An evaluation of farmers’ experiences planting native trees in rural Panama: implications for reforestation with native species in agricultural landscapes

Abstract

In the Republic of Panama, reforestation with native species is of great interest, but many landholders often do not participate in tree planting projects and little information exists about landholder interest in, or experiences with, native trees. This study evaluates the experiences of farmers participating in a native species reforestation initiative in rural Panama to identify lessons learned that can guide on-going or future tree planting efforts. Based on the results of a questionnaire administered to program participants and non-participants (n = 68), we found that trees are important to farmers for multiple reasons, primary a variety of environmental and economic benefits. No relationship between the size of landholdings or land tenure status and the desire to plant trees was found. All participants in the program considered their experience to be positive, few had problems with their plantations, and most were interested in planting more native trees. The program's frequent and ongoing technical support was an important factor for farmers. These results indicate widespread interest in, and success with, planting native species and underscore the need to systematically examine farmers' interests and perceptions when planning, implementing, and evaluating reforestation initiatives.

Trees in the Agricultural Matrix: Reforestation Processes in a Tropical Dry Landscape in Chinandega, Nicaragua

“…A recent study of Panamanian cattle ranchers and small-scale agriculturalists highlights the many diverse reasons farmers may have for maintaining trees, and presents encouraging evidence in their willingness, even eagerness, to increase tree cover, specifically with native species (Garen et al 2011), which is also reflected in this study in Nicaragua. The study analyzes the results of the Native Species Restoration Project (PRORENA), in which farmers chose the types and quantity of trees they wanted to plant from a list of available species.…”

“…The project identified ninety-nine tree species that were utilized and protected by the participants, 72% of which were native. The reasons most cited for planting and maintaining trees were fruit, timber, and living fence, in that order, but 61% of the trees were valued for multiple uses, including improving the environment, providing food and shade for cattle, and supplying wood for construction, furniture and firewood (Garen et al 2011). …”

“…In planning for reforestation or agroforestry project interventions, native species are largely preferable as they are already adapted to local environmental conditions, provide ecological and economic advantages, are often preferred by local farmers already familiar with them, and are more sustainable than exotic species which may introduce invasive threats and are more costly and time-intensive (Piotto et al 2004, Montagnini 2005, Griscom et al 2005, Garen et al 2009, Degrande et al 2013. The limited species diversity available to landowners through nurseries restricts private biodiversity conservation and restoration; but local knowledge can be used to determine which tree species are most useful, scarce, or significant to wildlife to increase the efficacy of restoration forestry or agroforestry systems and ensure that species valued by landowners are available in local nurseries (Suarez et al 2011).…”

“…Swietenia humilis, Cordia alliodora, Gliricidia sepium, are markedly important species locally as well as internationally, and Pachira quinata Jacq, Anacardum excelsum, Guazuma ulmifolia are also valued for multiple uses, including wood for construction and furniture, firewood, food for livestock, and physical attributes such as shade and aesthetics (Galicia 2008, Garen et al 2011. Tabebuia crysantha is also valued locally and listed as endangered but is not available in local nurseries, and several studies have compiled lists of species that demonstrate cultural and environmental utility (Williams-Linera and Lorea 2009, Griscom et al 2005, Suarez et al 2012).…”

“…However, within the larger landscape framework, sitespecific projects should be included in order to incorporate differing anthropogenic preferences, needs and motivations as they vary across landscapes (Garen et al 2011).…”