Tree planting may grab headlines, but managing forests for agriculture might be an even smarter climate strategy. New research from Yale shows how forest-based agroforestry can deliver major environmental and economic wins—if we stop overlooking it.
Key Points at a Glance
- Forest-based agroforestry (FAF) integrates crop production into existing forests
- FAF supports biodiversity, enhances carbon storage, and promotes local livelihoods
- FAF receives less policy attention and funding compared to tree-planting schemes
- Researchers call for updated agroforestry policies that recognize traditional land stewardship
When it comes to tackling climate change with nature-based solutions, planting new trees in open land has become the go-to strategy. But what if we could achieve similar—or even better—results by looking inside the forests we already have?
According to a new study led by the Yale School of the Environment, forest-based agroforestry (FAF) offers a vastly underutilized way to store carbon, enhance biodiversity, and support human livelihoods. Unlike conventional agroforestry, which adds trees to agricultural land, FAF weaves agriculture directly into standing forests—without clearing them.
“The big takeaway is that human management of forests can result in better outcomes for forests, for people, and for the climate,” said lead author Karam Sheban. “It’s not a zero-sum game.”
FAF practices, which include harvesting fruits, nuts, and medicinal plants, align closely with Indigenous and traditional land-use systems. Yet despite these benefits, FAF remains marginalized in policy and funding conversations, often overshadowed by more industrial or tree-planting-centric approaches to agroforestry.
Part of the problem stems from misconceptions. One is the tendency to conflate traditional FAF with industrial commodity-focused agroforestry (such as large-scale coffee or palm oil plantations), which are often unsustainable. Another is the false assumption that results from tropical forests can be easily applied to temperate or boreal regions.
“There’s a narrative that human activity in forests causes degradation,” Sheban explained. “But humans have been supporting forest health for thousands of years.”
The Yale-led team—comprising scientists from Yale, Virginia Tech, and the New York Botanical Garden—urges a rethinking of current frameworks. They call for policy updates that clearly differentiate sustainable FAF from harmful practices and expand support for FAF in diverse ecological zones.
Co-author Mark Bradford emphasized that even removing trees can serve the forest’s health. “That may sound counterintuitive, especially to those emotionally attached to individual trees,” he said, “but forest management often requires it to support the collective ecosystem.”
The researchers argue that policymakers and funders should treat forest management and agriculture not as separate realms but as deeply interlinked. Done right, FAF can amplify both climate resilience and food security, particularly in communities that rely on forest resources for their survival.
The study, published in Nature Climate Change, represents a call to action: recognize forests as active landscapes—not just protected spaces—and empower communities to manage them sustainably. In doing so, we may find that the best way to grow climate solutions is already rooted in place.
Source: Yale School of the Environment
