Why agroforestry may not be the best idea

A farm plot is not just about farming; it also sustains wildlife and communities

India on Monday assured the ongoing climate change conference at Katowice in Poland that the country is committed to meeting its climate goals. In 2015, the country as part of the requirement ahead of the finalisation of the Paris Agreement, listed a series of specific actions it would take to fight climate change. One of the important promises that India made was that it would create 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of additional carbon sinks through extensive afforestation. A key strategy to achieve this goal will be to promote agroforestry or farm forestry, says a report in the Hindustan Times. This focus on agroforestry, a judicious integration of tree species with agricultural crops and/ or animals, is not unexpected since the practice is now recognised as an important one to restore degraded land and improve farmers’ incomes.

While the focus on agroforestry to meet the twin objectives is laudable, there are concerns. One of the strongest criticisms is the emphasis on involving private players in the afforestation efforts, which leads to the question of benefit sharing between them and the landowners/community. Second, experts say the policy is trying to convert agricultural land into a manufacturing enterprise, which is not an ecologically sound solution.

This is because agroforestry, which has a commercial motive at heart, usually leads to planting one particular species of tree. Third, an agricultural plot is not about farming only; it also supports different kinds of wildlife and communities such as pastoralists. The moment a piece of land comes under any kind of plantation, there will be questions about issues of access and community rights. If India wants agroforestry to be the route to meet its climate goals, these serious concerns need to be sorted out first.

The immediate question raised by Qatar leaving the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is, of course, what to call this? Qatarexit, or even Qatexit, sound wrong. Qatar-ta-for-now has a nice ring to it, even if it’s a tad unwieldy. Maybe just go with Qatout.

While that one is a little aggressive, it at least conveys one of the factors likely behind the move. Saudi Arabia has been gunning for Qatar, launching a blockade last year aimed at bringing the Gulf state to heel on issues such as its relations with Iran. With OPEC’s de facto leader having pushed Qatar out into the cold already, the diplomatic benefits of membership can hardly seem that compelling in Doha.

In purely mathematical terms, Qatar’s decision to leave makes little difference: It accounts for less than 2% of OPEC’s crude oil output. The country’s clout in energy markets stems from something outside of OPEC’s purview, namely Qatar’s status as the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. Yet the symbolism of a long-standing, west Asian member leaving is inescapable.

OPEC’s world has drastically changed, and the organisation is ill-equipped to cope with it. The mere fact that it relies on a clutch of non-members, especially Russia, to make its presence felt tells you a great deal about the difficulties it faces. The fact that OPEC has also relied on the collapse of one of its founding members, Venezuela, to drain barrels from the market also says a great deal. Also telling is the likelihood that OPEC and its partners will soon announce a supply cut of at least 1 million barrels a day to halt the recent slide in oil prices — almost exactly two years after announcing the same thing.

The re-emergence of the US as a fastgrowing oil producer and exporter is perhaps the single biggest challenge to OPEC’s authority. The shortened time scales and