In the discussions about climate change, smallholder farmers are often viewed as the victims,

the would-be climate refugees who will have no choice but adapt to the harsher environment in
the future. Seldom are smallholder farmers viewed as important subjects to take part in climate
change mitigation measures. Until today, little incentives have been developed to get
smallholder farmers involve in mitigation measures compared to large corporations and
government entities that become dominant actors in current mitigation schemes such as clean
energy development, REDD+, and carbon-offset trading.
Contrary to this perception, Wollenberg et al. (2012) argue that appropriate incentives and
institutions need to be developed to gain wider participation of smallholder farmers in climate
change mitigation measures. Agricultural emission reduction has a high potential in climate
change mitigation measures, as its proportion in carbon emission is comparable to emission
from energy sector and much higher than emission from transportation sector. However, this
potential can only be realized through wider involvement of smallholder farmers who dominate
agricultural landscape in the low-and-middle income countries.
To achieve this goal, Wollenberg et al. (2012) advocates three guiding principles for successful
mitigation practices in agricultural sector: that mitigation options have to generate economic
benefits; that they need to reconcile climate mitigation objectives with welfare improvement
objectives, with emphasis on the latter objectives; and that they have to encourage active
participation. Agroforestry initiatives can easily conform to these guiding principles, as
smallholder farmers have engaged in agroforestry practices for millennia to gain a stream of
multiple benefits: food, fodder, ritual and medicinal plants, even without knowing the financial
incentives they can get from the benefit streams of ecosystem services.
In mitigation of climate change, agroforestry practices have clear advantage over other
agricultural management practices in terms of ecological functions and ecosystem service. One
important aspect of ecosystem service is the important role of agroforestry systems in carbon
sequestration. Nair et al. (2010) give evidence that agroforestry practices are important carbon
sinks through which many processes of aboveground and belowground carbon sequestrations
take place, based on extensive studies under various agroforestry systems. This carbon
sequestration benefit has already had financial and economic values, as payment mechanisms
already exist through various Agroforestry CDM projects and some carbon trading schemes.
The question is why this high potential has not been realized after many years of development?
Nair et al. (2010) hint on too much focus to the economic potential of carbon trading at the
expense of on-farm research. I could not agree more. Agroforestry CDM projects are often not
financially competitive compare to other quick-fix carbon offsetting projects, such as CFCreduction, hydroelectric, wind power, or solar power generation projects. Nor do REDD+ and
other financial incentive schemes that are more beneficial to the elites who have more access to
information and resources than smallholder farmers. In my countrys experience, majority of
smallholder farmers still adhere to traditional agroforestry systems which are prone to land-use
change due to population pressure. As more and more agroforestry lands become fragmented,
land productivity becomes an issue as food security has to compromise with tree development.
Perhaps, through the focus on the on-farm research we can find robust agroforestry systems
that can be easily adopted by smallholder farmers to improve productivity of their land without
compromising their food security, just as the technology improvement in agricultural
productivity help spur the adoption of green revolution technology.