Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

Socio-economic Impact of afforestation on Lanuse, animals and people

(a CASE STUDY OF sELECTED vILLAGES IN tehsil khwazakhelA, DISTRICT SWAT)

FEBRUARY 2001

CONTENTS

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

on Land use, Animals and People

(A Case Study of Selected Villages in Tehsil Khwazakhela, District Swat)

ABSTRACT

Forest is a very important natural resource of every country. In Pakistan the total forest area is around five percent (4.8%) of the total geographical area of the country. Pakistan earns foreign exchange by exporting forest products, contributing 0.1percent to the GDP. The study was conducted in tehsil Khwazakhela, district Swat. A total number of 65 owners, tenants and live stock herders were interviewed to assess the socio-economic impact of afforestation on land use, animals and peoples, availability of grasses and their effects on livestock numbers, availability of fuelwood and fuel sources and views of various groups towards forest management and further afforestation. The sample area consisted of four villages namely Janu, Babu, Chinkolai and Chamtalai.

It was found in the study that owners were more educated than tenants and live stock herders. Most of the owners were found doing farming and govt. jobs and the tenants in farming, while the live stock herders in herding and farming. The income of the owners and live stock herders was higher than tenants. The land under pasture and forest has increased after afforestation, while the grazing land has decreased. After afforestation the owners and tenants animals are mostly depending on stall feeding, while that of livestock herders on rented hillside, stall feeding and upland pastures, before afforestation the tenants and livestock herder’s animals were totally dependent on the grazing area. Although the quantity of grasses was increased, but this increase benefited only the owner after afforestation, while the tenants and livestock herders got grasses from the afforested area allowed by the owners. The number of cows, buffaloes and goats & sheep have decreased with owners after afforestation, while with tenants and livestock herders cows and goats & sheep have decreased and the buffaloes have increased as they can be easily stall fed. Almost all of the owner’s attitude was positive towards afforestation and that of tenants was moderate, while live stock herders were totally against irrational afforestation. The afforested area was well managed. Most of the owners and tenants used trees on field boundaries as a fuel wood after afforestation, while tenants also reported use of dung cakes. The live stock herders used dung cakes natural forest and trees on field boundaries after afforestation. Some of the owners reported that the tenant-owner relationship was worsened due to afforestation, while most of the tenants reported that there is no change in the relationship. Almost all of the live stock herders reported that the relationship is worsened after afforestation.

INTRODUCTION

1. The major objective of the study is to assess the impact of afforestation on the owners, tenants and livestock herders in the selected villages.
2. It further probes into the impact of afforestation on:
• land use
• availability and production of grasses and its impact on the livestock number
• availability of fuelwood and fuelwood sources,
• views of various groups towards forest management and further afforestation; and
• owner–tenant relationship after afforestation

Chapter II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Three social forestry programs of the government of India as well as non-government agencies were studied and analyzed by Chowdhary, K. (1984), in terms of benefits. The Sukomajery project started out as an operational project by the soil conservation research staff in (1975) in Shivaliak Hills. The catchment area was surveyed, a number of check dams were built near the Sukhomajri village and Acacia catechu and bhabbar grass had been planted in the catchment area. The village people established Water Users Association (WUA) for equitable distribution of water and they kept their grazing animals out of the watershed. With the availability of supplemental irrigation, the number of crop rotations, production of wheat, wheat straw and maize increased appreciably in about five years. Milk yield and grass production also increased during the same period. Further, women began to grow vegetable plots and used the bhabbar grass for rope. They installed fuel-efficient and smokeless stoves that helped in improving the quality of life and health of the families.

The second project discussed is a remarkable project of regeneration of common and wastelands through the leadership of a voluntary agency, DGSM (Sasholi Gram Swarajya Mandal). The U.P. hills has a long history of poverty exacerbated by forest denudation. DGSM had started organizing eco-development camps and creating awareness of the problems among local communities. These camps were organized for development of organization and contribution of labor in the programme. The women’s' group was motivated to water plants, whereas the men are asked to look after and maintain the protective wall built around the village. The DGSM had also helped the women in building the smokeless and fuel-efficient stoves, pits latrines and biogas plants.

In the above project, the women have been benefited and now they have the fodder and some fuel wood available close to their villages. Men are focussing their attention on lime and fruit and walnut trees for cash. The people are learning marketing system, equal distribution of produce resolution of development and economic issues through consensus.

During the same study the third project of the government, Social Forestry Project in Utter Pradesh was also studied. It has been appraised and funded by the World Bank. The objectives of the project were to help in establishment of multipurpose tree plantation to produce fuel wood and small timber for meeting basic requirements of rural communities increasing food and fodder production on sustained basis and generation income through employment in planting and harvesting, transportation and marketing of raw materials for cottage industries.

The Social Forestry Project (SFP) in India has also estimated that direct planting and nurseries have yielded an employment of about 8.4 million days. The SFP being a commercial project, supports growing of eucalyptus plantations on farm lands to earn profit from raw material for paper, pulp and pole industry. Under this project the poor and landless do not seem to be benefited. The benefits of growing trees on public and common lands have gone to the panchayat leaders and few others instead of equal distribution among the masses. The project failed to provide equal opportunity to all for sharing benefits.

The study has also pointed out key elements for the success of non-governmental project. These are:

1. Participation of local communities, especially women.

2. A village organization and equitable distribution of resources generated.

3. A facilitating organization for the village communities seem to need the help of a sympathetic service oriented organization which assist the communities to move into a new direction.

4. In case of Sukhomajri, and Dasholi Gram Swarajya Mandal, the welfare of the people was the focus of the development whereas in the social forestry project, the focus seemed on quality, the number of seedling raised, number of saplings distributed and planted.

5. Bottom up approach to planning.

The Dasholi Gram Swarajya Mandal and Sukhomajri are examples of rural peoples planning for development, whereas in the government the social forestry project, the planning was done by with State with the aid of World Bank. The later adopted top down approach with the intention of benefiting the rural communities which however did not materialize to a significant extent.

The projects premise was that the sustainability of plantation could not been achieved without involvement of people in protection and management. Instead the plantation would be better sustained by guiding the people as to how one can use the resources for an indefinite period of time. The people might use the plantation products for meeting their domestic need by using their unproductive labour force and saving costs of buying fuel wood. Alternatively, they might sell the products to support the village fund to realize the village's collective needs for development. Given the community interest and willingness, part of the village funds could be set a side for reinvestment in plantation, protection and management.

Sheikh, M. I. (1985), conducted a study in rural areas of the Sindh to assess the economical impact of Acacia nilotica. The case study indicated that the community was able to achieve its objectives in satisfying some of the economical needs. The findings indicated that they are no more dependent on governmental bodies for support. The popularity of the tree is attributed to its adaptability and multiple use as a farm crop, its capacity to improve soil, its potential for minimizing landlord-tenants conflicts, and profitability over other corps in the meet market demand for fuel wood, mining timber and poles.

A study of Korea as Community fuel wood project was conducted by Oh, Ho-Sung in 1985. This project design envisaged the empowerment of Village Forestry Association to afforest private lands to obtain at least 10% of the demand. Such a move helped in raising 643,000 hectares of fuel wood plantation. Rehabilitation of badly denuded hills and the wood production were the major benefits.

In Sindhu Palanchowak & Kabhre Palanchowak districts of Nepal a study was done by Shreshtha, I. I. in 1985, to assess the impact of community forestry initiated in the areas by Nepal-Australia Forestry Project. These two districts are known as father of community forestry in Nepal. The Project was started in these areas in 1972 by Australian Development Assistance Bureau (ADAB). The areas that were blank are now fully under vegetation cover. The people around the forest are identified as users and they are cooperating with the Project authorities in managing forests. They have right to utilize forest products without paying any prices to the government. They study showed that this not only helped in conservation watershed areas but also provided basic forest products to the villagers at their door step.

Another study was conducted by Pao-Chang Kuo and Jen I-an in 1985 about Taiwans Cooperative Program for giant Leucauna production. The Program was launched due to Islands' need of cutting cost on import of raw materials for its pulp and paper industries. About 12,000 hectares of Leucaena plantation was established between 1980 and 1986. Profits and costs of raising plantations were shared by tree farmers and the pulp and fibre firms. Low economical return, however, caused some tree farmers to bounce back from the Program and switched to high value crop. This call for improvement of welfare and assistance system to tree farmers.

Thio, K.O. (1996) studied cost return models for economic analysis of social forestry interventions. The study was conducted for social forestry project Malakand-Dir. He found a lack of proven data on physical yields from shrubs and trees (in terms of fuel wood, leaf fodder and livestock products) and the extent of natural regeneration of trees and shrubs. There was also lack of knowledge on the dynamics of biological processes in respect of natural regeneration and competition between vegetation types. The average annual returns in terms of timber from planting chir pine was found to zero. Eight variable greatly influencing the economic returns are: wood density; the economic harvest life span; possibility of coppice harvesting; the rate of timber and fuel wood recovery; the feed requirements per animals unit; the productive potential of range lands under controlled grazing; the number of socially and technically feasible grazing cycles; the rate at which shrubs and trees regenerate. From an environmental point of view, social forestry interventions prevented further degradation of the natural resource base and, hence loss of production. Range management under controlled grazing is promising activity in terms of productivity of rangelands and environmental improvement. The approach followed in the study was to analyse first the cost and returns of single interventions. The approach followed in the study was to analyse first the cost and returns of single interventions. The single intervention model was to be used as building blocks for more complex interactive multi-intervention models.

Impact of Social Forestry project in Badaun (India) was studied by Singh G. Gurdev (1990). The project was started in 1979-80 with major activities like farm forestry, nursery raising and establishment of plantation. Change in land use pattern was the major impact of this project. Not only cultivated lands and cultivable wastelands were brought under tree cover, but barren forest areas were also included, changing their use category, usual increases in land prices especially close to the road and easily approachable, were also recorded. Employment generated on farm forestry was more than employment lost due to change in land use. Thus in the long run, as the author says, may be a net loss. However, the employment generated in nurseries was substantial and would remain high as long as the seedlings are in demand. Another impact of the project has been the investment made by the forest department and some individuals in forest activity. Social impacts of activities undertaken so far were invisible.

Christary, L. and Iskandar, J. studied the Yogyaarat Rural Development Project launched in Banjar Boys (Central Java) 1985. The Project's priorities in the area included increasing agricultural production and improving the social, cultural and economic aspects of the local community. An integrated agro forestry development package was implemented covering training and extension, technical assistance to the farmers and road construction, small industry development and health services development. Community participation was encouraged through incentives like provision of land tenure to farmers, technical assistance on soil conservation and farmer problems, training on better land use practices, etc. It was found that the project provided opportunity for the people to try many new concepts and technology interventions. Farmers' anticipation proved very strong in erasing constrains and misconceptions in adoption of interventions. Land use mapping and land tilling programs systematized land tenure rights and claims. The food crop development activities greatly improved the efficiency of the farmers' cropping system. Farmers' education program for proper use of fertilizers led to higher agricultural production. Encouragement for planting trees really worked in stabilizing erodible lands. It also provided new knowledge for long-term benefits and short-term cash returns to people from tree farming. Training and extension activities resulted in social and environmental awareness among farmers.

In report No.17 regarding Economical Analysis of Social Forestry Intervention found that because of introduction of the project in the area almost in all aspects of the project farmers' involvement in the management of forest resources have been ensured. The data also reveal that people living close to hillside use more produce from the forest than those living farther away. This has also indicated that the contribution in conservation of forest by people who are consuming greater proportion, is more than those living away and consuming less.

Iqbal J. (1993) conducted a study to determine the socio-economic effect of Farm and Energy project on farmers in district Gujrat, Pakistan. Farm size was the influencing factor in the adoption of the Farm Energy Forestry Project. The highest participation (63%) was by those farmers who has farm size between 2.1 to 8.0 hectares. The small farmers did not participate in planting trees with agriculture corps. Big farm owners although did participate in the project but not to that extent as middle class farmers. Majority (68%) participation was of educated farm owners. The project had significantly increased the income of the participant farmers. Due to this reason all the respondent farmers were found in favour of similar projects. The increase in income brought positive changes in the attitude of those farmers who participated in the project activities.

Dolakha – Ramechhap Community Forestry Development Project (1995) reported that the accent and thrust on "the poor, landless and women are disadvantaged groups who are primary users" is a definite progressive change from previous statements. In fact for the first time the official representation of women was documented as a directive. While the 1988 policy statement recommended 30% of women’s representation in the CFUG committees, the 1989 policy document spoke of "the maximum possible ", women representatives. The 1990, revised, master plan of the forestry sector policy (draft) recommends that "women who make the daily management decisions should represent at least one half of the members of the users committee in CFDP". The directive suggests " women as the real primary users will be incorporated in the decisions making and benefit sharing mechanisms in the inline with the HMG/ N’s basic needs and decentralization policy". The specific negative impact on children is also recognized in relation to their increasing school drop out rates and forest related child labor pressure. The issue of poverty is addressed by promoting employment of poor and landless people in forestry related activities and introducing lease-holding forestry.

Community forestry activities were initiated after the Panchayat forest (PF) and panchyat protection forest (PPF) were issued in Nepal in 1978. At the out set activities focused on the establishment and protection of plantations with community members having to surrender common grazing land and to full fill the labor to achieve these targets. Several communities resented this- men formally, women unofficially, as the major impact of endorsing grazing land came on their daily tasks of collection of fodder and fuel. The forest users groups’ concept came as a next step though in practice decision making remained with forest officials. CF is officially defined as " forest management based on a partnership ( agreement ) between a CFUG and HMG. The CFUG resumes responsibility to manage ( protect, develop, and utilize) the forest resources owned by HMG in a sustainable manner". The rural people who depend for their lively hood on the forest (fodder for live stock, water supply, bedding for animals that subsequently fertilizes their land, fire wood, construction wood, charcoal, etc.). They have always used forest and tree products and their subsistence farming systems and have little choice but to continue to do so.

IRDP Mardan (1996) reported that during 1994 compliance of nagha (closer of the area for grazing) resulted in the stabilization of fodder grass in the parts where soil layer was comparatively better. The areas were divided into blocks for grass sale. In the first season grass worth Rs. 5,000 was sold and the amount was deposited in the village development fund .In 1995 again the blocks were sold to the interested people from the village jalal and from the neighboring villages. This time due to ecological stabilization of the area the income realized reached to Rs.8,000 for one harvest .A higher income in the coming years is expected as the area is gradually recovering. The visible cash income of Rs. 13,000 from the sale of grass is only a part of the benefits. The VO and jarga members who spend a lot of money on purchase of grass for winter is also saved .The cut grass from their own area is dried and stored in the cattle sheds which is utilized in the winter without any additional costs. The VO members show ecological awareness by starting the grass sale after it had completed its seed shedding .The major grass species consists of Cynodondactylon, Cenchrus and Hetropogan .Other depleted species like Cymbopogan jawaruncusa and Echinochldao and are also coming up. Eucalyptus has been planted in the eastern lower bed and then on the top at the flat portions, showing outstanding results. Some plants have already reached to the height of 3 meters and a dia of 6-7 cm. Dodonea planted on the slope has flourished significantly and has started flowering .The seeds of acacia species sown, are also giving promising results .The height of sown Modesta is ranging from 60 cm to 90 cm. Sporadic seedling of Dalbergia, Ailanthus and Morus are coming up naturally, particularly in the lower beds and nullahhs which indicates the state of protection of the area. among the undergrowth , zizyphus is rejuvenating thoroughly .Grass over is luxuriant and consists of mainly Cenchrus ciliaris, Cynodon dactylon and Hetropogan contorus. Bird population in the area is increasing and a handsome number of sissee, doves and Grey partridges can be seen at the time of visits. It is worth mentioning that in the same area 2 years back one could hardly see any wild bird in the area . The rejuvenation of natural flora and the growth rate of species planted/sown, reveals that the site has a great potential for forestry, range management and wild life .

An exemplary co-operation and co-ordination between VO and jirga jalal regarding scheme management is observed. The VO and jirga members talk about the scheme and saplings planted with a kindness and sweetness similar of the talking about the children .Besides the watchman , every member of the organization feels responsible for the protection of the site.

With the formation of VO in the village and resurrection of a powerful/village jirga. a new feeling of strong unity emerged within the people of jalal. A ten acres piece of land adjacent to the afforested site was occupied by an individual since decades. This piece had near to maturity Acacia modesta trees. The jirga took up the negotiations with the individual to surrender the land to the village in order to make a compact block afforestation and to re-establish the spirit of declaration of an area as shamilat. Firstly the negotiations concentrated in offering money for the same piece which was not accepted. After a month rethinking on the whole issue, the individual decided to surrender the land to the jarga. He announced his decision in the jirga meeting. The jirga offered that if he likes, he can claim the compensation for the trees which are near to the maturity .The individual who was member of the jirga replied that he was motivated by the efforts of jirga for the rehabilitation of the shamilat and surrendering of 10 acres stocked area may be accepted as his sacrifice for the village .The surrendering of the stocked area worth approximately Rs.100,000. For a person with a weak economical background was an evidence of change from egoism to altruism, one of the highest value in "pukhtoonwali". Out standing cooperation and social unity was observed when a khan from Shewa village lodged a case in the court, after observing that the area was stocked claiming that the proprietary rights belonged to him. The whole village remained united that the mountainous part belonged to Jalal and not to shewa. They jointly attend the court and even all court fees are paid from the common funds. The VO has decided to keep the area under nagha for at least four years .Selective marking and harvest with the help of forest department is jointly agreed .It is also decided that crop canopy should not be reduced more than o the density factor 0.5 to avoid erosion .All the income will go to the village development fund . 30% of the total revenue realized (from grass sale, fuel wood sale, poles sale etc) will be re invested in the area and for its extension. The remaining 70 % will be utilized for the developmental activities in the village. it is too early to say that the scheme will be a self-sustained scheme but from the situation analysis it grossly crystallizing that if the VO and jarga remain united and stick to their management plan , a bright future is waiting for the village jalal.

Untill the year 2006 the revenue from grass is estimated Rs. 158,000 per 100 acres and the revenue from trees (fuel wood + timber) is expected to amount to Rs. 1,428,000.

Leede B. de et al. (1998) reported that the last thirty years grazing area have reduced a lot especially in Kabal and Matta (swat), due to the reason, privatization of land, purchased ownership and expansion of agricultural areas esp during and after Butto time. Plantation activities of watershed and ERP during the last fifteen years. In total, 50.5 % of the hillside has been afforested. At present 55% of the hillside is closed for grazing. There were insufficient data available form non- ERP villages. So no comparison can be made. Present hillside area under grazing (free or Qalang) and grass cutting (free or controlled). It is noted here that long term extractive use i.e. grass cutting Vs grazing of hillside will lead to decrease in fertility. The process is also called " nutrient mining ". Grazing results in retaining only of 4% of the intake. The bulk is returned in the form of manure, either spread over the range or concentrated in resting sheds.

Qalang grazing areas have reduced a lot during the last thirty years mainly due to plantations (34.8%) and privatization of hill side (21%) and other reasons (20.3%). 24% is still given on qalang. Winter grazing areas, which are important for the survival of nomadic livestock during winter, have reduced. Due to protection, the areas have become greener and produced more and better grasses. However grass cutting is too laborious to maintain large flocks of sheep and goat. Secondly, sheep and goat are not fit for an indoor life, merely depending on stall-feeding. Long term nutrient mining by grass cutting will result in decreased soil fertility. Grazing with typical return of manure to the range is more beneficial to both chemical and physical [soil structure] soil fertility. Purchased ownership has been minor so far in Buner and has therefore not affected qalang. It is of major importance Swat (esp villages like Kuhai and gadu) and land related typically at the higher hills or side valleys.

Grass was usually free of cost during Wali Swat time, although Gujars/ tenants use to cut grasses for owners after which they could take their shares as well. They paid in form of labor. Areas given on qalang could either be used for grazing and/ or grass cutting. Tenants usually received the right to cut grasses in the hillsides adjacent or belonging to the agricultural fields they leased. In the past, grasses seem to be abundant available. Owners and tenants depend more on agricultural crop residues and additional grass cutting from hillsides since most animals are stall-fed these days. Gujars depends mostly on grass cutting from hillsides for their cows and buffaloes as they have limited access to agricultural crop residues. Ajars depend mostly on grazing and have a limited practice of grass cutting. Due to protection of new afforestation area (as carried out by water shed and ERP), the quantity and quality of grasses from hillsides is increased. A study on vegetation production of hillsides in Swat and Buner showed that after one or two years protection from grazing the grass production (for cutting) in the plantation areas has increased. The plantation areas of ERP are under control of the VDC. They decide what kind of grass cutting system should be implemented in those areas. There is a gradual shift from uncontrolled, free cutting towards present, in fifty percent of the plantation areas a free cutting system is still implemented. In the plantation areas various forms of controlled cutting are implemented like: users pay qalang or pay per bundle to owners and are only allowed in specific seasons for cutting. Grasses are free of cost for owners and users, but cutting is only allowed during a particular season. Cutting plantation areas is usually done during the "pashakal" season (post moon soon after harvesting maize). Some areas are cut latter in winter season. If additional fodder is required. In 50% of the plantation areas free grass cutting is allowed, with out any charge. Seasonal/ controlled grass cutting is allowed in 50 % of the plantation areas. If considering the total hillside area, 25 % is now under control cutting instead of free cutting in few cases, users have to pay for the grasses. Grass cutting is usually done too late when the grasses are old and already have lost much of their nutritional value. This related to seasonal shortage of labor. The best grass harvest season coincided with the harvest of maize and other crops which get preference.

The 6 villages in Swat have afforested in total 15 % of their total hillsides with the help of Water shed and 48 % with the help of ERP so far (excluding repeat work). In Buner, 28 % of the hillside has been planted so far. Average plantation is covering 51% of the total hillside area. Due to protection, the quantity and quality of vegetation has improved as well as water shed function and aesthetic values almost all interviewed people are positive about the results of afforestation achieved so far and enjoy the improved availability of grasses. Many landless/poor people have been employed temporarily in to afforestation. These days, live stock producers are more depending on stall feeding/grass cutting due to (temporarily) closer of the plantation areas for grazing (some) nomadic grazers have more difficulty in finding sufficient winter grazing areas as compared to the past. In Swat qalang area for winter grazing reduced with 91% of 38 % due to plantation establishment. In Buner, qalang areas have been reduced with 46 % of which 28 % due to plantation. Plantation areas have in some cases blocked traditional trekking routs used by seasonal grazers.

There is an overall trend showing that the average number of livestock per family is decreasing among all classes of society. There is a shift from cow to buffalo and from small ruminants to cows and buffaloes. The data collected on the number of livestock are superficial and properly not much reliable. However, the rough trends can be concluded from this survey. The livestock of ajars, the number of goats and sheeps owned by ajars is decreasing rapidly. Average figures of swat show a decrease from 340 to 140 goat/sheep per flock (59%reduction). in buner flock size decreased from about 200 to 140(30% reduction).according to IUCN (1998) the average flock size is 110 sheep/goat in NWFP at present. Main reason for the reduction in flock size is lack of winter grazing areas due to afforestation, increase of agricultural land, privatization of hillsides and closure of trekking routes .The number of animals per family has decreased (48% decreased in sheep/goat) as well as the number of families .the total number of animals depending pre dominantly on grazing in these areas has decreased with more than 50% according to the informants. Comparing the findings in these areas has the livestock census(1976-1986) it can be concluded that the same trends are observed. According to the trends derived from the census the goat/sheep population is reducing with 4.9 and 1.1% respectively. This gives an reduction of 36% over 10 years. In buner livestock comprises mostly goats as the vegetation as more shrubby as compared to swat. In swat most animals are sheep.

About 25% of the total number of ajars families have been reported to have sold all animals and found an alternative job in agriculture or daily labor in cities. However, the respondents gave wide variety of answers on this question and this issue needs carefully cross checking. According to the ajars, 20 sheep/goats is the minimum flock size needed to marginally sustain a family (equal to a daily laborer income of Rs.70). This does not include/involve the risk of livestock disease, theft etc. Livestock of owners, tenants and gujars, among these three groups there is also a decrease in number of livestock per family, especially cows. Average number of livestock in past varied between 3 to 12 per family and 1 or 2 buffaloes. Nowdays each family has 1 to 5 cows and 1 to 2 buffaloes. Tenants show the pattern. Gujars used to have to 30 cows in the past and 2 to 5 buffaloes. These days they have reduced cows to 4-6 and increased buffaloes to 2 to 10. Buffaloes are increasing as they give more and ricer milk and can easily be stall-fed. Data from an user survey exercise as carried out in SFPMD shows the same pattern in Dir. and malakand.59% of the respondents interviewed in this survey have switched to stall feeding due to ban on grazing in plantation areas.39% has reduced the number of livestock, especially tenants and owners (NIAMA, 1998). Figures from the livestock census 1976-1986 show an increase of buffaloes and cows with respectively 5.25% and 0.91% per annum.

The major source of income for nomadic grazers (ajars) has always been small ruminants (goats and sheep). They depended totally on the hillsides for grazing of their livestock. In summer they graze in the alpine and sub-alpine pastures (upper swat, kohistan). In winter the lower elevation hillsides or plain areas provide winter fodder. In the past livestock was grazing in communal hillsides and in return they use to pay lease (qalang) in cash or in kind (manure, wool, ghee etc) to the owners of hillsides. Gujars who basically keep cows used to have the same pattern of movements, although the type of animals requires different fodder and retain conditions. Gujars show a stronger trend to stay near the agricultural fields (villages) or more levelled mountains, not too rough and rugged.

The nomads used to move animals from low land winter grazing areas to sub alpine and sub alpine summer grazing areas. During the wali of swat time, ajars were going mostly through the hillsides from winter grazing areas to summer pastures and vice versa. Most of the ajars spend 5-6 months in summer grazing pastures of which 3 months are spend in sub-alpine pastures and 2-3 months in alpine pastures in the remaining 6 months are spent in winter grazing areas. From the individual questionnaires used for ajars the following problems related to seasonal/ migratory movements emerged, blocked trekking routes due to the plantation, traditional routes are blocked by plantation, which can not be crossed any more. Therefore alternative routes like the main roads have to be used, trekking stay problem (lack of fodder grazing areas along the route). Due to blocked traditional trekking routes and plantations along the main roads it is difficult to find forage places to feed the animals during the migration and spend the night. Therefore, trucks are being used (if one can afford) to transport the animals quickly. Trekking expense problem, use of trucks is expensive and cannot be afford by all ajars. They are basically the same however many nomads are using trucks following the main roads these days. Major trekking routes and changes are mentioned below. Mingowara–manglowar to kalam route: formerly this route was travelled by foot. Nowadays many travel by truck due to lack of accessible grazing areas due to new settlements and protected plantation along the main road. Nawagai-Daggar-Barikot-Mingora: same as above. Major barriers (due to plantation) in trekking routes are barekot Amlookdarra- Ghaligay. Daggar-pirbaba-Djambil-Mingora: still travelled on foot but following main roads. No major barriers except for kokarai, fizagat areas. (Dir.)-shamozai-suigali-kanju-shakardara-madian-mankial: Formerly this route was travelled on foot through the hills. These days some plantations have blocked the routes like suigalai and biakand. Especially those graziers coming from Dir have changed there route due the plantations near biakand .the number of days use to travel has reduced due to lack of forage areas. Many people go by truck on the main road from kabbal. Other travels (quickly) on foot along the main road. Totalai-budal-alpuri-fatehpur-madyan and onward, Totalai-buda, pooran-shahpur-indus kohistan upland pastures. This shows that the major changes occur in kabbal area (suigalai etc) and matta (biakand etc) minor/short-cut routes also disappeared in saidu range (barikot/amlook darra-ghaligay). Of major importance for the future is to keep the alpuri-pathehpur (swat) track and others in buner intact. In the past nomads used to travel in "piece meals". On the way to the summer or winter grazing area they use to the summer or winter grazing area they use the grazing lands on the way to feed their livestock. It was an over all accepted rule that a nomadic grazier could not reside in an area on the way for more than two days. Secondly one flock per season would be allowed in grazing area .due to protection of individually owned areas and afforestation areas, It has become difficult to find forage areas on the to stop for one or two days .therefore use of trucks is increasing .Another reason to use trucks might be the traffic density ,making travelling on foot is very dangerous. Also theft of livestock and armed robbery during nightly movement along the road is frequently reported.

Field findings show that in 9 villages during ex-wali swat time, Bhutto time and at present respectively 3(0.7%), 43(37%) ajars have quit their profession respectively. This indicates an increasing trend among nomads to quit their traditional profession in search of something else. According to the interviewees the main causes of leaving their jobs are: Closure of winter grazing areas and trekking routes mostly due to plantation activities at present time. Privatization of land and purchased owner settlement starting from ex-wali swat until present which has resulted in less grazing areas. Increase in qalang price (only mentioned in buner). Alternative jobs are mostly found in agriculture and daily labor .The change of jobs among ajars seems to be highest during the last 15 years. They who are still on the job have reduced their livestock numbers considerably and some have shifted their winter grazing areas to the plains around Mardan and Peshawar.

Chapter III

METHODOLGY

This chapter describes the universe of the study, selection and size of the sample and tools employed to collect the data for the study.

The universe for the present study consist of four villages in Swat, namely Jano, Babu, Chinkolai and Chamtalai, with a number of 280, 155, 215 and 675 households respectively. They are randomly selected among the villages where the age of forest was more than 10 years, and the afforestation was done by the watershed project.

1. The Site Situation

Jano is situated near the roadside at a distance of about two kilometres from main Khwazakhela bazar, along the Mingora Bisham road. The afforested site is situated along the roadside. The forest is in a good condition and can be viewed from the main road.

Babu is connected to the Mingora Besham road by a mettled road. It is situated about 5 kilometres from the main Khawzakhela bazaar. The village is situated along the hillside. The total area afforested by watershed is 150 acres.

Chinkolai is located about 10 kilometres away from the Khawazkhela bazar on the Shalpin road, surrounded by hills from two sides. The afforestation was done in 1989 by Watershed Project on 220 acres.

Chamtalai is situated on the Mingora Besham road at distance of about 15 kilometres from the Khwazakhela bazar. A 1050 acres of Chamtali hillside was afforested in 1990 by the Watershed project.

2. The Sample

The total sample size for the present study was 65. This sample was drawn from all the four villages. A sample of 5 percent was drawn from each village on the basis of the number of households in the village. In each village three categories namely the owner, tenants and livestock herders were interviewed. The number of respondents in each village depend on the number of households of each category in that village. The data regarding the number of households of each category was taken from the Environmental Rehabilitation Project (ERP). The breakdown of the sample is as under.

 

Total number of households of the farmers and sample size

Sr. No	Name of village	Total number of household	Owners	Non-owners	Sample size			Total
					Owner	Non-Owner
						Tenants	Livestock herder
1.	Chinkolai	215	83	132	4	4	3	11
2.	Chamtalai	675	230	445	11	17	5	33
3.	Jano	280	228	52	11	2	1	14
4.	Babu	155	88	67	4	2	1	7
	Grand Total	1325	629	696	30	25	10	65

3. Data collection

In order to collect data, an interview schedule was used. It was developed in English language for academic purposes but exercised in pushto. To conduct the interview the researcher himself had to visit the selected villages, and each of the respondent was interviewed on individual basis. In case of none availability, a second visit was made and almost every respondent was available then. Some of the respondents especially the owners were reluctant to give interview but after clarification about the study, they were agreed to provide relevant information. Conducting interview had been a very interesting and informative experience for the researcher. Initially it took some 60 minutes to interview each respondent, but later on due to exercise, this time span was reduced to about 45 minutes.

4. Pre-testing

In order to make the questionnaire simple, precise and error free so that the reliability of the data could be maximized to the possible extent, pretesting was conducted on six cases 2 from each category. The questionnaire was discussed with local educated people, teachers and experienced farmers. This process also helped the researcher to pricier the local terms and creates the friendly atmosphere. After the pre-testing some of the questions were revised.

5. Statistical Techniques and Methods

The collected data was systematically feeded ot Microsoft Excel and statistically analysed to bring in into comparable form.The following tests were applied:

1. Average = T/N

Where T = Total

N = Number of Respondents

2. Percentage = f/nx100

Where,

f = Observed total

n = Grand total

6. Definitions of the three categories

6.1. Livestock herders:

It includes two categories locally called as ajars and gujars.

(a) Ajars: Semi-Nomadic commercial livestock holders, mostly keeping goats and sheep. They are from original hank origin and speak Gujro language. They are meat and wool producers.

(b) Gujars: Mostly settled or semi-nomadic livestock holders, mostly keeping cattle (cows and buffaloes). They are also from hindko origin and are descendants of original Ajars. They also speak Gujro language. They are milk producers.

6.2 Tenants

The terms in this study mean the person who cultivates land of others nearby or within the afforested area. Most of such people are Gujars by cast, but they have abandoned commercial livestock keeping and they cultivate the lands on which they don’t have the claim on the ownership rights.

6.3 Owners

The term owner for this study mean person who has claim on the ownership rights in the area, which has been afforested by watershed project. These people are Pushtoon by Cast who either cultivate the lands by themselves or give it on rent or share basis to the tenants or livestock herders.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table. 1: Educational Status of Different Social Groups in the Study Area

Tenurial status	Primary	Middle	Matric	F.A	B.A	M.A	Illiterate	Total
Owners	24 (16.22)	21 (14.19)	38 (25.68)	38 (25.68)	11 (7.43)	7 (4.73)	29 (19.59)	148
Tenants	5 (5.43)	6 (6.52)	4 (4.35)	4 (4.35)	1 (1.09)	0 ( 0 )	76 (82.61)	92
Grazers	0 ( 0 )	0 ( 0 )	0 ( 0 )	0 ( 0 )	0 ( 0 )	0 ( 0 )	60 (100)	60
Totals	29	27	42	18	12	7	165	300

 

The results indicate drastic differences among different social groups,, in availing formal education. The owners being residing in the main villages have greater chance to avail the educational and other facilities. They also posses more resources to educate their children. Their children are mostly not obliged to support their parents in their early stages in the daily labor and farming or other activities. So the owners group show comparatively better educational status. The tenants mostly are residing in the out skirts of villages/hillside. They cultivate the land not only to produce for their own subsistence but also for the landowners. Hence their children are mostly obliged to work on field under family labour distribution mechanism. They however have comparatively better educational status, in comparison with the livestock herders. The livestock herders were reportedly 100% illiterate. The live stock herders are living on the hillside, and lack of educational facilities like, schools etc. restrict them from schooling. Under the transhumant farming system they take their livestock in winter to plain areas and in summer to the upland summer grazing areas, with two or more month spend during to and fro moments. As a result their farming system don’t effectively coincide with the formal education system.

Table-2: Occupational Compositon of Different Social Groups in the Study Area

Tenurial status	Govt. job	L.stock herder	Student	Self employed	Looking for work	Not working	Farmers	Others	Total
Owners	25 (16.89)	0 (0)	63 (42.57)	10 (6.76)	1 (0.68)	10 (6.76)	39 (26.36)	0 (0)	148
Tenants	1 (1.09)	0 (0)	12 (13.04)	2 (2.17)	1 (1.09)	4 (4.35)	64 (69.56)	8 (5.41)	92
Grazers	0 (0)	20 (33.33)	0 (0)	10 (16.67)	0 (0)	8 (13.33)	16 (26.67)	6 (10)	60
Total	26	20	75	22	2	22	119	14	300

 

 

The results indicate that among the owner group the highest concentration of household family members were students, indicating their trends for future job seeking mostly in the non-farm employment sector. They also posses higher proportion of government jobs because of their higher educational status. The owners that adopted the farming profession are either directly involved in farming or only one man in the family deals the affairs of the lands, as they either have rented out their lands totally to the tenants or only cultivate the irrigated lands. Some of them have private jobs or waiting for jobs. The highest concentration of tenants are involved directly in farming while some of them are getting education. The tenants have mostly the rainfed lands on which they cannot subsist, unless all their family members proceed for working on the field. Some of the tenant households also provide their work force to the cities for earning additional surpluses for better subsistence. The livestock herders once were all together involved in rearing and looking after their livestock, but due to decreasing free grazing area they are changing their parental profession. However, still most of their family members are involved in farming profession, while some of them are rearing their livestock. Due to decreasing grazing potential for livestock many herders have now shifted to seasonal labor migration in the coalmines down the country.

Table-3: Income Situation of Different Social Groups in the Study Area

(Rs. in 000)

Tenurial status	Income range (Rs)					Total
	0 -25	26 -50	51 –75	76 -100	101 & above
Owners	1 (3.33)	4 (13.33)	3 (10)	3 (10)	19 (63.33)	30
Tenants	10 (40)	10 (40)	3 (12)	1 (4)	1 (4)	25
Grazers	1 (10)	1 (10)	4 (40)	2 (20)	2 (20)	10
Total	12	15	10	6	22	65

The result shows wide difference in the income of different groups. Most of the owners are concentrated in the highest income group. The owners occupy the govt. job, they have orchard of different fruits on their lands, and of course the cash crops contribute greatly to their highest income. The owners and the other groups either have smallholdings, or they do not have orchards on their lands. Most of the tenants fall into the lower income groups because they mostly cultivate the rainfed land on sharecropping receiving only half of their family labor input. The tenants in the high-income group may be receipt of substantial amount of remittances. The livestock herders mostly fall into medium to high-income group. This may be due to the reason that although livestock grazing requires continues mobility but their returns are also comparatively higher than the rainfed agriculture. Remittances may also contribute to their income. In the lowest group of income those livestock herders fall who have small herds of livestock particularly during winter when the increasing privatization of communal lands at the hillside hill range and afforestation activity.

 

 

 

 

 

Table.4: Land Utilization for Different Purposes by Social Groups Before and After Afforestation in the Study Area

(Area in Acres)

Tenurial status	Orchards		Crops		Forest		Pasture		Grazing land
	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA
Owners	0	62.5	581	518.5	39.5	291	9.5	29	466	195
Tenants	0	1	84.5	84.5	1.5	29	16	21	33.5	15
Grazers	0	0	41	41	0	11	7.5	8	45.5	36
Total	0	63.5	706.5	644	41	331	33	58	545	246

BA = Before Afforestation

AA = After Afforestation

The results show that the orchards have increased only among the owners after afforestation, because before afforestation most of the farmers practiced the subsistence farming system. They usually did not plant the orchard. But after afforestation they are converting their farming system into commercial. The reason has been that these owners were getting meat, milk, manure, ghee etc. in return for giving the grazing area to the tenants and livestock herders. These farmers now need cash money to satisfy their needs, so they plant more orchards now. The cropland has decreased among the owners but it remained the same in the tenants and live stock herders. This is because the owners have converted some of their cropland into orchards. The tenants and livestock herders usually have arid or rainfed lands where they get subsistence agricultural production and the land is not suitable for any other use. The land under forest has increased due to afforestation in all the social groups markedly. The afforestation squeezed the land with tenants and livestock herders that was previously under forest or was grazing land. The pasture is increased with all the social groups after afforestation. Before afforestation these were under grazing use, pasture or forest. The afforestation and prohibiting the entry of livestock into the afforested area, the land around the afforested sites were converted into the pasture land, partly because taking live stock to these area for grazing involved more risk in case of damaging the new saplings and chiefly because they needed a source of grasses for feeding their live stock. The grazing land has decreased with all the social groups. But this decrease is more pronounced with owners. Among the tenants the decrease is moderate and with live stock herders the decrease in grazing area is not much more. The owners were not dependent on the hillside too much. That’s why they afforested the hillside for seeking their own benefits. The tenants were somewhat dependent on the hillside so they resisted the plantation near about their homes. The livestocks totally were dependent on the grazing area for rearing their livestock. They did not allowed the land for afforestation that they had on rent or share basis.

Table-5: Feeding Strategies of Different Social Groups Before and After Afforestation

Tenurial status	Hillside & Stall feeding		Stall Feeding		Hillside		No cattles		Own grazing area		Rented area and stall feeding		Rented area and outside Rangeland
	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA
Owners	9 (30)	0 (0)	12 (40)	27 (90)	9 (30)	0 (0)	0 (0)	3 (10)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Tenants	4 (16)	0 (0)	3 (12)	18 (72)	18 (72)	0 (0)	3 (12)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	6 (24)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Grazers	1 (10)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	9 (90)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (20)	0 (0)	5 (50)	0 (0)	3 (30)
Total	14	0	15	45	33	0	3	4	0	2	0	11	0	3

(The numbers in brackets indicates the percent figures).

BA = Before Afforestation.

AA = After Afforestation.

As evident from the results dependence of all the social groups on the combination of afforested area and stall feeding as sources of feeding their livestock has decreased to zero after afforestation. This is because after afforestation the afforested sites were closed for grazing, so that the animals may not harm the new saplings. There is strict watch and ward system that restricts the grazing to out side the afforested area. There is drastic increase in the dependence on stall-feeding among the owners. The reason is that most of the owners rear buffaloes which could not be grazed on steep slops because of its bulky body, so stall-feeding is practiced nowadays among most of the owners. Among the tenants the trend of stall-feeding is also increased after afforestation. The tenants mostly have cows and buffaloes after afforestation which are fed on stall. The watch and ward system in the afforested areas also restrict them outside the sites. They only cut the grasses in which case they practice stall-feeding. The livestock herders neither stall-fed their animals before afforestation nor after afforestation, because they living in the hilly slops they rear sheeps and goats to which stall-feeding cannot be practiced easily. The dependence of live stock herders was much more on the afforested area for grazing their animals, but after afforestation non-of them graze animals over there, because the area is closed for grazing. The dependence of tenants was on afforested sites more than owners but less than livestock herders before afforestation. But non-of the tenants and owner can graze over there after afforestation, because of the tight watch and ward. The owners before and after afforestation had mostly buffaloes, which could not be grazed at steep slops, but the tenants had mostly cows, which they used to graze in the afforested area. The owners that lack the cattle increase after afforestation, this is because the grazing area is in proximity to the village is under forest now where grazing cannot be practiced and the labor is not available as well. But the tenants who do not have cattles are decreased after afforestation, because the grasses for cutting are increased after afforestation. The livestock herders had most of their dependence, for feeding their animals, on grazing area but afforestation has squeezed the area. They purchased ownership of the hillside and they mostly use it for grazing and grass cutting. So, the livestock herders having own grazing area increase after afforestation. The tenants and livestock herders after afforestation used the combination of rented area and stall-feeding to feed their livestock. Before afforestation non-of them used this combination for feeding their livestock. The tenant and live stock herders practice farming in the hillside. They have some area having grassland attached with the cropland. After afforestation they are depending mostly on those areas for feeding their livestock. The live stock herder mostly used to graze their animals in the afforested area before afforestation, but now as grazing is not allowed over there they take their livestock out side the afforested area to remote areas where there is no such restriction.

Table-6: Estimates of Grasses Harvested from Afforested Sites in Selected Villages by per Social Groups Before and After Afforestation

Village	Average grasses harvested (Bundles)
	Owners		Tenants		Grazers
	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA
Janu	0	55.5	0	0	0	50
Babu	0	125	0	0	0	0
Chinkolai	0	350	26.6	83.3	6.5	62.5
Chamtalai	0	110.9	10	10	20.5	55.7

 

BA = Before Afforestation.

AA = After Afforestation.

 

The results show that the owners did not get grasses before afforestation in any of the sampled village. But after afforestation they get a lot of grasses. Because before afforestation free grazing was practiced, so there was no chance for them to cut grasses over there. But after afforestation the area was closed for grazing, so the amount of grasses increased. They either cut the grasses themselves or sold them as standing. The tenant in Janu and Babu did not get grasses before and after afforestation, because before afforestation the area was under intensive grazing and after afforestation the area was under the hold of owners who never allowed them to cut grasses for themselves. But in chinkolai the amount of grasses they were getting increased after afforestation. Because before afforestation they had little chance to cut the grasses and save them as ‘hay’ for winter but after afforestation they have more grasses to cut for their live stock, as some of the afforestation is done on the land which they have rented in. But in chamtalai this amount is same before and after afforestation because afforested area is under the control of owners. They only get from the rented area. The livestock herders get more in Janu, Chinkolai, and Chamtalai, because they either have rented area or buy the grasses from the owners. The live stock herders in Babu never get grasses before and after afforestation, because they are not allowed after afforestation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table-7: Livestock Owned by Different Social Groups in the Selected Villages Before and After Afforestation

Tenurial status	Village	Number of cows		Number of buffaloes		Number of sheeps & goats
		BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA
Owners	Janu	22	9	68	25	0	0
	Babu	8	1	20	12	0	0
	Chinkolai	15	2	27	16	45	0
	Chamtalai	13	5	66	27	13	9
Tenants	Janu	10	2	15	19	3	0
	Babu	31	8	0	5	45	6
	Chinkolai	25	20	4	5	60	0
	Chamtalai	26	20	34	38	10	0
Grazers	Janu	17	3	0	0	40	20
	Babu	16	5	0	2	120	8
	Chinkolai	12	10	0	0	680	283
	Chamtalai	22	21	4	24	360	217
Total		217	106	238	173	1376	543
Percent change		51.15%		27.31%		60.54 %

The results show that there is drastic decrease in the number of cows in Janu and Babu with all the social groups after afforestation. Cows being able to graze on the mountainous region were kept basically for grazing in the afforested area, which was in close proximity to the village. In Janu and Babu the owners are strict in allowing any of the tenant and live stock herder to cut grasses for their livestock. They sell the grasses every for themselves and do with money some common works or keep it for watch and ward of the forest. Other reason is that all the grazing area in these villages is afforested. On the other hand the number of cows in Chinkolai and Chamtalai have not decreased so steeply. The answer is two fold, firstly, in chinkolai the owners and tenants are somewhat friendly with each other. They allow free cutting or have given them on rent the area under forest. The tenants and livestock herders cut the grasses for their livestocks, so here the number of cows is not decreased so crucially. Secondly the area under forest is not so vast which don’t totally prevent the grazing and the tenants and livestock herders have kept some area on rent or share basis, which they use either for grass cutting or grazing. The number of buffaloes is decreased with owners in all the four villages after afforestation. The answer is two fold, firstly, before afforestation the livestock herders take their goats and sheeps to the summer grazing areas or upland pastures, and they left their families behind them. The left over herders usually worked with owners and looked after their livestocks. After afforestation their flock size decreased so the surplus labor usually go to some other places for work, as they could not survive on the meager salary of the owners. Secondly the joint family system which is now a days disintegrating. For large family they kept many buffaloes and for small family they keep few buffaloes. The buffaloes are increased among the tenants in all the four villages and among live stock herders in Babu and Chamtalai. As compared to the cows and small ruminants the buffalo can be fed easily on stall, it cannot graze on mountainous regions because of its bulky structure. The tenants feed them the crop residues and grass cut from the afforested area. In Chamtalai one of the live stock herders had goats and sheeps at one time but due to closing of the area for grazing and other problems now he keeps buffaloes and sell milk. The owners usually had goats and sheeps, which they gave to their tenants on the hillside on share basis. The tenants themselves had goats and sheeps but due to afforestation this trend is decreased, and number of goats and sheeps with owners and tenants have decreased to their minimum or totally diminished. The number of goats and sheeps decreased with livestock herders tremendously in Janu and Babu, because the grazing area is decreased too much which adversely affected their sheeps and goats flock size. The trekking roots to summer grazing areas are also decreased due to afforestation. The owners also don’t allow the tenants and livestock herders to cut grass. The owners sell whole of the grasses, that’s why the decrease in number is pronounced. In Chinkolai and Chamtalai the herd size is not decreased so much, because the area for grazing is either owned on rent, or take them out for grazing. The number of cows, buffaloes and sheeps and goats is decreased while taking into account the total number after afforestation.

Table-8: The Attitude of Different Social Groups Towards Afforestation

Tenurial status	Satisfied	Not satisfied	If not satisfied, Reason
			Grazing is not allowed and centralized approach was followed	Grazing is not allowed
Owners	30 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Tenants	18 (72)	7 (28)	5 (71.43)	2 (28.57)
Grazers	0 (0)	10 (100)	7 (70)	3 (30)
Total	48	17	12	5

 

The results show that all of the owners are satisfied from the afforestation. They are satisfied because, they are obtaining presently some of the benefits in terms of more grasses, wood, and money from pasture. The aesthetic value of the hillside is increased. This is just the start they see a bright future. They can get fuel wood, timber, employment, and many other benefits from the hillside in future. In contrast to before afforestation when they had nothing to get from the hillside. The tenants and live stock herders were getting benefits from the hillside. Most of the tenants are satisfied from afforestation because, they are getting increased amount of grasses or other benefits from the hillside. They are happy that they are benefited from the forest. Some of the tenants are not satisfied from the afforestation and they quoted the reason that grazing is not allowed and a centralized approach was followed. They told that we used to graze our live stock over there but after afforestation our livestock are prohibited from grazing and the owners don’t allow us to cut grasses from there, which ultimately led our livestock to decrease with the passage of time. All the live stock herders were not satisfied from afforestation. They quoted the reason that grazing is not allowed and centralized approach was followed. They told that at the time of afforestation we were not taken in confidence in which case they could be in the position to minimize its harmful effects through mutual consensus. Through mutual consensus the owners, tenants, and live stock herders all would have been benefited from the afforestation.

Table.9: The willingness of different social groups to grow more forest on their hillside and/ utilized by them

Tenurial status	Inclined	Not inclined	If not inclined, Reason
			We don’t need any more	Grazing is prohibited
Owners	29 (96.67)	1 (3.33)	1 (100)	0
Tenants	14 (56)	11 (44)	0	11 (100)
Grazers	0 (0)	10 (100)	0	10 (100)
Total	43	22	1	21

The results show that about all of the owners were inclined towards afforestation on the hillside owned by them. They want to do more afforestation because they are getting little benefits from their hillside at present but after afforestation they will be able to develop their hillside and will get more benefits as compared to present. One of the owners was not inclined towards afforestation because he didn’t need more forest. Some of the tenants were not inclined towards afforestation. Because their live stock were not allowed for grazing that adversely affected their live stock number and disturbed their life style. Most of the tenants were inclined to growing more forest on the hillside under their use, because they were getting increased amount of grasses, which enabled them to keep buffaloes for milk. All the live stock herders were not inclined to grow more forest on the hillside under their use, because the afforested area was the main area for grazing their animals. But after afforestation the afforested area was closed for grazing which adversely affected their animals and their life style. That’s why they are not inclined towards afforestation.

Table-10: The Views of Different Social Groups Towards the Management of Afforested Area

Tenurial status	Managed	Not managed
Owners	30 (100)	0 (0)
Tenants	25 (100)	0 (0)
Grazers	10 (100)	0 (0)
Total	65	0

The results indicate that all the owners, tenants, and live stock herders replied positively towards management of the afforested area. After watershed the Environmental Rehabilitation Project took charge of these areas and established VDC’s in every village. The VDC’s managed the forest well by making precise watch and ward arrangement for the afforested area.

Table.11: The Views of Each Social Group Towards the Availability of Fuel wood After Afforestation

Tenurial status	Decreased	No change	Increased	Total
Owners	18 (60)	8 (26.67)	4 (13.33)	30
Tenants	24 (96)	1 (4)	0 (0)	25
Grazers	10 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	10
Total	52	9	4	65

 

The results show that 60% of the owners reported decrease in the supply of fuel wood after afforestation. The reason they ascribed the decrease to, was deforestation or degradation. Before afforestation some of the area was under the natural forest. The tenants were bound to bring some specified quantity of fuel wood from the forest or scrub land due to deforestation the fuel wood finished with the passage of time. The tenants started bringing fuel wood from the scrubland. But due to afforestation activities the area was banned so that it might not affect the newly planted saplings. 26.67% of the owners replied that there is no change in the fuel wood over time, because with the degradation of scrub land/forest they planted trees along their field boundaries which increased the fuel wood supply or compensated the decrease in fuel wood due to deforestation. 96% of the tenants reported decrease in the supply of fuel wood, because the degradation/ deforestation resulted in its decrease. 4% of the tenants reported no change in the supply of fuel wood because now or before they didn’t get share in the fuel wood from afforested area. 100% of the live stock herders reported decrease in the fuel wood supply after afforestation, because they were totally dependent on the forest or scrub land for their fuel wood, after afforestation they had not major source like that of owners.

Table-12: Fuel Sources Indicated by Different Social Groups Before and After Afforestation

Tenurial status	Natural forest and dung cakes		Trees on field boundaries		Natural forest and field boundaries		Trees on field boundaries and dung cakes		Natural forest		Afforested area
	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA	BA	AA
Owners	2 (6.67)	0 (0)	4 (13.3)	28 (93.3)	15 (50)	1 (3.33)	3 (10)	1 (3.33)	0 (0)	0 (0)	6 (20)	0 (0)
Tenants	10 (40)	1 (4)	0 (0)	8 (32)	2 (8)	3 (12)	1 (4)	13 (52)	10 (40)	0 (0)	2 (8)	0 (0)
Grazers	2 (20)	2 (20)	0 (0)	3 (30)	1 (10)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (20)	6 (60)	3 (30)	1 (10)	0 (0)
Total	14	3	4	39	18	4	4	16	16	3	9	0

(Numbers in brackets indicate percent figures).

BA = Before Afforestation

AA = After Afforestation

The results show that dependence of owners and tenants on the combination of natural forest and dung cakes has decreased after afforestation, while that of livestock herders is same as before afforestation. The owners don’t make dung cakes because of decrease in the amount of dung and modernism in ideas. The deforestation has led the owners to shift from natural forest as a fuel source. The tenants also face the same problem, the deforestation and decrease in livestock numbers has decreased their dependence on natural forest and dung cakes as major sources of fuel. The livestock herders use to graze their animals in the remote areas where natural forest exists, so they bring fuel wood from there. They also make dung cakes as an immediate source of fuel. That’s why their dependence on dung cakes and natural forest is same after afforestation. The dependence of most of the owners, tenants and livestock herders on trees on field boundaries increased after afforestation, because they have trees on their field boundaries. No other major source exists so they are dependent mostly on those trees for fuel after afforestation. The dependency of owners and live stock herders decreased on the combination of natural forest and trees on field boundaries while the dependency of tenants on these sources increased after afforestation. Because the natural forest exists in the remote areas where accessibility is difficult, so dependence on it as a major source is decreased. The owners and live stock herders have shifted to some other sources. The dependence of some tenants on trees on field boundaries has increased, that’s why the tenants percentage is increased. The percentage of owners that were dependent on the combination of trees, on field boundaries and dung cakes, have decreased while the dependence of tenants and livestock herders increased on these sources after afforestation, because the dependence of owners on dung cakes decreased due to decrease in their livestock number, while tenants and livestock herders depend on dung cakes and trees on field boundaries as major sources because they have buffaloes which have increased the amount of dung, and of course trees on field boundaries are also increased after afforestation. The natural forest as sole source of fuel wood for owners, tenants and livestock herders have decreased with passage of time. The dependency of owners and tenants is no more on the natural forest while that of livestock herders is decreased on fuel wood from natural forest after afforestation, because of deforestation the owners and tenants are not accessible to the remaining natural forest, while the livestock herders graze the animals in the remote areas, bring fuel wood from those forest. None of the owners, tenants and livestock herders bring fuel wood from the afforested area after afforestation because either fuel wood from forest is communal property and they sell it for some common well being are the forest has not reached to the stage where pruning or cutting could be practiced.

Table-13: The Views of Different Social Groups About the Relationship Between Owners and Tenants Before and After Afforestation

Tenurial status	Views
	Worsened	Improved	No change	Total
Owners	15 (50)	2 (6.67)	13 (43.33)	30
Tenants	4 (16)	2 (8)	19 (76)	25
Grazers	9 (90)	1 (10)	0 (0)	10
Total	28	5	32	65

 

The results show that 50% of the owners, 16%of the tenants, and 90% of the live stock herders reported that relationship between owners and tenants is worsened, because the afforestation not only decreased the grazing area and resultantly the live stock on which they were dependent but also the tenants and the live stock herders are not allowed to cut the grasses for their live stock. 6.67% of the owners, 8% of the tenants and 10% of the live stock herders reported that the relationship is improved/they are pleased with afforestation, because before afforestation they only graze their animals but now they have more grasses for cutting to feed their livestock. 43.33% of the owners, and 76% of the tenants replied that our relationship is not changed due to afforestation because the land afforested was of owners and the decision regarding afforestation should be on their own disposal.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The total forest area of Pakistan is estimated at 4.8 percent of the total geographical area of the country. The forest sector contributed about 0.1 percent to the GDP and 0.4 to the agriculture sector during 1998-99. In the province of NWFP forest covers about 1214 thousand hectares. The NWFP is blessed with 27 percent of the total forest area of the country.

The Tehsil Khwazakhela is situated 27 km away from Mingora, the main city of district Swat. The watershed project started afforestation in the area in early eighties.

The afforestation greatly affected the hillside owners, tenants and livestock herders. All the three social groups were interviewed in selected villages Janu, Babu, Chinkolai and Chamtalai. Data about the social and economic impact of afforestation on these three social groups was collected and analyzed. Main findings of the study are summarized.

The results show that almost all the tenants (83%) and livestock grazers (100%) were illeterate whereas the corresponding figure among owner was very low (20%). Main occupation of the owners was farming (26.36%) followed by government jobs, while the tenants concentration was highest (69.56%) in farming. Livestock herders are almost equales depending on livestock herding (33.33%) and farming (26.67%). Most of the owners (63.33)% are concentrated in middle-income group (51,000 – 75,000).

The data indicate transformation of the land under grazing into forest and pastureland after afforestation. Some of the land under crops is brought under orchards after afforestation. This trend is more prevalent among owners as compared to tenants and livestock herders.

The owners and tenants animals are mostly dependent on stall-feeding after afforestation, which was more on hillside and stall feeding before afforestation among them. The livestock herders which were mostly dependent on hillside before afforestation for feeding their animals now either started stall-feeding are rented in hillsides for their livestock from owner.

The availability of grasses increased after afforestation to all the social groups. But in some cases the grasses were sold by owners and deprived the tenants, and livestock herders.

The number of cows decreased in all the social groups in all the villages, while the number of buffaloes increased among the tenants and livestock herders slightly and decreased among the owners sharply. The numbers of sheep and goats decreased among all the social groups in all the selected villages. The decline was mostly reported among livestock herders.

All the owners were satisfied from afforestation, while the satisfaction was moderate in tenants. The livestock herders were totally dissatisfied from the afforestation.

Nearly all the owners were willing to grow more forest, while the willingness was moderate among the tenants and negative in case of livestock herder.

All of the owners, tenants and livestock herders reported good management of the afforestated area by VDC’s.

Most of the owners, tenants and livestock herders attributed the decrease in fuel wood due to deforestation and degradation, while the increase was attributed to plantation of trees along the field boundaries.

Before afforestation most of the owners were dependent on natural forest and trees on field boundaries, while most of the tenants depended on natural forest and dung cakes. Livestock herders reported mostly dependent on natural forest only.

About the relationship between owners and tenants the 50percent of the owners, 16 percent of the tenants and 90 percent of the livestock herders reported that afforestation worsened the owner-tenant relationship.

CHAPTER VI

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The inclusion of users especially the livestock herders, in the planning and implementation process of Village Land Use Planning (VLUP) if possible form the beginning. Even in advanced stages, they can be made part of the VDC if their needs and ideas are incorporated in VLUP. It will improve the planning, implementation and maintenance of afforestation.
2. In the VLUP capacity of the rangelands, selection of the best grazing lands.
3. The number and type of livestock should be kept in mind, before planning for afforestation.
4. The total grazing area needed for grazing should be considered during planning.
5. The afforested areas should be banned for grazing for a specified time, after the completion of which owners should be forced to remove the ban immediately.
6. The government should assist the affectees and poor, weak and underrepresented groups. Such activities should lead to a breakthrough in social relations and development of the village society as a whole.
7. The old plantation sites should be opened for grazing if possible, by bringing the owners and users especially grazers together and mutual consensus should be made among them on opening of the afforested areas for grazing.
8. Alternate subsidized fuel should be provided to the people so that future deforestation could be stopped.

LITERATURE CITED

Bertken de Leede, Inam-ur Rahim and J. Wind (1998). ERP Technical Report 2.9. Nomadic Graziers and Hill Side Development. A case study in Swat and Buner. DHV Consultants Amersfoort, The Netherlands.

Chowdry, K. Social Forestry who benefits. In community Forestry Socio Economic aspect/Proceedings of workshop (15-21 September 1984). FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific Environment and Policy Institute East-West Center.

Christary, L. and Iskandar, J. Community Participation in Rural Development. Some insights from Yogyakarta, Indonesia (cited in Rao. Y.S. et al. 1985).

Dolakha – Ramechap Community Forestry Development Project (1995). A Gender Analysis. Vol.I, II. p.15, 17, 84.

Iqbal, J. (1993). Effect of Farm and Energy Forestry Project on Socio economic condition of farmers in Gujrat District (Thesis). Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar.

IRDP Mardan (1996). Case Study of the Jalal People’s Afforestation Programme. p.9-11.

Oh, Ho-Sung. Economic Development and changing Forest Problems and Policies. The case of Korea (cited in Rao, Y.S. et al. 1985).

Pao-chang Kuo and Jen, I-an. Leucaena Production as an Economic Measure. A report on Taiwan's Private Tree Farmers. (cited in Rao, Y.S. et al. 1985).

Sheikh, M.I. (1998), Economical impact of Acacia nilotica in Rural Areas of Sindh.

Singh, G. (1990), Impact of Social Forestry Project in Badaun, India.

Social Forestry Project Malakand Dir, Economic Analysis of Social Forestry Interventions (Technical Report No.17, Vol. I & II, (1985).

Thio, K.S. (1996). Cost Return models for Economic Analysis of Social Forestry intervention.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AFFORESTATION ON LAND USE, ANIMAL AND PEOPLE

(A Case Study of Selected Villages in Tehsil Khwazakhela, District Swat)

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

SERIAL NO-----------------

SITE --------------------

VILLAGE ---------------------

1.GENERAL INFORMATIONS:

2. NAME------------------------------
3. INFORMATION REGARDING FAMILY MEMBERS:

Sr.No	Name	Relation with H.H.head	Age	Education	Occupation	Income

Education codes: Occupation codes:

Primery-1 Middle-2 Matric-3 Farmer-1 Govt. job –2 Livestock herder –3

Shop keeper –4

F.A 4 B.A –5 M.A- 6 Neither working nor looking for work –5

Self employed-6

Looking for work-7 House wife-8 Other-9 Student-0

4.TENURAL STATUS:

Categories	Area	Irrigated		Rainfed		Total
		BA ---AA	BA -- AA	BA ---AA	BA --- AA
		Cash basis	Share basis	Cash basis	Share basis
Land owned
Land rented out
Land rented in
Total

5-LAND UTILIZATION:

Use	Area used	Irrigated		Rainfed
	BA ----- AA	BA	AA	BA	AA
Orchards
Crops
Forest
Pasture
Grazing

6-Previous use of afforested area:

1. Grazing land
2. Pastureland
3. Forestland
4. Cropland

7- Ownership pattern of the land:

1. Communally owned.
2. Individually owned.
3. State land.

8- If the afforested area was previously a forest or scrub land when it was degraded.

1. Ex- Wali time (before 1968)
2. After Wali time (1968-1985)

 

9- Who were responsible for this deforestation /degradation.

1. Owners
2. Owner users
3. Tenants
4. Grazers/ Ajars
5. Wood collectors

10- For what purpose the deforestation or the degradation was done.

1. Sale
2. House hold use
3. for fuel
4. Timber
5. Other (specify)

BA= before afforestation

AA= after afforestation

 

11-SOCIO- ECONOMIC IMPACT.

 

12-CHANGES IN THE FOLLOWING:

Category	Source	BA	AA
Economic	Fuel Wood ( mnds)
	Employment in the afforested area
	Medicinal plants(Rs)
	Forage and grasses(Bundles)
	Wood related industry (No)
Social	Picnic spots
	Litigation (No)
Agricultural	Marketing
	Productivity/Gerab
	Cropping pattern
	Soil erosion (Gerab)

13-Main source of drinking water:

Sr. No	Water source	BA	AA
1.	Piped water
2	River/ stream
3	Irrigation canal
4	Springs
5	Tube well
6	Ground well
7	Hand pump

 

14-Main causes of variation in water supply.----------------------------------------------------

 

15- Where did you grazed your animals?

1. before afforestation
2. after afforestation

16- What is the effect on the grazing area?

1. increased
2. decreased
3. no change over time

17- LIVESTOCK ACTIVITY:

Sr. No	Type	Status	BA	AA
1.	Cows:	Young
		Adult
2.	Bullock:	Young
		Adult
3.	He.Buffaloes:	Young
		Adult
4.	She.Buffaloes:	Young
		Adult
5.	Goat and sheep:	Young
		Adult
6.	Horses & mules:	Young
		Adult
7.	Donkeys:	Young
		Adult
8	Poultry:

18-Relationship between tenants and owners.

1. improved
2. worsened
3. no change over time

19- Main causes of change in the relationship.--------------------------------------------------

20- Main sources of fuel supply.

1. before afforestation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. after afforestation---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21- Fuel wood production after afforestation.

1. increased
2. decreased
3. no change over time

22- Main causes of variation-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

23- From where did/do you bring fuel wood.

1. before afforestation-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. after affrestation-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24-HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

S.No.	Income entities	BA	AA
1	Farming
2	Services
3	Forest
4	Livestock
5	Trade
6	Foreign remittances
7	Pasture land

BA=before afforestation

AA= after afforestation

25-FARMERS VIEWS REGARDING AFFORESTATION:

26-Are you satisfied with the afforestation program. YES/NO

27- If No, why: Prioritize

1. The trees planted are not suitable in suitable in local conditions.
2. The area planted is not suuitable.
3. The attitude of the forest staff is not friendly.
4. Pest problem, forest support crimes etc.
5. Dangerous animals are threat to us and our animals.
6. Grazing is not allowed.
7. Caused conflict between owners and tenants/Ajars.
8. Centralized approached was followed.
9. Others

28- If you are given the natural gas would you cut the trees. YES/NO

29- If Yes, why,

1. Natural gas is costly
2. It is short in locality.
3. It is dangerous.
4. For timber.
5. For financial requirements.
6. Others

 

 

 

30. If you are asked to grow forest on your mountain, would you do this. YES/NO

31- If No, why. (Please prioritize)

1. Not an economic use of land.
2. Grazing is prohibited.
3. Give return after a long time.
4. We do not need any more.
5. Others

32- Does the community able to manage the afforested area. YES/NO

33- If No, what are the main reasons.

1. The people are poor.
2. The people do not cooperate with each other.
3. The property is common.
4. Other.

Thank you for your cooperation

 

        BACK