Integrated Indicators For Performance Assessment of Traditional Agroforestry Systems in South West Cameroon

Agroforest Syst (2009) 77:922
DOI 10.1007/s10457-009-9237-7
Integrated indicators for performance assessment

of traditional agroforestry systems in South West Cameroon
Geraldo Stachetti Rodrigues Inacio de Barros
Euge`ne Ejolle Ehabe Patrick Sama Lang
Frank Enjalric
Received: 13 February 2008 / Accepted: 29 May 2009 / Published online: 13 June 2009
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Farming Systems developed in Humid

Tropical Zones are frequently characterized by a
combination of perennial and annual plants, intermixed in complex tree-crop associations. The
G. S. Rodrigues (&)
Embrapa Labex Europe, Montpellier, France
e-mail: stacheti@cnpma.embrapa.br
URL: http://www.agropolis.fr/international/labex.html
Present Address:
G. S. Rodrigues
Unite Propre de Recherche Performance des syste`mes de
culture de plantes perennesCIRAD-PerSyst, Avenue
Agropolis, 34398 Montpellier, France
I. de Barros
INRA, Unite de Recherche Agropedoclimatique da la
Zone Carabe, Domaine Duclos, 97170 Petit-Bourg
(Guadeloupe), France
e-mail: indebarros@antilles.inra.fr
E. E. Ehabe
Latex Programme, Institute of Agricultural Research for
Development (IRAD), Ekona Regional Research Centre,
PMB 25, Buea, Cameroon
e-mail: e_ehabe@yahoo.com
productive functioning, the agronomic and economic

performances, and the sustainability of these crop
associations remain poorly understood. To improve the
management capacity of these complex agroforestry
systems, adequate indicators must be developed and
integrated in assessment systems. These may then be
used to aid farmers, assisted by their extension agents,
in making decisions regarding management practices.
The present study focused on the agroforestry systems
developed by 38 farmers in the South West Region of
Cameroon, which were surveyed for a large set of
variables, aiming at formulating a Traditional Agroforestry Performance Indicators System (TAPIS).
Analyses of the relationships among indicators in
TAPIS allowed an improved understanding of agroecological and agro-economic performances in the
studied plots, revealed tradeoffs regarding plant stand,
income generation, food production, input demands
and work requirements; and may contribute to the
sustainability assessment of agroforestry systems.
Keywords Agroforestry systems (AFS)
Sustainability assessment Integrated indicators
Traditional agriculture
P. S. Lang
CARBAP (Centre Africain de Recherche sur la Banane et
le Plantain), Douala, Cameroon
e-mail: p_samalang@yahoo.com
F. Enjalric
Unite Mixte de Recherche Syste`me, CIRAD Cultures
Perennes, 2 Place Viala, 34000 Montpellier, France
e-mail: enjalric@cirad.fr
Introduction
Although highly varied, typical traditional farming
systems in Humid Tropical Zones (HTZ) are most
123
10
commonly diversified, plurispecific and multi-layered

associations of perennial and annual plants, coexisting in long-lasting, complex and ever evolving
cropping stands. Even if usually managed with low
levels of inputs and technology application, these
farming systems tend to have acceptable productive
and economic performance, while being less susceptible to climatic risks and showing excellent social
acceptability. Although confronted with low land
availability and low soil fertility, shortening of fallow
periods and market insertion difficulties, such Agroforestry Systems (AFS) continue to ensure the
livelihood of large portions of rural populations in
HTZ. Given the current value placed on preserving
the ways of life of traditional peoples, these AFS
represent much more than a simple subsistence
alternative, but a contribution to conservation of
biodiversity and to sustainability (Nair 1998).
The continued contribution of traditional AFS to
these aforementioned objectives depends upon a
better understanding of their agro-ecological and
socio-economic performances (Nair 2001; Schroth
and Sinclair 2003). However, methods and indicators
usually enlisted for the performance evaluation of
conventional (intensive, mono-cropping) farming
systems are inappropriate for these AFS (Kumar
and Nair 2004), given the essential role played by
issues such as family income and food security, work
productivity, harvest diversification, input independence, judicious use of natural resources and management of beneficial and adventitious plants (Izac
2003). Even simpler attributes such as biomass
production and yields in these spatially stratified
and temporally heterogeneous systems are structurally different from those observed in mono-cropped
areas (Rao and Coe 1991).
Studies with detailed characterization of tree-crop
biodiversity trends and interactions in traditional AFS
have been widely carried out, e.g., in the Vanuatu
archipelago (Barrau 1955; Bonnemaison 1996; Strobel 1998; Walter and Leplaideur 1999; Greindl 2000;
Allen 2001; Seremele 2002; Morelli 2003; Lamanda
2005). The descriptive approach of these studies,
however, hampers their application to support farmers management decisions, or even to carry out
performance assessments, based on meaningful ecological, agronomic and economic indicators. Nonetheless, the successful design and sustainable
management of AFS depends on the ability to
123
harness a very diverse set of biophysical, economic

and social data, and organize them into synthetic,
understandable recommendations (Ellis et al. 2004)
that account for and elucidate the relationships and
tradeoffs among concurrent indicators.
The adoption of such tools in the management of
farming systems can greatly favour the sustainability
of AFS, by improving farmers decision making
regarding, for example, the planning of land partitioning and sequencing of perennial and annual crops;
the selection of appropriate practices for weed and
pest control; and the allocation of inputs, resources,
investment capacity and workforce and product
destination. These issues constitute priorities in the
appraisal of challenges and opportunities for the
agricultural sector of developing regions. This is
especially true in the HTZ, where diversified agroforestry systems are usually practised in small family
plots much in need of technical and managerial
support (Tollens 2003), and where sustainability
issues are becoming more evident in policy making,
as in Central and West Africa (Duguma et al. 2001).
Hence, appropriate indicators have been eagerly
sought to allow for performance assessment and the
ensuing recommendation of management practices
for AFS.
The present study focused on the performance
assessment of AFS in the South West Region of
Cameroon, aiming at (1) proposing an integrated
indicator system that may aid farmers, assisted by
their extension agents, to decide on management
practices and (2) contributing toward sustainability
evaluations of traditional agroforestry systems.
Choice of approach for indicator definition
and expression
Sustainability assessment and its consideration for
farm management consist of an exercise of translating concepts, ideas and paradigms into locally valid
value judgments, according to locally defined objectives, systematized into practical measurement procedures and meaningful expression units (Bosshard
2000). Once the objectives have been defined, namely
to improve farmers management capacity (essentially a biophysical efficiency attribute) and to foster
sustainability of landholdings (essentially a socioeconomic adequacy attribute), it is possible to list and
select appropriate field measurements to produce
coherent indicators (Bockstaller et al. 1997; Girardin

et al. 1999; Lewandowski et al. 1999; Rodrigues
2004).
These aforementioned objectives for sustainability
assessment of AFS provide the basis for grading all
selected field measurement variables according to
improved or worsened performance, allowing the
ranking of plots and combined production practices
into normalized and aggregated indicators (Andreoli
and Tellarini 2000). The advantage of opting for
normalization of data sets and indicators (instead of,
for example, utility valuation or benchmarking) is the
consistency obtained for the ranking baseline, and the
meaning of the information conveyed by the indicators pertaining to the local reality (Hardi and
DeSouza-Huletey 2000).
The objective of devising an assessment system to
aid farmers and extension agents in management and
decision making requires that the aggregation and
expression of indicators should favour prompt understanding, preferably with clear visualization of performance levels and tradeoffs among sets of
indicators. The expression of assessment results in a
normalized scale eases comparison among different
indicators without the need for weighting factors,
thereby facilitating integration and clear graphic
expression, as accomplished for example with the
now widely used sustainability polygons (Hani et al.
2003; Rodrigues and Moreira-Vinas 2007).
These premises have been carefully observed in the
present choice of format for organizing an AFS
sustainability and performance assessment framework, based on relative ranking and indexing procedures (Liebig et al. 2004), so as to provide a single
unifying measure (non-dimensional) for the multiple
monetary and non-monetary units measured in the field
(Hajkowicz 2005). Also, in order to build consistency
for the ranking baseline, variables and indicators must
be equally valid and similarly surveyed, with the
advantage of making the information conveyed by the
indicators to the farmers more meaningful within the
locally encompassed reality, well represented by the
mean performance [that is, the composite output
indicator (Bockstaller and Girardin 2003)]. It was
with the aim of satisfying these requisites and choice of
approach that the Traditional Agroforestry Performance Indicators System (TAPIS) described in the
following sections has been devised and validated in
the present case study.
11
Research setting and methodology

Field observations were carried out on 38 typical
agroforestry plots owned by farmers who agreed to
participate in the study, distributed around Kumba and
extending to the Bombe-Malende zones (4250
4800 N and 9250 9350 E) in the South West Region
of Cameroon. These regions fall within the rainforest
area (mean precipitation 2,852 mm year-1), have a
marked rainy season (March to October) and high
mean annual temperatures (*23C). Soils are ferrallitic with patches of fertile volcanic areas, and altitudes
varying from 25 to 400 m toward the North. The land
use systems in the area are typically characterized as
agroforestry (Sinclair 1999), permanently occupied
(no fallow) small areas integrating main perennials
(cocoa, oil palm and rubber trees), food crops (plantain,
cassava, yams, maize, banana, etc.) and native trees (as
well as ornamentals and medicinal plants not considered in the surveys). The main crops, their development stages and basic terrain characteristics of the
studied plots can be seen in Table 1.
A comprehensive questionnaire and a field survey
datasheet were developed and filled out for the 38
selected plots. These contained information on the
variables derived from researchers proposed checklists and previous inventory procedures: identification
of farmers (name, gender and age, origin, education,
main occupation, sources of income, family composition, land property status, availability of working
tools, etc.), plot location and land use history
(cultivated area, crop stands, crop development stages
and densities, native trees and adventitious plants
presence, etc.) and plot economics (value of production per crop, sales and self-consumption, input
acquisition, expenses, costs, revenue, etc.).
Data collection involved a first visit to interview
the farmer, locate the plot and note general characteristics and fill out the household and production/
economics information sheet (all data gathered for
expression as ha-1 year-1). Subsequent visits (number conditioned by complexity of plot composition)
were dedicated to sampling plants for identification
as needed and to describing plant stands (horizontal
and vertical typology, based on complete observation
or randomly demarcated 100 m2 replicated plots) and
the chronosequence based on production stage and
characterization of agricultural practices and determinants. Verification of the interview data for
123
12
Table 1 Main crops and development stages, basic terrain characteristics and mean indicator indices of studied plots
Parcel
number
Main
perennial crop
Main crop
development stage
Altitude
(m)
Cocoa
Immature
219
Cocoa
Immature
Cocoa
Immature
Cocoa
Clay
(%)
Mean agroeconomic
performance
Mean agroecological
performance
35
0.375
0.371
220
50
0.280
0.230
229
10
30
0.332
0.334
Immature
178
40
0.393
0.243
Cocoa
In production
216
40
0.341
0.232
Cocoa
In production
225
40
0.327
0.199
Cocoa
In production
223
30
0.298
0.302
Cocoa
In production
213
15
35
0.390
0.218
Cocoa
In production
215
35
0.412
0.230
10
Cocoa
In production
200
35
0.352
0.243
11
Cocoa
In production
205
20
0.286
0.256
12
Oil palm
Immature
207
30
0.376
0.236
13
Oil palm
Immature
224
35
0.325
0.328
14
Oil palm
Immature
118
20
0.354
0.402
15
16
Oil palm
Oil palm
In production
In production
199
172
1
3
35
30
0.423
0.499
0.276
0.270
17
Oil palm
In production
206
20
15
0.345
0.230
18
Oil palm
In production
208
35
0.367
0.430
19
Rubber tree
Immature
219
35
0.265
0.351
20
Rubber tree
In production
209
40
0.323
0.226
21
Cocoa
Immature
45
30
0.459
0.347
22
Cocoa
Immature
67
35
0.434
0.403
23
Cocoa
Immature
89
40
0.429
0.279
24
Cocoa
Immature
38
30
0.525
0.463
25
Cocoa
In production
45
40
0.627
0.345
26
Cocoa
In production
28
40
0.428
0.246
27
Cocoa
In production
56
20
40
0.430
0.339
28
Oil palm
Immature
87
12.5
30
0.505
0.335
29
Oil palm
Immature
56
30
0.325
0.397
30
31
Oil palm
Oil palm
Immature
In production
34
25
4
5
30
30
0.556
0.405
0.392
0.537
32
Oil palm
In production
56
25
0.579
0.370
33
Oil palm
In production
85
30
0.374
0.344
34
Rubber tree
Immature
82
30
0.532
0.333
35
Rubber tree
Immature
67
30
0.562
0.407
36
Rubber tree
Immature
65
30
0.340
0.173
37
Rubber tree
In production
69
30
0.387
0.334
38
Rubber tree
In production
70
25
40
0.577
0.273
consistency with plot history and described stand was

also carried out during the field visits.
All basic variables collected were then combined
with additional external information, such as produce
123
Slope
(%)
prices and workforce costs, to produce intermediate

measures such as total plant stand diversity and
density, adventitious and spontaneous plants diversity
and densities, partial and total input costs, total
13
expenditures and revenues, etc. Finally, indicators

were created by the aggregation of variables, and
normalized for all farmers into indices of relative
performance by linear transformation based on the
indicator score for each farmer and the maximum
indicator score across all plots.
Two sustainability dimensions, agro-economic and
agro-ecological, were defined for plot performance
ranking, each comprised of a set of eight indicators,
as follows:
Agro-economic dimension
indicators
Agro-ecological dimension
indicators
(1) Income
(1) Harvest
(2) Input expenses
(2) Area equivalence index
(3) Pesticide independence
(3) Soil resource use index
(4) Hired workforce

independence
(4) Productive diversity
(5) Family workforce

engagement
(5) Diversity of associated

arboreal species
(6) Total workforce

independence
(6) Adventitious plants

controllability
(7) Internal gross added

value
(7) Beneficial adventitious

plants
(8) Total gross added value
(8) Adventitious plants

infestation control
The composition of these locally meaningful

indicators resulted from (1) a regression significance
analysis of the broad set of field variables surveyed,
(2) the experience attained by contact with the
farmers and the local reality, and (3) a review of
integrated indicators systems for environmental farm
(and AFS) management. Accordingly, agro-economic
indicators were devised to assess the essential socioeconomic adequacy attributes of cash flow, work
dedication, expenses and profitability (Hani et al.
2003; Monteiro and Rodrigues 2006). Agro-ecological indicators were, for their part, devised to cover
the essential biophysical efficiency attributes of
productivity, land use, productive diversity and weed
competition (Liebman 1988; Akinnifesi et al. 1999;
Schroth 1999; Schroth et al. 2001; Hani et al. 2003).
The rationale underlying the choice of indicators and
intervening variables were defined as shown below.
Agro-economic dimension indicators

Income score for each plot was estimated as the sum
of income from all crops, normalized by maximum
obtained income across all plots:
iIni
Ini
Inmax
and
Ini
n
X
Cc
c1
10000
Si
where iIni was the income score of plot i (no unit); Ini
the total crop income per hectare (in FCFA); Inmax
the maximum crop income obtained across all plots
(in FCFA); Cc refers to the income provided by the
crop c and Si the area of the plot (in m2).
Input expenses score was the sum of expenses for
all inputs, normalized by maximum input expenses
across all plots:
iExi
Exi
Exmax
and Exi
n
X
e1
Iee
10000
Si
where iExi was the input expenses score of plot i (no

unit); Exi the total expense for all inputs per hectare
(in FCFA); Exmax the maximum input expenses
obtained across all plots (in FCFA); Iee refers to
the expense for the input e and Si the area of the plot
(in m2).
Pesticide independence score was the balance of
the sum of expenses on herbicides and pesticides,
normalized by the maximum pesticide expenses
across all plots:
iPesti 1
Pesti
Pesti
and
Pestmax
!
n
m
X
X
10000
Chh
Cpp
Si
p1
h1
where iPesti was the pesticide independence of plot i

(no unit); Pesti the total expense for herbicides and
pesticides per hectare (in FCFA); Pestmax the maximum expenses for herbicides and pesticides obtained
across all plots (in FCFA per hectare); Chh refers to
the expense for herbicide h, Cpp refers to the expense
for pesticide p and Si the area of the plot (in m2).
Hired workforce independence score was the
balance of total cost of hired workers per hectare,
normalized by maximum cost of labour across all
plots:
123
14
iWf i 1
Wf i
Wf max
and
Wf i Wfti
10000
Si
where iWfi was the hired workforce independence

index of plot i (no unit); Wfi was the total cost of
hired workforce per hectare (in FCFA per hectare);
Wfmax the maximum observed cost of hired workforce per hectare across all plots (in FCFA per
hectare); Wfti refers to the total costs of hired
workforce in the plot and Si the area of the plot (in
m2).
Family workforce engagement score for each plot
was the total estimated value of family work per
hectare, normalized by maximum family work value
across all plots:
iFwei
Fwei
Fwemax
and
Fwei Fwvi
10000
Si
where iFwei was the family workforce engagement

index for plot i (no unit); Fwei the estimated value of
the family workforce (in FCFA per hectare); Fwemax
the maximum estimated value of the family workforce per hectare across all plots (in FCFA); Fwvi
refers to the total estimated value of the family
workforce per hectare in the plot and Si the area of the
plot (in m2).
Total workforce independence score for each plot
was the balance of total cost and value of (family and
hired) workers per hectare, normalized by workforce
independence across all plots:
iTwf i
Twf i
Twf max
and
Twf i 1 Wf i Fwei
6
where iTwfi was the total workforce independence

index for plot i (no unit); Twfi the total cost and value
of (family and hired) workers per hectare (in FCFA).
Internal gross added value score for each plot was
the sum of income from all crops minus the sum of all
expenses, per hectare, normalized by internal gross
added value across all plots:
iGavi
Gavi
Gavmax
and Gavi Ini Exi
where iGavi was the internal gross added value index

for plot i (no unit) and Gavi the internal gross added
value per hectare (in FCFA).
Total gross added value score for each plot was the
sum of income from all crops minus the sum of all
123
expenses excluding the value of family work, per

hectare, normalized by total gross added value across
all plots:
iTgai
Tgai
Tgamax
and
Tgai Ini Exi Fwei

8
where iTgai was the total gross added value index for
plot i (no unit) and Tgai the total gross added value
per hectare (in FCFA).
Agro-ecological dimension indicators
Total Harvest score per hectare for each plot was
estimated as the sum of production from all crops,
normalized by maximum obtained production across
all plots:
!
n
X
Hi
10000
iHi
and Hi
Pcc
9
Si
Hmax
c1
where iHi was the harvest score for each plot; Hi the
total crop harvest per hectare (in kg) and Pcc the
harvested mass of each crop c.
Area equivalence index (Aei) score for each plot
was the sum of the ratios of each given crop density
and the standard density for each given crop in
monoculture (Liebman 1988), normalized by maximum Aei across all plots:
iAeii
Aeii
Aeimax
and Aeii
n
X
Cdc
c1
Sdc
10
where iAeii was the area equivalence index score (no

unit); Aeii the area equivalence index (in ha ha-1);
Aeimax the maximum observed Aei observed across
all plots; Cd observed planting density (in plants
ha-1) and Sd the standard density for crop c in
monoculture (in plants ha-1). The Sd values used in
this study are presented in Table 2.
Soil resources use index (Sui) score for each plot
was the AEIi, weighted with a (0.1) discount for
annuals and stage one perennials, normalized by
maximum SUI across all plots:
iSuii
While
Suii
Suimax
and
Suii
n
X
c1
Succ
15
Table 2 Standard densities for the main crops in monocropping (in plants ha-1) used for Area equivalence index
calculations
Crop
Latin name
Standard density
(plants ha-1)
Cocoa
Theobroma cacao
1,300
Oil palm
Elaeis guineensis
143
Rubber tree
Hevea brasiliensis
Coffee
Coffea spp.
Plantain
Musa spp.
Cassava
Cocoyam
Manihot esculenta
Xanthosoma sagittigolium
10,000
10,000
25,000
550
1,500
1,600
Maize
Zea mays
Yam
Dioscorea spp.
10,000
Pineapple
Ananas commosus
30,000
Egusi
Citrullus lanatus
where Davi was the adventitious plant (weed)

controllability score; Advv the area covered by the
adventitious species v (in % area) and Advt the sum
of area covered by all adventitious plants (in %
area).
Beneficial adventitious plants score for each plot
was the sum of the ratios of cover (% cover) for the
selected non-weed adventitious plants (especially
N-fixing legumes (Schroth et al. 2001)) and the sum
of cover for all weeds in the plot:
Pn
Bai
Nada
iBai
and Bai a1
15
Bamax
Advi
2,500
Peanut
Arachis hypogea
50,000
Huckleberry
Solanum scabrum
150,000
Eggplant
Solanum melongea
10,000
Avocado
Persea americana
trees of species a and Ntt the total number of

spontaneous trees.
Adventitious plants controllability score for each
plot was the balance of the ShannonWienner Index
(H0 ) of the proportion of adventitious plants infesting
the plot:
!
n
X
Advv
Advv
Davi 1
ln
14
Advi
Advi
v1
120
Source: CIRADGRET 2002

Cdc
Succ Sd
if c perennial stage [ 1
c
Cdc
Succ 0:1Sd if c annual or perennial stage 1:
c
11
where iSuii was the soil resources use index score (no
unit); Suii the soil resources use index (no unit);
Suimax, the maximum observed Sui across all plots
and Suc the soil resource use coefficient (no unit).
Productive diversity score for each plot was the
ShannonWiener Index (H0 ) of the proportion of
income from all crops:
!
n C 10000
X
Cc 10000
c
Si
Si
Pdi
ln
12
Ini
Ini
c1
where Pdi was the productive diversity index.
Diversity of associated arboreal species score for
each plot was the ShannonWiener Index (H0 ) of the
proportion of spontaneous tree species conserved in
the plot:
!
n
X
Nta
Nta
Dari
ln
13
Nti
Nti
a1
where Dari was the Diversity of associated arboreal
species score for plot i; Nta the number of spontaneous
where iBai was the beneficial adventitious plants

score and Nad the area covered by selected non-weed
adventitious plants a.
Finally, adventitious plant infestation control score
for each plot was the balance of the product of the
sum of each adventitious species cover (including
over cover) and the total adventitious surface cover,
normalized by the maximum observed value across
all plots:
Pn

Adci
Ai;a
iAdci 1
and Adci a1
Adcmax
Ai
16
where iAdci was the adventitious plant infestation
control score, Adci the ratio between the sum of the
estimated coverage for each adventitious species Ai, a
and the estimated field coverage by adventitious
species Ai. This indicator accounts for the overcoverage between the different species, as two or
more adventitious plants may occupy the same tridimensional space over the field surface.
With these formulations, all indicators fit within a
relative performance index from 0 to 1 (Hajkowicz
2005), allowing straightforward aggregation and
integrated ranking of all plots under the two sustainability dimension axes, related to agro-economic and
123
16
agro-ecological performances. The integrated analysis of the assessment results consisted of graphic
examination of performance indices for the 16
indicators, individually for each plot and for the
mean of all plots. Linear regression analyses were
also carried out for interpretation of convergences
and tradeoffs in the full set of indicator indices,
across all plots.
To make the integrated system more interactive, a
blank open line was included in the TAPIS spreadsheets to allow farmers and extension agents to use it
for the assessment of new plots, or for the periodic
reassessment of previously studied plots to check for
any performance changes as crops mature, or the
efficacy of management improvements carried out, in
relation to the database currently available within the
system.
Results
General data regarding plot sizes, distribution according to production stage for the three different main
crops, associated annual crops, presence of spontaneous arboreal species and basic economics are
displayed in Table 3. Although some of these data
integrate information that comprise certain of the
indicators in TAPIS, their expression as raw values,
share of the gross income distribution and contrasts
according to plot situation provided in Table 3 offer a
complementary understanding of the local agroforestry productive arrangement. With sizes ranging
from just 1,000 m2 up to 4.0 ha, irrespective of main
crops and production stages, all plots are densely
packed with perennial seedlings and a diversity of
annuals in the implantation phases, progressing to
still dense plant stands even when main crops reach
production; with the exception of rubber tree plots,
which tend to almost exclude annuals after onset of
latex extraction. The small number of spontaneous
trees in the plots confirms their relatively intensive
management, while not showing a definite tendency
according to the production stage or type of main
crop.
Gross incomes vary from approximately 640
1,120 US$ ha-1 year-1, with oil palm bringing the
larger amounts. When accounting for expenditures,
pesticide uses tend to reach a maximum of 18% for
cocoa and 13% for rubber trees (essentially ethylene),
123
both in their productive stages, while not used in oil

palm plots. The sum of other inputs (fertilizers, plant
multiplication material and transportation) tend to be
most important in the immature stages of the main
crops, reaching 56% in oil palm and up to 50% in
cocoa plots, essentially for acquisition of seedlings.
In several instances, negative cash flows were
observed in this stage, with farmers investing to
establish their perennial crop stands. These expenditures for other inputs were sharply reduced in the
productive stages of the main crops, remaining at
most at just 6.4% in rubber tree plots (Table 3).
An important income item in the studied plots is
production for self consumption (as added value
obtained from associated annuals). While being
predominant in the immature stages of main crops
development, it accounts for approximately 20, 40
and 60% in rubber tree, cocoa, and oil palm plots
respectively. These correspond to essential gains
during the investment phase of plant stand implementation, when expenditures on inputs tend to be
higher. Costs then shift to workforce demand (be
these hired or familial) for mature stand management
and harvesting, resulting in net incomes ranging from
224 to 731 US$ ha-1 year-1 for oil palm in immature
and production stages respectively (all gains considered, including self consumption).
The aggregated results for the mean performance
indices across all plots (included in Table 1) show
that no farmer obtained combined agro-economic and
agro-ecological indices ranked within the upper
performance quartile, according to the set of indicators assessed in TAPIS (Fig. 1). Even if one considers
the modest socio-economic situation of the region,
and the typically small, plurispecific character of the
plots represented in the dataset, this result implies, on
the one hand, performance unevenness among farmers within each of the indicators; and on the other,
important tradeoffs among indicators for all plots.
This is reaffirmed with the hypothetical representation of a new observation expressing the third
quartile level for the field variables evenly across all
plots, which is the mechanism for including new
plots, or re-assessments, in TAPIS.
Observation of the distribution of main crops and
their development stages (whether immature or in
production) shows that there are no evident clusters
determining performance trends, which was confirmed in an agglomerative hierarchical clustering
1.09
All proportions based on total income per year
39.1
50.6
3.8
Proportiona of income spent with pesticides (%)
Proportion of income as self-consumption (%)
368
Plot mean net income (US$ ha-1 year-1)
Proportion of income spent with other inputs (%)
804
Plot mean gross income (US$ ha-1 year-1)

Exchange rate 527.3 fcfa per US$ (01/12/08)
Economics according to production stage
10,430
8.8
1.1
18.1
565
780
0.0
450
Maize (08 plots)
470
Cassava (16 plots)
257
1,228
1,773
1,742
Main associated annual crops

density (plants ha-1), for plots where present,
combinations varying widely
56 (10)
Cocoyam (Xanthosoma) (22 plots) 1,745
1,700
Plantain (29 plots)
Main crop density (plants ha-1)
Mean number of spontaneous arboreal species

(actual occurrence ha-1)
1.32
(0.072.0) (0.242.0)
1.10
62.0
55.7
0.0
224
639
12
3,130
3,300
10,450
573
223
46 (06)
15.0
1.9
0.0
731
1,122
3,000
7,000
7,800
228
206
54 (07)
(0.21.31) (0.352.36)
0.81
18.2
3.5
6.5
657
967
17,640
20
6,630
220
815
60 (04)
(0.223.5)
1.19
In production Immature
5.2
6.4
13.6
688
800
13
0.0
0.0
1,280
0.0
820
40 (03)
(0.104.0)
1.65
In production
Oil palm production stage Rubber tree production

stage
Immature In production Immature
Cocoa production stage
44 (08)
Main crop
Plots according to main crop production stage:

proportion within crop and (number within sample)
Plot size mean and (range, ha)
Characteristics
Table 3 Plot sizes, distribution according to production stage for the three different main crops, associated annuals, presence of spontaneous arboreal species, and basic
economics

17
123
18
Fig. 1 Aggregated agroeconomic and agroecological performance

indices for 38 plots studied
in south west Cameroon
with the Traditional
Agroforestry Performance
Indicators System (TAPIS).
Open symbols represent
immature stages of main
crop development, filled
symbols represent main
crops in production stage.
Main crops are represented
as follows: m cocoa, d oil
palm, j rubber tree
Traditional Agroforestry Performance
Agroecological Indicators
1.0
New observation
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Agroeconomic Indicators
Mean Agroecological Performance
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Mean Agroeconomic Performance

Observations
Predictions
Conf. on prediction (95.00%)
Fig. 2 Linear regression analysis between agro-economic and

agro-ecological performance indices for the 38 plots studied
with TAPIS in south west Cameroon. Regression equation for
predicted linear regression: mean agroecological performance = 0.198 ? 0.282 9 mean agroeconomic performance
(P-value = 0.046)
carried out on the dataset. This means that the variety

of crop combinations, associated production stages,
and practices adopted in the different plots were more
important in determining performance, as indicated
by TAPIS indicators, than the main crop alone, while
a significant relationship still exists between the sets

of indicators for the two axes (Fig. 2).
About one-fifth (8 out of 38) of the plots gave
agro-economic mean performance indices above the
0.5 level, with the best performance indices being
123
19
Income
Harvest (kg) / ha
Input expenses
Total Gross Added Value
Internal Gross Added Value
Pesticide independence
Total work force independence
Hired work force independence

(men days)
Family work force engagement (men

days)
Adventitious Plants Infestation

control
Area Equivalent Index
Soil Resources Use Index
Beneficial adventitious plants
Productive diversity
Adventitious Plants Controllability
Diversity Associated Arboreal

Species
Fig. 3 Mean results for the agroeconomic and agroecological

dimension indicators studied in 38 plots in south west
Cameroon with the Traditional Agroforestry Performance
Indicators System (TAPIS). s mean of immature development

stage and h in production stage of the main crop
related to Pesticide independence (mean = 0.80,

measured according to expenses, hence an agroeconomic indicator), Total workforce independence
(mean = 0.78), and Hired workforce independence
(mean = 0.66, Fig. 3). This result means that, on
average, low expenditures were directed toward
pesticide inputs and hired worker recruitment. Interestingly enough, these indicators are inversely and
significantly correlated with the level of Income and
Added value (or profit, both internal and total), which
in turn are directly correlated among themselves,
meaning that those who obtain better incomes tend to
rely on higher investments. These trends are confirmed by a very low level of Input expenses (0.08) in
general, and a fairly low level of Family worker
engagement (0.21).
Regarding the agro-ecological indicators, and with
only one exception, all plots ranked in the lower
performance quartile (Fig. 1). Only the Adventitious
plants infestation control indicator reached a mean
value above 0.5 (0.61), indicating a certain equitability among the local farmers, which is interpreted as
a tendency for an adequate management situation for
the indicator (Fig. 3), as suggested by a significant
positive correlation between this indicator and the
adventitious plants controllability. This latter indicator, itself related to a low diversity of weeds, is
significantly but inversely correlated with the presence of Beneficial adventitious plants. This strategy
seems logical as weeding is a major time consuming
agricultural practice and usually a constraint for
farmers.
The Area equivalence index was the second
highest among the agro-ecological performance
indicators (value = 0.47), being related to a high

level of crop association (max = 4.9 ha ha-1). Not
surprisingly, the plot with the highest level of crop
association showed one of the highest Productive
diversity indices (0.71), but lowest Soil resource use
index (0.22), and lowest Harvest (0.08), given the
clear situation of immature crop stand for the
perennials. This expected correlation between AEI
and Productive diversity (that is, crop variety) is
verified as significant in the general dataset.
Confirming the performance results and the tradeoffs observed for the agro-economic indicators for the
whole group of plots, with mean Income and Added
value indicators being low, the total Harvest indicator
showed the lowest mean agro-ecological performance
index, implying that the majority of the plots had
dense plant stands (high AEI) consisting mostly of
still immature crops, resulting in a low mean Soil
resource use index (0.31). In fact, only 15 of the 38
plots (*40%) already had the main perennial crop in
production stage. A modest Diversity of associated
arboreal species (0.33) indicated a relatively low
importance of non-crop, spontaneous tree species
conserved in the plots.
Discussion and conclusions

The use of a sampling strategy directed at complex
plurispecific cropping systems fulfilled a two-way
objective: on the one hand it brought homogeneity in
spatial scale and level of management capacity, and
on the other hand it introduced a great heterogeneity
in terms of complexity and temporal dynamics
123
20
(cropping stages, volume of production, plant density, produce self-consumption, etc.), in order to
include very contrasting contexts. The representation
of the actual situation observed at the moment of
sampling and extrapolation to the yearly and hectare
scale levels led to a maximal range in the observed
results, so that the occurrence of outliers favoured the
establishment of extremes in the sample range. This
is why the results show no clear clustering of plots
according to their main characteristics, be these main
perennial crop, crop diversity or total plant stand.
Thus, there is no chronosequence or other clear
grouping order for arranging the plots; nonetheless
the set of integrated indicators generated in TAPIS
still remain applicable and meaningful.
The fact that no plot was ranked within the higher
performance quartile when both dimensions were
considered in TAPIS confirms the important tradeoffs
among concurrent indicators frequently observed in
AFS, especially for the duration of the transition
phase of the implantation of perennial crops, when
low income is simultaneous with high input demands
and work requirements (Schroth et al. 2001). These
kinds of tradeoffs were clearly observed in the
present study among, for instance, crop stand intensification and income generation, given the immature
stage of development (hence low harvest) for the
most densely packed plots.
One important observation resulting from the
integration of indicators in TAPIS, however, is that
these opportunities for tradeoffs are a valuable
attribute of the studied AFS, given their high level
of crop association and diversified productive base,
which offer farmers alternatives for work dedication
and income generation, even under low external input
investment. In other words, under the low investment
and low input regime practised in the studied AFS,
work capacity is a decisive factor in management
adjustment, which drives farmers decisions regarding the geometry and intensification level of their
cropping systems (Feintrenie et al. 2008).
At the same time, the significant correlation
observed in the present study between Income and
hired worker expenditures points to an important role
of AFS for the creation of local employment or
occupation opportunities in the studied group of
farmers. The significant correlation observed for
these indicators when considered for the whole
dataset means that, contrary to an expectation that
123
savings on inputs and workforce would lead to

improved income and hence superior combined agroeconomic performance, in reality the larger the
income (and the profit), the larger the input-buying
capacity and the need for workers.
A most evident agro-ecological attribute of the
studied plots was the very high level of cropping
association and stand intensification, with half of the
plots showing a combined plant stand at least twice as
high as their mono-cropping standard. The resulting
productive diversity is a favourable attribute providing options for farmers work dedication and produce
generation, as stressed above. As this high level of
stand intensification implies immature perennials, it
was positively related to the priority given by farmers
to keeping adventitious plants in check, and also
correlated with their controllability (Ewel 1999).
However, as shown by the low beneficial adventitious
plants indicator, farmers have not been able to
exercise selective control of adventitious plants,
failing to take advantage of valuable nitrogen-fixing
legumes (such as Desmodium sp., Mimosa invisa,
Mimosa pudica, Mucuna puriens, Pueraria phaseolides) spontaneously occurring in the plots.
The establishment phase (Schroth et al. 2001)
observed in most of the plots studied, with their
immature perennials and predominance of annuals,
implied less than desirable utilization of the available
soil resources (Schroth 1999), especially in deeper
soil layers, as root distribution can be assumed to be
mostly superficial (Akinnifesi et al. 1999). Also, the
relative paucity of spontaneous tree species conserved, or the immature stage of development
observed in many plots, does not yet fully provide
the function of capture of leached nutrients and their
return to the top of the soil as litter-fall, which is a
very important nutrient inflow for AFS under the
environmental conditions observed in the studied
region (Kanmegne et al. 2006). As they develop,
however, these trees will reinforce this function, now
mostly dependent on fruit trees and perennial crops.
With this kind of interactive indicator analysis and
interpretation, TAPIS offers farmers, extension
agents and researchers a tool for interpreting and
deciding on management options and resource allocation strategies, as well as an approach for better
understanding tradeoffs in traditional agroforestry
systems. Graphic analyses of relationships between
indicators facilitate improved understanding of the
implications of management practices and decisions,

such as crop stand and association, inputs and
workforce allocation, and weed control for income
generation and added value. Such analyses may be
helpful for extension agents in tailoring recommended management practices and resource application strategies to the needs of individual farmers. A
strength of the TAPIS is that it can be used in new
areas by making several new plot assessments of the
16 performance indicators proposed in this study to
build a database reflecting local realities.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the field
personnel and local farmers for their time, personal
knowledge, dedication, and active participation in the study.
This paper is an output of a research grant from the Centre de
Cooperation Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le
Developpement (CIRAD-France), under the Programmed
Thematic Action project Characterization and assessment of
agro-ecological performance of mixed cropping systems in the
humid tropics (ATP-Caresys). The research was carried out in a
partnership with the Institut de Recherche Agricole pour le
Developpement (IRAD-Cameroon) and the Centre Africain de
Recherche sur la Banane et le Plantain (CARBAP). We thank
the journals anonymous reviewers for their comments and
questions that helped to clarify the results and conclusions.
References
Akinnifesi FK, Kang BT, Ladipo DO (1999) Structural root
form and fine root distribution of some woody species
evaluated for agro-forestry systems. Agroforest Syst 42:
121138
Allen MA (2001) Change and continuity: land use and agriculture on Malo island, Vanuatu. M.Sc Thesis, The Australian University, Canberra
Andreoli M, Tellarini V (2000) Farm sustainability evaluation:
methodology and practice. Agric Ecosyst Environ 77:
4352
Barrau J (1955) Lagriculture vivrie`re Melanesienne. Commission du Pacifique Sud. Noumea, Nouvelle-Caledonie
Bockstaller C, Girardin P (2003) How to validate environmental indicators. Agric Syst 76:639653
Bockstaller C, Girardin P, van der Werf HMG (1997) Use of
agro-ecological indicators for the evaluation of farming
systems. Eur J Agron 7:261270
Bonnemaison J (1996) Gens de pirogue et gens de la terre: les
fondements geographiques dune identite: larchipel du
Vanuatu, essai de geographie culturelle. Livre 1, Paris,
ORSTOM
Bosshard A (2000) A methodology and terminology of sustainability assessment and its perspectives for rural planning. Agric Ecosyst Environ 77:2941
CIRADGRET, Ministe`re des Affaires etrange`res (2002)
Memento de lagronome. Societe Jouve, Paris
21
Duguma B, Gockowski J, Bakala J (2001) Smallholder Cacao
(Theobroma cacao Linn.) cultivation in agro-forestry
systems of West and Central Africa: challenges and
opportunities. Agroforest Syst 51:177188
Ellis EA, Bentrup G, Schoeneberger MM (2004) Computerbased tools for decision support in agro-forestry: current
state and future needs. Agroforest Syst 61:401421
Ewel JJ (1999) Natural systems as models for the design of
sustainable systems of land use. Agroforest Syst 45:121
Feintrenie L, Enjalric F, Ollivier J (2008) Syste`mes agroforestiers a` base de cocotiers et cacaoyers au Vanuatu, une
diversification en adequation avec le cycle de vie familial.
In: Ruf F (ed) Ecologie et Economie de la diversification
agricole: les cultures perennes dans le monde tropical. Ed.
Quae (in press)
Girardin P, Bockstaller C, van der Werf HMG (1999) Indicators, tools to evaluate the environmental impacts of
farming systems. J Sustain Agric 13(4):521
Greindl D (2000) Vivres en ville, des jardins au marche sur
larchipel du Vanuatu. PhD Dissertation, Universite Libre
de Bruxelles, Brussels
Hajkowicz S (2005) Multi-attributed environmental index
construction. Ecol Econ 57(1):122139
Hani F, Braga F, Stampfli A, Keller T, Fischer M, Porsche H
(2003) RISE, a tool for holistic sustainability assessment
at the farm level. Int Food Agribus Manage Rev 6(4):
7890
Hardi P, DeSouza-Huletey JA (2000) Issues in analyzing data
and indicators for sustainable development. Ecol Model
130:5965
Izac AMN (2003) Economic aspects of soil fertility management and agro-forestry practices. In: Schroth G, Sinclair
FL (eds) Trees, crops and soil fertility: concepts and
research methods. CABI Publishing, Cambridge
Kanmegne J, Smaling EMA, Brussaard L, Gansop-Kouomegne
A, Boukong A (2006) Nutrient flows in smallholder production systems in the humid forest zone of southern
Cameroon. Nutr Cycling Agroecosyst 76:233248
Kumar BM, Nair PKR (2004) The enigma of tropical homegardens. Agroforest Syst 61:135152
Lamanda N (2005) Caracterisation et evaluation agroecologique de syste`mes de culture agroforestiers: une demarche
applique aux syste`mes de culture a` base de cocotiers
(Cocos nucifera L.) sur lle de Malo, Vanuatu. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Institut National Agronomique, ParisGrignon
Lewandowski I, Hardtlein M, Kaltschmitt M (1999) Sustainable crop production: definition and methodological
approach for assessing and implementing sustainability.
Crop Sci 39:184193
Liebig MA, Miller ME, Varvel GE, Doran JW, Hanson JD
(2004) AEPAT: software for assessing agronomic and
environmental performance of management practices
in long-term agroecosystem experiments. Agron J 96:
109115
Liebman M (1988) Ecological suppression of weeds in intercropping systems: a review. In: Altieri MA, Liebman M
(eds) Weed Management in Agroecosystems: ecological
Approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Monteiro RC, Rodrigues GS (2006) A system of integrated
indicators for socio-environmental assessment and
123
22
eco-certification in agricultureAmbitec-Agro. J Technol
Manag Innov 1:4759
Morelli C (2003) Evaluation des performances agronomiques
des jardins Melanesiens: proposition dintensification par
association aux cocoteraies. Memoire de fin detudes,
Ecole Nationale Superieure Agronomique de Rennes
Nair PKR (1998) Directions in tropical agro-forestry research:
past, present, and future. Agroforest Syst 38:223245
Nair PKR (2001) Do tropical home gardens elude science, or is
it the other way around? Agroforest Syst 53:239245
Rao MR, Coe RD (1991) Measuring crop yields in on-farm
agro-forestry studies. Agroforest Syst 15:275289
Rodrigues GS (2004) Indicadores Sociais, Economicos e
Ambientais de SAFs. In: Embrapa forests: annals of the V
Brazilian congress of agro-forestry systems
Rodrigues GS, Moreira-Vinas A (2007) An environmental
impact assessment system for responsible rural production
in Uruguay. J Technol Manag Innov 2:4254
Schroth G (1999) A review of belowground interactions in
agro-forestry, focusing on mechanisms and management
options. Agroforest Syst 43:534
Schroth G, Sinclair FL (2003) Impacts of trees on the fertility
of agricultural soils. In: Schroth G, Sinclair FL (eds)
123

Trees, crops and soil fertility: concepts and research
methods. CABI Publishing, Cambridge
Schroth G, Lehmann J, Rodrigues MRL, Barros E, Macedo
JLV (2001) Plant-soil interactions in multistrata agroforestry in the humid tropics. Agroforest Syst 53:85102
Seremele TS (2002) Analyse des Syste`mes de culture racines
et tubercules: pratiques et strategies paysannes dans la
conduite des cultures et la mise en marche des produits
(Efate, Vanuatu). Memoire du CNEARC, Montpellier
Sinclair FL (1999) A general classification of agro-forestry
practice. Agroforest Syst 46:161180
Strobel F (1998) Etude pluridisciplinaire dun syste`me agraire en
transition (Wusiroro), Ile de Espiritu Santo, Archipel du
Vanuatu. Memoire de fin detudes ISTOM, Cergy Pontoise
Tollens E (2003) Estimation of production of cassava in
Bandundu (19871988) and Bas Congo (19881989)
regions by an intensive yearlong, weekly visit, production
and marketing survey, on a large sample, as compared to
official R D Congo statistics. In: Proceedings of the expert
consultation on root crop statistics, FAO 2003, Harare
Walter A, Leplaideur A (eds) (1999) Syste`me de culture traditionnels et pratiques paysannes nouvelles en Oceanie.
Rev dethnobiol 41(1):230

Integrated Indicators For Performance Assessment of Traditional Agroforestry Systems in South West Cameroon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrated Indicators For Performance Assessment of Traditional Agroforestry Systems in South West Cameroon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agroforest Syst (2009) 77:922