Previous Page Table Of ContentsNext Page

Appendix A - Diagnostic checklist

The following is a minimal checklist of factors potentially associated with the success or failure of tree planting efforts. It was used in the initial stage of the present study as a logical framework for the evaluation of species choices revealed in project documents, but it may also be used as a general framework for species selection (the decision algorithm given in Chapter 4 and the supporting material contained in the remaining appendices are essentially an elaboration of this framework).

Table 8. Checklist of factors affecting the appropriateness of tree planting efforts.

1. For each project site or recommendation domain, identify:

2. For each tree recommended for a particular land use system or user group ascertain:

2.3 Tree planting arrangement

2.4 Tree management,

2.5 Distribution of costs and benefits

-- Who has what rights to what products and services? How does this relate to labour inputs and incentives for tree planting for different community members? (Pay particular attention to evidence of conflicts or contradictions; e.g., observations such as: "women do all the work but men get all the benefits; hence women are slow to plant trees." OR "farmers plant trees but pastoralists allow their animals to browse them because they view tree planting as an encroachment on traditional grazing rights." OR "tenants would be interested in planting more trees except that the benefits accrue to the landlords." OR "tenants are happy to plant trees because it gives them a legal basis for a claim to the land on which they are planted." etc.).

-- What is your own assessment?

Appendix B - The range of options for tree planting

This appendix sets forth a number of complementary perspectives on the range of options that exist at each of the decision points in the planning algorithm given in Table 7 of Chapter 4. It does not provide ready-made solutions or recipes that can be applied unthinkingly to any location. The intention, rather, is to open-up thinking about the range of possibilities for a creative and socially sensitive approach to tree planting for a variety of clients. The selection of reference material to aid in this process is deliberately eclectic. Although there is a general consistency in what is presented, no attempt has been made to enforce a rigid uniformity on the perspectives offered here. There are no "magic bullets." Each and every new situation requires individual consideration. All decisions should be made in consultation with the intended users and treated as working hypotheses until validated by direct experience.

B.1 The user perspective

Rocheleau (1986) has nicely focused the effort to develop a "user perspective" in agroforestry. The first question to ask when trying to develop a user perspective on a given locality is: what kinds of land users are there? The following checklists suggests some of the possibilities to consider when developing a list of land users for your area.

Table 9. Defining our clientele: users of land, trees and tree products (adapted from Rocheleau 1986).






Forest producers

      By tenure/type of forest production


professional foresters, private forest owners, etc.

          Traditional forest users

hunters, foragers, shifting cultivators, herders, etc.

          Encroachers, poachers, etc.

illegal in formal law but may have rights in custom law

          Forest labourers

paid for labour, may engage in other exploitative activities


      By size of landholding

          Medium-large farmers

exact size limits vary from area to area

          Small farmers

exact size limits vary from area to area

          Landless & marginal farmers

dependence on wage labour and gathering

      By farming system type

          Long fallow shifting cultivation

R value S 10 (see note below)

          Bush fallow cultivation

R value 10-33

          Short fallow cultivation

R value 33-66

          Permanent arable cropping

field cropped annually

          Multiple cropping

more than one crop/year

          Perennial crop plantation

usually tree crops, often internationally traded commodities

      By economic orientation


production for own consumption or informal exchange

          Mixed or "subsistence plus"

most common orientation of small farmers


production for cash sale

      By type of tenure/participation

          Land owner

freeholder, owner operator, absentee landowner, etc.

          Usufruct right holder

tenure usually secure but rights limited


all forms of rent, lease, or sharecropping


based on informal reciprocity rather than formal exchange

          Farm labourer

full or part-time, continuous or temporary


"illegal" occupier but some rights usually recognized

Livestock producers


modem commercial extensive range management


traditional nomadic, semi-nomadic or transhumant herders


part-time herding in combination with cropping

          Mixed farmers

limited livestock production closely integrated with cropping



Urban industry

located in cities or large towns

      Modern, formal sector

large-scale, high tech industries like pulp, rayon, chemicals

      Traditional, informal sector

small to medium-scale artisans and workshops

Rural industry located in rural areas, villages or small towns


usually modestly capitalized & labour intensive, e.g. saw mills, furniture making


cottage or small-scale group enterprises providing full or part-time employment



Formal sector

medium/large-scale, adequate working capital & storage

Informal sector

small/medium-scale, lack of capital & storage facilities




large, politically influential populations


farmers, rural industry workers, retired persons and members of the remittance economy

Note: The R-value classifications are based on Ruthenberg(1971). R-value = (cropping period + (crop + fallow period)) x 100. Equivalent to % of land in cultivation at any one time.

Checklists such as the foregoing are useful to stimulate perception of often overlooked user groups and interests, but the main concerns of most projects located in areas of settled agricultural land use can often be handled by much simpler classifications. One such simple, widely applicable classification can be developed from our analysis of the eucalyptus controversy, where there were three main socioeconomic categories of land users (Table 10).

Table 10. Classification of settled land users by ability to participate in tree planting.



Ability to participate in tree planting

1) Advantaged

Large farmers

More than adequate resources for participation in planting, but generally only interested in practices that offer attractive commercial returns, or that confer other socioeconomic advantages (e.g. security of tenure over large land holdings)

2) Moderately endowed or capable

Small to medium-scale farmers

Adequate resources for participation in a wide range of tree planting practices, both for subsistence and commercial purposes; this is the main client group for the widest range of agroforestry and other multipurpose tree planing practices.

3) Disadvantaged

Landless and marginal farmers, minority groups, women in some cases, etc.

Lack of land resources restricts participation in tree planting to a limited range of options (for cash income or partial subsistence); special incentives and infrastructural supports may be needed to enable participation; unless land can be made available, or tree tenure rights given, the processing of tree products may be a more viable option for the landless than direct tree planting.

B.2 Socioeconomic context and development strategy

The eucalyptus debate demonstrated how important the socioeconomic context of the intended user can be in determining whether or not he or she will be able to make effective use of a particular tree planting practice. Factors that are relevant to consider under this broad heading will vary greatly from place to place. Among the most important are: degree of local socioeconomic stratification (by wealth, land holding size, gender, ethnic group, etc.); access to resources (land and tree tenure); overall economic development strategy; general approach of tree planting programmes; opportunity for reallocation of resources; access to credit, processing technology and marketing assistance; etc. The category covers a vast territory. Only the major considerations are highlighted here.

Socioeconomic stratification

The degree of socioeconomic stratification which exists within a locality is an extremely important determinant of the adoption and impact of new technology, particularly if it is tightly coupled to factors which govern access to resources. In is no accident that the Indian communities in Karnataka where the eucalyptus controversy waxed hottest are areas where rates of landlessness are high and where traditional landlord-client relationships based on caste and economic dependency were beginning to break down under the influence of changing capital and labour relationships in agriculture just when eucalyptus farm forestry was introduced.

One of the most important factors in how the pattern of social stratification is expressed in an area is the body of formal and customary law defining land and tree tenure rights. Several recent publications have expanded our understanding of tenure issues in forestry and agroforestry projects (Fortmann and Riddel 1985, Raintree 1987, Fortmann and Bruce 1988). Much of this recent advance in knowledge has been synthesized by Bruce (1989) in a guide to the rapid appraisal of land and tree tenure issues for project planners and researchers. It will suffice here to highlight a few of the key areas of concern.

Table 11. Who has what rights to which trees? (adapted from Fortmann 1987).

Tvnes of "who"

The State




Types of tree rights

Rights exercised by the State

Ownership of trees on State land

Regulation of the use of trees on State land

Rights exercised by individuals or groups

Right to own or inherit trees

Right to plant trees

Right to use trees and tree products

Right to dispose of trees

Origin of the tree

Location of the tree

Nature of the use

Nature of the land tenure system


Any change in production technology that effects the use of the resource base will send ripples of change throughout the system of customary rights and obligations that regulate the use of those resources. Most projects are launched in near total ignorance of these impacts. Minimally, one needs to check out the likely impact of the proposed technological or organizational change, not only on those who are likely to adopt the innovation but also those who may not be able to adopt it but are nevertheless unable to escape the effects of adoption by others.

The central question is: whose rights are likely to be affected by the introduction of a new tree growing practice or organizational innovation. This checklist may be helpful in troubleshooting the possible tenure impacts of such innovations. See Bruce (1989) for other rapid appraisal survey instruments and guidelines.

Table 12. Trouble-shooting checklist to assess the effects of tree planting on existing land or tree use rights held by selected user groups (adapted from Fortmann 1987).

Conflicting demands on forest resources

The following case study shows how complex the conflicting demands on forest resources can become. Ultimately it is the political process that sorts out who gets what rights in practice and the results may differ markedly from the legal rights accorded in principle.

Political realities of multiple use forestry demand in Kerala, India

Population pressure and increasing demand for forestry products influence decisions on forestry land use and management. Population is a heterogeneous assortment of groups with different demands on forests.




land, income, forest products

modern industry

continuous supply of raw material

traditional industries

medicinal plants, non-timber forest products

tribal populations

land, maintenance of habitat, forest products

lowland cultivators

flood prevention and maintenance of stream flow

encroaches cultivators

land, forest products


forest products




forest products


recreational & wilderness values

For a number of reasons the image of government as an impartial arbitrator of inter-group conflicts is misleading. Given the conflicting nature of different demands, which of these will be satisfied and to what extent, will depend upon the relative power of each group. Power is dependent on organizational strength, economic and political clout and the method employed to assert the demand. The hierarchy of power and the order in which the various demands are satisfied is roughly as follows:






electricity board, pulp and paper industry, modem wood-based industries, rich traders


forest land-based public corporations


encroacher cultivators, highland planters


traditional industries (rich)


wood users (rich), tourists (rich), traders (middle class)


traditional wood industries (poor), low income wood users


lowland cultivators, tribals

In the case of competitive or mutually exclusive demands the groups which stand higher in the hierarchy will have

precedence over those below. A weaker group can also secure its demands if they happen to be complimentary to the interests of a powerful group. The demands that will be satisfied first are: revenue to government, forest produce demand of the modem industries, land for electricity board and forest land-based public undertakings, etc. Those that will remain least satisfied are the demand for services from foresters, especially habitat protection, regulation of streamflow--as the groups which require these wield little power.

Encroacher cultivators derive their support from political parties on account of the latter's dependence on the former for votes. Existence of a large number of political parties and the fragility of coalition governments in Kerala make encroachers a powerful group. Public corporations primarily acquire their strength from the bureaucracy and political parties while private sector industries derive their influence from money and power. The high profitability arising from subsidized raw material supply and protected markets enable them to wield considerable power, both directly and indirectly.

Adapted from: Intensive Multiple-Use Forest Management in Kerala. 1984. FAO Forestry Paper 53. FAO. Rome.


Project approaches to tree planting

Another, very important, aspect of the socioeconomic context of tree planting practices, is the general approach to tree planting represented by the project which introduces them (Table 13).

Table 13. Tree growing approaches in social forestry projects (adapted from FAO 1985).













Tree growing on private lands organized by community institutions

Privately managed tree farming and tree planting around households


Communal tree growing on community lands

Privately managed tree growing on community lands


Public lands allocated for communal and community-based forestry proiects

Public land allocation schemes for private tree growing

B.3 Functions of trees

Fundamentally, even before considerations of physical site matching and immediately following the specification of the intended user, the primary question in the selection of an appropriate tree species is: what function is the tree expected to perform? Of course, one tree may perform multiple functions and, by the same token, more than one tree may be required to fill all of the functional needs of the intended user. In the wake of the "energy crises" of the 1970s, most social forestry projects were planned with fuelwood as the primary objective, but the project evaluation literature points out time and again that fuelwood is rarely the first priority of rural people. Fruit trees, fodder, medicinal trees or poles for cash among numerous other uses of trees often take precedence over fuelwood (Raintree and Hoskins 1988).

An unbiased approach to species choice begins with an awareness of the full range of roles that trees can and do perform in rural communities. Published lists of the known and possible uses of trees abound. Just cataloguing the various lists of species and their uses can be a daunting task; see for example J. Burley's "list of lists" of multipurpose tree species (ICRAF 1983). Very detailed classifications have been proposed in order to deal with the range of tree uses which arise in agroforestry (Carlowitz 1986, Nair 1989).

The following table represents a practical synthesis of several lists of tree functions at a medium level of detail. The table includes direct production roles of trees and indirect service roles (in which the tree itself has no direct output but functions instead to enhance the output of other components of the production system).

Table 14. Products and services provided by trees (Sources: Raintree 1987, Scherr 1987, Burley and Wood in press).


FOOD (for people)

FEED (for livestock, fish, bees, silkworms, caterpillars, snails, mushrooms, etc.)







SHADE (for people, animals & shade-loving crops)



WIND SHELTER (including control of wind erosion & crop dessication)

A somewhat different perspective is suggested by looking at the potential of trees to supply the basic needs of the household economy (Table 15). This "basic needs" approach provides a convenient entry point for diagnosis of tree-related supply problems and identification of relevant tree planting interventions. Used as a tool in the analysis of land use systems, the assumption behind this approach is that land use systems, whatever else they might do, are organized so as to satisfy these universal human needs in one way or another. In subsistence economies these needs are met directly from household production, while in commercial economies basic needs are generally met by purchases.

Table 15. Potential role of trees and shrubs in satisfying basic human needs (Raintree 1987, 1989).





RAW MATERIALS (for local industries)


SAVINGS/INVESTMENT (as insurance against contingencies/for future goals)


To achieve specific objectives, interventions need to be carefully planned to address specifically defined needs. No amount of "income generation" will solve staple food or fuelwood shortages if there is an absolute scarcity of these commodities in an area.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page