Agroforestry, the ancient practice of growing crops and trees on the same land, has been gaining popularity in recent years as a key solution to mitigating climate change and supporting biodiversity. However, the new comment published in a magazine Nature Climate Change suggests that not all agroforestry projects are funded equally and perceived with the same understanding, creating a fundamental dichotomy.

The paper's authors, including lead author Karam Sheban of the Yale School of the Environment, distinguish two main categories of agroforestry methods: "forest agroforestry" a "field agroforestry". Forest agroforestry involves integrating crops into existing forests and ecosystems, while field agroforestry refers to adding trees to pastures or croplands. The study found significant lack of funding for forestry methods compared to field agroforestry, leading to missed opportunities for carbon storage and biodiversity conservation.

Sheban noticed this problem early in his career, working in temperate agroforestry systems. His own grant proposal for funding through the Inflation Reduction Act was rejected, while the vast majority of funded projects fell into the field agroforestry category. This "agroforestry difference" — the lack of research on forest agroforestry systems in different cultures around the world — was identified by scientists as early as the 1980s. The reason for this preference is partly the misconception that forestry methods lead to deforestation.

While this may be true in tropical environments with crops like coffee or cocoa, forest agroforestry can actually help restore temperate ecosystemsKaram Sheban emphasizes that "we need to think differently about tropical and temperate forests." Applying tropical agroforestry models to temperate or boreal environments may even be harmful, because these ecosystems function very differently. For example, in dry environments, tree shade can increase water availability for grasses by reducing evaporation, while in wet environments it can suppress grass growth by stealing sunlight. This leads to funds and policymakers are hesitant to implement potentially climate-friendly practices in temperate regions, because most of the scientific literature focuses on tropical systems.

The problem is also simplified perception of agroforestry as a universal solution. Complex commercial crops referred to as “agroforestry,” such as shade-grown coffee or cocoa plantations, can actually lead to deforestation due to industrialized supply chains. Susan Cook-Patton, senior scientist for forest restoration at The Nature Conservancy (TNC), notes that “just because it’s agroforestry doesn’t mean it’s a natural solution to climate change.”

So what makes an agroforestry project beneficial? Karam Sheban emphasizes that the key is maintaining biodiversity, restoring land degraded by monoculture farming and storing carbonAn important factor is understanding soil history. Ideally, a system should not replace a more complex system with a less complex oneExamples of beneficial agroforestry include:

• Maple syrup production in North America, where the original forest also serves as agriculture.
• Home gardens in Southeast Asia, which support hundreds of species of native plants for food and medicine between strips of primary forest.
• Indigenous agroforestry systems, such as forest gardens in British Columbia, which require forest management that removes some trees in the short term to open up the understory, which in the long term improves the overall health, resilience, and carbon storage of the forest.

There is also great potential for private land to use forest agroforestry, as nearly 60% of forest land in the US is privately owned. The authors urge policymakers and scientists to more consistently funded and studied forest agroforestry methods, especially in places where people depend on rural livelihoods such as agriculture. The aim is to strengthen global policies to finance agroforestry, which achieves positive results across the country. Spring