HIGH ALTITUDE PASTURAL SYSTEM IN MALAKAND DIVISION _NWFP

Document Sample
HIGH ALTITUDE PASTURAL SYSTEM IN MALAKAND DIVISION _NWFP Powered By Docstoc
					     HIGH ALTITUDE PASTURAL SYSTEM IN MALAKAND DIVISION
                (NWFP) – PAKISTAN: A CASE STUDY

                                 Sanaullah Khan 1 and Mukhtar Ahmad 2


1.   INTRODUCTION

         This study was undertaken to obtain information about the nomadic graziers. A rapid appraisal
in the form of a case study was considered as a suitable research tool to learn about the livelihoods of
the nomadic graziers and the trends in hillside development which affect them.

        Since the merger of the Swat State in Pakistan (1969) many social and political changes and
developments have affected the use and management of natural vegetation from hillsides, land-
ownership and distribution of user and owner rights. The impact of these changes upon the
communities vary according to population group. (Semi-) nomadic graziers seemed to have been
affected by three major developments:

1.1     New settlements and purchased ownership by tenants and gujars. This resulted in
transformation of grazing lands into agricultural fields or areas with severe restriction to access.

1.2 Privatization of hillsides

1.3     The establishment of plantations on range lands previously used for winter grazing. This
resulted in decrease of winter grazing areas and in creating of barriers on traditional trekking routes
between summer and winter grazing areas.

         On the other hand, afforestation activities and protection of areas since 1985 have resulted in
improvement of the vegetation cover and composition, the availability of grasses and shrubs and
enhanced esthetic value.This is benefiting the entire population, but more directly to the owners and to
a lesser extent specific categories of users.

        It is a common phenomenon throughout the World that nomadic lifestyles are gradually
disappearing due to the rapidly expanding population making land and natural resources scarce.
Nomadic lifestyle is very tough and those who have reasonable alternatives will definitely change their
way of making a living. However, in NWFP there are still a large number of families living as such
and they can not be ignored.

       The main objective of this study was to find out the trends, options and constraints of hillside
development and also pattern of grazing in winter and summerseasons.


2. IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVES OF THE CASE STUDY

The objectives of the case study were:

•    To assess and map the increase of new owner areas (purchased owners) in the grazing range lands.
•    To assess the decrease in (free) grazing range lands due to the closure of afforested range lands
     during the last 15 years under the Watershed Project and


1
  Senior Technical Advisor, Environmental Rehabilitation Project (ERP) in Malakand Division (Chitral, Swat,
Buner).
2
  Natural Resource Management Officer, ERP in Makaland Division.


                                                      1
    ERP;
•   To assess and map the present grazing areas underqalang, free grazing areas, ERP
    afforestation/sowing areas closed for grazing and Watershed plantation for grazing and watershed
    plantations open for grazing.
•   To assess the change and its causes in livestock population of all population groups during the last
    30 years.
•   To assess the use of the increased grass production methods of harvesting and shift in user groups.
•   To prioritize problems related to hillside development and seek with all stakeholders possible
    solutions for improvements.
•   To know about the increasing impacts on summer and winter pastures due to afforestation.


3. METHODOLOGY

          Nine villages participating with ERP were selected for this case study. Selection criteria were:
presence of different scale and owner groups in the village area, different rate of afforestation
activities and having no major disputes among owners and users. Out of this 6 villages are situated in
Swat namely; Kuza Bandai, Kanju, Gado, Dadahara, Parrai and Kuhai. The selected villages are
situated in an area where relatively much plantation activities took place. Many problems related to
hillside development have been expressed by graziers in this area. In Buner three villages were
selected namely; Pantjar, Kingergalai and Kuhai. In addition, four non ERP villages were also
included to compare villages with extensive plantations and villages with no plantations. These
villages were Baleera, Rangela, Techma and Bampoocha.

         The survey team consisted of ERP staff accompanied by staff of the Forest Department.
Questionnaire was used to collect data from VDC representatives and nomadic graziers. They were
interviewed separately. After pre-testing, the questionnaire was adjusted. Minor adjustments were
made even during field survey. The VDC representative(s) was/were interviewed and with their
consent, 1 to 3 individual ajars were interviewed. From non ERP villages only ajars were interviewed.
For mapping purposes, one or two VDC members and ajars were asked to join the team and inspect
the village area. Topographical sheets and ERP Range base maps were used in the field to map past
and present land ownership, grazing, grass cutting, qalang areas and block plantations. Field data was
collected in February.


4. RESULTS

4.1 Explanation of Local Terms Used for Local Graziers

        A few local terms used throughout this report must be cleared to the readers to avoid
confusion .The definition of different types of ajars and gujars used in this report is as follows:

Ajars: (Semi) Nomadic market-oriented livestock holders, mostly keeping goats and sheep. They are
from original Hinko origins and speak Gujari language. They are meat and wool producers.

Gujars:Mostly settled or semi nomadic market oriented livestock holders, mostly keeping cattle (cows,
bulls and buffaloes). They are also from Hinko origin and are descendants of original ajars. They also
speak Gujari language. They are n4lk producers.

        The major difference between ajars and gujars is the type of livestock they keep.

        The confusion comes in however, when you look at settlement pattern. We distinguish three
types of ajars and three types of gujars:

Ajar 1 No shelter, no land. This is the “real” nomadic ajar.


                                                    2
Ajar 2 Shelter but no land. This is the semi-nomadic ajar. Some family members stay permanent in
        the winter grazing area where they possess a house. The animals with few family members
        move temporarily to the summer grazing area, and if needed to winter grazing areas as well.
        Some of them may have permanent houses in the summer grazing area.
Ajar 3 Shelter and land. This is also a semi nomadic ajar, often also keeping cattle, which remains
        with his family in the winter grazing area throughout the year. Only small ruminants move up
        and down. These ajars may call themselves gujar, as cattle may be replaced by small
        ruminants.
Gujar 1 Shelter/no land. These gujars usually work for the landowners in return for the use of grasses
        and crop residues. They depend on grazing and or grass cutting and sell livestock products.
        They are (semi-)nomadic.
Gujar 2 Shelter and land (hillside). These are purchased owners usually by buying or claiming a piece
        of hillside where they graze their animals and cut grasses. They often start agricultural
        activities (rainfed) near the house.
Gujar 3 living in the main village. Usually the livestock are completely stall fed. The gujar buy crop
         residues to feed their livestock. This type of gujar is mostly found near large settlements.
Gujar 4 No shelter/no land. This is the 7real” nomadic gujar, keeping cows. Not identified in the
         study area.

         During the field visits it became clear that the terms ajar and gujar are confusing even for the
local people. There is a gradual shift from pure nomadic ajar to settled ajar. With increased settlement
pattern there is a shift from small ruminants to cattle. This is a gradual change and causes in confusion
between the terms ajars and gujars.

Many gujars call themselves ajars and vise versa, as their original background is ajar.


5.   GENERAL TRENDS IN HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Land Ownership and Settlement

         Land ownership and settlement can be categorized into four periods

5.1.1    Establishing of Government and land consolidation : Father of Wali Swat period (19 17-
         1949)

5.1.2    Strengthening Government and area development: Wali of Swat period
         (1949-1969)

5.1.3    Tragedy of the Commons (1969-1995): Merger with Pakistan (1969), Bhutto (1971-77);
         Ongoing conflicts landowners, Gujars, etc.

5.1.4    Revival of Village Government and Social Institutions (ERP: 1995- present)

        Most hillsides were owned by the Khels (inheritance groups) or communal during Ex-Wali of
Swat time. There was hardly any private purchase of hillsides.

        During Bhutto time many communal hillsides were divided among khels. Purchased (new)
ownership increased, especially among tenants, followed by ajars.

         Over last 10 years individual purchase of hillside (new ownership) is reducing, due to
increased prices and reluctant owners. Redistribution of earlier purchased hillsides by ajars and tenants
takes place.

        About 21% of originally (ex-Wali Swat time) communal lands is now individually owned,


                                                   3
mostly through purchased ownership by new owners. Communal hillsides as well as Khel owned
hillsides are often also divided among shareholders, withoijt marked boundaries in the field. However,
these areas are not yet registered as individual ownership and considered as communal. These are
often given on qalang as a whole. Qalang is usually paid to the head of the Khel. Due to increased
individual ownership the areas given on qalang have reduced by about 21%.

        During Wali of Swat time, most people were living clustered in villages. The owners lived in
the main village, surrounded on the outskirts by landless and artisans. Tenants lived in the village or
near the agricultural fields. Gujars lived either on the outskirts of major cities or in small hamlets in
the hillsides. With population expansion and increased purchased ownership, a more scattered
settlement pattern occurred. Gujars and settled ajars started to live further up in the hillsides, often
making small agricultural fields once they purchased shelter (and land).

        In this way, 42% of ajars purchased ownership recently in Swat (Dadahara, Kuhai-Sh.), 26%
of ajars (45% in Swat, 1% in Buner) have purchased hillside as compared to 1% in the four studied
non-ERP villages during the last 30 years.

         The main villages show an explosive growth, especially those in the main Swat valley on the
main road. In Swat the encroachment of (high) hillsides and conversion into terraced agricultural
fields is much more than in Buner

5.2 Block Plantation

        The 6 villages in Swat have afforested in total 15% of their total hillsides with the help of
Watershed and 48% with the help of ERP so far (excluding repeat work). In Buner, 28% of hillsides
has been planted so far. Average plantation is covering 51% of total hillside area (see Table 5.1).

        Due to protection, the quantity and quality of vegetation has improved as well as watershed
function and esthetic 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 afforestation.

         These days, livestock producers are more depending on stall feeding/grass cutting, due to
(temporarily) closure of the plantation areas for grazing. (Semi) nomadic .graziers have more
difficulty in finding sufficient winter grazing areas as compared to the past. In Swat qalang area for
winter grazing reduced by 91% of which 38% due to plantation establishment. In Buner, qalang areas
have been reduced by 46% of which 28% due to plantation.

        Plantation areas have, in some cases, blocked traditional trekking routes used graziers (see
para 5.4 below).

5.3 LivestockTrends

          The overall trend show that the average number of livestock per family is decreasing among
all classes of society. There is a shift from cows to buffaloes and from small ruminants to cows and
buffaloes.

       The data collected on the number of livestock are not enough and probably not much reliable.
However, the rough trends can be concluded from this survey.

5.3.1    Livestock of Ajars

         The number of goats and sheep owned by ajars is decreasing. Average figures for Swat show
a decrease from 340 to 140 goats/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 was 110


                                                   4
sheep/goats in NWFP at present. Main reason given for the reduction of livestock 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% decrease in sheep/goats) as
well as the number of families rearing livestock. The total number of animals depending upon winter
grazing in these areas has decreased with more than 50% according to the informants. Comparing the
field data with data derived from 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 is more shrubby as compared to Swat. In Swat
most animals are sheep.

         About 25% of the total number of ajar families has been reported to have sold all animals and
found an alternative job in agriculture or daily labor in cities. However, the respondents gave a wide
variety of answers on this question and this issue needs careful cross checking.

          According to 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 incalculate the risks of livestock
disease, theft etc.

5.3.2    Livestock of Land Owners, Tenants and Gujars

         These three groups have same trend as far as number of livestock per family, (especially
cows) is concerned. Average no. of livestock in the past varied from 3 to 12 per family, with 1 or 2
buffaloes. Nowadays, each family has 1 to 5 cows and 1 to
2 buffaloes. Tenants show the same pattern. Gujars used to have 15 to 30 cows in the past with 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 richer 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. Fiftynine percent of
the 200 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 (Nizami,
1998). Figures from the Livestock census (1976-1986) show an increase of buffaloes and cows by
5.25% and 0.9 1% perannum respectively.

5.4 Impact of Hillside Development on (Noniadic) Graziers

5.4.1   The (Traditional) Profession of Ajars and Gujars

         The major source of income for nomadic graziers (ajars) have 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 used to pay lease (Qalang) in cash or in kind (manure, wool, ghee etc.) to the
owners of hillsides. There was harmony and consensus between graziers and owners on the use of
respective hillsides.

         Gujars who keep basically cows used to have the same pattern of movements, although the
type of animals requires different fodder and terrain conditions. Gujars shoxv a stronger trend to stay
near the agricultural fields (villages) or more leveled mountains, not too rough and rugged.

5.4.2   Changes Over Time

5.4.2.1 Land Ownership

        During 1973 due to the promulgation of land Reforms Act by the then government, disputes
over land ownership surfaced between the tenants, gujars and owners. Tenants and gujars started


                                                     5
claiming hillsides ownership against the owner’s wishes. The owners started dividing communal lands
among themselves to enforce their ownership and to enable them to manage it. This in turn affected
the area under qalang for winter grazing to nomadic graziers, especially in Swat.

5.4.2.2      Afforestation

        During the mid-eighties forestry related projects like Watershed projects further accelerated
the squeezing of grazing areas and put more pressure on graziers in finding sufficient winter grazing
areas. Since i 994, with the launching of Environmental Rehabilitation Project in Swat and Buner
more hillside grazing areas came under protection due to afforestation activities. In the nine villages
included in this survey 51% of the total hillside has been afforested since the mid eighties. This is also
perceived by the owners as insurance (or confirmation) of their land ownership and has resulted in
more protected areas. New purchased owners (either from nomadic graziers community or from
tenants) have protected their private land from grazing by outsiders and thus put further pressure on
land-less ajars to reduce their flock size or seek alternative grazing areas. Owners are also reluctant to
open old watershed plantation areas for grazing again, due to many conflicts and court cases on land
ownership which are still pending.

5.4.2.3 Trekking Routes and Barnes

         Trekking routes are centuries old. The nomads used to move animals from low land winter
grazing areas to sub alpine and 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 spent in sub-alpine
pastures (Chail, Lalko,Bishigram, Behrain Kalam and Madyan etc) and 2-3 months in alpine pastures
(Mahodand, Mankial,Saidgai Loi Panghalai, Daral etc). 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:
          Traditional routes are blocked by plantation, which can not be crossed anymore. Therefore,
          alternative routes like the main roads have to be used

—         Lack of feed on transit (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 migration and spend the night. Therefore,
          trucks are being used (if one can afford) to transport the animals quickly.
—         High expenses on trekking:
          Use of trucks is expensive and is not affordable by all the ajars.

        The traditional and current trekking routes in Swat and Buner are basically the same.
However, many nomads are using trucks following the main roads these days. Major trekking routes
and changes are mentioned below:

—         Mingora - Manglawar to Kalarn route: formerly this route was traveled on
          foot, nowadays many travel by truck because grazing areas are far—flung, new settlements
          and protected plantations along the main road.
—         Nawagai - Daggar - Barikot - Mingora: same as above. Major barriers (due to plantation) in
          trekking route are Barikot - Amlook Darra - Ghaligay,
—         Daggar- Pir Baba - Djambil - Mingora: still traveled on foot but following main road, no
          major barriers except for Kokarai, Samangul, Fizagat area.
—         Dir - Shamozai - Suigalai - Kanju - Shakardara - Madian - Mankial:
          Formerly this route was traveled on foot through the hills. These days some


                                                    6
        plantations have blocked the routes like Suigalai and Biakand. Especially those graziers
        coming from Dir have changed their route due to plantations near Biakand. The number of
        days used to travel has reduced due to lack of forage areas. Many people go by truck on the
        main road from Kabbal. Other travel (quickly) on foot along the main road.
        Totalai-Budal-Alpurai-Fatehpur-Madyan and onward

         This shows that the major changes occurred in the Kabbal area (Suigalai etc.) and Matta
(Biakand etc.). Minor/smaller short cut routes also disappeared in Saidu Range (BarikotlAmlook
Darra- Ghaligay). Of major importance for the future is to keep the Alpuri-Fatehpur (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 used to graze lands on the way to feed their livestock. It was an overall accepted rule
that a nomadic grazicr could not reside in an area on the way for more than two days. Secondly, only
one flock per season would be allowed. Due to protection of individually owned areas and
afforestation areas, it has become difficult to find forage areas on the way to stop for one or two days.
Therefor, use of trucks is increasing. Another reason to use trucks might be the traffic density, making
traveling on foot very dangerous. Also theft of livestock and armed robbery during movements along
the road are frequently reported.

5.4.3   Alaterantive Job Opportunities of Nomadic Graziers

    Field findings show that in nine villages during ex-Wali Swat time, Bhutto time and at present 3
(0.7%), 43(8.3%) and 95(37%) ajafs 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 job were:

— Closure of winter grazing areas and trekking routes mostly due to plantation activities.
— Privatization of land and purchased owners settlements starting from ex-Wali Swat until present
  which has resulted in less grazing areas.
— Increase in qalang prices (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.

         The ajars 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. The number of
people needed to herd a flock of animals has increased due to more restricted areas (agriculture,
plantations etc.). In the past, one herder could manage a flock of 100-200 sheep/goat. These days, one
herder herds on average 33 animals.


6. NOMADIC GRAZIER’S PERCEPTIONS OF PROBLEM

6.1 Problems and Suggested Solutions

         The ajars and gujars were invited to attend one day workshops (held at Kabbal and at Matta)
before the case study was carried out.

    The main topics of the workshops were:

    •   Listing of problems related to grazing and to animal production and health
    •   Prioritizing of problems
    •   Suggestions/solutions to these problems

The main problems faced by the graziers were as follows:


                                                   7
—    Lack of grazing land particular in winter season.
—    Plantations act as a barrier to grazing and trekking of livestock.
—    Lack of watering points limits the grazing use of hillsides.
—    Lack of coordination with VDC by Ajar community (Gujars and Ajars were not adequately
     represented in VDCs).
—    Non availability of free medicines for livestock as before.
—    Presence of quacks (uncertified unskilled veterinarians, practitioners roaming around).
—    Protection of livestock against armed robbers.
—    Education of children of nomadic families.
—    Frequent attendance in court cases (due to damage reports lodged by the Forest Department
     against Gujars/Ajars).
—    Lack of improved livestock breeds and breeding rams etc.
—    Lack of proper equipment for wool shearing of sheep.
—    Low market prices for livestock.
—    Tax and Octroi rates charged higher than the official rates.
—    Market places lack watering points for animals as well as for human.

Prioritizing the problems of ajars:

         All groups mentioned the closure of areas for grazing as the major problem. Other main
problems mentioned were: Lack of watering points in the range-lands, scarcity of winter feeding areas,
barriers in trekking routes, lack of treatment of livestock diseases, marketing of animals, safety of
people and livestock, lack of representation in VDCs, lack of education facilities for children etc.

Suggested solutions by the ajars:

     •   Opening of plantation areas (after 5-7 years of age) for winter grazing
     •   Provision of mobile schools

Development of watering points and provision of tents during migration.

7.   CONCLUSIONS

— The 6 villages in Swat have afforested 15% of their total hillsides areas with the support of
  Watershed project and 48% with ERP (excluding repeat work). In Buner, 28% of hillsides has
  been planted so far on average plantation is covering 51% of total hillside area.
— Qalang grazing areas have reduced during the last 30 years mainly due to p        lantations (31.5%),
   privatization of hillsides (21%) or other reasons (20.3%). Winter grazing areas, which are
   important for the survival of nomadic livestock during winter, have reduced. Though, areas have
   become greener and produce more and better grasses. However, grass cutting is labor intensive to
   maintain large flocks and sheep/goat on stall feeding.
— Free grass cutting is permitted by the VDCs, without any charge in 50% of the plantation areas.
  Seasonal/controlled grass cutting is allowed in 50%of the plantation areas. Considering total
  hillside area only 24% is now under controlled cutting. In few cases, users have to pay for the
  grass harvesting.
— Villagers and nomadic graziers are positive about the results of afforestation achieved so far and
  enjoy the more availability of vegetation esp. grasses and trees. Many poor people have been
  temporarily employed due to afforestation activities and some are permanently employed by the
  VDCs as chowkidar (watch and ward).
— Reduced grazing areas means reducing number of grazing animals, esp. small ruminants. This also
  means a reduced use of the higher pastures. This further means that the increasing population is
  under using the resources, whereas the demand is growing.
— Average livestock numbers per family is decreasing in the study area in all classes of society
  (owners, tenants, gujars/ajars). There is a shift from cows to buffaloes among owners, tenants and


                                                    8
  gujars. The flock size of Ajars is decreasing due to afforestation and privatization of land, land
  less people have less access to fodder through grazing for the time being. It is important to address
  this issue keeping eyes on tomorrow: Who are going to harvest the fruits of protection and
  plantation and who are presently loosing?
— The development of hillsides over the last 30 years has affected the livelihood of nomadic
  graziers. First of all, their migratory routes have been disturbed:
— Alternative jobs are mostly sought in agriculture and daily labor. The change of jobs among ajars
  seems to be highest during the last 15 years and secondly, their traditional livelihood has come
  under pressure. Alternative jobs are mostly sought in agriculture and daily labor. The change of
  jobs among ajars seems to be highest during the last 15 years.


8. RECOMMENDATIONS

— Include more users, esp. graziers, in the planning and implementation process of village land use
  planning (VLUP) if possible from the initial stage. Even in
  advanced stages of VLUP 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                 certain             activities.
— In the planning phase of VLUP one should, in addition, consider the following
  aspects:
    -        trekking           routes            through           the           village       area
    -        major                                    watering                                points
    -        carrying capacity of the range lands, selection of best grazing lands
    -        number         and         type        of       livestock        (already    included)
    -        total grazing area needed for grazing of livestock /total area to be
             planted
    -        the kind of species to be planted

        In this way a village will be enabled for sustainable and sufficiently large plantation, without
        any problems for those who keep livestock.

— Develop a uniform policy for the use of old plantations (either Watershed or ERP plantations). In
  order to have maximum return from old (>5-10 years old) plantation silvo-pastoral systems are
  proposed. Since grass production will decline with increasing age of the trees, grass cutting will
  not be economical anymore. Grazing will improve the recycling of water, nutrients and energy
  and is less labor intensive. The areas can be given on qa/ang with prescribed rules and regulations
  on the use by the VDC. Controlled grazing systems are proposed, implemented in conjunction
  with nagha. In this way, the problem of reduced (winter) grazing areas can be partly solved, and
  all parties will enjoy the benefits of plantation and protection.
— The Forest Department can, together with supporting projects like ERP play a leading role in the
  management and utilization of old plantations. PC-is should pay attention to the (future)
  management of (old) plantations. Institutions like PFI (Pakistan Forest Institute) can further
  explore the options and constraints of grazing in plantation areas as compared to grass cutting.
— The major trekking routes of (semi-) nomadic graziers can be extended to the whole of Malakand
  Division, to get a complete overview of the seasonal movements of nomads. The map should
  become part of each planning activity related to hillside development planning.
— Enhance dialogue of nomadic graziers with Local Government and facilitate (together with
  Livestock Department) towards problem solving actions.




                                                  9
9. REFERENCES

Akbar, Au and Inam-ur-Rahim. 1998. Workshop on nomadic graziers and hillside development. ERP
Report 3.8, March 1998

Anon. (1996). Livestock Census (1976-1986). Government of NWFP.

Dove, M.R. and Carpenter, C.(Eds.) (1992). Sociology of natural resources in Pakistan and adjoining
countries. Vanguard Books Pvt. Ltd, Pakistan.

IUCN (1998). Background paper and draft strategy for the sustainable management of grazing lands in
the North Western Frontier Province.

Leede, Bertken M. de (1998). Vegetation production in plantation areas in Buner and Upper Swat.
ERP Report 2.7.

Mukhtar, Ahmad. (1998). Vegetation Production in hillside plantations in Swat and
Buner. Proceeding of Sixth National Conference of Plant Scientists, Peshawar
University.

Nizami, Arjumand (1998). User’s survey in Social Forestry Project! Malakand Dir. SFPMD, Saidu
Sharif (NWFP) — Pakistan.

Table 5.1       Present      hillside   area   under       grazing     (free/qalang)   and     grass   cutting
(free/controlled)

Village               Non grazing       Free grazing        Grazing      of   Free cutting     Cutting
                                                            qalang                             controlled/
                                                                                               qalang
SWAT
Kuhai                   100                0                0                 100              0
Gado                     69               31                0                 100              0
Dadahara                 68               32                0                 32               68
Parrai                   55                0                45                100              0
Kuza                     50               50                0                 50               50
Bandai
Kanu                      65              25                 10               35               65
AVG                       67.8            23.0              9.2               69.5             30.5
BUNER
Panjtar               35                20                  45                  65             35
Kinkergalai           46                35                   19                 100             0
Kuhai                 2                  0                  98                  100             0
AVG                   27.7              18.3                54.0               88.3            11.7
TOTAL AVG             54.5              21.4                24.1               74.6            24.4

* including controlled grazing area


Table 5.4        Changes in qalang areas (in percentages of total hillside area) in 9 villages

Village     Purcha    Area       Q.dow     Q.          Q.            Q.       Area      Free
            sed       under      n due     down        down          down     still     use
            owners    plantati   to        due to      due to        total    under     area
            hip (%)   on (%)     purcha    plantati    other         (%)      Q. (%)    (%)


                                                      10
                              sed       on (%)    reason
                              owners              (%)
                              hip (%)
SWAT
Kuhai       76        76         76      0            24     100    0      24
Gado        80        73         80      0            20     100    0      20
Dadahar     13        68         13      68           19     100    0      32
a
Parrai       0        55         0       55           0      55     45      0
Kuza        10        50         10      50           40     100    0      40
Bandai
kanju*       10       55         10      55            25    90      10    25
AVG         31.5      62.8      31.5     38           21.3   90.8   9.2    23.5
BUNER
Panjtar      0        35         0       35           20     55     45     0
Kingerg      0        46         0       46           35     81     19     0
alai
Kuhai        0         2         0       2             0      2     98      0
AVG          0       27.7        0      28.3          18.3   46     54      0
tot.        21        50.9       21     34.8          20.3   75.9   24.1   18.5
Average
* Qalang introduced after Bhutto time




                                                 11

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:13
posted:4/9/2010
language:English
pages:11