Traditional forest farming is an overlooked climate solution

Across the globe, the fight against climate change has sparked a movement. One of the most common strategies is tree planting. Rows of trees lining empty fields have become a symbol of hope. While this practice does help trap carbon, a new study urges us to look deeper – into the forests themselves.

The research highlights the potential of forest-based agroforestry (FAF), which nurtures existing forests and supports climate stability, biodiversity, traditions, and local economies.

Tree planting vs. forest management

Tree planting is straightforward. You plant new trees where there were none before. This approach works best on treeless lands like empty farms. These new trees absorb carbon and cool the environment. But forests already serve as massive carbon reservoirs. The key lies in how we manage them.

Forest-based agroforestry offers a different path. Instead of planting trees in bare spaces, it introduces crops into living forests. This method encourages sustainable interaction. It enhances both forest health and productivity. Unlike industrial agriculture, it does not remove existing trees or disrupt ecosystems. It adds to them.

“We want to make sure that we clarify that forest-based agroforestry (FAF) can achieve similar climate benefits as tree planting in fields,” said Karam Sheban, the study’s lead author at Yale University.

“The big takeaway is that human management of forests can result in better outcomes for forests, for people, and for the climate. It is not a zero-sum game.”

How forest farming works

Agroforestry is not a new idea. For generations, communities have grown food alongside trees. However, most modern programs focus on combining trees with open farmlands or pastures. FAF flips that model. It introduces agricultural activities within standing forests, not at their edges or in cleared sections.

This forest farming practice draws heavily from Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems. It doesn’t separate people from nature. Instead, it respects forests as living systems.

People grow crops beneath forest canopies, harvest fruits or medicinal plants, and maintain biodiversity. The forest stays alive, and so does the human connection to it.

The study revealed that FAF promotes carbon storage, soil health, and wildlife diversity. It also creates economic opportunities. Forest dwellers can earn by collecting forest products like berries, herbs, or nuts. Unlike clear-cutting or monoculture farming, this model does not exhaust the land.

Looking beyond tree planting

Despite its promise, FAF does not receive the attention it deserves. Most agroforestry investments go toward tree-planting campaigns. These are often easier to fund, measure, and promote. A sapling in a field is a visible success. A managed forest, full of life and complexity, is harder to capture in a report.

The authors identified two major misconceptions holding FAF back. First, people often mistake it for industrial agroforestry. These systems focus on mass production of cash crops like coffee or cacao.

In contrast, FAF supports ecological balance. Second, they wrongly apply lessons from tropical forests to temperate or boreal forests. This leads to flawed assumptions and missed opportunities.

“There’s a narrative that human activity in forests causes degradation, and that we really should leave forests untouched to maximize climate benefits. But humans living in and around forests have been supporting forest health for thousands of years and continue to do so now,” Sheban said.

Changing the climate narrative

Tree planting and forest preservation are not mutually exclusive. We can maintain forests and still use them wisely. The idea that humans and forests must be kept apart is outdated. Forest farming offers a middle ground – neither full exploitation nor untouched isolation.

The researchers argue for thoughtful policies. They want FAF recognized in agroforestry discussions and separated from harmful industrial practices. They urge more research in cooler forest regions.

Currently, most data comes from tropical zones. But boreal and temperate forests also have potential. Understanding how FAF works in these regions could reshape land-use policies.

“For natural climate solutions involving trees, everyone is currently focused on removal of carbon from the atmosphere through tree planting. In the right place, this can be an effective strategy and the idea that removing a tree through forest management might be beneficial seems counter-intuitive to people, especially given how people develop attachments to individual trees,” said study co-author Mark Bradford.

“Yet, forest management often necessitates removing some trees for the collective benefit of the forest. As people start to become aware of forest-based agriculture, we need to get that message out that effective forest management can achieve multiple services.”

Forest farming: A path to resilience

The future of climate action lies not just in creating new landscapes but in renewing old ones. Forest-based agroforestry can reduce emissions, sustain livelihoods, and honor long-standing human relationships with nature. It deserves a stronger place in our conversations, budgets, and policies.

By shifting how we think about forests – from untouched reserves to living, working ecosystems – we can unlock new paths toward resilience. This means empowering local communities, respecting traditional knowledge, and investing in management systems that do more than just look good on paper.

The climate conversation is changing. And as this study shows, forests are not just part of the background. They may be central to our solutions – if we choose to manage them with care and purpose.

The study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–