The preceding chapters illustrate that forestry and agroforestry significantly contribute in several important ways, either directly or indirectly, to the food security of local communities in developing countries. Direct forestry contributions are mainly in the form of food crops integrated with tree crops under the different variants of agroforestry systems. However, they also include products derived directly from forest trees, such as fruits, nuts, edible leaves and flowers. They further include roots, tubers, shoots and edible fungi collected from forest zones (Hoskins 1990, Falconer et al. 1991, Durst 1994). All these products serve as added food supplies that supplement the aggregate agricultural output, or as emergency foods in times of famine due to crop failure brought about by either drought, destructive floods or insect infestation.
Indirect forestry contributions towards increased food production, on the other hand, while often either ignored or unrecognized, are more substantial than the direct ones. For instance, forest watersheds supply irrigation water that enables lowland farmers to raise two or more crops per year, thereby significantly expanding food outputs. These same watersheds help insure lowland crops against failure by regulating stream flows, thus minimizing the incidence of destructive floods during the monsoon months, and the occurrence of debilitating droughts during the dry season. When strategically placed among food crops, trees can do the following:
Another important indirect contribution that remains largely unknown outside the circle of plant scientists is the fact that forests serve as a huge natural genetic pool from which have been drawn many domesticated plants that now feed humankind. If properly conserved and managed, this vital reservoir of genetic resources will continue to provide superior plant materials that can be harvested directly for food production, or used as the basis for genetic engineering to bring forth new high-yielding, early-maturing, disease-resistant, food-producing species to help feed the rapidly expanding populations.
In recognition of the above, it is necessary to explore possible cooperative and collaborative activities among countries in the Asia-Pacific region that could further expand the role of forestry towards attainment of food security at national and regional levels.
In the same manner that the nations in the region are at different stages and levels of economic development, they also have achieved varying degrees of sophistication and advancement in forestry and agroforestry technology geared towards food production. The productive capacity of agroforestry systems and the percentage of food products contributed to the aggregate food supply vary widely from country to country. For example, the well-developed, highly-productive, centuries-old home gardens of Java, Indonesia, provide more than 40% of the total calories consumed by Javanese farm households (Christanty 1989). In other countries, agroforestry technologies that have only recently been upgraded from low-yield, slash-and-burn systems contribute substantially less to the family's food requirements. It is obvious that if a mechanism for technology exchange were established, the different countries may eventually approach parity with each other in forest-based contributions to food security.
Technologies that need to be exchanged among countries, and among farmers in the same country, do not cover only those related to forest-based food production. They should also include the swapping of harvesting, processing, preservation, storage and marketing techniques and approaches. When provided access to these technologies, forestry and agroforestry farmers would likely be more motivated to expand and sustain their outputs beyond their domestic consumption needs. As a bonus, they may gain the capacity to carry out value-added processing and related activities that could enable them to market their surplus products at significantly higher prices.
Forestry and agroforestry farmers are typically small-scale, low-resource and widely-dispersed operators. As such, they will be hard put in interacting with their domestic counterparts, let alone their international equivalents, to exchange information and techniques. Assuming that they can organize themselves into cooperatives or associations, their organizations will be small, with limited resources and low capacity to enter into mutually beneficial technology exchange with their opposite numbers overseas.
Given this situation, it would be necessary for government to provide assistance, especially during the early stages. Government should start by designating a national research and extension institution as lead agency to set up and operationalize a local network of agroforestry practitioners for the purpose of exchanging information on forest-based food production techniques. As this network gains experience and maturity, it can, through the lead agency, enter into networking and information exchange arrangements with similar agencies in other countries within the region that have similar programs and activities related to forest-based farming.
As part of its initial activities, and to provide attractive benefits to network members, the local lead agency should collect and synthesize suitable forest food production information from external sources and disperse these rapidly within the network. Similarly, it should take the leadership role to collect, collate and synthesize agroforestry information from local sources for exchange with counterparts abroad. In so doing, the agency should be able to demonstrate to the local group that it pays to be a network member, and to the overseas networks that it is worthwhile to collaborate and interact with local organizations.
The network as outlined above is similar to the existing Indonesia-based Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network (APAN), which was established through a regional FAO project supported by the Government of Japan (GOJ) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Through APAN's assistance, 11 Asia-Pacific countries have established national-level agroforestry networks or working groups that are linked with one another for effective information exchange through the regional APAN "mother" network. The principal tool for such exchange is APANews, which is circulated among member countries. In addition, individual countries at times interact with specific partner countries for exchange of unique information that are of mutual interest.
Given the relative success achieved by APAN in promoting and strengthening local and regional networks to facilitate the flows of information and technology within and among countries, it would be logical to build upon the existing APAN network, rather than "re-inventing the wheel." Budgets set aside by national governments for the operation of their respective domestic agroforestry networks should earmark a certain portion as their financial contributions for the collective operation and maintenance of the regional APAN network. In this way, the existing channel for intercountry agroforestry information exchange can be sustained or even expanded to encompass other interested countries.
The "giant leucaena" discovered in South America and propagated in Hawaii is endowed with attractive characteristics such as fast growth, high yields, and the capacity to produce a wide range of outputs like fuelwood, poles for local construction, leaves for animal fodder and green manure, and fixed-nitrogen for soil improvement. It is no wonder that the leucaena germplasm spread like wildfire in the Asia-Pacific region; the farmers were eager to adopt it in their agroforestry farms.
The seventh APAN Advisory Committee (APANAC VII) meeting was held 10-11 November 1997 in Bogor, Indonesia, with support from APAN's host agency, FAO, FTPP and ICRAF. While the APAN Phase II funding through FAO terminated as of March 1997, it was very encouraging to note that some APAN activities are being sustained in member countries, and that the APAN spirit and momentum are still very much alive in the region. FAO is continuing to dialogue with potential donors in an effort to secure funding for the proposed third phase, called "APAN 21".
Some of the most significant advances in crop productivity rose from two parallel events: 1) discovery and domestication of previously unknown but superior species or varieties drawn from the rich tropical forest gene pools; and 2) breakthroughs in genetic engineering. The fast-growing "giant leucaena" (Leucaena leucocephala, K8 strain) that was rapidly adopted by numerous agroforestry farmers in Southeast Asia is a good example of a contribution from the first source. On the other hand, the "miracle rice" that emerged from the biotechnology laboratories of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and served as the opening salvo of the "Green Revolution" illustrates a significant output of genetic manipulation.
As demonstrated by these two examples, superior germplasm greatly enhance the productivity and sustainability of biological production systems, including forestry and agroforestry, and would be of immense value in the drive towards greater forestry share in food sufficiency and security. Thus, it is necessary to quickly disseminate and distribute such improved germplasm so that interested farmers in the different countries of the region can quickly adopt them.
Germplasm exchange and dispersal can be efficiently carried out if there exists an effective distribution channel that serves all interested countries. International research institutions like IRRI also try to fill that role by undertaking extension as a parallel activity to ensure that their research outputs can quickly reach the target beneficiaries. Thus, the new rice germplasm arising from IRRI's genetic research have been quickly spread to rice-growing countries through IRRI's own dissemination channels.
The UNDP-funded regional FAO Forest Tree Improvement Project (FORTIP) based in the Philippines serves as a channel for distribution of the results of tree breeding and tree improvement activities of the 10 participating-countries in Asia. The first phase is about to finish after five successful years of operation, but the established research and information distribution network could continue to serve as a vital tool for the dissemination of germplasm that are relevant to forestry and agroforestry, such as the fast-growing, early-maturing, high-yielding, multi-purpose, nitrogen-fixing tree species. Governments of the network member countries should be prevailed upon to make annual budgetary provisions as their share for maintaining the regional network so that its beneficial role can go on even after external project funding ends.
A few words of caution in the dispersal of germplasm: there are cases where adopters become so attracted to fast-growing species that they hastily set them up in large monoculture plantations. As feared, these were later confronted with the problems of serious insect and pest attacks. The massive psyllid attack on Leucaena in the Asia-Pacific region, and the yellow butterfly infestation in Albizia plantations in the Philippines are examples of the ecological vulnerability of monocultures. Lesson learned: large-scale single-species cropping should be avoided.
Other ecological problems have cropped up elsewhere. Some introduced species adapt so well and regenerate so rapidly in new sites that they can become pests. Casuarina introduced to Florida from Australia (thus the erroneous name "Australian Pine") has been so prolific a seeder that it now threatens to push out some of the indigenous swamp species in its new habitat. Leucaena trees bear seeds so profusely that they have been known to smother and render less productive the annual food crops in traditional agroforestry gardens in Papua New Guinea.
A well-documented phenomenon in the field of extension is the rapid information absorption and effective technology transfer that occur when the recipients are given the opportunity to view firsthand the technology in actual use rather than reading about it in extension publications or hearing about it in lectures. This is one important reason why extension agencies now endeavor to create realistic on-farm demonstration plots and spend precious funds to bring farmers to visit them. The cost of such field visits may be higher than the cost of printed extension materials, but its much greater efficacy in technology transfer far outweighs the costs.
Like the domestic visits to farmers' fields and demonstration plots, cross-border study tours and field visits by farmers and extension agents to actual agroforestry operations in other countries with similar agroecosystems and similar sociocultural conditions could go a long way towards effecting the desired exchange of forest-based food production technology among countries. Fortunately, development agencies recognize the value of study tours as an effective means for technology dissemination and have included such tours as integral parts of development projects. For example, previous forestry-related development undertakings like the FAO Integrated Social Forestry Project in the Philippines, the ADB Community Forestry Project in Bangladesh, the FAO Forestry Extension Project in Thailand, and the FAO Community Forestry Project in Nepal all had provisions for overseas study tours for national officers. The wide dispersal and adoption in the Asia-Pacific region of agroforestry-based food production techniques can be attributed to a large extent to these study visits.
There are certain risks in this mode of technology transfer that planners should be aware of and avoid. Agroforestry systems are generally site-specific, but often, due to farmer over-enthusiasm, borrowed technologies are adopted without prior testing and without appropriate modifications to fit new sites. These often lead to results well below expectations.
One quick indicator of socioeconomic progress in the agricultural sector is the farmers' success in producing outputs that exceed domestic consumption levels, thereby generating surplus products that can be marketed to generate income. The farmers are then said to have graduated from subsistence to the market or cash economy.
Two conditions should be satisfied to acquire a market-economy status: 1) farm outputs surpass the farmer's subsistence needs; and 2) the farmer has ready access to market outlets for his surplus products. Even if the farmer has developed a productive capacity that satisfies the first condition, he is not likely to employ that capacity to the fullest if he has no way of converting his surplus outputs to cash. Therefore, in order to motivate forest farmers towards higher yields and greater contributions to food sufficiency, planners should help develop and expand markets for agroforestry products.
|
Impressed by the observed good performance of Leucaena/corn agroforestry in the calcareous hills of Cebu, Philippines, a visiting farmer adopted the system at home with expectations of high food and wood yields because the nitrogen fixed by the Leucaena is supposed to rejuvenate and enrich the soil. However, since his farm is too acidic for the Leucaena to perform its soil-improvement role, the corn yields were disappointingly low. Had the soil been analyzed first, a nitrogen-fixing tree that is compatible with acidic soils would have been selected instead of Leucaena. |
Local markets are generally small and have limited absorptive capacity, but government could and should help expand the size and number of domestic markets that are accessible to producers by, for example, extending and improving farm-to-market access roads. Government should likewise assist the forest farmers to break into existing market outlets overseas by providing subsidies for overseas product promotion, exempting agroforestry products from export levies, and granting other appropriate export incentives.
Entering foreign markets brings with it attendant problems that agroforestry producers will have to face squarely if they are to compete in the international arena. Collaborative and concerted action among exporting countries could lessen these problems, as illustrated below.
Intercountry trade flows for some forestry food products have been going on for sometime. For instance, China, Japan and Thailand export mushrooms, bamboo shoots and nuts not only within the region, but to Western countries as well. Overseas marketing necessitates processing to prevent spoilage of perishable goods while in transit. Thus, mushrooms and nuts are sundried and packaged while bamboo shoots are cooked and tinned. Both the products and the processes have to conform to certain standards of quality to make the goods acceptable in the export market.
By necessity, quality standards are at first unilaterally fixed by the exporting countries. However, these may be gradually modified through feedback from importing countries, and in the long run, the standards will appear as if they were mutually formulated by all countries involved in the trade. If no negative feedback is received and purchases go on or even increase, it means that the quality standard fixed by the exporter is acceptable and remains as the basis for trade.
A more rapid and "modern" way of setting up quality standards would be through bilateral or multilateral negotiations, pretty much like how they are setting up the standards for all products that will be traded among the European Union (EU) countries. This may not, however, be feasible for agroforestry products in the Asia-Pacific region. The volume of international trade involving such products is so small and negligible that it may not justify the negotiation efforts like those devoted to major export commodities such as coconut oil, sugar or fishery products. A safe and logical recourse should be for the exporting nations to emulate as closely as possible the extant standards for similar goods that are now widely traded internationally and apply these to their own agroforestry exports.
Several barriers impede the free flow of goods among countries. Some are physical and natural, such as high mountain ranges or vast bodies of water that render the movement and transport of goods difficult and expensive. Others are arbitrarily set rules, like the imposition of import quotas from certain countries. Still others could be political decisions, similar to trade embargoes imposed on "unfriendly" states. The most frequently used barrier is the tariff.
Countries generally set up tariff walls for any or all of the following purposes: 1) to protect local goods from foreign competition and enable domestic industries to expand and gain strength; 2) to control the inflow of imported goods and conserve foreign exchange reserves; and 3) to raise government revenue from duties. Because tariffs are often viewed by some governments as a means to economic survival, they tend to become a permanent fixture in national plans, and it is usually difficult to convince economic planners to eliminate them.
Over the years, however, it has become clear that, in the long run, tariff barriers have negative rather than beneficial impacts on the economy. Countries that deliberately isolated themselves from the mainstream of international trade (e.g., Myanmar, North Korea) to protect and stimulate domestic industries and promote self-sufficiency ended up being economically stagnant. On the other hand, countries that have embraced the principles of free trade (e.g., Malaysia, Thailand) have developed much more rapidly. Continually exposed to the rigors of competition in the free regional or global markets, the free-trade countries have become more efficient producers, stronger competitors and more self-reliant nations.
Heeding the lessons learned from these development phenomena, many countries are now joining the free trade bandwagon. Regional groupings such as ASEAN, SAARC and APEC, and a global grouping such as WTO, have emerged and are aiming, among others, to gradually reduce and eventually eliminate tariff and other barriers to free trade.
Under this new trade-friendly environment, it may no longer be necessary for Asia-Pacific countries to exert separate efforts to eliminate tariff walls just to enhance the international trade of agroforestry goods. What may be more urgently needed is to hasten the implementation of these agreements and to exercise joint vigilance to ensure that the provisions of free trade agreements do not exclude or prohibit, either expressly or inadvertently, food products arising from agroforestry operations.
Trade liberalization will not automatically bring forth immediate benefits. In fact total lifting of import controls could initially lead to problems such as flooding of local markets with cheaper goods from larger and more efficient economies. While that would benefit the large mass of domestic consumers, it could, on the other hand, result in the demise of weak and less efficient local industries and the worsening of unemployment problems unless sufficient "safety nets," such as labor re-training and re-placement, are put into action. The longterm benefits of free trade may come later when the survivors of free competition expand their operations to gear to the expanded export markets, thereby providing more employment and generating greater revenues.
Prices of goods in a free market are determined by supply and demand forces, not by the dictum of bureaucrats. Because of varying conditions of efficiency and cost of inputs, however, it is expected that there will be price differentials for agroforestry products from one country to the other. For instance, due to high labor costs and excessive land values in Japan, the supply of processed bamboo shoots have been curtailed even as demand has increased due to population expansion. As a result, the prices have escalated to levels that have made it very attractive for Thailand's producers to export their bamboo shoots to Japan. In short, price differentials can and do trigger trade flows because well-informed producers in low-cost countries tend to cater to markets where high prices prevail.
Up-to-date price information exchange enables producers in different countries to react quickly and be able to export to where they could get the most favorable prices and earn maximum profits (Austria 1995, Eastin 1996). The ultimate effect of price information exchange is to encourage efficient agroforestry farmers to produce more goods to fill attractive markets, thereby enhancing their roles in achieving food security.
The downside of rapid price information dissemination that should be guarded against is the possibility that many more farmers than necessary would respond quickly to attractive prices, resulting in market flooding and a drastic drop in prices that could ruin many small-scale producers. It would seem desirable for agencies providing price-monitoring services to include information on the sizes or absorptive capacities of the markets.
A multinational group like the International Timber Trade Organization (ITTO) currently serves as a medium for quick dissemination of trade and price information related to tropical timber. It could be a good model for setting up a similar mechanism to cover the international trade of forest-based food products. Creating a similar body may not be easy considering that the volumes of agroforestry products entering the international trade appear too low to motivate governments to organize such mechanisms. A more viable alternative seems to be for countries concerned to enter into agreements with existing organizations, such as ITTO, for the expansion of their trade and price monitoring and dissemination activities to include those of forest-based food products. ITTO now covers timber products originating from natural forests as well as from community forests and agroforests. It could be requested and prevailed upon by the countries in the Asia-Pacific region to include trade information related to the food products derived from the same types of forests from which they draw the timber for international trade.
Since forestry-based food products are relatively new and little known in international markets, innovative approaches are necessary to increase the volume of exports and further stimulate local agroforestry production, thereby increasing their share towards food sufficiency.
Developed societies in the West have become deeply concerned about conservation of tropical rainforests, and one of their new ways of discouraging exploitative use of these resources is to boycott products which are not certified as having been produced under sustainable forest management systems (Baharuddin 1995; Cabarle et al 1995). Initially, this action was focused directly upon timber products to counter what has long been perceived as destructive exploitation of tropical forests. Some log-exporting countries have reacted in anger, stating that it is their sovereign right to decide how best to utilize their natural resources to fuel national development.
Instead of regarding this boycott action as a problem, forestry food producers should view it as a new challenge and an opportunity to establish stable markets for their products. They could ride the crest of this conservation wave and embark upon a similar system of certification by credible NGOs or international bodies to indicate that agroforestry-based goods are in fact being derived from systems that are managed for ecological stability and economic sustainability. If this approach is employed, it is anticipated that sale of agroforestry products in big export markets in developed countries will not only continue but may expand as well.
Venture capital usually goes where challenges and expectations of return are considered attractive. Unfortunately, forestry-based food production does not usually fall under that category, so it would be relatively difficult to attract new capital investments. In fact, most of those now engaged in agroforestry production are in it probably because it is the only available alternative where they can operate with little or no investment capital other than their labor. Nevertheless, if only to expand the contributions of agroforestry to food security, action should be taken to induce further investments in that arena.
One possible way to attract investors is by encouraging them to look at forestry food production as a vertically integrated operation, and inducing them to invest in one of the segments that they find most financially attractive. For example, instead of becoming involved in the complex cultivation and harvesting of mixed agroforestry crops where they may have no technical experience and skills, investors may be encouraged to fund and operate independently the processing or marketing segments of the entire operation.
The producers on one hand, and the processor/investor on the other, may then enter into an agreement where the former will pledge to deliver all their marketable outputs to the latter under a fair pricing scheme. With new investments in processing, raw agroforestry products will be assured of market outlets, so agroforestry farmers will be motivated to produce to their full capacities, thus maximizing their contributions to overall food production.
Much needs to be done in the policy arena, both at the national and international levels, to enhance forest-based food production and further expand their share toward attaining food sufficiency.
Most agroforestry farmers operate under conditions that would deter others who have weaker wills. Agroforestry farms are generally on hilly sites with poor soils, difficult access and unsettled tenures. Farmers' activities are not limited to pure tillage but include complex and laborious soil conservation measures such as terracing, contour ditching or establishment of contour hedgerows. As if these were not hard enough, they also have to face lower yields per unit of land or per unit of labor (whichever is the more serious limiting factor) because of poor-quality, degraded soils. When they produce more than the subsistence needs of their families, they are confronted by great difficulties in bringing their surplus outputs to market due to the remoteness and poor accessibility of their farms. On top of all these, they may be in danger of being evicted by the government at any time unless their tenurial arrangements are secure. Any government policy action that can relieve farmers of these enormous difficulties will have the huge net effect of encouraging them to persist in their agroforestry production activities. A few illustrative policy incentives could be cited for their favorable impact upon agroforestry farming.
1.1 Incentives to encourage soil conservation
Because most agroforestry farms are on sloping land that are vulnerable to degradation through accelerated erosion, it is essential for government to formulate policy incentives that could promote soil and nutrient conservation and enable farmers to improve productivity and achieve sustainability.
The constitution of the Philippines allows agroforestry farmers a maximum tenure over public lands of 25 years, renewable of another 25 years. Thai laws, on the other hand, allow agroforestry farms on public land under "usufruct" or "lifetime" tenurial arrangements. The first case may, in reality, offer a longer tenure, but psychologically, the "lifetime" tenure provides greater motivation for farmers to maintain site productivity. If only to induce agroforestry farmers to practice better soil conservation, government should offer "usufruct" rather than "fixed-term" tenures.
One hectare of Leucaena bushes mowed every three months to a height of one meter can yield foliage for green manuring that contains 500 to 600 kg of nitrogen, 187 kg of potassium and 44 kg of phosphorous (National Academy of Sciences 1977.)
The following proposed incentives show some promise:
1.2 Incentives to induce soil rehabilitation or rejuvenation
Owing to the rising land shortage, more of the areas allotted to agroforestry farmers are those heavily degraded through abusive and inappropriate uses. Two approaches to soil rejuvenation and restoration of productive capacity are available:
To encourage farmers to adopt either of the two above approaches to rehabilitation or enrichment of degraded soils, the following incentives may be employed:
1.3 Incentives to stimulate access road building
Farm-to-market feeder roads are known to strongly stimulate farm production. When provided access to bigger markets, forestry farmers strive to maximize their yields and increase their incomes from marketable surplus. Since government resources for construction of rural roads are limited, policy incentives to expand private sector participation in building new access roads or improving old logging roads that traverse agroforestry areas should be set up as follows:
1.4 Tenurial incentives
One of the most serious disincentives to land-based production, such as agroforestry farming, is the farmer's insecure tenure over the land under his cultivation. The slogan of land reform "give the land to the tiller" is not just a catchy phrase; it embodies a strategy to motivate farmers to higher productivity by satisfying their yearning for secure or even absolute land user rights. Two tenurial approaches can be used by government as incentives to farmers:
A favorable policy climate at the regional level could emerge if separate but compatible national policies are formulated that would lead to full and open regional cooperation on matters related to forest-based food production.
Three areas of policy are especially important in boosting the collaborative efforts to increase the contributions of forestry and agroforestry to food security: 1) policy on free exchange of agroforestry research results and technology; 2) policy on open exchange of superior germplasm, including those arising from genetic engineering; and 3) policy on unlimited exchange of agroforestry food products (free trade). These had been covered partly by the topics on "technology exchange" and on "cooperation in marketing" above. They are covered here again to highlight their relevance to policy issues.
2.1 Policy on free agroforestry information exchange
Some countries have a tendency to restrict the dissemination of research results, in general, and agroforestry research, in particular. These are often treated as "intellectual property rights" (IPR) and are usually covered by patents. Such actions limit the opportunities of countries with low research capabilities to employ state-of-the-art agroforestry production techniques and curtail their ability to help achieve food security.
To a certain extent, some "unwritten" policies that allow free movement of information are now in place. For example, technical information on how to induce out-of-season fruiting of mangoes is now readily available among all countries in Asia. To further strengthen the information exchange mechanism, collaborating countries should agree to jointly and formally adopt a policy of "quid pro quo" in the exchange of agroforestry information. In this manner, participants in the agreement will mutually benefit from the free exchange and would, therefore, be encouraged to participate.
2.2 Policy on open exchange of superior germplasm
Tree improvement, tree breeding and other genetic manipulation activities often result in the development of new quick-growing, early-maturing, high-yielding varieties or species that are suited to agroforestry production. Some countries have gone to the extent of establishing patent rights over such outputs, thereby reducing the capacity of other countries to upgrade the productivity of their agroforestry farms. For instance, improved varieties of certain fruit trees such as mangoes and durian are not allowed to freely move across borders from Thailand.
A joint policy among collaborating nations could be formulated such that mutual country-to-country exchange of these "patented" germplasm could be made. The openness and, in fact, the strong encouragement that characterized the dispersal of the "giant leucaena" from Hawaii for fuelwood, fodder and organic fertilizer production, and the "miracle rice" from IRRI to remedy the serious grain shortfalls in many third world countries, could be used as models for policy to support germplasm exchange for improved agroforestry production.
In the Philippines, a patent on a research output is government's way of insuring that the product is not cornered by a single commercial firm but is made readily available to any interested user, whether individual or corporate. A regional policy on patented germplasm in the various countries could be patterned after this principle.
2.3 Policy on free crossborder agroforestry trade
Crossborder trade barriers seem to be falling one after the other like dominoes as an increasing number of countries join the global groundswell towards liberalized trade. But because agroforestry products are a limited and different category of goods, there remains a risk that they may not be included under the provisions of the free trade agreements under regional forums such as APEC, ASEAN and SAARC.
It is important to explore a possible regionwide trade policy that can supplement or complement the provisions of trade agreements to remove economic and technical barriers (except quarantine and disease control provisions). This would promote the free movement of agroforestry products and, in turn, encourage greater farmer production and enhance contributions to food security.