Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 13–41 | Cite as

Foresters' beliefs about farmers: a priority for social science research in social forestry

  • M. R. Dove
Article

Abstract

This study suggests that one of the most productive (and most neglected) uses of social science research in forestry development projects is to examine foresters' beliefs regarding rural peoples. This suggestion is illustrated with data from the Forestry Planning and Development Project, Pakistan's first nation-wide social forestry project.

The operational component of this project, intended to assist small farmers to cultivate trees on their farmlands, ran into immediate difficulties. Many of the foresters involved insisted that small farmers were simply not interested in tree cultivation. A comprehensive base-line study subsequently was carried out to examine the validity of this belief. The results of this study (confirmed by the subsequent experience with the project in the field) varied markedly from the foresters' beliefs.

While many of the foresters believed small farmers were opposed to having trees on their farms and would not agree to plant trees under the project, most farmers already had trees on their farms and expressed interest in planting more; while many foresters believed farmers would only be interested in planting large blocks of market-oriented exotics, most farmers requested small plantings of multi-purpose native trees; while many foresters believed farmers would plant trees only for market sale, most farmers requested trees to meet household needs for fuel and timber; and while many foresters did not think that increasing supplies of fuelwood could reduce the burning of dung, all of the evidence provided by the farmers suggested that it would.

The disparity between farmer reality and forester belief is attributed to failures on the part of both foresters and social scientists — failure by foresters to distinguish their non-empirical beliefs about farmers from their empirically-based knowledge of trees, and failure by social scientists to recognize the belief systems of foresters as a legitimate and important object of study. Their study comprises three parts: finding out what the foresters think the farmers want, finding out from the farmers what they actually want, and then analyzing and explaining the differences.

Key words

Pakistan social/farm/agroforestry socio-economic surveys forester beliefs institutional factors fuelwood 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bokhari AS (1989) Pakistan: A Review and Analysis of Forest Policy and Legislation. Consultant's Report. Islamabad, World BankGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burch WR (1988) The uses of social science in the training of professional social foresters. Journal of World Forest Resource Management 3(2): 73–109Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campbell T (In press) Socio-economic aspects of household fuel use in Pakistan. In: Dove MR and Carpenter C, eds, The Sociology of Natural Resources in Pakistan and Adjoining Countries: Case Studies in Applied Social Science. Lahore, Pakistan, Vanguard Press and the Mashal FoundationGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carpenter C (1990) Women and livestock, fodder, and uncultivated land in Pakistan: a summary of role responsibilities. Society and Natural Resources 4: 65–79Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cernea M (1985) Alternative units of social organization sustaining afforestation strategies. In: Cernea M, ed, Putting People Fist: Sociological Variables in Rural Development, pp 267–293. New York, Oxford University Press and World BankGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chambers R and Leach M (1989) Trees as savings and security for the rural poor. World Development 17(3): 329–342.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dewees PA (1989) The woodfuel crisis reconsidered: observations on the dynamics of abundance and scarcity. World Development 17(8): 1159–1172Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dove MR (1988) Prospects for farm forestry in Pakistan: village level and householdlevel factors. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 38(1): 15–23, 38(3): 125–132Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dove MR (1989) Prospects for farm forestry on rainfed vs irrigated farms. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 39(1): 3–10Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dove MR (1991) Anthropology of development vs. develoment anthropology: mediating the forester-farmer relationship in Pakistan. Practicing Anthropology 13(2): 21–25.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dove MR (In press a) The “humor” of shade: a non-western appreciation of tree shade in Pakistan. Human EcologyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dove MR (In press b) The human ecological background of farm forestry development in Pakistan. In: Ballabh V and Saxena NC, eds, Tree Growing by the Farmers of South Asia. New Delhi, India, Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fairfax SK and Fortmann L (1990) American forestry professionalism in the Third World: some preliminary observations. Population and Environment 11(4): 259–272Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Foley G and Barnard G (1984) Farm and Community Forestry. London, Earthscan and International Institute for Environment and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gholz HL (1987) Agroforestry: Realities, Possibilities and Potentials. Dordrecht, Martinus NijhoffGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilmour DA and King GC (1989) Management of forest for local use in hills of Nepal, 1: changing forest management paradigms. Journal of World Forest Resource Management 4: 93–110Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Government of Pakistan (1988) Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan 1987–1988. Islamabad, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Co- OperativesGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Government of Pakistan (1983) Pakistan Census of Agriculture 1980. Lahore. Agricultural Census Organization, Statistics DivisionGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Government of Pakistan (1989) Pakistan Statistical Yearbook 1989. Karachi, Federal Bureau of StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hafeez M and Afzal M (1989) Assessment of dependence of local population on scrub forests in district Jhelum. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 39(2): 71–77Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jambulingam R and Fernandes ECM (1986) Multipurpose trees and shrubs on farmlands in Tamil Nadu State (India). Agroforestry Systems 4: 17–32Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leach G (1987) Household Energy in South Asia. London, Elsevier Applied ScienceGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Metz JJ (1989) Himalayan political economy: more myths in the closet? Mountain Research and Development 9(2): 175–186Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mohammad N (1989) Rangeland Management in Pakistan. Kathmandu/Nepal, International Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Muller EU and Scherr SJ (1989) Technology Monitoring and Evaluation in Agroforestry Projects: An Annotated Bibliography. Nairobi/Kenya, International Council for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Noronha R (1981) Why is it so difficult to grow fuelwood? Unasylva 33(131): 4–12Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oduol PA, Muraya P, Fernandes ECM and Nair PKR (1987) The agroforestry systems database at ICRAF. Agroforestry Systems 6: 253–270Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rauf MA (1981) Forestry Development in Pakistan: A Study of Human Perspectives. Peshawar, Pakistan, Pakistan Forest Institute (PFI)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Romm J (1982) A research agenda for social forestry. The International Tree Crops Journal 2: 25–59Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saxena NC (1990) Trees on Farm Lands in North-West India: Field Data from Six Villages. ODI Social Forestry Network Papers 11dGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Steppler HA and Nair PKR, eds (1987) Agroforestry: A Decade of Development. Nairobi, Kenya, International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sturmheit P (1990) Agroforestry and soil conservation needs of smallholders in Southern Zambia. Agroforestry Systems 10: 265–289Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Supple KR, Razzaq A, Saeed I and Sheikh AD (1985) Barani Farming Systems of the Punjab: Constraints and Opportunities for Increasing Productivity. Islamabad, Pakistan, National Agricultural Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thompson M, Warburton M and Hatley T (1986) Uncertainty on a Himalayan Scale: An Institutional Theory of Environmental Perception and a Strategic Framework for the Sustainable Development of the Himalaya. London, EthnographicaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (1983) Project Paper: Pakistan Forestry Planning and Development Project. Washington DC, USAIDGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Westoby JC (1987) Forestry and Underdevelopment Revisited. Forestry for Development Lecture Series. Berkeley. University of California's Department of Forestry and Resource Management, Institute of International Studies, and Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. R. Dove
    • 1
  1. 1.East-West Center (EAPI)HonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations