Evaluation of the socio-economic impact of agroforestry practices in Ayodhya district, Uttar Pradesh

Introduction

Agroforestry practices are highly valued by researchers and policymakers for their crucial role in delivering ecosystem services. As a sustainable land-use approach, agroforestry enhances productivity while offering significant social and economic benefits to farmers. While traditional agricultural systems primarily provide food and essential resources, integrating trees into farms contributes additional long-term outputs, including timber, fuelwood, fiber, and various nontimber forest products. These systems play a pivotal role in creating diversified and resilient farming landscapes (van Noordwijk et al., 2020; Jhariya et al., 2019a, b, 2021) [13,4] . Eucalyptusbased agroforestry systems, in particular, have been widely adopted by farmers due to their ecological sustainability and ability to produce valuable products like timber and industrial pulp. These systems are not only socially acceptable but also contribute to environmental improvements such as soil and water conservation, enhanced soil fertility, and increased productivity. Furthermore, they offer a significant potential for carbon sequestration, playing a role in climate change mitigation (Raj et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2020a, b) [10,6,7] . The additional products generated by agroforestry significantly improve farmers' livelihoods by increasing their economic gains. These benefits make agroforestry systems more productive and profitable compared to traditional monocropping systems. Many scientific studies have demonstrated the superior productivity of agroforestry over sole cropping systems, reinforcing its value as an integrated and sustainable agricultural approach (Lehmann et al., 2020; Raj et al., 2020a) [9,11] Agroforestry stands as a vital, ecologically oriented natural resource management approach. By harmoniously integrating trees and woody perennials into farm and rangelands, it serves to diversify and sustain production systems. This strategy not only amplifies social and economic gains but also bolsters environmental well-being (Leakey, 2014) [8] . In Uttar Pradesh (U.P.), a state that is home to approximately 16.5% of India's population, agroforestry has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Its role in enhancing agricultural diversification and sustainability underscores its importance in shaping the region's agrarian practices. Eucalyptus-based agroforestry systems, for instance, have become ecologically sound and socially accepted among farmers due to their ability to produce valuable products such as timber and pulp for industrial use (Jhariya et al., 2019) [4] . These systems also contribute to environmental benefits like soil and water conservation, improved fertility, and enhanced productivity, while offering significant potential for carbon sequestration (Raj et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2020) [10,6,7] . The adoption of agroforestry in U.P. highlights its capacity to improve livelihoods through higher economic returns. Additional outputs like timber, fuelwood, fiber, and non-timber forest products provide long-term benefits. Scientific studies and evidence from the region have shown that agroforestry systems often outperform sole cropping systems in terms of productivity and sustainability, reinforcing their role as a key element in resilient and diversified agricultural landscapes (Lehmann et al., 2020; van Noordwijk et al., 2020) [9,13] .

Methodology

Agroforestry, in various forms, has been extensively promoted across different parts of India, including southern Karnataka, parts of Andhra Pradesh, and eastern Uttar Pradesh. Eastern Uttar Pradesh was strategically selected for this study due to its well-established linkages between farmers and industries, which facilitate commercial agroforestry practices. Based on preliminary research, Ayodhya district in eastern Uttar Pradesh emerged as an ideal focus area for its significant agroforestry activities. Using a multi-stage random sampling method, Ayodhya district was chosen for detailed study.Within the district, four blocks-Milkipur, Amaniganj, Sohawal, and Bikapur-were identified. From each block, three villages were randomly selected, and 10 farmers practicing agroforestry were chosen from each village, resulting in a total sample size of 120 farmers across 12 villages. The collected data were poststratified to compare agroforestry practices across various farmholding size categories, providing a deeper insight into the dynamics of agroforestry in the region. The study primarily employed tabular analysis methods along with benefit-cost (B:C) analysis to evaluate the economic viability of agroforestry systems. The B:C ratio was calculated using the approaches outlined by Gittinger (1982) [2] and Jain and Singh (2000) [3] , which provide a robust framework for economic assessment. In this study, the Benefit-Cost Ratio (B:C) was determined using the formula:

Where PVB and PVC are calculated by discounting future benefits and costs to their present values using a specific discount rate, typically 10%.

Mango based agrihorticulture system

Eucalyptus based Bund System Mahagoni based bund system Interaction with farmers

Results and Discussion

The study's findings are structured around the analysis of Ayodhya districts, evaluated within the frameworks of commercial agroforestry systems.

Characteristics of Sample Farmers

The study included 120 farmers from the Ayodhya district.

Table 1 provides a summary of how these farmers were categorized across different groups. The sample farmers in both districts were categorized into three groups based on their total landholdings: marginal, small, and medium to large farmers. In Ayodhya, marginal farmers had an average landholding of 0.55 ha, small farmers held 1.53 ha, and medium to large farmers had 2.92 ha, resulting in an overall average holding size of 2.92 ha. Mean while, in Sultanpur, marginal farmers averaged 0.19 ha, small farmers held 1.54 ha, and medium to large farmers had 3.2 ha, with an overall average holding size of 1.88 ha.

Agroforestry in Ayodhya district

The district practices five main agroforestry systems, which include planting trees along field bunds or farm boundaries and combining tree cultivation with seasonal crops through methods like agrisilviculture, agrisilvihorticulture, silvipastoral, and agrihorticulture. The most common tree species in the area are Tectona grandis (Teak) and Eucalyptus tereticornis hybrids.

Other species, such as Mangifera indica (Mango), Dalbergia sissoo, Swietenia macrophylla, and Melia azedarach, are also present. These trees are often grown along field boundaries or integrated into agroforestry systems like agrisilvihorticulture and agrihorticulture, either paired with Teak and Eucalyptus or as independent plantations. A study conducted in 12 villages across four blocks-Milkipur, Amaniganj, Sohawal, and Bikapur-of Ayodhya district involved interviews with 160 farmers to understand the agroforestry systems they practice. The findings, summarized in Table -2, reveal that the majority of farmers (45%) adopt bund or boundary plantations as their preferred agroforestry system. This is followed by 26.67% of farmers practicing agrisilviculture, 11.67% using agrisilvihorticulture, and 9.16% employing agrihorticulture systems. The least common system was silvipastoral, practiced by only 7.5% of the farmers.

Area coverage and tree density under agroforestry

The average area covered under agroforestry varies across different farm-size categories. Among farmers who have adopted agroforestry systems, large farmers allocate an average of 48% of their total landholding to these practices (as shown in Table -7). Medium farmers dedicate approximately 40.11% of their land, while small farmers allocate an average of 35.95%. An economic evaluation was carried out for Eucalyptus-based bund plantations, featuring a tree density of 400 trees per hectare with 2-meter spacing, managed over an eight-year rotation cycle. The cropping sequence incorporated sugarcane for the first two years, followed by a wheat and rice rotation in subsequent years, reflecting common practices among farmers (Table -6). The analysis revealed a Benefit-Cost (B:C) ratio of 7.00, calculated at a discount rate of 10%. The average annual net returns from the Eucalyptus bund plantation were estimated at Rs. 82,357/-, offering significant economic benefits. In comparison, pure crop rotations yielded higher net returns of Rs. 5,76,500/-per annum. A similar pattern of yield was also reported in the Kaushambi district which is also supported by Ahirwar et al. (2015) [1] . The cost benefit analysis of Eucalyptus based agrisilviculture with a tree density of 481 trees ha-1 and a seven year rotation under sugarcane (first two years) followed by only wheat in the next five years, as followed by the farmers was worked out (Table -7). The B:C worked out to 7.00 at a discount rate of 10 per cent. The average annual net returns worked out to Rs. 191428/-whereas, pure crop rotation gave a net return of only Rs. 1340000/-per annum. This finding is also supported by Yadav (2013) [4] in Khargone Block of Khargone District Madhya Pradesh. The cost benefit analysis of Tectona grandis based bund with a tree density of 266 trees ha-1 with 3m spacing and a seven year rotation under sugarcane (first two years) followed by only wheat in the one years, as followed by the farmers was worked out (Table -8). The B:C worked out to 2.00 at a discount rate of 10 per cent. The average annual net returns worked out to Rs. 411000/-whereas, pure crop rotation gave a net return of only Rs. 822000/-per annum. The cost-benefit analysis of Phyllanthus emblica-based agrihorticulture systems, with a tree density of 278 trees per hectare and a 6x6 meter spacing, was conducted using a sevenyear rotation cycle. This system involved sugarcane cultivation during the first two years, followed by wheat cultivation for the next five years, as practiced by farmers (Table-11).The Benefit-Cost (B:C) ratio, calculated at a 10% discount rate, was found to be 3.00, indicating solid profitability. The average annual net returns for this system were calculated to be Rs. 28,879 per hectare, which is significantly higher than the Rs. 11,734 per hectare per annum from pure crop rotation. The cost-benefit analysis of Swietenia macrophylla-based bund systems, with a tree density of 261 trees per hectare and 3-meter spacing, was conducted using a seven-year rotation cycle. This system incorporated sugarcane cultivation during the first two years, followed by wheat cultivation for the subsequent five years, reflecting the practices adopted by farmers (Table -10).

The Benefit-Cost (B:C) ratio, evaluated at a 10% discount rate, was found to be 15.00, indicating exceptional economic efficiency. The average annual net returns from this system were calculated to be Rs. 1,99,360 per hectare, significantly higher than the Rs. 29,9045 per hectare per annum obtained from pure crop rotations. The cost-benefit analysis of Mangifera indica (Mango) and Eucalyptusbased agrisilviculture systems, with a tree density of 156 trees per hectare and a seven-year rotation period, was conducted using the cropping sequence of sugarcane, wheat, and rice (annual). This analysis reflects the actual practices followed by the farmers. The Benefit-Cost (B:C) ratio, calculated at a discount rate of 10%, demonstrates the economic efficiency of the system. The results revealed that the average annual net returns for the combined agrisilvihorticulture system amounted to Rs. 67,432 per hectare, showcasing the system's profitability. In comparison, a pure crop rotation system yielded significantly lower net returns of only Rs. 53,946 per hectare per annum (table-11), underscoring the financial advantages of integrating trees into agricultural systems. These findings highlight the economic viability and sustainability of agroforestry practices, particularly for long-term income generation and resource optimization. The same trend was also reported by Samriti (2015) in diferent agroforestry systems in the low hills of Himachal Pradesh.

Conclusion

The primary driver for adopting commercial agroforestry in eastern Uttar Pradesh is the assurance of a steady income. Additionally, the availability of fuelwood is a significant factor encouraging farmers to grow trees on their farmlands under these systems. Various tree-based commercial agroforestry practices have proven to be more profitable than traditional cropping patterns in this region. Incorporating trees into farming systems enhances income and employment opportunities for farm households while meeting their wood requirements. Different forms of agroforestry play essential roles in supporting livelihoods and contributing to industrial development. These systems need to be nurtured carefully to ensure their sustainability.

References

1. Ahirwar RF, Verma AK, Shekhawat LS. Cost and income structure of wheat cultivation in Vindhyan Plateau of Madhya Pradesh. Economic Affairs. 2015;60(1):83-88.
2. Gittinger JP. Economic analysis of agricultural products. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1982.
3. Jain SK, Singh P. Economic analysis of industrial agroforestry: Poplar (P. deltoides) in Uttar Pradesh (India). Agroforestry Systems. 2000;49(3):255-273.
4. Jhariya MK, Banerjee A, Meena RS, Yadav DK. Sustainable agriculture, forest and environmental management. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2019. p. 606. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6830-1 (eISBN: 978-981-13-6830-1).
5. Jhariya MK, Meena RS, Banerjee A. Ecological intensification of natural resources for sustainable agriculture. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2021. p. 655. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4203-3 (eISBN: 978-981-334-203-3).
6. Khan N, Jhariya MK, Yadav DK, Banerjee A. Herbaceous dynamics and CO2 mitigation in an urban setup-a case study from Chhattisgarh, India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2020;27(3):2881-2897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07182-8.
7. Khan N, Jhariya MK, Yadav DK, Banerjee A. Structure, diversity and ecological function of shrub species in an urban setup of Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2020;27(5):5418-5432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07172-w.
8. Leakey RR.B. Definition of agroforestry revisited. Agroforestry Today. 1996;8(1):5-7.
9. Lehmann LM, Smith J, Westaway S, Pisanelli A, Russo G, Borek R, Sandor M, Gliga A, Smith L, Ghaley BB. Productivity and economic evaluation of agroforestry systems for sustainable production of food and non-food products. Sustainability. 2020;12(13):5429. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135429.
10. Raj A, Jhariya MK, Bargali SS. Bund based agroforestry using Eucalyptus species: a review. Current Agriculture Research Journal. 2016;4(2):148-158.
11. Raj A, Jhariya MK, Khan N. Agroforestry systems: a boon for developing country. Advances in Environmental Studies. 2020;4(2):368-375.
12. Samriti. Socioeconomic analysis of different agroforestry systems in low hills of Himachal Pradesh. Thesis. Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan, HP, India; 2015.
13. Noordwijk VM, Speelman E, Hofstede GJ, Farida A, Abdurrahim AY, Miccolis A, et al. Sustainable agroforestry landscape management: changing the game. Land. 2020;9(8):243.
14. R.V.S.K.V.V., Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India; 2013.