farms and nut plantations managed as a monocrop are not considered agroforestry (Beetz, 2002). This approach, used primarily on smallholder systems, has gained widespread at­tention by government agencies and NGOs to address con­servation objectives. Because of its potential for enhanced food security, poverty reduction and environmentally sound land management, an internationally supported research center, the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), is devoted to this research and development.
     Technology  and  management  associated with  agro­forestry include (1)  alley cropping, (2) improved fallow systems, (3) silvopasture, (4) windbreaks, (5) mixed agro-forests, including breadfruit systems in the Pacific Islands and (6) riparian buffer strips. The technology most widely associated with agroforestry has been alley cropping. This involved incorporating tree hedgerows within crop fields to act as a fallow and improve soil fertility through nitrogen fixation (Craswell et al., 1997). In Asia hedgerows were promoted on sloping fields to reduce soil erosion (Garrity, 1986). While there were some significant success stories on the positive effects of alley cropping, particularly in Alfi-sols not deficient in phosphorus (Sanchez, 1995), it was not widely adopted because it was designed as a conservation approach rather than meeting the needs of upland dwellers. It was labor intensive and in most cases did not result in sufficiently high economic return to justify the labor. Tree and crop competition for light, water and nutrients led to the failure of many alley-cropping systems to outperform traditional cropping (Sanchez, 1995).
     Different views regard the future of agroforestry. One view holds that (1) agroforestry cannot be widely adopted for forest rehabilitation so long as farmers do not have se­cure land tenure and use rights, (2) resource poor farmers will receive only marginal benefit from expanded agrofor­estry and (3) future agroforestry effort should focus more on intensively managed small-scale plantations that produce only one or two products for commercial use, including cof­fee, cacao, andneem (Enters, 1997). In Malaysia, small-scale farmers grew rubber for its wood rather than latex. Other options included fodder crops, living fences and shade trees. Others suggest that the future of agroforestry in much of the developing world lies in intensifying and commercializing the management of traditional homegarden forests (Leakey and Tchoundjeu, 2001). Given the less than optimal adop­tion of research-designed systems, improving traditional practices that build upon farmer knowledge, skills and re­sources may be a more successful strategy.

2.2.5.6   Community and social forestry
In the narrowest perspective, community forestry is the governance and management of forest resources by com­munities for commercial and noncommercial purposes. The core of community forestry is the recognition that commu­nities living adjacent to or in forests have rights to manage them and extract resources to support their livelihoods and traditional knowledge. As such, community forestry has become the focus of policy and training initiatives, rather than technological interventions. In India and Papua New Guinea customary and village ownership of forests has been recognized. Community forestry programs focus on educat­ing villagers to become better stewards of forest lands. As

a development strategy, community forestry has become a way many governments in the region involved rural com­munities in protecting and managing forests (Nurse and Malla, 2005). In practice, community forestry was often interchangeable with social forestry, referring to many ac­tivities that involve local people, from managing woodlots, growing trees as a cash crop to household processing of for­est products (Casson, 1997).
     Over the last 40 years community and social forestry has expanded from a way to meet the fuel and income needs of the rural poor and reducing deforestation and deserti­fication to empowering a community (Poffenberger, 1990; Hidayat, 1998). Examples include community forest man­agement and participatory conservation in the Philippines (Utting, 2000). Other variations include joint forest man­agement in India (Fisher, 2000), village forestry in Lao PDR and collective forest management in China (Gilmour et al., 2004). One model example of community forest manage­ment came from Nepal, where over 12,000 recognized forest user groups managed more than a million hectares of forest. One challenge to community management is resolving issues related to forest tenure, ownership, user rights and common access. Another key issue that had not been effectively ad­dressed is how local participatory approaches can be scaled up to affect landscapes (Nurse and Malla, 2005).
     Farm forestry has received little if any attention in devel­oping and transferring improved technology. Farm forestry is growing trees on private agricultural land, wasteland and degraded forests. There is an important perceptional differ­ence between social forestry and farm forestry. Planners of social forestry projects emphasize the subsistence return to farmers in fuelwood and fodder, while forest farmers place priorities on trees for cash income. Areas where farm for­estry is most successful are where small farms have a long history of producing for the market, where cash returns from trees and agricultural crops can be easily seen (Pasi-colan et al., 1997). Examples of this can also be seen in the industrial countries of the region. Australian farm forests often provide ecosystem services similar to agroforestry and community forestry. In Australia, the nature and the size of small-scale forestry differ from county to county but can be classed into two types. The first is based on growing Euca­lyptus globules for pulp and the second involves producing native hardwoods for saw and veneer logs (Herbohn et al., 2002).

2.2.6     Application of AKST to fisheries production
In ESAP, fisheries have always been vital to food security, supplying animal protein, minerals and vitamins; generating employment, reducing poverty and earning revenue through trade. It is part of the cultural heritage in many parts of India and Bangladesh; fish is important in matrimonial and other social customs and celebrations. Globally, fisheries produc­tion from 1950 to 2004 increased steadily with the ESAP contribution. ESAP countries contributed at least 64% to total global production in 2004 (FAO, 2007),
     ESAP had about 87% of the 38 million people in global fisheries (FAO-SOFIA, 2006). This possibly represents only those who are full-time fisherfolk and aquafarmers. The number of persons who provide labor for the various stages of fishing and aquafarming and the ancillary industries, in-