Risk barriers and sustainability in payment for ecosystem service implementation in smallholder forestry

Ibrahim, A.; Withaningsih, S.; Kinseng, R.; ., Parikesit; Muhamad, D.

doi:10.22034/gjesm.2024.03.28

Articles in Press

Document Type : REVIEW PAPER

Authors

¹ Doctoral Program on Environmental Sciences, Postgraduate School, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung City, West Java, Indonesia

² Master Program on Sustainability Science, Postgraduate School, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung City, West Java, Indonesia

³ Departement of Communication and Community Empowerment, Faculty of Human Ecology, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor City, West Java, Indonesia

⁴ Departement of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Padjadjaran University, Sumedang, West Java, Indonesia

⁵ Indonesia Research Institute Japan, Shibuya Tokyo, Japan

10.22034/gjesm.2024.03.28

Abstract

Agroforestry offers sustainable solutions for small-scale farmers and the environment, crucial for climate change adaptation and resilience. They store carbon, conserve biodiversity, maintain water and soil fertility, and support livelihood diversification. Payment for ecosystem services has the potential to safeguard agroforestry systems in theory, yet it encounters obstacles concerning the permanence of these systems and associated risks and barriers. The primary objective of this research is to examine the obstacles and uncertainties related to the implementation of Payment for ecosystem services in smallholder agroforestry systems. This study plays a crucial role in enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of Payment for ecosystem services schemes, thereby encouraging the widespread adoption of agroforestry practices. A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the payment for ecosystem services model and its implementation. Data were obtained from databases of scientific publications such as Scopus, Semantic Scholar, Crossref, and Google Scholar. A total of 40 pertinent studies were selected due to the intricate array of obstacles and uncertainties that hinder the effective implementation of payment for ecosystem services initiatives. The findings indicate that financial limitations arise as a noteworthy obstacle, as small-scale farmers encounter considerable economic hardships and discouragingly expensive implementation expenses (ranging from 150 United States dollar per metric ton of carbon dioxide). Additionally, they face a low credit price (approximately 50 United States dollar per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent). Socio-cultural factors, including gender dynamics, traditional beliefs, and generational disparities, shape farmers' attitudes toward payment for ecosystem services adoption, necessitating targeted interventions to foster trust and community acceptance. The importance of reliable data is emphasized by technical hurdles like accurate measurement of ecosystem services and monitoring complexities, necessitating innovative solutions and robust methodologies. Biophysical conditions like rainfall patterns and soil health further influence program success, demanding tailored approaches for effective implementation. The payment for ecosystem services programs entails a multitude of risks, which encompass various dimensions. These risks include uncertainties in the market, internal factors within the programs, flaws in program design, and environmental challenges. Market risks, like delayed credit payments, hinder financial cycles in programs. Other factors like farmers' commitment, inequitable benefit sharing, and labour displacement contribute to program sustainability risks. The success of programs is further endangered by subpar program design, insufficient conservation measures, and the adverse effects of climate change. Ultimately, comprehending and addressing these obstacles is essential in order to fully realize the benefits of payment for ecosystem services in agroforestry.bComprehensive strategies, including policy support, stakeholder engagement, and fair compensation coupled with collaborative efforts from governments, non-government organizations, local communities, and private enterprises are essential. Through the mitigation of risks barriers highlighted in this study, the utilization of payment for ecosystem services has the potential to become an effective instrument in advancing sustainable agricultural land practices, combating climate change, and improving the well-being of smallholder farmers.

Graphical Abstract

Highlights

Smallholder agroforestry offers a solution to tackle climate change through PES but significant barriers and risk related to the permanence aspect;
These barriers encompass financial aspects, Socio-cultural aspects, and technical aspects.
The permanence risk creates the difficulty ensuring long-term carbon storage
Supportive policies, capacity building, and improved monitoring methods are crucial for unlocking the full potential of smallholder agroforestry in climate change mitigation strategies.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Sustainable agriculture management

OPEN ACCESS

©2024 The author(s). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

PUBLISHER NOTE

GJESM Publisher remains neutral concerning jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

CITATION METRICS & CAPTURES

CURRENT PUBLISHER

GJESM Publisher

References

Abdul-Salam, Y.; Ovando, P.; Roberts, D., (2022). Understanding the economic barriers to the adoption of agroforestry: a real options analysis. J. Environ. Manage., 302(113955): 1-10 (10 pages).

Acampora, A.; Ruini, L.; Mattia, G.; Pratesi, C.A.; Lucchetti, M.C., (2023). Towards carbon neutrality in the agri-food sector: drivers and barriers. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 189(106755): 1-15 (15 pages).

Alarcon, G.G.; Fantini, A.C.; Salvador, C.H.; Farley, J., (2017). Additionality is in detail: farmers’ choices regarding payment for ecosystem services programs in the atlantic forest, brazil. J. Rural Stud., 54: 177–186 (10 pages).

Andriuškevičius, K.; Štreimikienė, D.; Alebaitė, I., (2022). Convergence between indicators for measuring sustainable development and m and a performance in the energy sector. Sustainability. 14, 10360: 1-25 (25 pages).

Antle, J.M.; Stoorvogel, J.J.; Valdivia, R.O., (2007). Assessing the economic impacts of agricultural carbon sequestration: terraces and agroforestry in the peruvian andes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 122(4): 435–445 (11 pages).

Aromataris, E.; Pearson, A., (2014). The systematic review: an overview. Am. J. Nurs., 114(3): 53–58 (6 pages).

Aslam, U.; Termansen, M.; Fleskens, L., (2017). Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative pes schemes for carbon sequestration in uk agroecosystems. Ecosyst. Serv., 27 (Part A): 103–112 (10 pages).

Atsiaya, G.O.; Gido, E.O.; Waluse Sibiko, K., (2023). Uptake of climate-smart agricultural practices among smallholder sorghum farmers in busia county, kenya. Cogent Food Agric., 9(1): 1-14 (14 pages).

Bamanyisa, J.M.; Deo, S.; Makundi, W.; Munishi, P., (2019). The role of co-operatives in carbon trading in community managed carbon enhancement activities in tanzania. Int. J. Community Cooperative Stud., 7: 66–77 (16 pages).

Benjamin, E.O.; Ola, O.; Buchenrieder, G., (2018). Does an agroforestry scheme with payment for ecosystem services (pes) economically empower women in sub-saharan africa? Ecosyst. Serv., 31(2018): 1–11 (11 pages).

Benjamin, E.O.; Sauer, J., (2018). The cost effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services—smallholders and agroforestry in africa. Land Use Policy. 71(2018): 293–302 (10 pages).

Bhan, S.; Behera, U.K., (2014). Conservation agriculture in india – problems, prospects and policy issues. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res., 2(4): 1–12 (12 pages).

Bogale, D.; Estifanos, S.; Asfaw, Z., (2023). Comparative analysis of fruit tree–based agroforestry and monoculture in tackling climate change challenges: evidence from sofi district, ethiopia. Ekológia. 42(4): 381–391 (12 pages).

Bremer, L.L.; Farley, K.A.; Lopez-Carr, D.; Romero, J., (2014). Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem services in the ecuadorian andes: what is the potential for “win-win”? Ecosyst. Serv., 8: 148–165 (18 pages).

Burgess, P.J.; Rosati, A., (2018). Advances in european agroforestry: results from the agforward project. Agrofor. Syst., 92(4): 801–810 (10 pages).

Cacho, O.J.; Lipper, L.; Moss, J., (2013). Transaction costs of carbon offset projects: a comparative study. Ecol. Econ., 88: 232–243 (12 pages).

Cardinael, R.; Cadisch, G.; Gosme, M.; Oelbermann, M.; van Noordwijk, M., (2021). Climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture: why agroforestry should be part of the solution. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 319(107555): 1-7 (7 pages).

Chimoitaligare, E.; Esther K.K.; Chrispinus M., (2014). Community efforts towards farms management through agroforestry activities in western kenya. AARJ Multidisciplinary, 1(27): 289–297 (9 pages).

Dardas, L.A.; Sallam, M.; Woodward, A.; Sweis, N.; Sweis, N.; Sawair, F.A., (2023). Evaluating research impact based on semantic scholar highly influential citations, total citations, and altmetric attention scores: the quest for refined measures remains illusive. Publications. 11(1): 1-16 (16 pages).

De Beenhouwer, M.; Geeraert, L.; Mertens, J.; Van Geel, M.; Aerts, R.; Vanderhaegen, K.; Honnay, O., (2016). Biodiversity and carbon storage co-benefits of coffee agroforestry across a gradient of increasing management intensity in the sw ethiopian highlands. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 222(2016): 193–199 (7 pages).

De Jong, B.H.J.; Bazán, E.E.; Montalvo, S.Q., (2007). Application of the “climafor” baseline to determine leakage: the case of scolel té. Mitigation Adapt. Strategies Global Change. 12(6): 1153–1168 (16 pages).

De Lima, L.S.; Krueger, T.; García-Marquez, J., (2017). Uncertainties in demonstrating environmental benefits of payments for ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv., 27: 139–149 (11 pages).

De Zoysa, M.; Inoue, M., (2014). Climate change impacts, agroforestry adaptation and policy environment in sri lanka. Open J. For., 04(05): 439–456 (19 pages).

Dede, M.; Sunardi, S.; Lam, K.C.; Withaningsih, S., (2023). Relationship between landscape and river ecosystem services. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage., 9(3): 1-16 (16 pages).

Dhyani, S.; Murthy, I.K.; Kadaverugu, R.; Dasgupta, R.; Kumar, M.; Gadpayle, K.A., (2021). Agroforestry to achieve global climate adaptation and mitigation targets: are south asian countries sufficiently prepared? Forests. 12(3): 1–21 (21 pages).

Dominicis, L.F. de; Lima M. de F. de B.; Souza, Á.N. de; Joaquim, M.S.; Araújo, J.B.C.N.; Coelho Junior, L.M.; Ribeiro, J.F.; Santos, P.P. dos., (2023). Payment for environmental services and the financial viability of agroforestry systems: an integrated analysis of socio-environmental projects in the descoberto basin—federal district. Forests. 14(10), 2110: 1-17 (17 pages).

Dou, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, M.; Chen, X.; Zhao, X., (2023). The role of agroforestry in poverty alleviation: a case study from nujiang prefecture, southwestern china. Sustainability. 15 (15), 12090: 1-20 (20 pages).

Dumbrell, N.P.; Kragt, M.E.; Gibson, F.L., (2016). What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? a best-worst scaling survey. Land Use Policy, 54: 29–37 (9 pages).

Dutta, S.; Patra, S.; Goswami, R.; Majumdar, K.; Singh, V.K.; Chakraborty, T.; Ray, K.; Banerjee, H., (2021). Carbon farming - a win-win for smallholder farmers and global industries: an opinion. Indian J. Agron., 66(2021): S57–S68 (12 pages).

Eyzaguirre, I.A.L.; Fernandes, M.E.B., (2024). Combining methods to conduct a systematic review and propose a conceptual and theoretical framework in socio-environmental research. MethodsX. 12(102484): 1-19 (19 pages).

Fernández del Amo, I.; Erkoyuncu, J.A.; Roy, R.; Palmarini, R.; Onoufriou, D., (2018). A systematic review of augmented reality content-related techniques for knowledge transfer in maintenance applications. Comput. Ind., 103: 47–71 (25 pages).

Flugge, F.; Abadi, A., (2006). Farming carbon: an economic analysis of agroforestry for carbon sequestration and dryland salinity reduction in western australia. Agrofor. Syst., 68(3): 181–192 (12 pages).

Franco, M.A.; Groesser, S.N., (2021). A systematic literature review of the solar photovoltaic value chain for a circular economy. Sustainability. 13(17), 9615: 1-35 (35 pages).

Gazley, B., (2022). The systematic literature review: advantages and applications in nonprofit scholarship. Voluntas, 33(6): 1256–1262 (7 pages).

Getnet, D.; Mekonnen, Z.; Anjulo, A., (2023). The potential of traditional agroforestry practices as nature-based carbon sinks in ethiopia. Nat. Based Solutions. 4(100079): 1-9 (9 pages).

Grant, A.; Ries, R.; Thompson, C., (2016). Quantitative approaches in life cycle assessment—part 1—descriptive statistics and factor analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 21(6): 903–911 (9 pages).

Grima, N.; Singh, S.J.; Smetschka, B.; Ringhofer, L., (2016). Payment for ecosystem services (pes) in latin america: analysing the performance of 40 case studies. Ecosyst. Serv., 17: 24–32 (9 pages).

Gui, D.; Zhang, Y.; Lv, J.; Guo, J.; Sha, Z., (2024). Effects of intercropping on soil greenhouse gas emissions - a global meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ., 918(170632): 1-8 (8 pages).

Haile, K.K.; Tirivayi, N.; Tesfaye, W., (2019). Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: the case of climate-smart agroforestry in ethiopia. Ecosyst. Serv., 39(100964): 1-9 (14 pages).

Hayes, T.M., (2012). Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the colombian andes. Environ. Conserv., 39(2): 144–153 (10 pages).

Hazarika, A.; Nath, A.J.; Pandey, R.; Pebam, R.; Devi, N.B.; Das, A.K., (2024). Climate change vulnerability of tribe managing piper agroforestry systems in the indian sub-himalayan region. Agric. Syst., 216(103914): 1-14 (14 pages).

Holderieath, J.; Valdivia, C.; Godsey, L.; Barbieri, C., (2012). The potential for carbon offset trading to provide added incentive to adopt silvopasture and alley cropping in missouri. Agrofor. Syst., 86(3): 345–353 (9 pages).

Holmes, I.; Kirby, K.R.; Potvin, C., (2017). Agroforestry within redd+: experiences of an indigenous emberá community in panama. Agrofor. Syst., 91(6): 1181–1197 (17 pages).

Jacobi, J.; Rist, S.; Altieri, M.A., (2017). Incentives and disincentives for diversified agroforestry systems from different actors’ perspectives in bolivia. Int. J. Agric. Sustainability. 15(4): 365–379 (16 pages).

Jara-Rojas, R.; Russy, S.; Roco, L.; Fleming-Muñoz, D.; Engler, A., (2020). Factors affecting the adoption of agroforestry practices: insights from silvopastoral systems of colombia. Forests. 11(6): 1–15 (15 pages).

Kamali Saraji, M.; Streimikiene, D., (2023). Challenges to the low carbon energy transition: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Energy Strategy Rev., 49(101163): 1-20 (20 pages).

Kaushal, R.; Mandal, D.; Panwar, P.; Rajkumar, Kumar, P.; Tomar, J.M.S.; Mehta, H., (2021). Soil and water conservation benefits of agroforestry. In P. Kumar Shit, H.R. Pourghasemi, P.P. Adhikary, G.S. Bhunia, V.P.B.T.F.R.R. and C. Sati (Eds.), forest resources resilience and conflicts (pp. 259–275). Elsevier (16 pages).

Kearney, S.P.; Coops, N.C.; Chan, K.M.A.; Fonte, S.J.; Siles, P.; Smukler, S.M., (2017). Predicting carbon benefits from climate-smart agriculture: high-resolution carbon mapping and uncertainty assessment in el salvador. J. Environ. Manage., 202(2017): 287–298 (12 pages).

Kearney, S.P.; Fonte, S.J.; García, E.; Siles, P.; Chan, K.M.A.; Smukler, S.M., (2017). Evaluating ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies from slash-and-mulch agroforestry systems in el salvador. Ecol. Indic., 105(2019): 264–278 (15 pages).

Kimaro, O.D.; Desie, E.; Verbist, B.; Kimaro, D.N.; Vancampenhout, K.; Feger, K.H., (2024). Soil organic carbon stocks and fertility in smallholder indigenous agroforestry systems of the north-eastern mountains, tanzania. Geoderma Reg., 36(e00759): 1-14 (14 pages).

Kiran, K.K.; Pal, S.; Chand, P.; Kandpal, A., (2023). Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in indian agricultural landscape: a meta-analysis. Ecosyst. Serv., 62(101537): 1-12 (12 pages).

Kiyingi, I.; Ocama, D.; Mujuni, D.; Nyombi, K., (2016). A bioeconomic analysis of the carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems: a case study of grevillea robusta in south western uganda. Uganda J. Agric. Sci., 17(2): 219 - 229 (11 pages).

Laporta, L.; Domingos, T.; Marta-Pedroso, C., (2021). It’s a keeper: valuing the carbon storage service of agroforestry ecosystems in the context of cap eco-schemes. Land Use Policy, 109(105712): 1-13 (13 pages).

Lasco, R.D.; Evangelista, R.S.; Pulhin, F.B., (2010). Potential of community-based forest management to mitigate climate change in the philippines. Small-Scale For., 9(4): 429–443 (15 pages).

Le, T.A.T.; Vodden, K.; Wu, J.; Bullock, R.; Sabau, G., (2024). Payments for ecosystem services programs: a global review of contributions towards sustainability. Heliyon. 10(e22361):1-32 (32 pages).

Leifeld, J., (2023). Carbon farming: climate change mitigation via non-permanent carbon sinks. J. Environ. Manage., 339(117893): 1-3 (3 pages).

Liu, W.Y.; Chuang, Y.L., (2023). Assessing the incentives and financial compensation of agroforestry considering the uncertainty of price and yield. Ecol. Indic., 146(109753), 1-19 (19 pages).

Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M., (2014). When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? scopus versus mendeley for lis journals. J Assn Inf Sci Tec, 67: 191-199 (9 pages).

Mahmood, M.I.; Zubair, M., (2020). Farmer’s perception of and factors influencing agroforestry practices in the indus river basin, pakistan. Small-Scale For., 19(1): 107–122 (16 pages).

Makundi, W.R.; Sathaye, J.A., (2004). Ghg mitigation potential and cost in tropical forestry – relative role for agroforestry. Environ. Dev. Sustainability. 6: 235–260 (26 pages).

Manrique, S.M., (2024). Toward planning more sustainable agroforestry systems in the face of climate change: individual potential from croplands and woodlands. in M.K. Jhariya, R.S. Meena, A. Banerjee, S. Kumar, and A.B.T.-A. for C. and E. M. Raj (eds.) 18: 331–349 (19 pages).

Martín-Martín, A.; Costas, R.; Van Leeuwen, T.; Delgado López-Cózar, E., (2018). Evidence of open access of scientific publications in google scholar: a large-scale analysis. J. Informetrics., 12 (3): 819–841 (38 pages).

Martino, S.; Muenzel, D., (2018). The economic value of high nature value farming and the importance of the common agricultural policy in sustaining income: the case study of the natura 2000 zarandul de est (romania). J. Rural. Stud., 60: 176–187 (51 pages).

Mcdonald, H.; Frelih-Larsen, A.; Lóránt, A.; Duin, L.; Andersen, S.P.; Costa, G.; Bradley, H., (2021). Carbon farming making agriculture fit for 2030. Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Directorate-General for Internal Policies. European Parliament’s committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), Luxembourg (67 pages)

Mengist, W.; Soromessa, T.; Legese, G., (2020). Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX, 7(100777): 1-11 (11 pages).

Mulatu, K.; Hunde, D., (2020). Agroforestry: a supplementary method for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Int. J. Ecotoxicol. Ecobiol. 5(3), 29: 1-14 (14 pages).

Nath, A.J.; Lal, R.; Das, A.K., (2015). Managing woody bamboos for carbon farming and carbon trading. Global Ecol. Conserv., 3: 654–663 (10 pages).

Nath, A.J., Nath, P.C., Sileshi, G.W. (2023). Payment for ecosystem services from agroforestry: case studies and lessons. In: Dagar, J.C., Gupta, S.R., Sileshi, G.W. (eds) agroforestry for sustainable intensification of agriculture in asia and africa. Sustainability Sciences in Asia and Africa (pp 739-757). Springer (18 pages)

Netter, L.; Luedeling, E.; Whitney, C., (2022). Agroforestry and reforestation with the gold standard-decision analysis of a voluntary carbon offset label. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 27, 17: 1-27 (27 pages).

Newton, P.; Gomez, A.E.A.; Jung, S.; Kelly, T.; Mendes, T. de A.; Rasmussen, L.V.; Reis, J.C. dos; Rodrigues, R. de A.R.; Tipper, R.; van der Horst, D.; Watkins, C., (2016). Overcoming barriers to low carbon agriculture and forest restoration in brazil: the rural sustentável project. World Dev. Perspect., 4: 5–7 (3 pages).

Nyberg, Y.; Musee, C.; Wachiye, E.; Jonsson, M.; Wetterlind, J.; Öborn, I., (2020). Effects of agroforestry and other sustainable practices in the kenya agricultural carbon project (kacp). Land, 9(10), 389: 1-22 (22 pages).

Osewe, I.; Hălălișan, A.F.; Talpă, N.; Popa, B., (2023). Critical analysis of payments for ecosystem services: case studies in kenya, uganda and tanzania. Forests, 14 (6), 1209: 1-20 (20 pages).

Otto, J., (2019). Precarious participation: assessing inequality and risk in the carbon credit commodity chain. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr., 109 (1): 187–201 (16 pages).

Pagdee, A.; Kawasaki, J., (2021). The importance of community perceptions and capacity building in payment for ecosystems services: a case study at phu kao, thailand. Ecosyst. Serv., 47(101224): 1-12 (12 pages).

Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; Chou, R.; Glanville, J.; Grimshaw, J.M.; Hróbjartsson, A.; Lalu, M.M.; Li, T.; Loder, E.W.; Mayo-Wilson, E.; McDonald, S.; … Moher, D., (2021). The prisma 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71: 1-9 (9 pages).

Pan, C.; Shrestha, A.; Innes, J.L.; Zhou, G.; Li, N.; Li, J.; He, Y.; Sheng, C.; Niles, J.O.; Wang, G., (2022). Key challenges and approaches to addressing barriers in forest carbon offset projects. J. For. Res., 33 (4): 1109–1122 (14 pages).

Parikesit,; Withaningsih, S.; Rozi, F., (2021). Socio-ecological dimensions of agroforestry called kebun campuran in tropical karst ecosystem of west java, indonesia. Biodiversitas, 22 (1): 122–131 (11 pages).

Parnphumeesup, P.; Kerr, S.A., (2015). Willingness to pay for gold standard carbon credits. Energy Sources B: Econ. Plan. Policy, 10 (4): 412–417 (7 pages).

Pati, D.; Lorusso, L.N., (2018). How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD-HEALTH. ENV RES., 11 (1): 15–30 (16 pages).

Pentz, E., (2022). Role of crossref in journal publishing over the next decade. Sci. Ed., 9 (1): 53–57 (5 pages).

Peterson St-Laurent, G.; Hagerman, S.; Hoberg, G., (2017). Barriers to the development of forest carbon offsetting: insights from british columbia, canada. J. Environ. Manage., 203 (Part 1): 208–217 (10 pages).

Pollini, J., (2009). Carbon sequestration for linking conservation and rural development in madagascar: the case of the vohidrazana-mantadia corridor restoration and conservation carbon project. J. Sustainable For., 28(3–5): 322–342 (22 pages).

Quandt, A.; Neufeldt, H.; Gorman, K., (2023). Climate change adaptation through agroforestry: opportunities and gaps. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 60(101244) 1-7 (7 pages).

Ranjan, R., (2021). Payments for ecosystems services-based agroforestry and groundwater nitrate remediation: the case of poplar deltoides in uttar pradesh, india. J. Cleaner Prod., 287(125059): 1-15 (15 pages).

Richards, M.; Bruun, T.B.; Campbell, B.M.; Gregersen, L.E.; Huyer, S., (2015). Agriculture's prominence in the indcs. CCAFS Info Note. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) 1-8 (8 pages).

Rode, J.; Escobar, M.M.; Khan, S.J.; Borasino, E.; Kihumuro, P.; Okia, C.A.; Robiglio, V., (2023). Providing targeted incentives for trees on farms: a transdisciplinary research methodology applied in uganda and peru. Earth Syst. Gov., 16: 1-13 (13 pages).

Roshetko, J.M.; Lasco, R.D.; Delos Angeles, M.S., (2007). Smallholder agroforestry systems for carbon storage. Mitigation Adapt. Strategies Global Change, 12 (2): 219–242 (24 pages).

Roy, A.; Bhan, M., (2024). Forest carbon market-based mechanisms in india: learnings from global design principles and domestic barriers to implementation. Ecol. Indic., 158(111331): 1-11 (11 pages).

Saikanth, D.R.K.; Kishore, A.J.; Sadineni, T.; Singh, V.; Upadhyay, L.; Kumar, S.; Saikanth, C.K.P., (2023). A review on exploring carbon farming as a strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci., 35(23): 380–388 (25 pages).

Shamseer, L.; Moher, D.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; Altman, D.G.; Booth, A.; Chan, A.W.; Chang, S.; Clifford, T.; Dickersin, K.; Egger, M.; Gøtzsche, P. C.; Grimshaw, J.M.; Groves, T.; Helfand, M.;… Whitlock, E., (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 349,g7647: 1-25 (25 pages).

Sharma, P.; Bhardwaj, D.R.; Singh, M.K.; Verma, K.; Vishwakarma, S.P.; Kumar, D.; Thakur, P., (2021). Carbon trading in agroforestry: potential, prospects and constraints. In L. Yadav; S.K. Yadav (Eds.), climate change: adaptation, loss and damage (pp. 185–197), (17). Neel Kamal Prakashan (18 pages).

Sharma, R.; Chauhan, S.K.; Tripathi, A.M., (2016). Carbon sequestration potential in agroforestry system in india: an analysis for carbon project. Agrofor. Syst., 90 (4): 631–644 (14 pages).

Staton, T.; Breeze, T.D.; Walters, R.J.; Smith, J.; Girling, R.D., (2022). Productivity, biodiversity trade-offs, and farm income in an agroforestry versus an arable system. Ecol. Econ., 191(107214): 1-10 (10 pages).

Suich, H.; Lugina, M.; Muttaqin, M.Z.; Alviya, I.; Sari, G.K., (2017). Payments for ecosystem services in indonesia. Oryx, 51(3): 489–497 (9 pages).

Temani, F.; Bouaziz, A.; Daoui, K.; Wery, J.; Barkaoui, K., (2021). Olive agroforestry can improve land productivity even under low water availability in the south mediterranean. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 307 (107234): 1-12 (12 pages).

Toensmeier, E., (2022). Paradise lot: a temperate-climate urban agroforestry biodiversity island. in: Montagnini, F. (eds) biodiversity islands: strategies for conservation in human-dominated environments. topics in biodiversity and conservation, vol 20 (pp. 439–459). Springer, Cham (20 pages).

Tremblay, S.; Lucotte, M.; Revéret, J. P.; Davidson, R.; Mertens, F.; Passos, C.J.S.; Romaña, C.A., (2015). Agroforestry systems as a profitable alternative to slash and burn practices in small-scale agriculture of the brazilian amazon. Agrofor. Syst., 89 (2): 193–204 (12 pages).

UNFCCC., (1997). Kyoto protocol to the united nations framework convention on climate change. in united nations climate change, Dec. 10, 1997, 2303 (pp. 1–24) U.N.T.S. 162. (24 pages).

van Noordwijk, M.; Suyamto, D.A.; Lusiana, B.; Ekadinata, A.; Hairiah, K., (2008). Facilitating agroforestation of landscapes for sustainable benefits: tradeoffs between carbon stocks and local development benefits in indonesia according to the fallow model. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 126(1–2): 98–112 (15 pages).

Vázquez-Delfin, P.; Casas, A.; Vallejo, M., (2022). Adaptation and biocultural conservation of traditional agroforestry systems in the tehuacán valley: access to resources and livelihoods strategies. Heliyon, 8 8 (e09805): 1-13 (13 pages).

Waldén, P.; Ollikainen, M.; Kahiluoto, H., (2020). Carbon revenue in the profitability of agroforestry relative to monocultures. Agrofor. Syst., 94 (1): 15–28 (14 pages).

White, A.C.; Faulkner, J.W.; Conner, D.S.; Ernesto Mendez, V.; Niles, M.T., (2022). “How can you put a price on the environment?” farmer perspectives on stewardship and payment for ecosystem services. J. Soil Water Conserv., 77 (3): 270–283 (14 pages).

Wicke, B.; Smeets, E.M.W.; Akanda, R.; Stille, L.; Singh, R.K.; Awan, A.R.; Mahmood, K.; Faaij, A.P.C., (2013). Biomass production in agroforestry and forestry systems on salt-affected soils in south asia: exploration of the ghg balance and economic performance of three case studies. J. Environ. Manage., 127: 324–334 (11 pages).

Wise, R.M.; Cacho, O.J., (2011). A bioeconomic analysis of the potential of indonesian agroforests as carbon sinks. Environ. Sci. Policy, 14 (4): 451–461 (11 pages).

Wunder, S.; Engel, S.; Pagiola, S., (2008). Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ., 65 (4): 834–852 (19 pages).

Wunder, S.; Brouwer, R.; Engel, S.; Ezzine-De-Blas, D.; Muradian, R.; Pascual, U.; Pinto, R., (2018). From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nat. Sustainable. 1(3): 145–150 (6 pages).

Xiao, Y.; Watson, M., (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J. Plan. Educ. Res., 39 (1): 93–112 (20 pages).

Yadav, K.; Yadav, A.V., (2023). Creating economic incentives for agroforestry in assam. For. Policy Econ., 149 (102928): 1-5 (5 pages).

Zerssa, G.; Feyssa, D.; Kim, D.G.; Eichler-Löbermann, B., (2021). Challenges of smallholder farming in ethiopia and opportunities by adopting climate-smart agriculture. Agriculture, 11(3),192: 1–26 (26 pages).

Zawude Bakure, B.; Hundera, K.; Abara, M., (2022). Review on the effect of climate change on ecosystem services. IOP Conference Series: Earth Environ. Sci., 1016: 1-16 (16 pages).

Zomer, R.J.; Neufeldt, H.; Xu, J.; Ahrends, A.; Bossio, D., (2016). Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land : the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Sci Rep 6, 29987: 1-13 (13 Pages).

Letters to Editor

GJESM Journal welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in GJESM should be sent to the editorial office of GJESM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.
[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.
[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.
[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.
[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.
[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.
[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.