.940705.
Alif, Muhammad, Sahide, K., & Giessen, Lukas (2015). The fragmented land use
administration in indonesia – analysing bureaucratic responsibilities
influencing tropical rainforest transformation systems. Land Use Policy, 43,
96–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.005.
Alvim, R., & Nair, P. K. R. (1986). Combination of cacao with other plantation crops:
an agroforestry system in Southeast Bahia, Brazil. Agroforestry System, 4(1),
3–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01834698.
Arco-verde, M. F. (2008). Sustentabilidade Biofísica E Socioeconomica De Sistemas
Agroflorestais Na Amazônia Brasileira. Do Paraná: Univ. Fed.
Agostinho, P.R. Indicadores biológicos de qualidade de solo em sistemas
agroflorestais biodiversos para fins de recuperação de áreas degradadas.
(2017). 78 p. Dissertação (Mestrado em agronegócios) – Universidade Federal
da Grande Dourados, Dourados. 2017. Available from: https://www.alice.cnptia.
embrapa.br/bitstream/doc/1082930/1/36515.pdf. (accessed on december 6,
2017).
Birkenberg, A., & Birner, R. (2018). The world’s first carbon neutral coffee: Lessons
on certification and innovation from a pioneer case in Costa Rica. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 189(10), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.03.226.
Boffa, J., Kindt, R., Katumba, B., Jourget, J. G., & Turyomurugyendo, L. (2008).
Management of Tree Diversity in Agricultural Landscapes around Mabira Forest
Reserve, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, 46, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-2028.2008.00926.x.
Borremans, L., Marchand, F., Visser, M., & Wauters, E. (2018). Nurturing agroforestry
systems in Flanders: Analysis from an Agricultural Innovation Systems
Perspective. Agricultural Systems, 162, 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2018.01.004.
Boyd, E., Hultman, N., Timmons Roberts, J., Corbera, E., Cole, J., Bozmoski, A., et al.
(2009). Reforming the CDM for sustainable development: Lessons learned and
policy futures. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 820–831. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsci.2009.06.007.
BRASIL (2013). Lei n° 12.805, de 29 de abril de 2013.Available from: http://
www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2011-2014/2013/Lei/L12805.htm.
(accessed on December 12, 2018).
Brienza Junior, S., & GazelYared, J. A. (1991). Agroforestry systems as an ecological
approach in the Brazilian Amazon development. Forest Ecology and
Management, 45(1–4), 319–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(91)90226-
L.
Brunori, A. M. E., Sdringola, P., Dini, F., Ilarioni, L., Nasini, L., Regni, L., et al. (2017).
Carbon balance and Life Cycle Assessment in an oak plantation for mined area
reclamation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 144, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.12.116.
Buratti, C., Fantozzi, F., Barbaneira, M., Lascaro, E., Chiorri, M., & Cecchini, L. (2017).
Science of the total environment carbon footprint of conventional and organic
beef production systems: An Italian case study. Science of the Total Environment,
576, 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.075.
Cerbu, G. A., Sonwa, D. J., & Pokorny, B. (2013). Forest Policy and Economics
Opportunities for and capacity barriers to the implementation of REDD +
projects with smallholder farmers: Case study of Awae and Akok, Centre and
South. Forest Policy and Economics, 36, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.forpol.2013.06.018.
Cerda, R., Allinne, C., Gary, C., Tixier, P., Harvey, C. A., Krolczyk, L., et al. (2017).
Effects of shade, altitude and management on multiple ecosystem services in
coffee agroecosystems. European Journal of Agronomy, 82, 308–319. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.09.019.
Cerutti, A. K., Beccaro, G. L., Bruun, S., Bosco, S., Donno, D., Notarnicola, B., et al.
(2014). Life cycle assessment application in the fruit sector: State of the art and
recommendations for environmental declarations of fruit products. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 73(15), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.09.017.
Chave, J., Andalo, C., Brown, S., Cairns, M. A., Chambers, J. Q., Eamus, D., et al. (2005).
Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in
tropical forests. Oecologia, 145, 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-
0100-x.
Coutinho, H.L.C. Promoção da transição agroecológica em Bonito MS (Projeto GEF
Rio Formoso) / Heitor Luiz da Costa Coutinho... [et al.]. – Dados eletrônicos. – Rio
de Janeiro: Embrapa Solos, 2011. 21 p. - (Documentos / Embrapa Solos, ISSN
1517-2627; 138).
De Assis, C. P., Jucksch, I., Mendonça, E. D. S., & Neves, J. C. L. (2006). Carbono e
nitrogênio em agregados de Latossolo submetido a diferentes sistemas de uso e
manejo. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 41(10), 1541–1550. https://doi.org/
10.1590/S0100-204X2006001000012.
De Figueirêdo, M. C. B., Kroeze, C., Potting, J., Da Silva Barros, V., De Aragão, F. A. S.,
Gondim, R. S., et al. (2013). The carbon footprint of exported Brazilian yellow
melon. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 404–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.09.015.
De Freitas, P. L., Blancaneaux, P., Gavinelli, E., Larré-Larrouy, M. C., & Feller, C.
(2000). Nível e natureza do estoque orgânico de latossolos sob diferentes
sistemas de uso e manejo. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 35(1), 157–170.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2000000100018.
De Santos, T. de L., Nunes, A. B. A., Giongo, V., Barros, V. da S., & de Figueirêdo, M. C.
B. (2018). Cleaner fruit production with green manure: The case of Brazilian
melons. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.12.266.
De Souza, H. N., de Graaff, J., & Pulleman, M. M. (2012). Strategies and economics of
farming systems with coffee in the Atlantic Rainforest Biome. Agroforestry
Systems, 84(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9452-x.
Dias, A. C., & Arroja, L. (2012). Environmental impacts of eucalypt and maritime pine
wood production in Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37, 368–376. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.056.
Donovan, G. H., Butry, D. T., Michael, Y. L., Prestemon, J. P., Liebhold, A. M., Gatziolis,
D., et al. (2013). The relationship between trees and human health: Evidence
from the spread of the emerald ash borer. American Journal of Preventine
Medicine, 44(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.066.
Dube, F., Couto, L., Silva, M. L., Leite, H. G., Garcia, R., & Araújo, G. A. A. (2002). A
simulation model for evaluating technical and economic aspects of an industrial
eucalyptus based agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems, 55(1), 73–80. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1020240107370.
Duchelle, A. M. Y. E., Cromberg, M., Gebara, M. F., Melo, T., Larson, A., Sills, E., et al.
(2014). Linking Forest Tenure Reform, Environmental Compliance, and
Incentives : Lessons from REDD + Initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon. World
Development, 55, 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.014.
Duffy, J. E., Godwin, C. M., & Cardinale, B. J. (2017). Biodiversity effects in the wild
are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity. Nature, 549, 261–264.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23886.
Ecoinvent Centre, (2018). Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Ecoinvent
Database v 3.2, Dübendorf.
Eldesouky, A., Mesias, F. J., Elghannam, A., & Escribano, M. (2018). Can Extensi Fi
Cation Compensate Livestock Greenhouse Gas Emissions? A Study of the Carbon
Footprint in Spanish Agroforestry Systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 200,
28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.279.
Euler, M., Krishna, V., Schwarze, S., Siregar, H., & Qaim, M. (2017). Oil Palm
Adoption, Household Welfare, and Nutrition Among Smallholder Farmers in
Indonesia. World Development, 93, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.worlddev.2016.12.019.
 G.C. Martinelli et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 339–348
FAO (2017) - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The future
Trends of food and and challenges. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-
i6583e.pdf. (accessed on February 24, 2017).
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S.,
Koehler, A., Pennington, D., & Suh, S. (2009). Recent developments in Life Cycle
Assessment. J. Environ. Manage., 91, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2009.06.018.
Finnveden, G., & Moberg, Å. (2005). Environmental systems analysis tools–An
overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(12), 1165–1173. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.06.004.
Flaviana, C. da S., Antonio, L. S., & Ana, H. M. (2018). Public policy on the family
farming sector in Brazil: Towards a model of sustainable agriculture. African
Journal of Agriculture Research, 13, 1719–1729. https://doi.org/10.5897/
AJAR2018.13322.
FNDE (2014) – National Development Fund for Education. Available from: https://
www.fnde.gov.br/index.php/programas/pnae. (accessed on may 24, 2019).
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M.,
et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nature10452.
Gama-Rodrigues, E. F., Nair, P. K. R., Nair, V. D., Gama-Rodrigues, A. C., Baligar, V. C.,
& Machado, R. C. R. (2010). Carbon storage in soil size fractions under Two cacao
agroforestry systems in Bahia. Brazil. Environmental Management, 45(2),
274–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9420-7.
Garrastazú, M. C., Mendonça, S. D., Horokoski, T. T., Cardoso, D. J., Rosot, M. A. D.,
Nimmo, E. R., et al. (2015). Carbon Sequestration and Riparian Zones : Assessing
the Impacts of Changing Regulatory Practices in Southern Brazil. Land use policy,
42, 329–339.
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F.,
et al. (2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science,
327, 812–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383.
Goglio, P., Brankatschk, G., Knudsen, M. T., Williams, A. G., & Nemecek, T. (2018).
Addressing Crop Interactions within Cropping Systems in LCA. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(9), 1735–1743.
Grechi, D. C.; Lobo, H. A. S.; Martins, P. C. S.; Lunas, J. R. S. Autogestão e controle de
visitantes: Voucher Unificado em Bonito, MS. In: Philippi, J. R. A.; Ruschmann, D.
V. M. (Ed). Gestão Ambiental e Sustentabilidade no Turismo. Coleção Ambiental.
V.9. Barueri, SP: Editora Manole, 2010.p. 913–931.
Gren, I. M., & Zeleke, A. A. (2016). Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A
review of the literature. Forest Policy Economics, 70, 128–136. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.008.
Guillaume, T., Kotowska, M. M., Hertel, D., Knohl, A., Krashevska, V., Murtilaksono,
K., Scheu, S., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2018). Carbon costs and benefits of Indonesian
rainforest conversion to plantations. Nature Communications, 9(2388). https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04755-y.
Guinée, J. B. (2002). Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO
standards. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment., 7, 311–313.
Henriksson, P. J. G., Guinée, J. B., Heijungs, R., de Koning, A., & Green, D. M. (2014). A
protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process data—including estimates for
uncertainty. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19, 429–436.
Ickowitz, A., Sills, E., & de Sassi, C. (2017). Estimating Smallholder Opportunity Costs
of REDD+: A Pantropical Analysis from Households to Carbon and Back. World
Development, 95, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.022.
ILCD, 2010. ILCD Handbook, International Reference Life Cycle Data System, General
guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance, Constraints. doi:10.2788/
38479.
INCRA (2017) – Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária. Incra nos
Estados - Informações gerais sobre os assentamentos da Reforma Agrária.
Available from: http://painel.incra.gov.br/sistemas/index.php (accessed on
November 30, 2018).
IBF (2017) – Instituto Brasileiro de Florestas. Utilização de tubetes na produção de
mudas. Available from: https://www.ibflorestas.org.br/conteudo/blog/1103-
utilizacao-detubetes-na-producao-de-mudas.html. (accessed on November 01,
2017).
IBGE (2010) – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia Estatística. População residente, por
situação do domicílio e sexo, segundo as Grandes Regiões e as Unidades da
Federação – 2010. Available from: https://censo2010.ibge.gov.br/sinopse/index.
php?dados=11&uf=00. (accessed on November 01, 2017).
IPCC (2006). Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories 2006: Agriculture,
forestry and other land use. v. 4. chapter 4. Foresty land.
IPCC (2013). Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. [s.l.] Cambridge University Press, New York, 2013.
ISO (2006). International Standart Organization. 14040:2006 (E). Environmental
Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Principles and Framework. International
Organization of Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO (2006). International Standart Organization. 14044:2006 Environmental
management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines.
Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and
framework, p. 46.
Iwata, B. D., Leite, L. F. C., Araujo, A. S. F., Nunes, L. A. P. L., Gehring, C., & Campos, L. P.
(2012). Agroforestry systems and its effects on chemical attributes of an Ultisol
in the ‘‘Cerrado” of Piaui State, Brazil. Revista Brasileira Engenharia Agrícola e
Ambiental, 16, 730–738. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662012000700005.
Jagoret, P., Kwesseu, J., Messie, C., Michel-Dounias, I., & Malézieux, E. (2014).
Farmers’ assessment of the use value of agrobiodiversity in complex cocoa
347
agroforestry systems in central Cameroon. Agroforestry Systems, 88, 983–1000.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9698-1.
Jindal, R., Kerr, J. M., & Carter, S. (2012). Reducing Poverty Through Carbon Forestry?
Impacts of the N’hambita Community Carbon Project in Mozambique. World
Development, 40(10), 2123–2135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.003.
Jose, S. (2009). Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An
overview. Agroforestry Systems, 76(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-
009-9229-7.
Jung, S., Rasmussen, L. V., Watkins, C., Newton, P., & Agrawal, A. (2017). Brazil’s
National Environmental Registry of Rural properties: Implications for
livelihoods. Ecological Economics, 136, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2017.02.004.
Kansanga, M. M., & Luginaah, I. (2019). Agrarian livelihoods under siege: Carbon
forestry, tenure constraints and the rise of capitalist forest enclosures in Ghana.
World Development, 113, 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.worlddev.2018.09.002.
Ketterings, Q. M., Coe, R., Van Noordwijk, M., Ambagau, Y., & Palm, C. A. (2001).
Reducing uncertain in the use of allometric biomass equation for predciting
above-ground tree biomass in mixed secondary forests. Forest Ecology
Management., 146, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00460-6.
Kilian, B., Hettinga, J., Jiménez, G. A., Molina, S., & White, A. (2012). Case study on
Dole’s carbon-neutral fruits. Journal Business Research, 65(12), 1800–1810.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.040.
Kim, D. G., Kirschbaum, M. U. F., & Beedy, T. L. (2016). Carbon sequestration and net
emissions of CH4and N2O under agroforestry: Synthesizing available data and
suggestions for future studies. Agriculture Ecosystem Environment, 226(16),
65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.04.011.
Leakey, R. (1996). Definition of agroforestry revisited. Agroforestry Today, 8(1), 5–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805356-0.00001-5.
Lemaire, G., Franzluebbers, A., Carvalho, P. C. de F., & Dedieu, B. (2014). Integrated
crop–livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural
production and environmental quality. Agriculture Ecosystem Environment, 190,
4–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.009.
Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W., & Costa-Roberts, J. (2011). Climate trends and global
crop production since 1980. Science, 333, 616–620.
Lobell, D. B., & Field, C. B. (2007). Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and
the impacts of recent warming. Environment Research Lett, 2 014002, 7. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002.
Macedo, A. C. (1993). Produção de mudas em viveiros agroflorestais, espécies
nativas. São Paulo: Governo do Estado de São Paulo; Secretaria do Meio
Ambiente; Fundação Florestal, 1993. 21 p.
MAPA (2017). Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e abastecimento. Objetivos,
Metas e Diretrizes. Available from: http://www.agricultura.gov.br/
assuntos/sustentabilidade/plano-abc/objetivos-e-diretrizes. (accessed on
February 14, 2017).
Martinelli, G. do C., Schlindwein, M. M., Padovan, M. P., & Gimenes, R. M. T. (2019).
Decreasing uncertainties and reversing paradigms on the economic
performance of agroforestry systems in Brazil. Land Use Policy, 80, 274–286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.019.
Matthews, R. B., van Noordwijk, M., Lambin, E., Meyfroidt, P., Gupta, J., Verchot, L.,
et al. (2014). Implementing REDD + (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and Degradation): Evidence on Governance, Evaluation and Impacts from the
REDD-ALERT Project. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 19
(6), 907–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9578-z.
Mbow, C., Smith, P., Skole, D., Duguma, L., & Bustamante, M. (2014). Achieving
mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry
practices in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 8–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.002.
Medina, G., Almeida, C., Novaes, E., Godar, J., & Pokorny, B. (2015). Development
conditions for family farming: Lessons from brazil. World Development, 74,
386–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.05.023.
MMA (2018). Ministério do Meio Ambiente. O que é REDD+. Available from: http://
redd.mma.gov.br/pt/pub-apresentacoes/item/82-o-que-e-redd. (accessed on
January 19, 2018).
Mokany, K., Raison, J. R., & Prokushkin, A. S. (2006). Critical analysis of root: shoot
ratios in terrestrial biomes. Global Change Biology, 12, 84–96.
Monroe, P. H. M., Gama-Rodrigues, E. F., Gama-Rodrigues, A. C., & Marques, J. R. B.
(2016). Soil carbon stocks and origin under different cacao agroforestry systems
in Southern Bahia, Brazil. Agriculture Ecosystem Environment, 221(1), 99–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.022.
Mori-Clement, Y. (2019). Impacts of CDM projects on sustainable development:
Improving living standards across Brazilian municipalities? World Development,
113, 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.014.
Murdiyarso, D., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W. D., & Verchot, L. (2012). Some lessons
learned from the first generation of REDD+ activities. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 4(6), 678–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cosust.2012.10.014.
Nair, P. K. R. (1993). An introduction to agroforestry. An Introduction to Agroforestry.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(95)90008-X.
Nair, P. K. R., Kumar, B. M., & Nair, V. D. (2009). Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon
sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition Soil Science, 172(1), 10–23. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jpln.200800030.
Nair, P. K. R., Nair, V. D., Kumar, B. M., & Showalter, J. M. (2010). Carbon
sequestration in agroforestry systems. Advances in Agronomy, 108, 237–307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(10)08005-3.
348 G.C. Martinelli et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 339–348
Nascimento, J. S. Estudos multidisciplinares em arranjos agroflorestais biodiversos
na região Sudoeste de Mato Grosso do Sul. (2016). 128 p. Dissertação (Mestrado
em agronegócios) – Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Dourados. 2016.
Available from: http://files.ufgd.edu.br/arquivos/arquivos/78/MESTRADO-
AGRONEGOCIOS/ESTUDOS%20MULTICIPLINARES%20EM%20ARRANJOS%
20AGROFLORESTAIS%20BIODIVERSOS%20NA%20REGI%C3%83O%20SUDESTE%
20DE%20MATO%20GROSSO%20DO%20SUL.pdf. (accessed on March 6, 2017).
Nemecek, T., Dubois, D., Huguenin-Elie, O., & Gaillard, G. (2011). Life cycle
assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming.
Agriculture Systems, 104(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2010.10.002.
Nemecek, T., Kägi, T. (2007). Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production
Systems. Available from: https://db.ecoinvent.org/reports/15_Agriculture.pdf.
(accessed on March 6, 2017).
Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for
sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics., 60(3), 498–508. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023.
Nicholson, S. E. (2014). Spatial teleconnections in African rainfall: A comparison of
19th and 20th century patterns. The Holocene, 24, 1840–1848. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0959683614551230.
Nunoo, I., & Owusu, V. (2015). Comparative analysis on financial viability of cocoa
agroforestry systems in Ghana. Environment Development Sustainability, 19(1),
83–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9733-z.
Oliveira, M. C., Ogata, R. S., Andrade, G. A., Santos, D. S., Souza, R. M., Guimarães, T.
G., et al. (2016). Manual de viveiro e produção de mudas: espécies arbóreas
nativas do Cerrado. Editora Rede de Sementes do Cerrado, 124.
Paolotti, L., Boggia, A., Castellini, C., Rocchi, L., & Rosati, A. (2016). Combining
livestock and tree crops to improve sustainability in agriculture: a case study
using the life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. Journal of Cleaner Production,
131, 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.024.
Ramos, H. M. N., Vasconcelos, S. S., Kato, O. R., & Castellani, D. C. (2018). Above- and
belowground carbon stocks of two organic, agroforestry-based oil palm
production systems in eastern Amazonia. Agroforestry Systems, 92(2),
221–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0131-4.
Rasmussen, L. V., Watkins, C., & Agrawal, A. (2017). Forest contributions to
livelihoods in changing agriculture-forest landscapes. Forest Policy Economics,
84, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.010.
Raucci, G. S., Moreira, C. S., Alves, P. A., Mello, F. F. C., Frazão, L. D. A., Cerri, C. E. P.,
et al. (2015). Greenhouse gas assessment of Brazilian soybean production: A
case study of Mato Grosso State. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96(1), 418–425.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.064.
Reed, J., van Vianen, J., Foli, S., Clendenning, J., Yang, K., MacDonald, M., et al. (2017).
Trees for life: The ecosystem service contribution of trees to food production
and livelihoods in the tropics. Forest Policy Economics, 84, 62–71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.012.
Reynolds, T. W. (2012). Institutional determinants of success among forestry-based
carbon sequestration projects in sub-saharan Africa. World Development, 40(3),
542–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.09.001.
Rocha, G. P., Fernandes, L. A., Cabacinha, C. D., Lopes, I. D. P., Ribeiro, J. M., Frazão, L.
A., et al. (2014). Characterization and carbon storage of agroforestry systems in
brazilian savannas of Minas Gerais, Brazil (In Portuguese). Ciência Rural, 44,
1197–1203. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20130804.
Roscoe, R., Buurman, P., Velthorst, E. J., & Vasconcellos, C. A. (2001). Soil organic
matter dynamics in density and particle size fractions as revealed by the
13Cr12C isotopic ratio in a Cerrado’soxisol. Geoderma, 104 Ž2001, 185–202.
Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., et al. (2009). A review
of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. Journal of food
engineering., 90(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.016.
Ruviaro, C. F., Gianezini, M., Brandão, F. S., Winck, C. A., & Dewes, H. (2012). Life
cycle assessment in Brazilian agriculture facing worldwide trends. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 28, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.015.
Sala, S., Farioli, F., & Zamagni, A. (2013). Life cycle sustainability assessment in the
context of sustainability science progress (part 2). The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1686–1697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-
0509-5.
Salton, J. C., Mercante, F. M., Tomazi, M., Zanatta, J. A., Concenço, G., Silva, W. M.,
et al. (2014). Integrated crop-livestock system in tropical Brazil: Toward a
sustainable production system. Agriculture Ecosystem Environment, 190, 70–79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.09.023.
Schaefer, F., & Blanke, M. (2014). Opportunities and challenges of carbon footprint,
climate or CO2 labelling for horticultural products. Erwerbs-Obstbau, 56(2),
73–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-014-0206-6.
Schau, E. M., & Fet, A. M. (2008). LCA studies of food products as background for
environmental product declarations. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 13(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.12.372.
Scherr, S. J. (1995). Economic factors in farmer adoption of agroforestry: Patterns
observed in Western Kenya. World Development, 23(5), 787–804. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0305-750X(95)00005-W.
SEEG (2017) - Sistema de Estimativas de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa.
Emissões do Brasil sobem 9% em 2016, 2017. Available from: http://www.
observatoriodoclima.eco.br/wpcontent/uploads/2017/10/seeg2017presskit_
FINAL.pdf. (accesse March 6, 2018).
Shikuku, K. M., Winowiecki, L., Twyman, J., Eitzinger, A., Perez, J. G., Mwongera, C.,
et al. (2017). Smallholder farmers ’ attitudes and determinants of adaptation to
climate risks in East Africa. Climate Risk Management, 16, 234–245.
Simelton, E. S., Catacutan, D. C., Dao, T. C., Dam, B. V., & Le, T. D. (2017). Factors
constraining and enabling agroforestry adoption in Viet Nam: A multi-level
policy analysis. Agroforestry Systems, 91(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10457-016-9906-2.
Smith, P., M. Bustamante, Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A., Haberl, H.,
Harper, R., House, J., Jafari, M., Masera, O., C. Mbow, N. H. Ravindranath, C. W.
Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A. Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, Tubiello, F. (2014).
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). Clim. Chang. Mitig. Clim.
Chang. Contrib. Work. Gr. III to Fifth Assess. Rep. Intergov. Panel Clim. Chang.
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, 811–922. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2011.03.002.
Sonne, E. (2006). Greenhouse gas emissions from forestry operations: A life cycle
assessment. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 35(4), 1439–1450. https://doi.
org/10.2134/jeq2005.0159.
Suminah, N., Sulistyantara, B., & Budiarti, T. (2017). Analysis of green space
characteristic effect to the comfort microclimate in the simple flats in Jakarta.
IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., 91, 012017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/91/1/012017.
Sunderlin, W. D., Larson, A. M., Duchelle, A. E., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Huynh, T. B.,
Awono, A., et al. (2014). How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure
problems? evidence from brazil, cameroon, tanzania, indonesia, and vietnam.
World Development, 55, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.013.
Thangata, P. H., & Hildebrand, P. E. (2012). Carbon stock and sequestration potential
of agroforestry systems in smallholder agroecosystems of sub-Saharan Africa:
Mechanisms for ‘‘reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation” (REDD+). Agriculture Ecosystem Environment, 158, 172–183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.06.007.
Tilman, D., Hill, J., & Lehman, C. (2006). Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input
high-diversity grassland biomass. Science, 314(5805), 1598–1600. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1133306.
Torralba, M., Fagerholm, N., Burgess, P. J., Moreno, G., & Plieninger, T. (2016). Do
European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A
meta-analysis. Agriculture Ecosystem Environment, 230, 150–161. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002.
Utomo, B., Prawoto, A. A., Bonnet, S., Bangviwat, A., & Gheewala, S. H. (2016).
Environmental performance of cocoa production from monoculture and
agroforestry systems in Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134(Part B),
583–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.102.
Vinyes, E., Gasol, C. M., & Asin, L. (2015). Life Cycle Assessment of multiyear peach
production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 104, 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.05.041.
Wittman, H., & Blesh, J. (2017). Food sovereignty and fome zero: Connecting public
food procurement programmes to sustainable rural development in Brazil.
Journal Agrarian Change, 17(1), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12131.
Wood, S. A., Jina, A. S., Jain, M., Kristjanson, P., & Defries, R. S. (2014). Smallholder
farmer cropping decisions related to climate variability across multiple regions.
Global Environment Change, 25, 163–172.
World Bank (2010). Brazil - Formoso River Integrated Watershed Management and
Protection Project: procurement plan. Available from:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/pt/400031468232503705/Brasil-
Manejo-Integrado-da-Bacia-Hidrogr%C3%A1fica-do-Rio-Formoso-Bonito-
MS-GEF-Planejamento-Anual-de-Aquisi%C3%A7%C3%B5es. (accessed on
December 10, 2018).
ZEE/MS (2009) - Zoneamento ecológico-econômico do estado de Mato Grosso do
Sul. LEI N° 3.839, de 28 de dezembro de 2009. Available from: http://193.43.36.
109/docs/pdf/bra116233AnnexI.pdf. (accessed on December 10, 2017).