· the diversity and dynamics of shifting cultivation: myths, realities, and policy implications...

••!••:•.•

LTLJ

The Diversity and Dynamics ofShifting Cultivation:Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications

Lori Ann Thrupp, Susanna Hecht and John Browder

with Owen J. Lynch, Nabiha Megateli and William O'Brien

H

U

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE

September 1997

Carollyne HutterActing Publications Director

Hyacinth BillingsProduction Manager

Cover photograph courtesy of Harold C. Conklin(Rice, maize, manioc, pigeon pea, and banana plants surround two Hanunoo shifting cultivators as they weed theirextensively intercropped hillside swidden for a second time onMindoro island in the Philippines.)

Each World Resources Institute Report represents a timely, scholarly treatment of a subject ofpublic concern. WRI takes responsibility for choosing the study topics and guaranteeing itsauthors and researchers freedom of inquiry. It also solicits and responds to the guidance ofadvisory panels and expert reviewers. Unless otherwise stated, however, all the interpretation andfindings set forth in WRI publications are those of the authors.

Copyright © 1997 World Resources Institute. All rights reserved.ISBN 1-56973-230-2Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 97-80524Printed in the United States of America on Recycled Paper.

The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications iii

Contents

Acknowledgments v

Introduction 1

I. The Basics of Shifting Cultivation Systems:What, Where, Who 3

Meaning of Shifting Cultivation 3Extent of Shifting Cultivation 3Main Features of Shifting Cultivation 4Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation 7

II. Myths and Realities 9Perceptions of Agricultural Development Stages 9Diversity of Shifting Cultivation 11Subsistence and Commercial Farming Activities 15Productivity Levels 17Environmental Impacts and Resource Use 18Levels of Productive Technologies and Agroecological Knowledge 21Tenure and Property Systems 25Interventions of Governments, Agencies and Policies 25

III. Conclusions:Reconciling Policy with Reality 33

References 37

The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications

Acknowledgments

This report is a product of collaborative workbetween World Resources Institute staffmembers and close collaborators—all concernedabout shifting cultivation and social dynamics ofland use change. The research was initiated as apart of WRI's work with the InternationalCenter for Research on Agroforestry (ICRAF),and other organizations involved in the"Alternatives to Slash and Burn" (ASB)Initiative supported largely by the GlobalEnvironment Facility through the United NationsDevelopment Programme, and coordinated byICRAF. We are grateful to ICRAF and ASB for

support and interest. We appreciate the valuablereviews and suggestions by Harold Conklin,Michael Dove, Janis Alcorn, Christine Padoch,Harold Brookfield, and Sam Fujisaka on anearlier version of this paper. We are also gratefulfor the comments and input provided by WRIstaff, including Walter Reid, Thomas Fox, NigelSizer, Peter Veit, Paige Brown, Paul Faeth, andJake Brunner. Thanks also go to SethBeckerman for editing, to Roberto Colque forprogram assistance and desktopping, and toHyacinth Billings and Valerie Schwartz forproduction assistance.

The Authors


Introduction

Shifting cultivation is the most complex andmultifaceted form of agriculture in the world. Itshighly diverse land use systems have beenevolving since as early as 10,000 BC in a widerange of distinct socioeconomic and ecologicalconditions, from montane to lowlandecosystems, and from tropical forests tograsslands (Spencer, 1966). Shifting cultivationencompasses cropping systems such ashorticulture and annual cropping, perennial treecrops, animal husbandry, and management offorests and fallows in sequential or rotationalcycles; it is currently practiced in a wide varietyof forms by 500 million to one billion peoplearound the world.

Shifting cultivation has been a subject ofdebate and intervention since the colonial era,and it has often been subject to publicmisconceptions and stereotyping. Many in theenvironment and development community havecriticized shifting cultivation as a primitive,backwards, destructive, or wasteful form ofagriculture, and as a mere precursor to what are

perceived to be more modern, sustainable andsedentary forms of agriculture. Contemporarycritics and the media often call it "slash andburn" agriculture—a pejorative term thatperpetuates misperceptions about shiftingcultivators.

This publication highlights the multifaceted,dynamic characteristics of shifting cultivationand identifies socioeconomic and policy factorsthat affect shifting cultivators. It challengesprevailing misconceptions by highlighting thediversity, myths, and realities of shiftingcultivation. The concluding section summarizesreasons for supporting agroecological principlesand livelihood security and avoiding historicalmistakes. It also draws on insights based onfield research and makes recommendations forpolicy change as well as other opportunities forsupporting sustainable and equitable land use,including participatory community-basedapproaches for integrating local knowledge inresearch and development.


I. The Basics of Shifting Cultivation Systems:What, Where, Who

Meaning of Shifting Cultivation

Shifting cultivation consists of many diverseland use activities and is, therefore, difficult todefine. Broadly speaking, the term refers to anytemporal and spatially cyclical agriculturalsystem that involves clearing of land—usuallywith the assistance of fire—followed by phasesof cultivation and fallow periods. Most shiftingcultivation systems blend agriculture withhunting, fishing, gathering, and resource-usesystems in multi-niche strategies that makeeconomic and social sense in many settings.Typically, shifting cultivators incorporateperennial crops such as fruit, medicinal, nut, andresin trees. Some shifting cultivation systemsare actually forms of agroforestry systems(Raintree, 1986; Dove, 1985; Peluso, 1992;Denevan and Padoch, 1988; Alcorn, 1990a,1990b; Brookfield and Padoch, 1994).

The colloquial term "slash-and-burnagriculture" refers to the method of clearing andpreparing land, common among shiftingcultivators. This term, however, has pejorativeconnotations and is avoided in this report. Theterm "swidden farming" is preferred byanthropologists as a neutral concept; it is drawnfrom the Old English word swidden, meaningburned clearing (Conklin, 1957; Peters andNeuenschwander, 1988). Swidden farming as aterm does not adequately capture the dynamicquality and stages of shifting cultivation,however.

Extent of Shifting Cultivation

The total land area affected by shiftingcultivation is difficult to assess because thepractice includes many land use activities. Areasonable estimate of the global area is 2.9billion hectares (Stiles, 1994). Hauck (1974)and Sanchez (1976) estimate that various typesof shifting cultivation are practiced on about 30percent of the world's exploitable soil. Dove(1985) suggests that roughly one half of the landarea in the tropics is modified by shiftingcultivation.

Shifting cultivation was common in thetemperate zones of the Mediterranean andNorthern Europe until the 19th century, as wellas in the southwestern and northeastern pinewoodlands of North America until the 1940s(Dove, 1983; Brookfield, 1996; Warner, 1991).Currently, it occurs almost exclusively in thetropics of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.Figure 1 shows the main areas in which shiftingcultivation systems are practiced today. Otheragricultural land use systems are practiced inthese areas, but shifting agriculture is theprevalent system.

Shifting cultivation is found in a variety oftopographies, ranging from steeply sloped hillyareas to flat lands and low-lying valleys (Sarkar,1982). Likewise, it is found in diverseecosystems that range from tropical moistforests to dry tropical forests and savannas,grasslands, and even seasonal floodplains. {See


Chapter II.) Land uses derived from shiftingcultivation, often blend with or are mistaken fornatural forest. Some forest formations, as in theBabassu forests in northeastern Brazil, are theresults of resource management by shiftingcultivators (Balick et al., 1991). Many forests inKalimantan, Indonesia, are dotted with forestand fruit gardens planted over time by shiftingcultivators (Padoch and Peters, 1993). The totalnumber of people engaged in some form ofshifting cultivation system has been only looselyestimated. Three hundred million (Russell,1988) and five hundred million (Lanly, 1985) areconservative estimates frequently cited, but somehave argued that more than 400 million people inAsia alone are forest dependent and that amajority of them engage in shifting agriculture(Lynch, 1992b). It is probably not unrealistic toestimate that as many as one billion (22 percentof the population of the developing world intropical and subtropical countries) rely directlyor indirectly on some form of shifting

cultivation. These shifting cultivators belong toat least 3,000 different ethnic groups (Stiles,1994).

Main Features of Shifting Cultivation

Shifting cultivation is cyclical, and its cyclesencompass an array of land use activities. Thespecific stages and features of each cultivationcycle vary and are sometimes difficult todistinguish. In woodland and montane forms ofshifting cultivation, for example, the cycle isoften comprised of six stages: site-selection andclearing, burning, planting, weeding andprotecting, harvesting, and succession. In otherforms, the stages do not follow such a clearpattern. Graphic portrayals of shiftingcultivation risk oversimplification of itscomplexities, but attempts to show the maingeneral stages and their relation to vegetationregrowth in common cyclic sequences are inFigures 2 and 3.

Figure 1. Areas of Shifting Cultivation

Source: Approximation based on Wamer, 1989, with estimated update by WRI


Figure 2. Example of Basic Shifting Cultivation Cycle

Fallow

4 2nd-oycle (pasture1 in old plots)

Source: From Dubois, 1990 and OTS/CATIE, 1993

Figure 3. Example of Fallow Variation in Shifting Cultivation

SWIDDEN PLOT

$.L\IU J L

ENRICHED FOREST FALLOW

Source: From Dubois, 1990


The cropping cycle in shifting cultivationrefers to the "planting, care, harvesting, andprotection of intentionally introduced flora"(Conklin, 1957, p.72). The types of crops andthe manner in which they are planted divergegreatly among shifting cultivator groups (HechtandPosey, 1989). In South America, forexample, "intercropping of many varieties of thesame crop species may take the place of theintercropping of many species of different crops"

(Beckerman, 1983, p.3). In some areas, swiddenplots are like miniaturized tropical forests orcomplex agroforestry systems (Geertz, 1963;Alcorn, 1991, 1990a, 1990b). Even individualhouseholds commonly manage a variety of cropsand trees, depending on the local economy andecology (Eden, 1993).

In general, the cropping cycle in any givensystem lasts at least several years and is followed

Box 1. Burning and Fallow: Key Stages in Shifting Cultivation Cycles

Burning. Burning is the typical method employed by

shifting cultivators for clearing vegetation and

preparing a site for planting. There are at least seven

beneficial effects of burning, all of which contribute to

increased food production (based largely on Rambo,

1981; Peters and Neuenschwander, 1988):

• Clearing of unwanted vegetation and weeds from

the field;

• Elimination of unwanted insects and plant diseasesfrom crops;

• Alteration of soil structure to make planting easier;

• Increase in available soil nutrients;

• Decrease in soil acidity;

• Enhancement of soil fertility with nutrient-rich

ashes from burnt plant biomass (i.e., creating a

natural ash fertilizer);

• Sterilization of soil and reduction of microbial

pathogens; and

• Reduction of labor requirements compared with

other forms of clearing.

Tools such as machetes and axes are usually used

to fell trees, which are typically secondary growth.

Sometimes, only tree crowns and some branches are

lopped off (Chidumayo, 1987). Shifting cultivators

use diverse techniques for burning, fire protection, and

rebuming (Peters and Neuenschwander, 1988).

Chitemene (dry forest) systems in northern Zambia

(Stromgaard, 1989) and Bhutanese grass-fallow

systems (Roder et al., 1992), for example, use

supplementary fuels brought in from outside the

burning area. Broadcast burning is preferred by many

groups because it requires the least labor (Peters and

Neuenschwander, 1988). The land is subsequently

planted with a basic staple crop, such as cassava, rice,

millet, or maize, or some combination of these crops.

Fallow. The fallow stage follows the cropping

stage, typically after a swidden field has been used for

several years. The native vegetation is allowed to

regenerate to improve the physical properties of the

soil and capture nutrients from deep in the soil.

Fallow fields are often perceived by outsiders as

abandoned or wasted land, but usually shifting

cultivators manage fallows, using them for planting

trees or crops, collecting edible and commercial

products, or hunting and pasturing animals. Certain

trees valued for their products or prices are often

protected within shifting cultivation fields both during

burning and the fallow cycle. Shifting cultivators also

observe, weed, transplant, and carefully manage

vegetation regrowth during the fallow cycle in

preparation for the next planting. Fallow times vary

greatly in shifting cultivation systems (Kunstadter and

Chapman, 1978; Bose et al., 1982), and they are often

adapted to demographic pressure and socioeconomic

conditions (Baum, 1968; Ruthenburg 1980). In many

rain forest areas, shifting cultivation systems

traditionally have involved long fallow cycles of one to

three decades and cultivation cycles of at least two to

four years (Ruthenburg, 1980; Miracle, 1967). In

many parts of the world, however, fallow lengths are

becoming progressively shorter.


by a fallow period, during which land is seldomcultivated, the natural vegetation regenerates,and soil nutrients are restored. The fallowperiod, clearing of vegetation, and burning areparticularly important. (See Box 1.) Thecultivators sometimes practice horticulture in thefallows as well (Padoch and Peters, 1993).

Succession refers to the multiple stages orcycles of vegetation regrowth, in the fallow or inother land adjacent to the cultivated plots.Shifting cultivators typically manage and usesuch successions for multiple purposes: toprotect valuable species, plant desired species,and weed, burn, thin, and prune to managefallows and the remaining forest or woodland(Anderson and Yoris, 1991; Denevan andPadoch, 1988; Alcorn, 1982; Redford andPadoch, 1992; Hecht and Cockburn, 1989;Balee, 1992; Posey and Balee, 1989). Thisallows them to extract an array of forestproducts from the land. The products of themanipulated succession can equal or exceed thereturns generated from the annual croppingphase or wage labor (Hecht et al, 1988;Anderson and Yoris, 1992; Denevan andPadoch, 1988; Hecht, 1993; Padoch, 1988;Dove, 1983; Brookfield and Padoch, 1994).

In most traditional forms, shifting cultivationpractices are closely tied to cultural and spiritualactivities. For example, among traditionalcultivators in many Philippine upland regions

"religious beliefs and practices are intimatelylinked to swiddening, especially in relation to thevarious phases of the annual cycle such as siteselection, clearing, firing, planting andharvesting" (Bennagen, 1983, p.257 andpersonal communication). The cultivatorsgenerally have detailed knowledge about localecological factors and constraints and adapt theirpractices accordingly (Collier, 1975). Suchcomplexity of culture and knowledge has beendocumented in many countries, such asMalaysia. (See Box 2.)

Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation

The features, stages and lengths of cycles ofshifting cultivation have changed over time. Thepace of change has been rapid during the last 30to 50 years, largely due to the political,economic, and cultural transformations discussedhere. In particular, the length of time that fieldsare left in fallow is increasingly shortened, whichleaves less time for restoration of soil fertility(Patnaik, 1982). In northeast India, for example,fallow times historically were as long as 40years, but are now an average of five years, wellbelow the time required (10 years or more) toallow soil fertility to recover in a a fallowed site(Ramakrishnan, 1992; Goswami, 1985). InZambia, chitemene shifting cultivation systemshave shortened fallow periods from 25 years to12 years (Chidumayo, 1987, p.23).

Box 2. Culture and Ritual in Iban Shifting Cultivation

Among the traditional Iban shifting cultivators ofMalaysia, rice production is interwoven with their worldview, beliefs, and social organization (Majid, 1983).Ritual and religion are integrated into all aspects ofswiddening—from appeasing the "spirits of the earthjungle" with the manggo ritual before clearing, to ritualsassociated with the storage of harvested rice. The riceitself is viewed as sacred. Various rituals before andduring reaping ensure that the spirit of the paddy is notfrightened away, that there will be sufficient rice for thecoming year, and that the crop will be abundant and easy

to reap. Rice is also harvested so that the paddy spiritfollowing the reaper will not get lost. "Rice is not just astaple food; it has a spirit, a soul, and the proper ritualsmust be followed in order to win the esteem and favor ofthe paddy spirits, for a plentiful supply of grains" (Majid,1983, p. 196). Land use practices and religious rites areclosely integrated because the Iban perceive the world asone shared with other orders of beings, each of whichplays a crucial role in the success of their agriculture.Given this close integration, changes to fanning systemsinevitably affect aspects of native cultures.


At the same time, shifting cultivators generallyhave been intensifying their land use practicesover time, in many cases through theintroduction of new crops and technologies. Insome regions, they have also been expandingtheir practices into forested areas. Such changescan sometimes increase the cultivators'immediate incomes, but the agricultural resultshave been adverse or unsustainable, especially ifunsuitable land is overused or inappropriateinputs or crops are used.

These changes have resulted in disruptions orinstabilities in previously well-adapted shiftingcultivation and resource use, and they have madethe systems unsustainable ecologically andeconomically in some cases (Raintree andWarner, 1986; Warner, 1991).

The main factors contributing to such changesinclude government restrictions of forest use,

changes in land tenure systems, demographicpressures including large-scale migration andresettlements, and policies that promote cashcrops (Nair and Fernandes, 1984, p. 169). Thesefactors have also raised concerns about thesustainability of shifting cultivation and have ledto research and development efforts onalternative land uses.

Such unstable, changing conditions are notfound in all shifting cultivation systems, but theyhave reinforced public misconceptions aboutshifting cultivators. The ecological andsocioeconomic sustainability of shiftingcultivation needs to be understood in relation tolocal conditions and the causes of change tothese conditions. The general principles thatunderlie shifting cultivation must also beappreciated (Kleinman et al., 1993).


II. Myths and Realities

Shifting cultivation and the people whopractice it are often negatively stereotyped.They are widely perceived by many scientistsand policy-makers, as well as the general public,to be primitive, backwards, unproductive,wasteful, and exploitative and destructive of theenvironment. Regardless of the location, theyare believed to be destitute and to leadsubsistence-based lives. They have been blamedfor most of the world's tropical deforestation,land degradation, and climate disruption. Thus,many current national laws and policies thataffect shifting cultivators are antagonistic towardthem and aim to replace shifting cultivation withforms of farming considered to be more modern.The result in many areas has been the assertionof state control over lands used by shiftingcultivators, and the forced displacement of localpeople.

Negative attitudes toward shifting cultivatorsare also prevalent in agricultural research anddevelopment institutions in both hemispheres.Many research analysts and decision-makerspresume that modern agriculture always meansagriculture that is settled, intensive, and makesuse of monocultures and Western technologies.They often overlook opportunities to learn from,use, and improve some of the effective featuresof shifting cultivation (Ramakrishnan, 1992;Alcorn, 1991; Redford and Padoch, 1992;Padoch, 1982; Brookfield and Padoch, 1994).

These perceptions of shifting cultivation andcultivators, which have led to policies and lawsadverse to the practice and its practitioners, arebased on misinformation and oversimplificationsthat have deep historical roots. Eight common

myths about shifting cultivation are summarizedand refuted below. Implications for research andpolicy are also summarized.

Perceptions of Agricultural DevelopmentStages

MYTH 1 — Shifting cultivation is a primitiveprecursor to more commercial ("modern")forms of production in the theoretical stages ofagricultural development.

Perceptions of shifting cultivators asprimitive are rooted in the scientific andcolonial encounters of the 17th, 18th, and 19thcenturies that followed European expansioninto the tropics (Wolf, 1982). Typicaldescriptions of tropical peoples, includingshifting cultivators, were of "savages";"backwards," "ignorant," "stubborn," "child-like," or "aggressive" pagans; or "infidels"(Hecht, 1993). British explorers such as SirWalter Raleigh thought that "indolent localpopulations" in areas being colonized needed the"guiding hand of civilization" to convert theirnatural resources into productive enterprises(Raleigh, 1597; Stanley, 1899). Another earlyanalyst asserted that "shifting cultivation oughtnot to be tolerated except in a very wild andunpeopled country . . . . It leads to unsettledhabits and takes away from the regularcultivation of a fixed spot. It is carried on by aset of savages who would be more profitablyemployed on public works or coffee plantations"(Cleghorn, 1851). Such perspectives have beeninfluential for decades and remain so today.

10 The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications

During contemporary times, shiftingcultivation has also been described in linearevolutionary terms as part of an inevitable,historically determined progression fromprimitive to modern forms of agriculture.Conventional models of change withindevelopment and agriculture typically suggestlinear movement through stages, fromhunting/gathering to shifting cultivation tosettled agriculture (Greenland, 1974). In thisinterpretation, low-density shifting cultivation isseen as the most primitive agriculture andintensive sedentary agriculture as the mostadvanced. Likewise, much of the associatedliterature suggests that shifting cultivators are atthe far margins of civilized, modern societies,thus justifying external interventions into theirway of life.

The linear models sometimes presentpopulation pressure as a driving force in thestages of agriculture (Boserup, 1965; Greenland,1974), suggesting that increasing populationdensity leads to more frequent cultivation offields, shortening of fallows, and, eventually,degradation. If migration does not remove thepopulation pressure, the theory states, the onlyalternative is to introduce technologies ormethods that promote higher yields per unit ofland or greater cropping intensity.

REALITY 1 — Shifting cultivators respond toagroecological and socioeconomic factors indynamic, nonlinear ways.

Shifting cultivators are too diverse to fit neatlyinto any deterministic economic or demographictransition model. Theories of linear agriculturaldevelopment stages rest on a set of assumptionsthat can be misleading, are unsupported byempirical evidence, and reflect ethnocentricviews (Shrire, 1984). Linear models limited tospecified stages of development are not universalgeneralizations; they are "basically untestable inthe field . . . [and] essentially ambiguous" (Hill,1986, p.24). Suggesting natural linear stages of

agricultural evolution neglects the complexitiesof historical change. In reality, transitionsbetween different types of agriculturalproduction involve dynamic processes ratherthan categorical divisions. For example, Punanhunter-gatherers in Borneo once moved fromshifting cultivation to hunting and gathering,which would be seen as an impossible stepbackward according to linear models (Hoffman,1984). This shift occurred not because ofpopulation pressure or evolutionary agriculturalregression, but because hunting and gatheringbecame more profitable than shifting cultivationin the Punan's relations with Chinese traders.Other groups in Southeast Asia, such as theKubu of Sumatra and the Toala of Celebes, wereagriculturalists who became nomadic hunter-gatherers (Hoffman, 1984). The Dayaks in EastKalimantan, Indonesia, have changed theiragricultural practices in ways that have differeddepending on the degree of their integration inthe monetary economy (Inoue and Lahjie, 1990;Dove, 1985, 1993). (See also Myth 3 below.)

Another problem with the linear model is thatit is rooted in a theory of internal populationdynamics which overlooks the potentiallydestabilizing effects of markets and tenurialchanges among other factors (Padoch, 1982;Bray, 1985; Descola, 1993). (The developmentof cattle ranching in Central America and in theAmazon are examples of serious degradationindependent of population pressure.) Moreover,population is not the only factor promptingintensification of land use. Assuming thatcultivators rely exclusively on the short-cyclesuccessional phase of shifting cultivationoverlooks the contributions of fallow and forestresources that provide both products andincome. Assuming an empty fallow ignores thediverse practices and human innovations thatpermit much higher population densities invarious tropical environments to function incomplex economies. In addition, less intensiveland uses can be vastly more destructive on aregional scale.

The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications 11

IMPLICATIONS: Decision-makers andresearchers need to discard simplistic stereotypesabout the "primitiveness" of shifting cultivationand avoid linear models of agricultural stages.To make rational decisions and land useimprovements, they need to better understandthe complex dynamics of land use, bothtemporally and spatially. The agriculturalpractices of shifting cultivators should beunderstood as adaptations to ecological,socioeconomic, and structural constraints.Lessons can be learned from these systems thatare useful to modern agriculture and thepromotion of sustainable development. Betterknowledge of these factors should beincorporated into planning, policies, andprograms for land use.

Diversity of Shifting Cultivation

MYTH 2 — Shifting cultivation systems intropical rainforests are uniform andunchanging, and shifting cultivators arehomogeneous poor peoples.

Shifting cultivation is often viewed as simpleand homogeneous by several scientists,environmentalists, government decision-makers,and the media. Typical misconceptions are that"all shifting cultivation techniques are similareverywhere" and that "shifting cultivation is awaste of land" (Watters, 1971, p.3). Thisnotion, expressed in historical studies and ininfluential reports from the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO),remains pervasive. Shifting cultivation systemsare also often lumped together as the cause ofdeforestation and other forms of environmentaldegradation worldwide (Bandy et al., 1994;Myers, 1994; UNDP, 1992).

Many analysts also assume that shiftingcultivators belong to poor and undifferentiatedcommunities. Communities of shiftingcultivators are rarely desegregated or analyzedby social class, gender, ethnicity, or historical

background. Often traditional and indigenouscultivators are lumped together with migrantcultivators. Little attention is given to thedifferential in groups of shifting cultivators'distribution of productive resources both withinand between individual households andcommunities (Thapa and Weber, 1991).

REALITY 2 — Shifting cultivation systemsencompass a remarkably diverse range of landuse practices developed and changed over timeby farmers in varied social, ecological,economic, and political settings.

"To speak of shifting cultivation as a singlesystem shows our misunderstanding of itsdiversity" (Peters and Neuenschwander 1988,p.77; Ruthenberg, 1980). Shifting cultivationsystems are more varied than almost any othertype of land use, a logical occurrence given thatover 3,000 ethnic groups practice shiftingcultivation (Stiles, 1994), in diverseenvironmental conditions (Dove, 1993, 1983;Padoch, 1982; Hoffman, 1984; Shrire, 1984;Spencer, 1966; Fujisaka et al., 1995). Recentresearch indicates that considerable intra-ethnicdiversity and variability in settlement andcropping patterns, population density, and fallowpractices exist among shifting cultivatorsinhabiting different regions. Such differencesexist even among groups in the same region,such as the Tanghkhul Naga of northeasternIndia, the Dayak of Kalimantan and the Hmongof Thailand (Bose et al., 1982; Kunstadter andChapman, 1978; Dove, 1993;Hungyo, 1982;Inoue and Lahjie, 1990; Padoch and Peters,1993). In one region of northern Thailand thereare six distinct shifting cultivation systems, threeeach practiced in evergreen and deciduous forest(Smitin et al., 1978).

Although shifting cultivation today occursmostly in the tropics of Africa, Asia, and LatinAmerica, it is not restricted to tropicalrainforests. It extends into woodlands, savannasand dry tropical and subtropical forests and


grasslands. Contrary to popular belief, there areshifting cultivation systems in use in the miombograssy woodlands and the grasslands ofSouthern Africa (Chidumayo, 1987; Stromgaard,1989), as well as in the grasslands of SoutheastAsia (Dove, 1985) and Bhutan (Roder et al.,1992). Even pastoralist groups in East Africa,such as the Barabaig, practice maize shiftingcultivation in the savanna plains of Tanzania(Lane, 1994). In the Congo Basin, savannavegetation covers a large portion of the shiftingcultivation areas (Miracle, 1967). Otherexamples include the grassland systems of theHariq in the Sudan (Miracle, 1967) andchitemene among the Mambwe in northernZambia (Richards, 1937; Stromgaard, 1989).

Diversity in Cropping Systems and Cycles ofShifting Cultivation: Shifting cultivationsystems consist of a variety of cropping systems,cultural practices, and components within eachregion where they are found. Shifting cultivationcan be seen, therefore, as a mosaic of land andresource uses, that is adapted to local ecologies,cultures, and regional economies. Thesemosaics are differentiated by a range of shiftingand unshifting elements, managed andunmanaged successions, and varying levels ofintensity in cropping systems. (See Box 3 forexamples.)

Moreover, shifting cultivators typically managea variety of cultivated crops and wild plants.Studies have found that an individual plot caninclude more than one hundred species perhectare (Descola, 1993). The Kantu inKalimantan, for example, plant over 44 varietiesof rice, averaging 17 per household (Dove1993). Congo Basin farmers often "grow thirtyor more different crops—and as many as sixty[have been] recorded" (Miracle, 1967, p.283).In East Kalimantan, Indonesia, Dayak shiftingcultivators use over 22 varieties of upland riceand nine of glutinous rice (Golfer et al., 1988).In Sierra Leone, 98 shifting cultivator

households were found to use 59 distinct ricevarieties; each particular field is maintained withfour to eight varieties (McNeely et al., 1995).Dozens of rice varieties have been found inswidden plots in other parts of Asia and Africaas well (Dove, 1993, McNeely et al, 1995).Approximately 5,000 varieties of sweet potatoare found in shifting cultivation systems of PapuaNew Guinea, with up to 20 varieties used withina single garden (Wood and Linne, 1993). Someshifting cultivators also maintain wild relatives ofcultivars and overall levels of species diversitythat are close to those of older growth forests(Padoch and Peters, 1993).

Many of the groups maintain and managesedentary farming plots, such as home gardensand plantations, along with cyclical swiddenplots. They intensively manage such productionsystems to complement shifting cultivation, oftendomesticating and experimenting with many ofthe wild plants found in the successions ofshifting cultivation. In fact, managedsuccessions may have higher species diversitythan unmanipulated successional sites (Irvine,1989). Many Indonesian farmers, for example,manage their fallows to enhance diversity(Padoch, 1988).

Polycultural home gardens often have veryhigh species diversity. Documented cases havereported more than one hundred plant species,including roots, tubers, vegetables, fruits, herbs,medicinals, dyes, oils, fodder, and fibers (Padochand de Jong, 1993; Fernandes et al., 1988;Soewarmoto et al.. 1985; Padoch and Peters,1993). In this context, the cultivators mayintensively grow grains and carbohydrates suchas taro, cassava and paddy rice, the last of whichoften relies on nutrients transported from forestsystems or via swamp or irrigation waters(Saldanha, 1990; Miracle, 1967; Guyer, 1984).


Box 3. Variations in Shifting Cultivation: Examples from African miombo Woodlands

Shifting cultivation systems have persisted forcenturies throughout the ecosystems of SouthernAfrica's miombo woodland which is characterized byherbaceous layer and semiclosed tree canopies,generally on infertile acid soils that spread acrossAngola, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zaire,Zambia and Zimbabwe. All miombo shiftingcultivation systems have made use of fire to clear land,and different natural plant biomass fertilizers,including cattle manure, to improve soU fertility(Chidumayo, 1987; Stromgaard, 1989).

Probably the most well-known and successfulmiombo shifting cultivation system is the circlechitemene system practiced by the Bemba, Lamba, andLala in the northern wetter miombo of Zambia(Trapnell, 1957; Chidumayo, 1987, p.37;Stromgaard, 1989). Crops such as finger millets andcassava are grown, without tilling the soil, in ashgardens averaging eight hectares. A pile of branchestrimmed and lopped from trees in a large woodlandarea ("outfield") is burned to make the ash(Chidumayo, 1987; Stromgaard, 1989). The Lambaand Bemba tend to practice a block chitemene in whichbrushwood is burned in part of a cleared garden area.The Lala practice a circle chitemene with smallercultivated gardens, and sometimes larger outfield areasserve as a source of ash (Stromgaard, 1989). Thepractices allow stumps and trunks in the outfield toquickly regenerate back to woodland (Chidumayo,1987). Traditionally, a new ash garden was madeevery year, and during the second year cassavasucceeds millet before the plot is abandoned for 25 to30 years (Trapnell, 1957).

Th&fiindikila (or chibela) system is another form ofshifting cultivation found in miombo woodlands; it ispracticed by the Mambwe and others in northeasternZambia. It is more intensive; adapted to higherpopulation densities, up to 30 people per squarekilometer (Stromgaard, 1989; Chidumayo, 1987); anddepends on nutrients in grass biomass compostmounds and a legume-cereal crop rotation thatmaintains fertility and production for longer periodsthan the chitemene system allows. Nitrogen-fixinglegume crops (beans or groundnuts) are sown on grassmounds, often with cow manure. Crops are rotated

for three to six years before abandonment, without anysignificant change in the soil nutrients (Chidumayo,1987, p.36).

The Bemba, Mwambe, Lamba, Lala, and othermiombo shifting cultivators supplement their shiftingfields in various ways. In their gardens near thehomestead, for example, they interplant diverse cropssuch as sorghum, maize, rice, cassava, pumpkin,sweet potatoes, groundnuts, bull-rush millet, cowpeas, castor oil, and tobacco. They also harvestwetland fish, hunt game, and use numerous wildherbaceous vegetables, edible insects such ascaterpillars and termites, over 28 mushroom species,106 tree species that include medicinal functions, andsome 25 edible fruits (Chidumayo and Siwela, 1988;Stromgaard, 1989).

Paradoxically, even though these cultivation systemshave been relatively effective and are well adapted forthe local people, the British colonial and postcolonialgovernments have attempted to ban the use of fire andsettle the shifting cultivators. Since the 1980s, theyhave also imposed use of soil tillage and hybrid maizebased on subsidized inorganic acid fertilizer andencouraged shifting cultivators to clear trees to groundlevel. Such attempts are seldom successful, as peoplecontinue to practice the methods that have ensuredthem of their livelihoods.

In recent years, however, the chitemene andJundilika systems have come under stress, as fallowsare shortened and soil fertility has been reduced. Forexample, Bemba households now tend to clear fieldsevery two years, fallows are maintained for 12 ratherthan 25 years, and millet has been replaced bysorghum. Such changes are due to increasingpopulation density and migration, rising use of themiombo for charcoal, growth of agroexport cropplantations, and urbanization. Consequently, thesesystems may need external assistance to intensifysustainably. Integration of traditional shiftingcultivation land use patterns and contemporaryagricultural methods in a balanced way could supportcultivators as they cope with changing conditions(Stromgaard, 1989b).


Some groups intensively manage plantations ofperennial cash crops, such as rubber, cacao,rattan, coffee, palm, and coca as part of theshifting cultivation system (Hecht, 1982; Alcorn,1982; Denevan and Padoch, 1988; Plotkin andFarmolare, 1992; Dove, 1985). Many of thesevariations are mixed agroforestry systems thatare weeded and fertilized, usually with locallyacquired organic substances.

Diversity of Socioeconomic and LaborCharacteristics: Within shifting cultivationcommunities, there are differences in socialpositions, subgroupings of the people, laborarrangements, and historical and socialexperiences. Contrary to popular perception,these communities are often stratified rather thanhomogeneous and egalitarian. Shiftingcultivation systems do not clearly fit into simpleethnic and social categories (Kundstater andChapman, 1978; Atal and Bennagen, 1983).Although little research literature addresses thisissue, several cases demonstrate the importanceof social differentiation in resource management.In Orissa, India, for example, "tribals"practicing shifting cultivation pursue differentproduction strategies, according to their classand social status (Fernandes et al, 1988;Sachchidananda and Pathak, 1983).

Labor arrangements in shifting cultivation arealso diverse in different regions, and even withina given culture, but systems are usuallyintegrated into labor and commodity markets.Even isolated shifting cultivators are connectedto labor markets. Labor may be hired orexchanged for clearing land and other labor-intensive tasks. In Africa, where large portionsof the male workforce may not be in the ruralzones, hiring labor and exchanges of labor arecommon. Labor arrangements are also oftenlinked with customary rituals or social relationsin a given community. In the Congo Basin, forexample, the most common way for householdsto supplement their own labor is to organize a"working bee" (or a work party) in which beer

or food is offered to anyone willing to help withtasks.

Off-farm employment is becoming increasinglyimportant for both traditional and newer shiftingcultivators. Throughout Latin America, forexample, shifting cultivators typically engage inoff-farm work during parts of the year. Swiddengroups in Indonesia often work for loggingcompanies (Inoue and Lahjie, 1990; Soewardi,1983). In Thailand, among the northernswiddeners off-farm labor is for timber cuttingand charcoal production (Chapman, 1978).Among the Lua and Karen swiddeners inThailand, many work as wage laborers formining or logging companies (Kunstadter,1978b).

In nearly all shifting cultivation systems, laboris typically divided among household members;women, men, elders, and children participate indistinct tasks. The division of labor by gender ispronounced in many of these systems (Colfer etal., 1988). Men are mostly responsible for cash-crop activities and tasks such as clearing land.Women play an important role in maintainingsubsistence-cropping components, but theircontribution is generally not recognized and israrely researched. Among the Minang of WestSumatra, Indonesia, for example, women arealmost entirely responsible for swidden riceproduction, forming work parties for planting,weeding, and harvesting (Colfer et al., 1988).Gender based roles, therefore, shape theconditions and impacts of shifting cultivationsystems.

In recent years, some analysts have noteddifferences betweeen traditional (or longer-residing) shifting cultivators and migrant shiftingcultivators, appropriately called shiftedcultivators. Increasing numbers of migrantshave moved into frontier zones, particularlyhumid, tropical forest areas. Many are forcedthere by economic needs or demographicpressures and are in search of available land and


resources for their livelihoods (Kane, 1995).Some are resettled or are paid by larger wealthylandholders to clear land for cash crops (Myers,1994; Peters and Neuenchwacher, 1988; Alcorn,1994; Dove, 1994). This division can be overlysimplistic, but generally the shifted groups haveless knowledge than indigenous groups ofeffective shifting cultivation land-use and laborpractices (Moran, 1993). They tend to use firemore frequently and practice sequential annualcropping more often than is done in indigenoussystems.

In sum, the diverse, mosaic patterns of shiftingcultivation systems have been consistentlyoverlooked, partly because scientific analysts anddecision-makers have tended to focus on singledimensions of the short-cycle agricultural plot.The standard disciplinary separation betweenforestry and agriculture also tends to limitunderstanding of shifting cultivation. In fact,components of shifting cultivation are highlyvariable and interconnected.

IMPLICATIONS: The tremendous diversity ofshifting cultivation systems, agroecologically,regionally, socially, and economically, is valuableand has strong potential for the sustainablemanagement of local environments. This factshould be acknowledged and addressed in thedesign of agricultural development programs andpolicies. Decision-makers and analysts must notignore or restrict the great variety of land usetypes, cultural knowledge, and speciesassociated with shifting cultivation. Furtherresearch and programs are needed to identifyand enhance the diverse indigenousagroecological practices and principles in shiftingcultivation systems. In addition, the analyses ofshifting cultivation systems should account forthe labor of both men and women, as well asdifferences in their control over land, produce,and other natural and financial resources (Colferet al., 1988).

Subsistence and Commercial FarmingActivities

MYTH 3 — Shifting cultivation is the soleactivity among rural subsistence farmers inforest margins and is unconnected tocommercial market activities.

Shifting cultivators are often assumed to besubsistence-based producers who barely eke outa living and are unconnected to the market(cash) economy (Watters, 1971). Similarly, theyare seen as isolated from modern economicinfluences. Contemporary reports, as well ashistorical studies, have perpetuated thisstereotype, which is tied to conventional theoryabout categorical agricultural stages (Todaro,1989, based onBoserup, 1965).

REALITY 3 — Shifting cultivators engage ina wide variety of activities in subsistence andcash economies and often merge subsistenceproduction with commercial surplus-orientedproduction.

Although some shifting cultivation systems arelargely subsistence oriented in remote areas (asin some parts of the Amazon and Congo Basins),most are not confined to subsistence. In fact,shifting cultivators are not primitive peopleresiding outside of broader economic forces.Most are linked to local and regional commodityand labor markets and the cash economy.Shifting cultivation systems have been tied tomarkets for millennia (Hecht, 1982; Alcorn,1982;DenevanandPadoch, 1988). Overtime,many shifting cultivation systems haveincreasingly integrated cash crops into thecropping cycle and in fallows. They haveproduced a complex array of commodities,including rubber, nuts, rattans, medicinals, oils,and dyes, as well as food, fuel, and constructionmaterials that have been traded locally,regionally, and internationally over centuries(Barlow and Tomich, 1991).


The cash crops in shifting cultivation systemsoften include tree products, which are part ofagroforestry systems. Tree crops, includingcocoa, oil palm, and coffee, are often marketedin the dofnestic, village, regional, national, andinternational economies (Richards, 1937; DeSchilippe, 1956; Alcorn, 1990a, 1990b;Padoch, 1982; Dove, 1985; and Kundstater,1978b). In some areas, the producers integratetree crops spontaneously in response to marketopportunities (Dove, 1985). The incorporationof trees provides an array of benefits, enablingcultivators to gain added value for new products,to enhance ecosystem functions such as nutrientcycling, and to improve their livelihoods.

Furthermore, shifting cultivators usuallyengage in a wide variety of economic pursuitsbesides cultivation per se. In Thailand, forexample, "the practitioners of shifting cultivationparticipate in many phases of the economy of theNorth beyond the confines of their own villages—in marketing their agricultural products,trading for supplies, and most notably, in thewage labor market of the region" (Kunstadterand Chapman, 1978). Thais in the lowland northoften supplement paddy rice, orchard farming, oroff-farm labor with shifting cultivation(Chapman, 1978). In East Kalimantan,Indonesia, different villages of like ethnicitypursue varying economic strategies in addition toshifting cultivation, ranging from animalhusbandry to wage labor for logging and miningcompanies (Inoue and Lahjie, 1990).

Pursuing multiple economic activities is alsotypical among traditional shifting cultivators. Inthe Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, forexample, shifting cultivation is practiced bytribals in different ecological contexts incombination with terrace cultivation, plowcultivation, and irrigated agriculture (Sarkar,1982). In many tropical rural areas, extractiveresources from natural forest areas, such asrubber, nuts, fibers, and timber, are crucialsources of income for the communities, as

illustrated in the Brazilian Amazon (Hecht et al.,1988), Central America (Alcorn, 1989; Starkey,1993), and Southeast Asia (Colfer et al., 1988;Peluso, 1992; Denevan and Padoch, 1988).

A growing body of field-based research is alsochallenging the general assumption that shiftingcultivators are always materially impoverished.Although many cultivators are relatively poor,especially in terms of cash income, it would beincorrect to assume that they are among thepoorest people in their societies. In Pulai inWest Sumatra, for example, throughdiversification and local adaptiveness, the people"provide us with an example of one way to livereasonably well in these marginal upland areas ofthe humid tropics, standard of living—thoughstill low—is noticeably higher than that of thetransmigrants who are trying, with governmentencouragement, to transplant a settledagricultural system . . ." (Colfer et al., 1988,p.206). In East Kalimantan, the Benuaq Dayaknot only earn "relatively much income" throughtheir traditional rattan production, but alsomaintain a swidden system that is "verysustainable" (Inoue and Lajhie, 1990, p.281). InOrissa, India, shifting cultivation is practiced bymembers of all economic classes of farmers,including the wealthiest landowners (Fernandeset al., 1988).

IMPLICATIONS: The range in welfare andeconomic activities undertaken by shiftingcultivators—including not only subsistencefarming, but also market-orientedproduction—needs to be understood andaddressed by policy makers, project designers,and the general public. Policies and projectsthat affect land and resource users need torespect shifting cultivators' experience andinterests in accessing commercial markets ofproducts and they must provide equitableopportunities (but not impose obligations) inmarket development where appropriate anddesired by the local people.


Productivity Levels

MYTH 4 — Shifting cultivation is alwayscharacterized by low productivity and lowyields andean support only low populationdensities.

Scientific analysts and policy institutionsconcerned about agricultural development havegenerally perceived shifting cultivation to be notonly inefficient and simple, but also lowproducing and low yielding. It is seen as inferiorin comparison with "modern" agriculture.Another common assumption is that shiftingcultivation can support only sparse populationsin remote areas. These viewpoints areperpetuated in studies, policy reports, and by thepopular media.

REALITY 4 — Shifting cultivation systemsare often productive, make relatively efficientuse of resources, and have supported largepopulations.

Shifting cultivation practices have been quiteproductive in many areas, supporting relativelylarge populations compared with some otherland uses. Assessing the number of people that asystem supports is one indicator of resourceefficiency and productivity. In Kalimantan,Indonesia, shifting cultivation supports 23people per square kilometer, which is more thantwice the number supported by commerciallogging (Dove, 1983). In Mesoamerica, shiftingcultivation of the Mayans supported 100 to 200people per square kilometer and 700 to 1,150people per square kilometer with intensiveagriculture (Gomez-Pompa, 1987, p.24).Shifting agriculture produced 20 to 100 percentof the subsistence needs of Mexico. Today, thepeople of this region practice ranching andcommercial mixed farming; the population isonly 10 people per square kilometer (Gomez-Pompa, 1987, p.24). The population capacity ofshifting cultivation also far exceeds that

supported by cattle-ranching. For example,Amazonian cattle ranches, with an average sizeof 5,000 hectares, support only 10 laborers(Hecht, 1996). The move to permanent fieldsdoes not necessarily improve output in the long-term.

Furthermore, gross yield is only one criterionfor evaluating farming systems. Productionshould be seen in relation to risk reduction,consumption, and resource management as wellas crop yields. The diversity of shiftingcultivators' land use methods and the variety ofthe crops they produce reduce risks posed bydrought, pestilence, and other weather-relatedphenomena. Shifting cultivators eat much ofwhat they produce, which contributes to self-sufficiency and livelihood security. Theirmultiple outputs, such as fuel and medicinals,have added values for farming systems. Whenthe cultivators engage in cash-cropping, theyalso contribute to broader economic growth.Some shifting cultivators provide resource-related services—beneficial to themselves and tosociety—through their watershed management,conservation of plant diversity, and use of treecover. Such benefits are seldom measured, butare nonetheless important criteria for evaluatingshifting cultivation.

IMPLICATIONS: Decision-makers andanalysts need to understand and learn fromshifting cultivators' ability to produce and useresources effectively and sustainably in manycases, and to analyze when and why the systemssometimes lose productivity over time. Shiftingcultivators' use of land and resources should beviewed and measured holistically: yieldmeasurement of a single given crop should bereplaced with measurements of the productivityand efficiency of the entire system—inclusive offactors such as risk reduction, nutrition, income,and sustainable management, as well as cropyields per se. A holistic measurement ofproductivity needs to be used and supported inagricultural development policies and programs.


Environmental Impacts and Resource Use

MYTH 5 — Shifting cultivation systems areenvironmentally destructive, wasteful,unsustainable, and cause the majority oftropical deforestation and soil erosion.

Another common generalization related toMyth 4 is that shifting cultivation practices areenvironmentally destructive and need to beeliminated or replaced. Shifting cultivation isblamed for between 50 and 75 percent oftropical deforestation worldwide (ASB, 1993;Cleaver and Shrieber, 1993; Myers, 1992, 1994;UNDP/UNEP, 1992). One recent publication,claims that "....slash-and-burn agriculture is oneof the greatest threats to the biodiversity of ourplanet, destroying ten million hectares of tropicalforest annually...." (ASB, 1993, pp.1,5)Similarly, studies attribute to the growingpopulations of shifting cultivators a key role inoverall population increase, which they cite as acause of deforestation (Myers, 1990, 1992).Many foresters in the Philippines, openly blameshifting cultivators for most deforestation in thatnation (Lynch, personal communication, 1997).Some of these perceptions are found in earlierreports as well; in the 1970s, FAO publicationsclaimed that shifting cultivators were bydefinition "destructive" (FAO, 1973).

Shifting cultivators are also blamed for muchsoil erosion in the tropics (Watters, 1971).Recent studies particularly criticize anddisparage their use of fire: burning is commonlycharacterized as inherently harmful.Furthermore, shifting cultivators' fires areblamed as the source of a major proportion ofglobal carbon emissions, which lead to globalclimate disturbances (ASB, 1993). Popular useof the term "slash and burn" perpetuates thisnegative stereotype of harmful fires.

Such views also lead to the related perspectivethat shifting cultivation is categorically

unsustainable. For example, a 1993 World Bankpublication on Africa claims that "Traditionallow input low productivity farming with sharplyshortened fallow periods is neitherenvironmentally sustainable nor viable in termsof long-term agricultural productivity... Slowtechnological innovation has inhibited shiftingcultivators from switching from subsistence tomarket crops..." (Cleaver and Shreiber, 1993,pp.4-7).

REALITY 5 — Shifting cultivation systemsare not responsible for the majority ofdeforestation or land degradation, and theyhave varying and complex environmentalimpacts, some of which may be sustainableand enhance biodiversity.

The environmental impacts of shiftingcultivation are diverse; they depend oncultivation practices used, as well associoeconomic and ecological factors. Field-based evidence does not prove that shiftingcultivation is responsible for the majority ofglobal deforestation; the general claims notedabove are exaggerations (Dick, 1991; Angelsen,1996; WRI, 1997). One analyst recentlyconcluded: "While the contribution of traditionalshifting agriculture to overall tropicaldeforestation is clearly an issue of concern, itsmagnitude in relation to other causes issometimes put way out of proportion inaggregate figures for global deforestation whichare at best crude measures" (Angelsen, 1996).

Regional and national data confirm thisconclusion. For example, in Indonesia, satellitedata showed that shifting cultivators account foronly 22 percent of deforestation, while theremaining 68 percent is due to programssupported by the government (Dick, 1991).Referring to this study, the World Bank (1994)has concluded that these and other data"challenge the conventional wisdom thattraditional shifting agriculture is the main agentof deforestation" (World Bank, 1994, p. 51).


Similarly, in South India, data-based landsat andaerial photographic images show thatdeforestation caused by shifting cultivators isless than 30 percent, whereas dams, reservoirs,and plantations have caused 70 percent ofdeforestation (Kamal Bawa, University ofMassachusetts, personal communication). InNigeria, recent assessments suggest that themajority of deforestation is due to large-scalerubber and agroexport plantations and the oilindustry rather than shifting cultivation(Osemeobo, 1988). Other regional and nationalestimates have revealed similar patterns (e.g.,Jarosz, 1993). Evidence indicates that shiftingcultivation systems are actually less degrading inmany ways than settled "modern" farming,because they do not convert vegetationpermanently—fallows usually allow regenerationof forests or other plant ecosystems.

Shifting cultivation systems also do notnecessarily waste and degrade land. As notedpreviously, a look at the numbers of peoplesupported per area of land under shiftingcultivation shows that some systems useresources more efficiently and less wastefullythan many other forms of land use, and they canalso support more people {See Myth 5; Hecht,1996; Dove, 1983). Similarly, blaming climatechange on shifting cultivators does not follow

the evidence. Although carbon emissions fromburning biomass are partly from shiftingcultivation, a focus on the emissions alone ismisleading, as it ignores another importantparameter—carbon absorption (or sequestration)by vegetation. Both output and absorption mustbe understood together. Shifting cultivationsystems have relatively high carbon absorptionbecause they typically maintain and enhancevegetation in the successions and often includetrees in the cropping cycle. In other words,shifting cultivation is closer to being carbon-neutral than to being a major carbon contributor.It contributes to carbon disturbances less thanother forms of land use.

Some studies that acknowledge differencesbetween shifted and indigenous shiftingcultivators place most of the blame fordegradation on the migrants, althoughindigenous peoples are also sometimesimplicated (Kleinman et al., 1993; Kunstadterand Chapman, 1978; Myers, 1994; Peters andNeuenschwander, 1988; Borthakur et al., 1985;Husain, 1981;Komkris, 1978; Roy and Verma,1980). {See Box 4.) But blaming shiftedcultivators for destruction is simplistic, partlybecause it ignores the underlying economiccauses that usually induce them to use certainunfamiliar practices. In parts of Latin America,

BOX 4. The Northern Thai Cultivators: Example of Migrant Practices and Conditions

The northern Thai are the largest ethnic group ofshifting cultivators in their region of the country(Chapman, 1978). Most are newcomers to shiftingcultivation practices. They have been described asreluctant swiddeners forced to switch from traditionalpaddy rice cultivation (Chapman, 1978, p.222). Formost northern Thai, shifting cultivation is a critical, butminor, part of household income. Economic necessityhas forced them to expand the land farmed throughshifting cultivation because limited land resources,combined with a relatively recent upsurge in the localpopulation, has led to food shortages. Development hasresulted in two new economic strategies—employmentof men in off-farm labor (mainly timber cutting and

charcoal production) during the dry season; andincreasing agricultural production (mainly rice,groundnuts, maize, and cotton) via shifting cultivationduring the rainy season. Rates of return to labor in theswidden system are often very low. Yet, since there isnot much alternative employment available during theperiod when field preparation takes place, the swiddenand wet-rice systems integrate well. Fallow times in theregion are typically short—3 to 4 years in areas wherethey should exceed 10 years to maintain soil fertility.Thus, the Northern Thai appear to be caught in asituation of decreasing resources combined withshortening fallows and falling yields (Charley andMcGarity,1978).


for example, even colonists who have had lessthan a generation of tropical forest livingexperience sometimes practice adaptive andinnovative shifting cultivation strategies,contrary to popular perceptions (Browder,1994).

Of course, all systems of agriculture, includingshifting cultivation, can contribute todeforestation and other kinds of natural resourcedegradation—depending on the practices andsurrounding conditions. Both traditional andmigrant shifting cultivation systems provideexamples of both relatively degrading(unsustainable) and relatively nondegrading(sustainable) types (Browder, 1994; Inoue andLahjie, 1990; Kunstadter et al., 1978; Spencer,1966). For example, in many areas of the world,shifting cultivation systems have recentlyevolved in ways that make certain practices suchas burning unsustainable and have becomepoorly adapted to local conditions.Consequently, the soil erodes, nutrients aredepleted, and fertility declines. But such

conditions are not universal. Nor do they reflectinevitable patterns of environmental destruction.

What are the more important causes ofdeforestation and environmental degradation? Assuggested above, commercial logging and large-scale cash-cropping account for moredeforestation than shifting cultivation (Thapaand Weber, 1991; Dei, 1992; Thiesenhausen,1991). The underlying causes of environmentaldegradation are generally tied to skewed landuse and resettlement policies, inequitablenational land tenure systems, and othersocioeconomic conditions, including theextractive practices of large scale enterprises,summarized in Table 1. These factors, in turn,can squeeze shifting cultivators onto small areasor pressure them to overuse resources. Suchdestabilization usually results over time from acombination of socioeconomic and politicalchanges, demographic pressures, and biophysicalfactors that force cultivators to change theirpractices.

TABLE 1. Causes of Destabilization and Degradation in Shifting Cultivation Systems

Outcomes or Symptoms ofDestabilization and

Degradation

Shortening or ceasing fallowsOver-exploitation of land/soilsDeclining soil fertilityDecreasing yieldsIncreasing deforestationLoss of biodiversity

Proximate Causes (agents)

Development of roads and otherinfrastructure

Expansion of monoculture agricultureand timber industries

Scarcity of land and other resourcesavailable to cultivators

Changing demographic trends, e.g.,migration and population growth

Lack of alternatives for production andincome for rural people

Resettlement of new groups in frontierareas

Lack of access to stable markets forshifting cultivators

Underlying Causes (roots)

Inequitable political-economicstructures affecting use of resources

International/national economicpolicies, esp. trade liberalization,structural adjustment

Disrespect for or neglect of therights of shifting cultivators

Lack of knowledge of environmentalfactors in agriculture

Lack of sustained economic devel-opment and employment for poor

Lack of political commitment forpoverty alleviation

Inadequate attention to socialneeds in environmental policies


IMPLICATIONS: Shifting cultivators shouldnot be blamed categorically for deforestation,environmental degradation, and climatedisruptions. Some shifting cultivation systemshave clearly become contributors to resourcedegradation, but this is not universal, and manyforms and aspects of shifting cultivation areenvironmentally sound. The variations on andevolution of these land use systems need to beappreciated by decision-makers and the public sothat more effective programs and policies can bedeveloped to conserve and sustainably useresources and improve agricultural development.At the same time, the underlying causes ofenvironmental degradation need to beunderstood and addressed. More attentionshould be given to identifying and addressingdegradation's roots, including biased policies,market forces, and extractive enterprises.Likewise, when shifting cultivation does lead todegradation, these economic factors need to beappreciated so that the degradation is not blamedcategorically on migrant colonists or traditionalshifting cultivators. Methods for addressingsuch economic factors influencing shiftingcultivation include ceasing policies that displace,remove and, resettle shifting cultivators, andremoving legal incentives and programs designedto encourage colonists to settle in marginal areasthat are unsuited for farming.

Levels of Productive Technologies andAgroecological Knowledge

MYTH 6 — Shifting cultivators usually useprimitive, low levels of technology, havelimited knowledge about agriculture and theenvironment, and rarely adopt newtechnologies.

A commonly cited FAO study defines shiftingcultivation as techniques of farming "used bythose farmers who have only the most primitivetools at their disposal... [Shifting cultivators]do not change because of passive acquiescenceto mediocre results of production and a low

standard of life." (Waiters, 1971). Otherstudies convey similarly pejorative views of thesemethods. A renowned agronomist stated that"The poor farming methods and soil depletingpractices prevalent among African peasant andshifting cultivators stem from ignorance, customand lethargy...the main obstacle to overcome isthe native's lack of understanding for the needfor the prevention of soil erosion." (Clayton,1974, p. 12). In discussions of swidden systemsin northeast India, writers have critically statedthat "no animal or implement is used by thefarmers for the preparation of the land. The onlytools used are the chopping knife, dibblingsticks, a small hand hoe, and a sickle/knife. Theonly inputs are seeds and human labor"(Borthakur et al., 1985, p. 150; Saikia, 1982). In1993, World Bank analysts wrote that Africanshifting cultivators have "limited technical knowhow" and that their "slow technologicalinnovations inhibit farmers from switching fromsubsistence to market crops" (Cleaver andShrieber, 1993, pp.4-5). Such stereotypes haveled many analysts to believe that shiftingcultivators always have limited knowledge.

REALITY 6 — Techniques used in shiftingcultivation systems are generally appropriatefor their agroecological contexts (although not"modern"), and cultivators often have complexand useful knowledge about resources, landuse, and surrounding environment

Shifting cultivators employ an array oftechnologies and land use practices, includingmodern technologies when appropriate,depending on the availability of alternatives,markets, and resources. The practices used aretypically well adjusted to local environments andhave been adapted to economic, environmental,and technological changes over time.Historically, three types of tool-based systemswere common: digging-stick systems, hoesystems, and plow systems. But the range oftechnologies has expanded over time.


In the Congo Basin, for example, as in otherareas of shifting cultivation, "a common type oftechnological change has been the introductionof new crops or new varieties of existing crops"(Miracle, 1967, p.287). In chiteme systems ofZambia, cultivators have integrated legumes andcomposting to improve soil fertility (Chidumayo,1995). In Indonesia, some shifting cultivatorgroups have incorporated rubber trees. SomeAfrican shifting cultivation systems includeexternal inputs such as compost, animal manure,and irrigation (Miracle, 1967). Shiftingcultivators in grass-fallow systems in Bhutan addcollected pine needles and animal manure tomounds of topsoil used as fuel for burning(Roderetal., 1992). Purchased fertilizers,pesticides, and herbicides are used lessfrequently because they are not accessible tomany shifting cultivators, although this ischanging. The Saribas Iban swiddeners ofSarawak, Malaysia, for instance, use smallamounts of diammonium phosphate fertilizersand the herbicide paraquat to supplementweeding (Cramb, 1989). In India, "most of thetribes, at least in Orissa, Andhra and Madhya

Pradesh or even in Meghalaya, Nagaland,Manipur and Tripura, have adopted technologyof modern agriculture, though not on a verylarge scale" (Bose et al., 1982, p.223). Somecultivators employ chain saws to clear forest(Dei, 1992).

Furthermore, studies show that shiftingcultivators usually have a wealth of knowledge,—based on their experience andexperimentation—about their biophysicalconditions, agronomic practices, and theenvironment and economy that influence them(Alcorn, 1994; Warner, 1991; Brookfield andPadoch, 1994). Some have detailed and complexknowledge about the management of vegetativeregrowth, and management of forest resourcesand medicinal plants (Alcorn, 1989). They arecommonly knowledgeable about ecologicalprinciples such as nutrient cycling, soil fertility,decomposition, and use of organic matter—although they do not use such terms (Gliessmanet al., 1981; Warren et al., 1989; Brookfield andPadoch, 1994; Kleinman et al., 1993).

Box 5. Shifting Cultivation and Complex Knowledge — An Example from Mexico(adapted from Collier, 1975)

The classic swidden agricultural cycle practiced by theZinacantecos in Chiapas, southern Mexico, is adapted tolocal conditions. These people have complex knowledgeabout the resources and the methods needed to maintainproduction and have adjusted their practices over time, inresponse to various kinds of change. Their swidden fieldsare generally located in steeply sloped and high-altitudeareas (3,000 to 8,000 feet).

Zinacantecos generally have complex knowledge ofagroecologjcal features and practices for swidden farmingand have particularly sophisticated insights (based onexperience) about soils, plants, and management of thefallow. Such knowledge has helped maintain theirlivelihood as well as social cohesion. Cultural traditionsand spiritual beliefs are also important in the Zinacantecosswidden cycle. Rituals are performed at certain stages inhonor of the spirits, including Wind, Lightning, and Rain.For example, a milpa ritual is performed when corn

tassels appear and is intended to avoid damage fromWind. The main farming operations —such as plantingand harvesting—are adjusted to the phases of the moon(coordination with the lunar cycles is common in swiddensystems in many parts of the world and has a scientificbasis for optimizing growth). Products gathered from thefallow areas or forests, such as pine boughs and needles,are used in rituals.

Not all of the Zinacanteco's practices are in harmony withthe environment, however. Many of the people's landshave suffered from soil erosion and declining fertility,partly owing to scarcity of land and increasing intensity offarming. Such changes have occurred with populationshifts and political and economic developments, especiallythe expansion of wage labor, increasing market pressures,and inequitable land tenure.


Mayan shifting cultivation practices, forexample, reflect complex knowledge, notsimplicity. (See Box 5.) Women, elders, andchildren, as well as men, have specificknowledge about these factors in the shiftingcultivation cycle.

Studies from the fields of botany, geography,agroecology, cultural ecology, ethnography, andarcheology have shown that shifting cultivationsystems are complex, resilient, and dynamic inthe context of environmental and socialconstraints (Altieri, 1997; Gleissman, 1989;Gliessman et al., 1981; Conklin, 1963; Warner,1991; Posey and Balee, 1989; Denevan andPadoch, 1988). In many areas, shiftingcultivation may be seen as manageddeforestation, building around patchy clearingswhere fire is carefully controlled andregeneration aided through manipulation ofsuccession by the selective weeding, fertilizing,and protecting of particular plants (Alcorn,1991). In other cases, as in West Kalimantan,shifting cultivation is a form of tropical forestmanagement. (SeeBox 6.)

Similarly, shifting cultivators are oftensophisticated managers of biological diversity.As noted earlier (in Myth/Reality 2), they mayplant dozens of varieties in a single garden andconserve and use wild varieties in fallows. (SeeBox 6.) These cultural practices contrast sharplywith modern agricultural systems, which usuallyerode diversity and aim for homogeneity. Forexample, forests that may contain as many as400 species per hectare have been replaced bypastures with only 10 or 20 species, orplantations with only one species.

Shifting cultivators use a variety of soilmanagement methods to sustain productivity,usually adjusting to low soil fertility in largeareas of the tropics. The most pervasive typesof soil management practices are the shifting(rotation) cycle, which restores soil fertility, andburning, which creates a useful ash fertilizer(Nye and Greenland, 1963). Many additionalmethods are used, as noted in Table 2.

BOX 6. Forest Gardens Managed by Tara'n Dayak Shifting Cultivators in West Kalimantan

Dayak shifting cultivator groups in Kalimantan, Indonesia,use sophisticated agricultural practices to manage threediverse forest vegetation types: forest gardens, managedforests, and agroforestry plots, detailed as follows: a.Tembaweng Forest Gardens are home gardens of 10 ormore hectares that begin as mixed plantings of fruit treesaround dwellings, and later contain additional plantedspecies (such as rubber, rattans, and medicinal plants) andalso a mixture of spontaneous vegetation that grows uparound fruit trees; b. Tanah Adat Forest Reserves arepreserved by traditional law, set aside many generationsago and have never been cleared. However, the Tara'nDayak of Balai manage these tanah adat by removingunwanted weeds or less useful species while plantingtimber and fruit trees such as illipe nut, rattan, sugarpalm, bamboo, langsat, rambai, mentawa and durian; c.Tanah Usaha Agroforesty Plots are typically commercialplantings that are usually part of the cyclic agroforestrysystem. Rubber is the most important tree planted alongwith other commercial trees.

All of these forest systems may look alike but each hasdifferent histories and management practices. Each typeis species rich. The Dayak managed forest gardens, forexample contain upwards of 42 tree species in a 0.2 haplot and tanah adat upwards of 51 tree species per 0.2 haplot. (By contrast, Dipterocarp forests in Kalimantan cancontain from 200-250 tree species per hectare.) Thesecultivators promote in situ conservation of importantcultivars and their wild relatives and maintain biodiversityforest gardens while feeding themselves. This diversitymanagement could be an exemplary form of sustainableresource use. Such systems could be good alternatives tothe present practices of logging and total forestconversion.

Source: C. Padoch and C. Peters, 1993. "Managed ForestGardens in West Kalimantan." In C, Potter, J. Cohen, D.Janezewski, (eds). Perspectives on Biodiversity: CaseStudies of Genetic Resource Conservation andDevelopment. AAAS Press, Washington DC pp. 167-176.


Table 2. Soil Management Methods in Shifting Cultivation

Management Category

Physical modificationfor soil protectionand erosion control

Soil protection

Fertility enhancement

Specific Method

MoundingRidgingContour structures for erosion controlTerraces (made of logs, grass balks, etc.)

Planting ground covering vinesMulti-story agricultural architectureMulchingWindrows

Use of short cycle legumesUse of bush or tree legumesMulti-level resource use by cropsNutrient additions from outside the plotNutrient added from plants in the plotComposting and manuresUse of insect nests as fertilizerReburying within the plotManipulated fallows

Source: Hecht and Posey, 1989.

IMPLICATIONS: Decision-makers, institutions,and the wider public need to understand thatmany shifting cultivators have complexknowledge of and experience with naturalresources and agroecological conditions. Thisknow-how should be respected, understood, andsupported in research and development. It canplay an important role in environmentalmanagement and agricultural projects (Poseyand Balee, 1989; Redford and Padoch, 1992,Thrupp, 1989, 1994; Thrupp et al., 1994;Rhodes, 1994). At the same time, thedisplacement of local knowledge and theimposition of Western technologies should beavoided. Shifting cultivators' traditionalagroforestry and soil management techniquescan be beneficial and need to be incorporatedinto contemporary projects, as they encompass

agroecological principles that complementmodern scientific findings. The use ofparticipatory methods such as ParticipatoryRural Appraisal (PRA) can help make effectiveuse of peoples' local knowledge. Participatorymethods have proven to benefit research anddevelopment, contribute to conservation andlivelihood security, and can also help empowerlocal people (IIED, 1990-1995; Thrupp, 1994;Chambers et al., 1989; Farrington and Martin,1987). (See also Reality 8.) The use of suchparticipatory methods in research can alsoimprove understanding of why some of thepractices have become unstable, such asshortening fallow periods, and can help designmeasures that need to be taken to mitigateadverse changes.


Tenure and Property Systems

MYTH 7 — Shifting cultivation systems existin empty, open-access forests without any formof legal rights or controls, therebynecessitating state and private control formanagement

As in colonial times, contemporary analystsoften regard the fallow period of shiftingcultivation as abandonment, and lands used byshifting cultivators as unused open-access orempty lands (Dove, 1985, 1993;Peluso, 1992;Lynch and Talbott, 1995). In the British Empireanything that did not look like a clearedagricultural field was considered territoriumnullius (Lindley, 1926). Furthermore, manyanalysts presume that shifting cultivators do nothave tenure systems or property rights and arenot attached to any particular land.

REALITY 7 — Shifting cultivation culturesembrace a variety of tenure regimes thatmediate access, use, and transfer of resources,including informal community-based,household, and individual rights that overlapwith state authority.

Shifting cultivation systems rarely exist inopen-access situations. Instead, most are basedon community property rights, which aretypically differentiated as individual, gender,family, lineage, and community rights of access(Berry, 1993;Peluso, 1992; Guyer, 1991, 1984;Rocheleau, 1991; Stamp, 1989). A common-property rights pattern consists of communal,lineage holdings of land areas, with family andindividual members having usufruct rights, asoccurs in the case of patrilineages in Garo,northeastern India (Ramakrishnan, 1992;Majumdar, 1980). The Minangkabau of Pulai inWest Sumatra have a matrilineal land holdingsystem with divisions of labor, rice production,and rubber tapping occurring along gender lines(Colfer et al., 1988).

Despite the presence of community-based

property rights, most shifting cultivators aretreated as squatters under national laws,regardless of their length of occupancy. Landsused for shifting cultivation, particularly fallowareas, are often classified as public forest land orcondemned as empty or unused and appropriatedor enclosed by state agencies (Lynch andTalbott, 1995; Dove, 1993, 1985; Bryant, 1994;Peluso, 1992; King, 1988).

IMPLICATIONS: Policy-makers, governments,and analysts need to respect and legally protectdiverse tenure arrangements of shiftingcultivators, particularly traditional, community-based property rights and management systems.Laws and policy-makers should not treat fallowareas as unused land, because these areas are anintegral part of the shifting cultivation cycle.State authority should not be imposed overcommunity-based systems (Lynch, 1992a).More analysis is needed to understand thecomplexities of the diverse tenure systemsamong shifting cultivators and how they arechanging over time as a result of policyinterventions, market forces, and other factors.The protection of local rights can reinforce localincentives for shifting cultivators to manageresources appropriately. Upholding the widerlegal and political rights of these people isequally important and necessary.

Interventions of Governments, Agencies andPolicies

MYTH 8— State and international agenciesuse interventions and policies to bring aboutbeneficial agricultural and environmentalchanges affecting the practice of shiftingcultivation.

It is widely assumed that governmentinstitutions, development agencies, agriculturalresearch centers, and non-governmentalorganizations provide the best methods forreplacing or modernizing the practice of shiftingcultivation. Policy officials in such institutions


usually see themselves as objective or as agentsof positive changes (Blaikie, 1985). Theinstitutions themselves are considered to havescientifically superior knowledge and are valuedas a major information source for the Westerntechniques that are introduced to shiftingcultivators. They are also seen as agents ofprogress able to transform shifting cultivationsystems into modern and sedentary forms ofagriculture.

REALITY 8 —Mainstream programs andpolicies influencing shifting cultivators arebiased and not neutral; they have often beenunilaterally designed to stop, alter, or replaceshifting cultivation or introduce land usepractices that may not be appropriate for ordesired by local people.

1. Colonial Laws and Land-Use Policies

During the colonial period, officers ofagricultural and forestry departments,missionaries, and scientists often viewed shiftingcultivators as primitives; which often provided amoral justification for their subjugation

(ComaroffandComaroff, 1991;Pagdon, 1993).During the 16th century, for example,Portuguese colonial elites and Jesuit missionariesmandated that Indians learn agriculture so thatthey could be hired by colonial plantation owners(Alden, 1968; Gott, 1992). In early colonialenterprises, the colonialists sold products fromshifting cultivation systems to traders whocirculated extractive tropical products, sugar,and slaves. They intervened in local practiceswhen they thought these products directlycompeted with the primary extractive resourcesand siphoned labor away from the morecommercial sectors of the economy (Dove 1985,1993,1994; Peluso, 1992).

Since the colonial period, many regulationshave aimed to stop, prohibit, and transformshifting cultivation. They have also tried toreplace community tenure systems and practicesof shifting cultivation with state control,extraction, and commercial tree plantations(Chadran and Gadhil, 1993; Dove, 1985, 1993,1994; King, 1988;Husain, 1981;Millington,1985; Lindley, 1926; Peluso, 1992; Ratanakhon,1978; Lynch and Talbott, 1995). Colonial laws

Box 7. Taungya as an Approach to Transform Shifting Cultivation

Taungya comes from the Burmese word for shiftingcultivation, Taung (hill) and ya (cultivation). It is asystem used to develop plantation forestry andagroforestry inexpensively, and it was widely promulgatedthroughout countries of the British colonial andpost-colonial empire, including Borneo, Nigeria,Thailand, Nigeria, Ghana and Sri Lanka. Taungya inBritish Burma's forests was intended to wean theindigenous Karen shifting cultivators from what was in thecolonialists' perspective a rude culture, and destructiveand wasteful ways that placed teak resources in danger(Bryant, 1994). In Indonesia, the taungya system wasadopted by Dutch colonialists and integrated into theAgrarian Law of 1870 and the Forest Law of 1927.Taungya has become a common 20th centuryinternational forestry practice (King, 1966) and generallyconsists of the following practices: the state or a forestcompany removes marketable trees, then cultivators cutand bum the residues and plant short-cycle crops for their

own use for a few years and, concurrently, plant and tendtree seedlings (usually timber trees), which are harvestedby the state or company.

For modern states, this model has been consideredsuccessful in consolidating administrative and politicalcontrol over shifting cultivators and their forests and forproducing revenue through timber sales. Adaptation ofthe taungya system also reshaped the nature of forestcontrol and management. Local villagers lost land rightsfor shifting cultivation, legal access to forest resources,and the potential autonomy of forest settlements. Thetaungya system operates within a coercive legalframework of limited access to forest resources and laborand often results in the concentration of wealth. (Kio,1978; Peluso, 1992). Consequently, the system hasprovoked a great deal of resistance from rural people suchas the Karen (Adas, 1986).


were passed to formalize such interventions.The Indonesian Agrarian Law of 1870, forexample, stipulated that customary propertyrights (known as adat) on Java, Madura, andlater the Outer Islands were only recognized onlands that were continually cultivated (Lynch andTalbott, 1995). This excluded shiftingcultivators from possessing property rights.Indonesia's 1927 Forest Law declared stateforest lands to be lands owned by the state towhich no other people have rights or control(Weinstein, 1993;Peluso, 1992; Lynch andTalbott, 1995). In Uttar Kannada, India, theBritish colonials prohibited shifting cultivation,and simultaneously cleared, extracted, anddepleted deciduous hardwoods like teak(Chandran and Gadgil, 1993). These kinds ofagrarian and forestry laws have remained inforce up to the present day.

Starting in the late 19th century, the colonialgovernance systems in the tropics wereorganized according to European models(Davidson, 1992). Intervention in productionprocesses became one of the primary endeavorsof colonial governments, often throughpromotion of commercial agriculture andforestry projects. Efforts were focussed oncontrolling shifting cultivation in forest areas,producing export commodities, and making localpeople practice permanent cultivation. Suchpolicies have often coerced shifting cultivatorsinto labor at extraction and commercialplantations (Dove, 1993, 1994, 1995; King,1988; Peluso, 1992; Millington, 1985). InMadagascar, for example, French colonialauthorities banned shifting cultivation practicesand tried to resettle the people to grow cashcrops (Jarosz, 1993). A forest managementmodel called taungya was among the mainapproaches to transform shifting cultivation.Most of these colonial methods of interventionhave largely continued up to now. {See Box 7.)

Many other examples of policies adverse toshifting cultivation are found throughout Asia. Inthe Philippines, General Order 92 implementedby the U.S. colonial regime in 1900 prohibitedunauthorized clearing of "public" lands by fireor felling of trees with fines of up to US$100and 30-day imprisonment. Violators were alsocharged for the timber destroyed or an additionalday in prison for each dollar of unpaid damages(Lynch, 1992). This prohibition, with muchstiffer penalties, continues today based on theRevised Forestry Code of 1975 (Lynch andTalbott, 1995). The Bhutan Ministry ofAgriculture, in an effort to sedentarizecultivators, introduced financial incentives forestablishing orchards, terraces, bunds, andcontours in permanent fields (Roder et al.,1992). Thailand' s government has beenattempting to resettle the Northern Thai peopleinto the lowlands for a long time, often usingcoercion, in order to extract timber from or todevelop permanent agriculture in their region(Chanphaka, 1986; King, 1988). The mythsdescribed in this paper have been used to justifygovernmental efforts to expropriate thecultivators' property rights and grant rights tologging and mining enterprises (Dove, 1983).

Strategies for agricultural commercializationhave also been prevalent, starting in colonialtimes, for transforming shifting cultivators, andalso to help fund the state. For example,groundnut schemes in Western and EasternAfrica by the British and French colonialgovernments were attempts to modernizeagriculture and sedentarize cultivators (SEDES,1965; Borget, 1986), although they were largelyunsuccessful. The Senegal groundnut project,which included 30,000 hectares undermechanized agriculture and used local shiftingcultivators and migrants as wage laborers, turnedout to be uneconomical and seriously degradedsoils (Borget, 1986). In some cases, colonialregimes used coercion to enforce the integration


of cash crops such as rubber, cacao, oil palms,tea, coffee, timber, and fruit trees in the fallow(Berry, 1993; Chadran and Gadgil, 1993; Dove,1993).

2. Contemporary Settlement, Colonization,and Agriculture Schemes

In the contemporary era, resettlement andcolonization programs intended for poor peopleare frequently used in attempts to transformagriculture, alleviate social ills outsidecolonization areas, and generate regional growth(Hecht, 1995). They have been a key part ofrural development policies in Asia, LatinAmerica, and Africa. Resettlement programs aretypically aimed to reconstruct the livelihoods ofcultivators as sedentary. In Brazil, colonizationprograms have been used as a means of avoidingagrarian reform and have become an escapevalve to avoid addressing the socioeconomiccrises in the northeastern and central westregions of the country (Hecht and Cockburn,1989; Mahar, 1989; Binswanger, 1989). In theAmazon region, shifting cultivators such asrubber tappers have frequently been settled intoagrarian reform areas or colonies in an attemptto compensate for loss of their holdingselsewhere.

Indonesia has developed elaborate programsfor resettling shifting cultivators. They arejustified by the state as promoting forestconservation, economic growth, and socio-political control. For example, the Indonesianforestry department directed a resettlementprogram from 1971 to 1981 that resettled some13,058 households—mainly shifting cultivators,who were moved to new frontier areas(Weinstock, 1992). Most of these people weremoved into the transmigration regions, andhouseholds typically received a small plot (abouttwo hectares of land) and an 8-day short courseon sedentary farming. Since the 1980s,Indonesia's resettlement and reforestationprogram have also brought Javanese farmers to

the Outer Islands to start modern permanentagriculture in areas used by shifting cultivators(Peluso, 1992; Soewardi, 1983; Weinstein,1994; Lynch and Talbott, 1995). Othercolonization projects in Indonesia involvecontract farming and wage labor for people whoformerly were shifting cultivators, and thepromotion of export crops. Another project,affecting approximately 200,000 households,aimed to develop sedentary and productivesources of living and to integrate these peopleinto the regional and provincial market economy.

Along with such projects, the moderngovernments often impose authority over tenureand property systems, repeating colonialpatterns. They generally eliminate thecommunity-based tenure arrangements ofshifting cultivator communities. For example,the state may allocate legal rights to outsideenterprises or individuals who coopt the land ofshifting cultivators and displace them. In muchof Southeast Asia and in areas of the AmazonBasin, state agencies provide the legal rights tovast areas of land to large parastatal,international, and domestic corporations such astimber and mining companies, which then exploitforest and land resources. Typical inducementsfor coopting land include favorable tax rates,low export fees, minimal stumpage costs forforest removal, and infrastructure development.In regions where cultivators' land has beencoopted, the people have often resisted, andconflict has ensued over access and ownership ofresources (Lynch and Talbott, 1995; Peluso,1992; Tapp, 1989; Hecht and Cockburn, 1989;Guha, 1989).

Although many development and colonizationprojects are well-intentioned, and can benefitcertain companies and well-off producers, theyhave seldom been successful at achieving theiraims and often are unsustainable and fraughtwith difficulties, especially for shifting cultivatorcommunities. Cultivators are usually at adisadvantage, because they generally lack


economic resources and power, get displacedunder unfamiliar conditions, lack formal tenurialsecurity and political influence, and seldom areallowed to participate in the design of projects.As stated in a recent World Bank report,resettlement frequently implies landlessness,joblessness, marginalization, food insecurity, lossof access to common property, and socialdisarticulation (World Bank, 1994). Otherproblems result from inefficient organization ofthe programs, lack of social services, and poorlyadapted crops and development models for localneeds and conditions (Weinstock, 1992). Theyusually result in out-migration by the people,who may end up unemployed in poor urbanareas or seeking out new possibilities in frontierareas.

3. International Development and ResearchInstitutions and Programs

Efforts to transform shifting cultivation indeveloping countries are also shaped byinternational development agencies, such asFAO, and multilateral banks such as the WorldBank. As noted before, early FAO reportsjudged shifting cultivation to be inherently"primitive," "backward," and incapable ofsupporting "civilization" (FAO, 1973; Watters,1971)—beliefs that have formed the basis formany FAO projects aimed at replacing shiftingcultivation.

One of the predominant approaches toeconomic growth used by FAO and otheragencies is a market-led development model thatfocusses on the export of timber, minerals, andagricultural products as mechanisms to providestate revenues. Development agencies, alongwith many state institutions, tend to favor thoseactors deemed most dynamic as commercialentities, and backed by powerful economic andpolitical groups (Berry, 1993). Similarly, theyhave prescribed and established policies forlarge-scale agriculture to open new frontier areas

and expand markets; for this purpose, they haveprovided incentives such as favorable creditpolicies, tax and fiscal incentives, infrastructuredevelopment, and technical services for newproduction technologies.

This predominant view has been modified tosome extent in certain FAO projects. Forexample, the FAO's recent program onCommunity Forestry reflects increased respectfor shifting cultivator practices: "Swiddeners'knowledge can be applicable to both sustainableintensification of shifting cultivation anddevelopment of other sustainable land usesystems with principles of integration of treesinto the agricultural system, utilization of microenvironments, micro sites, multiple crops andmulti varieties and stability maintained by themany components of the system" (Warner,1991). The program is very small, however, andrepresents an unusual perspective in the FAOinstitutional structure.

International and national research anddevelopment institutions, including theConsortium for International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) (consisting of over a dozenlarge agricultural research institutes throughoutthe world), university systems and NationalAgricultural Research Institutes have alsoestablished programs over several decades thathave generally aimed to directly or indirectlyeliminate or transform indigenous agriculturalpractices. For example, they have developedand spread the Green Revolution model, whichpromotes the use of monocultural productionsystems, high-yielding crop varieties and highinput chemical technologies worldwide.Although these institutions do not have a generalpolicy statement on shifting cultivation, theyhave been leading supporters of technologiesintended to replace traditional systems throughGreen Revolution systems. CGIAR hasdeveloped significant technical innovations thatcontribute to rising agricultural productivity andhas been influential in shaping rural development


programs. Yet, some patterns of agriculturalresearch and modernization have alsocontributed to adverse social and environmentaleffects such as those described in this paper.Conventional research approaches have seldominvolved full participation of farmers as well.

During the 1990s, several of the internationaland national agricultural research centers havebecome increasingly concerned about decliningproductivity, deforestation, and shorter fallowsin shifting cultivation and have developedspecific projects to address these problems(UNDP, 1992; ASB, 1993). These centers havegenerally assumed that shifting cultivators needto be settled, develop alternative practices, andintegrated into modern, high-input monoculturalagriculture (El Moursi, 1984; FAO, 1985; Nairand Fernandes, 1984; Okigbo, 1981, 1983,1984). Recent research efforts in this field havehelped to improve understanding of land use,resources and specific crops. A relatively smallnumber of scientists have also given attention tothe value of traditional practices, particularlyindigenous agroforestry used by cultivators (e.g.,Fujisaka et al., 1995; Smith et al., 1995;Brookfield and Padoch, 1994). However, manyof the scientists involved still tend to overlookthe traditional farming practices of shiftingcultivators, who are often still assumed to betechnologically incompetent (Benneh, 1996,lecture at IFPRI; Balee, 1989, 1992; Irvine,1989; Hecht et al, 1988; Dove, 1993; Padochand Peters, 1993). Agricultural research centersand scientists have an opportunity to betterappreciate and build upon the agroecologicalknowledge and practices of indigenous shiftingcultivation— and to avoid the misperceptions ofthe past (UNDP, 1992). Such an approach canimprove the potential for sustainable agriculturaldevelopment.

World Bank programs that influenceagriculture and land use generally have aimed todevelop industrial patterns of commercialagricultural development, and, by implication, to

replace shifting cultivation and other traditionalsystems. Again, local residents are generallyexcluded in the design and development of suchconventional programs. In recent years, someprograms and individuals within the Bank havechanged their views and given more positiveattention to indigenous practices. For example,a recent World Bank publication on Indonesiarecognizes that shifting cultivators are notnecessarily the main cause of deforestation(World Bank, 1994). Such changes may help toovercome predominant perceptions.

4. Environmental and Forest ManagementPrograms and Policies

Increasing numbers of programs and policieshave been established that attempt to deal withthe environmental impacts of shifting cultivation.They are again based on assumptions that allforms of shifting cultivation are destructive andmust be eliminated or replaced. Interventionshave included projects for reforestation, forestmanagement and conservation, parks, forestreserves (Conelly, 1992), and forcedresettlements into reservations (ASB, 1993;Lynch and Talbott, 1995; Padoch and Peters,1993; Stewart, 1992). Some programs arespecifically directed to halt shifted cultivatorswho are perceived to be particularly culpable forenvironmental destruction.

Establishing forest reserves has also beenused to move shifting cultivators. One exampleis in Nagpana, Philippines (Stewart, 1992).Also, the recently created Mantadia NationalPark in Madagascar has excluded and prohibitedshifting cultivation, despite historical propertyclaims by cultivators. Agroforestry alternativesare part of the park plans (Sodikoff, 1996).Ugandan parks have evicted all local shiftingcultivators even though traditional shiftingcultivation was less ecologically harmful thancultivation by migrants paid by wealthy patronsinterested in timber (Alcorn, 1994). The Karenin Burma and the Azande in Zaire are other


shifting cultivator groups who have beenpressured off their traditional lands by natureconservation programs.

Resettlement programs are sometimespromoted to protect timber in gazetted forestsand for conservation areas. Such projects areongoing in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia,Uganda, Cote d'lvoire, India, Ghana, Tanzania,Gabon, and Zaire, and involve over 2 millionpeople. In the Kibale forest reserve in Uganda,35,000 people were violently displaced andevicted in 1992 and their houses, food, andpossessions burned by the forest police guards.They were resettled some 150 miles away. InCote d'lvoire, 200,000 forest residents were tobe removed and provided with small agriculturalplots. In projects financed by the World Bankfor forestry and environmental protection, atleast 109,000 families have been involuntarilyresettled. In addition, dam constructionprograms have affected close to one millionpeople (World Bank, 1994).

Such environmental interventions, both pastand present, have seldom succeeded incatalyzing positive reforms for environmentaland socioeconomic purposes. They rarelyaccount for the needs and experiences of shiftingcultivators. Although such efforts may bedesigned with the well-intentioned aims ofconservation or development, they tend to lackpracticality and the participation and support oflocal communities (Bass and Morrison, 1994). Infact, they often displace and disrupt shiftingcultivators and aggravate environmentaldegradation and poverty. The adverse effectsare further aggravated by inequitable politicaland socioeconomic structures that work againstthe local peoples' interests.

For example, many of the reforestationprograms undertaken in the South benefit largeforest industries and displace local people whodo not have secure tenure in the area. InIndonesia, for example, traditional diverse rattan

gardens that provide livelihoods for shiftingcultivators are being destroyed to accommodatereforestation projects controlled by timbercompanies (Stephanie Fried, personalcommunication, 1997). Monocultural forestplantations reduce biodiversity and associatedeconomic values, as well as disrupt the lives ofindigenous people (Janis Alcorn, Pat Durst, AlexMoad, personal communications, 1997).Similarly, some forest protection programs, suchas forest reserves and parks, have led to theeviction of shifting cultivators and other ruralpopulations, who tend to lack rights (Lynch andTalbott, 1995; Wells and Brandon, 1992).

Moreover, government agencies haveestablished other policies and programs thatcontradict conservation and forest protectionprograms, and that instead are aimed tostimulate deforestation. Examples arecolonization projects, road development, andcredit programs. In Latin America, oneincentive to farmers to clear forest lands andmaintain them as pastures is that doing soestablishes their legal claims to land (Hecht,1993; MacDonald, 1992; Ledec, 1992.)

Some groups have reacted to theenvironmental or forest-related policiesdescribed above by trying to defend their rights.For example, some have resorted to poachingfrom the reserve areas (Wells and Brandon,1992; Peluso, 1992) in an effort to meet theirfood needs. Indigenous peoples have alsoundertaken political efforts to regain rights. InBolivia, for example, the traditional lands of theChimane (forest-based shifting cultivators)became part of a debt-for-nature swap intendedto convert the lands to a state-controlledprotected reserve. This provoked greatresistance from thousands of local people, whomarched from the Amazon to La Paz triggeringthe largest popular demonstration in modernBolivian history. They were successful inaffirming their rights.


On the other hand, certain types ofreforestation efforts have, indeed, helped toimprove/orest management and livelihoods, orat least they have the potential for positiveoutcomes, if they involve social forestryactivities or agroforestry directed to benefit andinvolve shifting cultivators and other ruralpeople (Gradwohl and Greenberg, 1988; Warnerand Wood, 1993; Wells and Brandon, 1992).Such projects are more environmentallysustainable and socially beneficial, but have beenfew and under-funded compared with otherforest projects.

IMPLICATIONS: Development institutionsand researchers can no longer continue to ignorethe mistakes, deleterious effects, and myths thathave been common to development andenvironmental programs and policies. Theymust reform policies and programs, to stop theinappropriate patterns of displacement andresettlement of shifting cultivators, and insteadbuild incentives for sustainable management,including tenurial security and opportunities for

cultivators to improve their well-being. Inattempts to develop alternatives and policies thatcan benefit shifting cultivators, localcommunities must be respected and integrated inpolicies and projects. Likewise, the diversity ofshifting cultivation systems, and theagroecological principles upon which they arebased, need to be better understood andappreciated. It makes sense for people toparticipate in decisions that affect their lives. Asnoted earlier {SeeMyth 2.), the use ofparticipatory research methods, and theinvolvement of local people in planning andpolicy-making can help towards achievingbeneficial results (IEED, 1990-1995; Chamberset al., 1989; Thrupp, 1994). Yet, besides this,more substantial reforms are also urgentlyneeded in land use policies and agriculturaldevelopment paradigms, to improve livelihoodsand empower local people. Developing effectivechanges in policies and programs for land use byshifting cultivators will also help in promotingbroader goals related to sustainable development.


III. Conclusions:Reconciling Policy with Reality

From this analysis emerge lessons about policyissues, research approaches, and developmentprograms related to shifting cultivation and itsalternatives. Clearly, change must come frommany actors, particularly development agencies,governments, and research institutes. Thesegroups must overcome myths, acknowledgerealities, and focus on the implications identifiedin this paper. Recognizing the diversity, rights,and knowledge of shifting cultivators is essential.

Many of the diverse forms of shiftingcultivation have been and still are effectiveadaptations to tropical conditions. They haveevolved dynamically in different patterns overtime. In the face of adverse interventions andregulations, shifting cultivators have survivedand thrived, often continuing their strategies forrisk reduction. Even though some shiftingcultivation practices have become unsustainablein recent times, the knowledge upon whichshifting cultivation systems are based offerinsights useful to agricultural developmentstrategies.

Four crosscutting general principles—lessonsthat can be used in developing changes toresearch, development, and policy initiatives—follow:

• Use an Integrated ApproachThe integration of socioeconomic, political,and agroecological factors affecting shiftingcultivators is central to the design andimplementation of effective policies and

programs. An interdisciplinary systemsapproach to research and development isneeded.

• Respect Local KnowledgeUnderstanding and building on the knowledgeand experience of shifting cultivators (and thepolicies that influence them) is useful andneeded for agricultural development.

• Enhance DiversityDiversity and flexibility are vital principles forboth agroecological and socioeconomicpurposes, in developing effective options.

• Confront Root Causes of ProblemsAttempted solutions should confront theunderlying causes of problems and shouldensure that the rural poor have fair access toresources and opportunities to influencedecision-makers, and participate actively inagriculture and land use programs.

In addition to the policy suggestionsmentioned throughout this paper, some finalgeneral recommendations on policy options arereiterated as suggestions for government anddevelopment agencies:

1. Develop participatory approaches to policydecisions, research, and development activitiesto support the involvement of shifting cultivationpopulations, as well as other farmers, extractiveenterprises, and researchers.

2. Establish incentives for community-based


approaches to resource management. (Thisshould include the strengthening of legal rightsand protections and the creation of opportunitiesfor poor rural men and women to acquire secureland tenure.)

3. Rationalize (and when necessary repeal) lawsthat restrict shifting cultivation practices.

4. Eliminate inappropriate land settlement andcolonization programs that can lead to landexploitation or otherwise disrupt shiftingcultivator populations.

5. Reform market policies to build marketopportunities for shifting cultivators (e.g., non-timber forest products or agroforestry products)where appropriate.

6. Promote sustainable land use practices andapproaches, including agroforestry,agrobiodiversity soil conservation, cover crops,intercropping, and use of organic materials, inshifting cultivation systems, taking advantage oflocal knowledge of such methods.

7. Enforce regulations to control exploitativepractices and domination by extractive industriesthat are often responsible for large-scaledeforestation and displacement of shiftingcultivators.

8. Develop training programs and communityactivities on land use practices and options forlocal shifting cultivator populations and newimmigrants, again building on local knowledge.

All of these policy suggestions requireelaboration and adaptation in particular nationaland local circumstances. Each needs to beconsidered on a case-by-case basis by localdecision-makers. The implementation of suchstrategies requires concerted actions by bothpublic and private entities.

Among these suggestions, agroforestry is oftenupheld as a solution on its own. Althoughagroforestry systems are promising, plantingtrees alone in farming systems is not adequate toaddress land use problems. The other policy andsocioeconomic changes noted above are alsoneeded, partly to enable the implementation ofappropriate agroforestry options. Furthermore,since agroforestry is well known to many shiftingcultivators, it is vital to take advantage of andbuild upon shifting cultivators' local knowledgeof trees and resources. Hybrid strategies thatinclude principles from local techniques as wellas scientific methods are more likely to beadapted successfully.

Further research can make a significantcontribution to understanding and takingadvantage of shifting cultivation systems andprinciples, and to developing sustainable andproductive use of natural resources whileimproving the livelihoods of rural people. Butresearch needs to be interdisciplinary, and ismore constructive if it is applicable to policy anddevelopment processes. The contributions ofanthropological studies and studies of thepolitical economy of land use change areespecially valuable. At the same time, researchis likely to be more beneficial if it involvesparticipation of policy decision-makers and localpeople from project design through follow-upand evaluation activities.

It is also essential for researchers, as well aspolicy decision-makers and developmentofficers, to assess and learn from past andexisting research and development programs inorder to better understand what has beeneffective and ineffective in improvingsustainability, social well-being and equity, andproductivity. Understanding the diversity,dynamics, and social processes underlying landuse change can be an important contributiontoward more sustainable and equitabledevelopment patterns.


About the Authors

Lori Ann Thrupp Director of Sustainable Agriculture, Center for InternationalDevelopment and Environment, World Resources Institute,Washington, D.C.

Suzanna Hecht Professor, Urban and Regional Planning Department, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, CA

John Browder Professor, Department of Regional Planning, Virginia PolytechnicUniversity, Blacksburg, VA

Owen Lynch Fellow, Center for International Environmental Law, Washington,D.C.

Nabiha Megateli Doctoral Candidate, Anthropology Department, Johns HopkinsUniversity, Baltimore, MD

William O'Brien Research Assistant, Department of Regional Planning, VirginiaPolytechnic University, Blacksburg, VA


References

Adas, M. 1986. Machines as the Measure of Men.Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Alcorn. J.B. 1994. "Ethnobotanical KnowledgeSystems: Resources for Meeting Rural DevelopmentGoals." In D.M. Warren et al., eds. IndigenousKnowledge Systems: the Cultural Dimensions ofDevelopment. London: Intermediate TechnologyPublications.

. 1991. "Ethics, Economies andConservation." InM.L. Oldfield and J.B. Alcorn,eds. Biodiversity, Conservation and Ecodevelopment.Boulder, Co: Westview Press.

. 1990a. "Indigenous Agroforestry Systems inthe Latin American Tropics." In M. Alteri and S.Hecht, eds. Agroecology and Small FarmDevelopment. Boca Raton, Florida: Crs Press.

. 1990b. "Indigenous Agroforestry StrategiesMeeting Farmers' Needs." In A. Anderson, eds.Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps TowardSustainable Use of the Amazon Rain Forest. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

. 1989. "Making Use of Traditional Farmers'Knowledge." In Common Futures: Exploring theIntegration of Global Economy and Environment.Proceedings of an International Forum on SustainableDevelopment. Toronto: Pollution Probe.

. 1982. Huastec Ethnobotany. Austin:University of Texas Press.

Alden, D. 1968. "Black Robes vs. White Settlers:The Struggle for 'Freedom of the Indians ' inColonial Brazil." In H. Packenham and C. Gibson,eds. Attitudes of Colonial Powers to the AmericanIndian. Salt Lake: University of Utah Press.

Altieri, M. 1997. Agroecology: the Scientific Basisof Alternative Agriculture. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.

Anderson, A. and Yoris, 1992. "The Logic ofExtraction." InK. Redford and C. Padoch, eds. TheConservation of Neotropical Forests. New York:University of California Press.

Angelsen, A. 19%. "Shifting Cultivation andDeforestation: A Study from Indonesia." WorldDevelopment. 23 (10): 1713-1729.

ASB. 1994. Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn: AGlobal Initiative. (Project Summary). Nairobi:International Centre for Research on Agroforestry.

. 1993. Research Methodology Workshop.Unpublished Document. Bogor and Sitiung,Indonesia: Alternatives to Slash and Burn Program.

Balee, W. 1992. "People of the Fallow: a HistoricalEcology of Foraging in Lowland South America," InConservation of Neotropical Forests: Working fromTraditional Resource Use. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

. 1989. "The Culture of Amazonian Forests."In D.A. Posey and W. Balee, eds. ResourceManagement in Amazonia: Indigneous and FoldStrategies. Advances in Economic Botany, Vol. 7.New York: New York Botanical Gardens.

Balick, M., A. Anderson, and P. May. 1991. TheSubsidy from Nature. New York: University ofColumbia.

Bandy, D, D. Garrity, and P. Sanchez. 1994. "TheWorldwide Problem of Slash and Burn."Agroforestry Today.

Barlow, C. and T. Tomich. 1991. IndonesianAgricultural Development: the Awkward Case ofSmallholder Tree Crops, Bulletin of IndonesianEconomic Studies 27(3):29-54.


Bass, S. andE. Morrison. 1994. Shifting Cultivationin Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam: Regional Overviewand Policy Recommendations. London: InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development.

Baum, E. 1968. "Land Use in the KilomberoValley," InH. Ruthenburg, ed. Smallholder Farmerand Smallholder Development in Tanzania. Africa-studies, No. 24. Munich: IFO Institute.

Beckerman, Stephen. 1983. "Does the Swidden Apethe Jungle?" Human Ecology 11:1-10.

Bennagen, P. L. 1983. "Philippines." In Y. Atal andP. L. Bennagen, eds. Swidden Cultivation in Asia,Vol. 2.. Bangkok: UNESCO Regional Office forEducation in Asia and the Pacific.

Binswanger, H. P. 1989. "Brazilian Policies thatEncourage Deforestation in the Amazon." WorldBank Environment Department, Paper No. 16.Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Blaikie, Piers. 1985. The Political Economy of SoilErosion in Developing Countries. New York:Longman Scientific and Technical.

Borget, M. 1986. Changes in Shifting Cultivation inAfrica. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization,Forestry Department.

Borthakur, D. N., A. Singh, andR. N. Prasad.1985. "Shifting Cultivation in North East India and aStrategy for Land and Water ResourceManagement." Beitrage Zur TropishenLandwirtschaft Und Veterinarmedizin 23:147-158.

Bose, S., S. Ghatak, andR. K. Bera. 1982. "ShiftingCultivation in India." InK. S. Singh, ed. Economiesof the Tribes and Their Transformation, New Delhi:Concept Publishing Company.

Boserup, E. 1965. The Conditions of AgriculturalGrowth. London: Allen and Unwin.

Bray, F. 1985. The Rice Economies. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Brookfield, H. and C. Padoch. 1994. "AppreciatingAgrodiversity: A Look at the Dynamism and

Diversity of Indigenous Farming Practices."Environment 36(5):7-20.

Browder, J.O. 1994. "Surviving in Rondonia."Studies in Comparative International Development.29(3): 45-69.

Bryant, Dirk, et al., 1997. The Last FrontierForests: Ecosystems and Economies on the Edge.Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Bryant, W. 1994. "Shifting the Cultivator." ModernAsian Studies, 28(2), 225-250.

Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L.A. Thrupp, eds.1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation andAgricultural Research. London: IntermediateTechnology Publications.

Chanphaka, Udhai. 1986. "Watershed Managementand Shifting Cultivation: Three Asian Approaches."Unasylva 38(151):21-27.

Chapman, E. C. 1978. "Shifting Cultivation andEconomic Development in the Lowlands of NorthernThailand." In P. Kunstadter, E. C. Chapman, and S.Sabhasri, eds. Farmers in the Forest: EconomicDevelopment and Marginal Agriculture in NorthernThailand, Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Chidumayo, E. N. 1987. "A Shifting CultivationLand Use System under Population Pressure inZambia." Agroforestry Systems 5:15-26.

Chidumayo, E.N. and A. Siwela. 1988.Utilization, Abundance and Conservation ofIndigenous Fruit Trees in Zambia. Paper presentedat a Workshop on Often Neglected Plants

Clayton, E. 1974. Agrarian Development inAgrarian Economies. London: Pergamon Press.

Cleaver, K. and Scheiber.G. 1993. The Population,Agriculture and Environment Nexus in Sub-SdharanAfrica. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Cleghorn, H. 1851. Forests of India. London: W.H.Allen.

Colfer, C. J. P., D. W. Gill, and F. Agus. 1988.


"An Indigenous Agricultural Model from WestSumatra: A Source of Scientific Insight."Agricultural Systems 26:191-209.

Collier, G. 1975. Fields of the Tzotzil: the EcologicalBasis of Tradition in Highland Chiapas. Austin:University of Texas Press.

Comaroff, J. and Comaroff, J. 1991. FromRevelation to Revolution. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Conklin. H. C. 1963. The Study of ShiftingCultivation. Studies and Monographs, VI.Washington D.C.: Union Panamericana.

. 1957. "Hanunoo Agriculture: A Report onan Integral System of Shifting Cultivation in thePhilippines." FAO Development Paper No. 12.Rome: FAO.

. 1954. "An Ethnoecological Approach toShifting Agriculture." Transactions of the New YorkAcademy of Sciences II (17)(2): 133-142.

Connelly, W. Thomas. 1992. "AgriculturalIntensification in a Philippine Frontier Community:Impact on Labor Efficiency and Farm Diversity."Human Ecology 20:203-224.

Conway, G.R. 1987. "The Properties ofAgroecosystems." Agricultural Administration 24:95-117.

Cramb, R. A. 1989. "The Use and Productivity ofLabour in Shifting Cultivation: An East MalaysianCases Study." Agricultural Systems 29:97-115.

Davidson. B. 1992. Black Man's Burden. New York:Praeger.

De Lery, J. 1594. A Voyage to a Land CalledBrazil. Berkeley: University of California Press.

De Schillippe, P. 1956. Shifting Cultivation in Africa:the Tande System of Agriculture. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.

Dei, George J. S. 1992. "A Forest Beyond the Trees:Tree Cutting in Rural Ghana." Human Ecology20:57-88.

Denevan, W. and C. Padoch. 1988. SwiddenAgroforesty in Peru. New York: New York BotanicalGarden.

Descola, P. 1993. In the Society of Nature.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dick, J. 1996. Forest Land Use, Forest Zonationand Deforestation in Indonesia: A Summary andInterpretation of Existing Information. Backgroundpaper to UNCED Conference. Jakarta: UNCED.

Dove, M. 1994. "Transition from Native ForestRubbers to Hevea Brasiliensis (Euphorbiaceae)among Tribal Smallholders in Borneo." EconomicBotany 48(4): 382-396.

. 1993. "Revisionist View of TropicalDeforestation." Environmental Conservation 20(1).

. 1985. Swidden Agriculture in Indonesia.Berlin: Norton.

. 1983. "Theories of Swidden Agriculture,and the Political Economy of Ignorance."Agroforestry Systems 1:85-99.

Dubois, J. 1990. "Secondary Forests as a Land UseResource in Frontier Zones of Amazonia." In A.Anderson, ed. Alternatives to Deforestation. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Eden, Michael J. 1993. "Swidden Cultivation inForest and Savanna in Lowland Southwest PapuaNew Guinea." Human Ecology 21:145-166.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 1985. FAOForest Production Yearbook. Rome: FAO.

. 1974. Shifting Cultivation in Africa. Rome:FAO.

. 1973. Shifting Cultivation in Latin America.Rome: FAO.

. 1957. "Shifting Cultivation." Unasylva. Vol11 No. 1.

Farrington, J. and A. Martin. 1987. "FarmerParticipatory Research: A Review of Concepts andPractices." Agricultural Administration Network,Discussion Paper No. 19. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute.


Fearnside, Philip M. 1993. "Deforestation inBrazilian Amazonia: The Effect of Population andLand Tenure." Ambio 22(8):537-545.

Fernandes, W., G. Menon, and P. Viegas. 1988.Forests, Environment and Tribal Economy:Deforestation, Impoverishment and Marginalizationin Orissa. New Delhi: Indian Social Institute.

Fujisaka, S., L. Hurtado, andR. Uribe, 1995."Classification of Slash and Burn AgriculturalSystems." (Draft paper). Cali, Colombia: CentroInternacional de Agricultura Tropical.

Gatmaytan, Augusto. 1992. "Land Rights and LandTenure Situation of Indigenous Peoples in thePhilippines. Philippine Natural Resources LawJournal 5(1): 5-31.

Geertz, Clifford. 1963. Agricultural Involution: TheProcesses of Ecological Change in Indonesia.Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress.

Glacken, C. 1978. Traces on the Rhodean Shone.Berkeley: University of California Press

Gliessman, S.R. 1989. Agroecology: Researchingthe Ecological Basis for Sustainable Agriculture.New York: Springer-Verlag.

Gliessman, S.R, E.R. Garcia, and M. Amador.1981. "The Ecological Basis for the Application ofTraditional Agricultural Technology in theManagement of Tropical Agroecosystems."Agroecosystems 7:173-185.

Gomez-Pompa, Arturo. 1987. "On MayaSilviculture." Mexican Studies 3: 1-19.

Goswami. P. C. 1985. "Importance of Socio-economic Factors and Role of Incentives inControlling Shifting Cultivation in Northeast India."Indian Forester 111:1-11.

Gott, R. 1992. Land Without Evil. London: Verso

Gradwohl, J. And R. Greenberg. 1988. Saving theTropical Forests. London: Earthscan.

Greenland, D. J. 1974. "Evolution and Developmentof Different Types of Shifting Cultivation." FAOSoils Bulletin No. 24: 5-13. Rome: FAO.

Guha, R. 1989. The Unquiet Woods. Berkeley:University of California.

Guyer, J. 1991. "Women's Agricultural Work in aMulti-modal Rural Economy." In C. Gladwin, ed.Structural Adjustment and African Women Farmers,.Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

. 1984. Family and Farm in SouthernCameroon. Boston: Boston University Press.

Hecht. S.B. 1996. "From Paysannt to TropicalColonization: Rational Planning and Scientific Orderin the Congo and How it Spread." In B. Gregory,Encountering the Colonial, London: Routiedge. (InPress)

. 1995. "Dyamics of Deforestation in theBolivian Lowlands" Unpublished Paper. UrbanPlanning Department, University of California LosAngeles.

. 1993. "Valuing Livelihoods: Extraction,Livestock, and Peasant Agriculture in ComparativePerspective." InK. Redford and C. Padoch, eds.Neotropical Conservation. New York: ColombiaPress.

. 1985. "Environment, Development andPolitics: Capital Accumulation and the LivestockSector." World Development. 13(6):663-84

. 1982. "Agroforestry in Amazonia." In S.Hecht and G. Nores, eds. Agriculture and Land UseReseach in Amazonia). Cali, Colombia: CIAT(Centro Internacional De Agricultura Tropical).

Hecht, S. B., A. B. Anderson, and P. May. 1988."The Subsidy from Nature: Shifting Cultivation,Successional Palm Forests, and Rural Development."Human Organization 47:25-35.

Hecht, S.B. and A. Cockburn. 1989. The Fate ofthe Forest: Developers, Destroyers and Defenders ofthe Amazon. London: Verso.

Hecht, S.B. and D. Posey. 1989. "PreliminaryResults of Soil Management of the Kayapo,"Advances in Economic Botany. 7: 174-88.


Hill, Polly. 1986. Development Economics on Trial:The Anthropological Case for the Prosecution. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffman, Carl L. 1984. "Punan Foragers in theTrading Networks of Southeast Asia." In C. Shrire,ed. Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies.New York: Academic Press.

Hungyo, Pearson. 1982. "Economic Life of theTangkhul Naga with Special Reference to ShiftingCultivation." In K. S. Singh, ed. Economies of theTribes and Their Transformation. New Delhi:Concept Publishing Company.

Husain, Majid. 1981. "Shifting Cultivation in theNorth Eastern Region of India: an EcologicalProblem." In S. P. Tjallingii and A. A. De Veer,eds. Perspectives in Landscape Ecology.Wageningen: Pudoc Center for AgriculturalPublishing and Documentation.

International Institute for Environment andDevelopment, 1990-1995. RRA Notes and PLANotes: Publication Series on Rapid Rural Appraisaland Participatory Rural Appraisal. London: IIED.

Inoue, Makoto and Abubakar M. Lahjie. 1990."Dynamics of Swidden Agriculture in EastKalimantan." Agroforestry Systems 12:269-284.

Irvine, N. 1989. "Succession Management andResource Distribution in an Amazonian RainForest." Advances in Economic Botany, Vol. 7: 223-37,

Jarosz, L. 1993. "Defining and Explaining TropicalDeforestation and Population Growth in ColonialMadagascar (1896-1940)." Economic Geography.69 (4): 366-379.

Kane, J. 1995. Savages. New York: A.A. Knopf.

King, K.F.S. 1966. The Taungya System. Ibaden

King, Victor T. 1988. "Models and Realities:Malaysian National Planning and East MalaysianDevelopment Problems." Modern Asian Studies22:263-298.

Kleinman, P.J.A., D. Pimentel, andR.B. Bryant.1993. "Ecological Sustainability of Slash-and-BurnAgriculture and its Legitimization in Development."Unpublished Paper, Department of Entomology,Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Komkris, Thiem. 1978. "Forestry Aspects of LandUse in Areas of Swidden Cultivation." In P.Kunstadter, E. C. Chapman, and S. Sabhasri, eds.Farmers in the Forest: Economic Development andMarginal Agriculture in Northern Thailand.Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Kunstadter, Peter, E. C. Chapman, and SangaSabhasri, eds. 1978a. Farmers in the Forest:Economic Development and Marginal Agriculture inNorthern Thailand. Honolulu: University Press ofHawaii.

. 1978b. "Ecological Modification andAdaptation: An Ethnobotanical Vies of LuaSwiddeners in NW Thailand," In R.T. Ford, ed.Nature and Status ofEthnobotan. Honolulu.

Lai, R. 1974. "Shifting Cultivation and SoilErosion." In Shifting Cultivation and SoilConservation in Africa. Rome: Food and AgricultureOrganization.

Lane, C. 1994. "Pastures Lost: Alienation ofBarabaig Land in the Context of Land Policy andLegislation in Tanzania." Nomadic Peoples. 34/35:81-94.

Lanly, J. P. 1985. "Defining and Measuring ShiftingCultivation." Unasylva 37(147): 17-21.

Ledec, G. 1992. In Downing, Hecht, and Pearson,eds. Development or Destruction: the LivestockSector in Latin America. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.

Lindley, Mark F. 1926. The Acquisition andGovernment of Backward Territory in InternationalLaw Being a Treatise on the Law and PracticeRelating to Colonial Expansion. London: Longmans,Green.


Lynch, Owen J. 1992a. "Securing Community-basedTenurial Rights in the Tropical Forests of Asia."Issues in Development Report. Washington, D.C.:World Resources Institute.—• . 1992b. "Colonial Legacies in a FragileRepublic: a History of Philippine Land Law andState Formation." New Haven: Yale University LawSchool (Doctoral Dissertation).

Lynch, Owen J. and Kirk Talbott. 1995. BalancingActs: Community-based Forest Management andNational Law in Asia and the Pacific. Washington,D.C.: World Resources Institute.

. 1988. "Legal Responses to the PhilippineDeforestation Crises." New York University Journalof International Law and Politics 20(3): 679-713.

MacDonald, R. 1992. In Downing, S. Hecht,Pearson, eds. Development or Destruction: theLivestock Sector in Latin America. Boulder:Westview Press.

Mahar, Dennis J. 1989. Government Policies andDeforestation in Brazil's Amazon Region. WashingtonDC: World Bank.

Majid, Zuraina. 1983. "Malaysia." 157-238. InAtalY. and P. L. Bennagen, eds. Swidden Cultivation inAsia, Vol. 2, Y.. Bangkok: UNESCO RegionalOffice for Education in Asia and the Pacific.

Majumdar, D.N. 1980. "Shifting Cultivation: Is it away of life? An Analysis of Garo Data." In ShiftingCultivation in Northeast India. Shillong, Meghalaya:Northeast India Council for Social Science Research.

McNeely, J., M. Gadgil, C. Levine, C. Padoch andK. Redford. 1995. "Human Influences onBiodiversity." In Global Biodiversity Assesment.Cambridge: U.N. Environment Programme andCambridge University Press.

Millington, A.C. 1985. Environmental Degradation,Soil Conservation and Agricultural Policies in SierraLeone. 1895-1989. Paper presented to Scrumble forResources in Africa. Cambridge.

Miracle, Marvin P. 1967. Agriculture in the CongoBasin: Tradition and Change in African Rural

Economies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Moran, E. 1993. Through Amazon Eyes.Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.

Myers, Norman. 1994. "Tropical Deforestation: aGlobal Problem and Policy Responses." Presentationat Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.April 4.

. 1992. "Tropical Forests: The PolicyChange." Environmentalist. 12 (1): 15-27.

. 1990. Deforestation Rates in TropicalForests and their Climate Implications. London:Friends of the Earth.

Nair, P.K.R. and E. Fernandes, 1984. Agroforestryas an Alternative to Shifting Cultivation. FAO SoilsBulletin. No 53: 169-182.

Nye, P.H. and D.J. Greenland, 1963. The Soil underShifting Cultivation. C.A.B.: London.

Okigbo, Bede N. 1984. "Improved PermanentProduction Systems as an Alternative to ShiftingIntermittent Cultivation." FAO Soils Bulletin No.53. Rome: FAO.

. 1981. "Alternatives to Shifting Cultivation."Ceres. Nov-Dec: 41-45.

Osemeobo, GJ . 1988. "The Human Causes forForest Depletion in Nigeria." EnvironmentalConservation. 15:17-28

OTS/CATIE. 1993. Sistemas Agroforestales.Turrialba, Costa Rica: Organization of TropicalStudies and the Center for Tropical AgricultureTeaching and Research.

Padoch, C. 1988. "Agriculture in Interior Borneo:Shifting Cultivation and Alternatives," Expedition30(1): 18-28.

. 1982. Migration and its Alternatives amongthe Iban of Sarawak. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Padoch, C. and W. de Jong. 1993. "Diversity,Variation, and Change in Riberinho Agriculture. InK. Redford and C. Padoch, eds. Conservation of theNeotropical Forests. New York: Columbia Press.


Padoch, C. and C. Peters. 1993. "Managed ForestGardens in West Kalimantan." In C.S. Potter, et al.,eds. Perspectives in Biodiversity. Washington D. C.:AAAS Press.

Padoch, C. and A. Vayda. 1983. "Patterns ofResource Use and Human Settlement in TropicalForests." In F.B. Golley, ed. Tropical Rain ForestEcosystems. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Pagdon, A. 1993. The Fall of Natural Man. NewHaven: Yale University Press.

Patnaik, N. 1982. "Shifting Cultivation in Orissa."InK. S. Singh, ed. Economies of the Tribes andTheir Transformation. New Delhi: ConceptPublishing Company.

Peluso, N.I. 1992. "The Political Ecology ofExtraction and Extractive Reserves in EastKalimantan, Indonesia." Development and Change23(4):49-74

Peters, William John, and Leon F. Neuenschwander.1988. Slash and Burn: Farming in the Third WorldForest. Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho Press.

Plotkin, M. and L. Famolare. 1992. SustainableHarvest and Collecting of Rain Forest Products.Washington, D.C: Island Press.

Posey, D. and W. Balee, eds. 1989. ResourceManagement in Amazonia: Indigenous and FolkStrategies. Advanced Economic Botany, 7. NewYork: New York Botanical Garden.

Pratt, M. 1987. "Scratches on the Face of theCountry, or What Mr. Barrow Saw in the Land ofthe Bushmen," Critical Inquiry. 12:119-145.

Raintree, J.B. 1986. "Agroforestry Pathways, LandTenure, Shifting Cultivation, and SustainableAgriculture." Unasylva 38(4): 2-15.

Raintree, J. B., andK. Warner. 1986. "AgroforestryPathways for the Intensification of ShiftingCultivation." Agroforestry Systems 4:39-54.

Ramakrishnan, P. S. 1992. Shifting Agriculture andSustainable Development: an Interdisciplinary Studyfrom North-eastern India. Man and the BiosphereSeries. 10. Park Ridge, NJ: Pantheon Publications.

Rambo, T. 1981. "No Free Lunch: a Reexaminationof the Energetic Efficiency of Swidden Agriculture."Hawaii: University of Philippines and East-WestCenter.

Ratanakhon, Sophon. 1978. "Legal Aspects of LandOccupation and Development." In P. Kunstadter, E.C. Chapman, and S. Sabhasri, eds. Farmers in theForest: Economic Development and MarginalAgriculture in Northern Thailand. Honolulu:University Press of Hawaii.

Redford, K. and C. Padoch, eds. 1992.Conservation of Neotropical Forests. New York:Columbia University Press.

Rhoades, R.E. 1984. Breaking New Ground:Agricultural Anthropology. Lima, Peru: InternationalPotato Center.

Richards, P. 1986. Coping with Hunger: Hazard andExperiment in an African Rice Farming System.London: Allen and Unwin.

Richards, P.W. 1937. The Tropical Rain Forest.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rocheleau, D.E. 1991. "Gender, Ecology and theScience of Survival: Stories and Lessons fromKenya." Agriculture and Human Values 8 (1):156-165.

. 1988. "Gender, Resource Management andthe Rural Landscape: Implications for Agroforestryand Farming Systems Research." In S.V. Poats, M.Schmink and A. Spring, eds.) Gender Issues inFarming Systems Research and Extension. Boulder,Colorado: Westview Press.

Roder, W., O. Calvert, and Y. Dorji. 1992."Shifting Cultivation in Bhutan." AgroforestrySystems 19:149-158.

Raleigh, W. 1597. The Discovery of the Guyanas.London.


Roy, D. J. and A. Verma. 1980. "AnimalHusbandry as a Subsidiary Source of Economy forHumans." In Shifting Cultivation in North EastIndia. Shillong, Meghalaya: North East IndiaCouncil for Social Science Research.

Russell, W. 1988. "Population, Swidden Farming,and the Tropical Environment." Population andEnvironment 10(2): 77-94.

Ruthenburg, Hans. 1980. Farming Systems in theTropics. 3rd Ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sachchidananda, andK. N. Pathak. 1983. "India."In Swidden Cultivation in Asia, Vol. 2. Bangkok:UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia andthe Pacific.

Saikia, P. D. 1982. "A Note on Shifting Cultivationin North-east India." In K. S. Singh, ed.Economies of the Tribes and Their Transformation.New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.

Saldanha, V. 1992. "The Political Ecology ofTraditional Family Practices in Thana." Journal ofPeasant Studies, Vol 15: 433-443.

Sanchez, P. 1976. Properties and Management ofTropical Soils. New York: John Wiley.

Sarkar, J. 1982. "Economic System and SocialChange in Arunachal Pradesh Ethnic Groups." InK. S. Singh, ed. Economies of the Tribes and TheirTransformation). New Delhi: Concept PublishingCompany.

SEDES, 1965. L'Action De La CGOT enCasamange. 1948-1964. Le Developpement RuralDans Les Pays d'Afrique. Paris: SEDES.

Shrire, Carmel. 1984. "Wild Surmises on SavageThoughts." In C. Shrire, ed. Past and Present inHunter Gatherer Studies. New York: AcademicPress.

Smitin, Tern, Sanga Sabhasri, and Peter Kunstadter.1978. "The Environment of Northern Thailand." InP. Kunstadter, E. C. Chapman, and S. Sabhasri,eds. Farmers in the Forest: Economic Developmentand Marginal Agriculture in Northern Thailand.

Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Sodikoff, G. 1996. Plunder, Fire and Deliverance:A Study of Forest Conservation, Rice Farming andEco-Capitalism in Madagascar. MA Thesis.Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark University

Soemarweto and Soemarweto. 1984. "The JavaneseRural Ecosystems." in Human Ecology Research onAgricultural Systems in Southeast Asia. Los Banos:University of the Philippines.

Soewardi, B. 1983. "Indonesia." In SwiddenCultivation in Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO RegionalOffice for Education in Asia and the Pacific.

Spencer, J. E. 1966. Shifting Cultivation inSoutheastern Asia. Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press.

Stamp, P. 1989. Technology, Gender and Power inAfrica. Ottawa: IDRC (International DevelopmentResearch Centre).

Stanley, H. 1988. Voyage Through Darkest Africa.New York: Dover. Originally Published in 1899

Stewart, T. 1992. "Land Use Options to EncourageForest Conservation on a Tribal Reservation in thePhilippines." Agroforestry Systems. 18:225-244.

Stiles, D. 1994. "Tribals and Trade: a Strategy forCultural and Ecological Survival." Ambio. 23(2):106-111.

Stromgaard, Peter. 1989. "Adaptive Strategies in theBreakdown of Shifting Cultivation: The Case ofMambwe, Lamba, and Lala of Northern Zambia."Human Ecology 17:427-444.

Thapa, G. B., and K. E. Weber. 1991. "Soil Erosionin Developing Countries: A PoliticoeconomicExplanation." Environmental Management 15:461-473.

Theisenhausen, William C. 1991. "Implications ofthe Rural Land Tenure System for the EnvironmentalDebate: Three Scenarios." the Journal of DevelopingAreas 26(1)


Thrupp, L.A., ed. 1994. "Participation andEmpowerment in Sustainable Rural Development."Special Edition of Agriculture and Human Values11(2 and 3).

. 1989. "Legitimizing Local Knowledge: fromDisplacement to Empowerment for Third WorldPeople." Agriculture and Human Values 6 (3): 13-24.

Thrupp, L.A., B. Cabarle, and A. Zazueta, 1994."Participatory Methods in Planning and PoliticalProcesses: Linking the Grassroots and Policies forSustainable Development." Agriculture and HumanValues 11(2 and 3):77-84.

Trapnell, C. 1957. The Soils, Vegetation andAgriculture ofNorth-East Rhodesia. Lusaka:Government Printer.

United Nations Development Programme, 1992."Global Alternatives to Slash and Burn Initiative."Project Brief, GEF Technical Assistance Projects:New York: UNDP.

Warner, Katherine. 1991. Shifting Cultivators: Localand Technical Knowledge and Natural ResourceManagement in the Humid Tropics. CommunityForestry Note 8. Rome: Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO).

Warner, K., and H. Wood, 1993. Policy andLegislation in Community Forestry. Proceedings of aWorkshop. Bangkok: Regional Community ForestryTraining Center and the Ford Foundation.

Warren, D.M., L J . Slikkerveer, and S.O. Titilola,eds. 1989. "Indigenous Knowledge Systems:Implications for Agriculture and InternationalDevelopment." Studies in Technology and SocialChange, No. 11, Ames: Iowa State University.

Watters, R. F. 1971. "Shifting Cultivation in LatinAmerica." FAO Forestry Development Paper No.17. Rome: FAO.

Weinstock, N. 1989. Review of Shifting Cultivationin Indonesia. Jakarta: Food and AgricultureOrganization.

. 1987. Shifting Cultivation in Indonesia.Jakarta: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Wells, M. and Brandon, K. 1992. Parks andPeople. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Wolf, Eric R. 1982. Europe and the People WithoutHistory. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wood, D. and J. Linne. 1993. DynamicManagement of Domestic Biodiversity by FarmingCommunities." In O. Sudland and P. Shei, eds.Proceedings of the Norway /UNEP Expert Conferenceon Biodiversity. Nairobi: UNEP.

World Bank, 1994. Resettlement and Development.Washington, DC: The World Bank.


Additional Reading

Alcorn, J.B. 1993. "Indigenous Peoples andConservation," Conservation Biology. 7(2) 424-426.

. 1984. "Development Policy, Forests andPeasant Farms: Reflections on Huastec-managedForests." Economic Botany 38 (4):389.

Allen, Mia C. and Douglass F. Barnes. 1985. "TheCauses of Deforestation in Developing Countries."Annals of the Association of American Geographers75(2): 163-184.

Anderson, A. 1990. "Smokestacks in the Rainforest:Industrial Development and Deforestation in theAmazon Basin." World Development. 18: 1191-1205

. 1990. "Extraction and Forest Managementby Rural Inhabitants in the Amazon Estuary." in A.Anderson, ed., Alternatives to Deforestation. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Ashby, J. 1995. "Organizing Experimenting Farmersfor Participation in Agricultural Research."Unpublished Paper. Cali, Colombia: CIAT (CentroInternacional De Agricultura Tropical).

Atal, Yogesh and P. L. Bennagen. 1983.Introduction. In Y. Atal and P. L. Bennagen, eds.Swidden Cultivation in Asia, Vol. 2. Bangkok:UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia andthe Pacific.

Binswanger, Hans P. 1989. "Brazilian policies thatencourage deforestation in the Amazon." World BankEnvironment Department, Paper No. 16.Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Blumwood, Val and Richard Routley. 1982. "WorldRainforest Destruction — The Social Factors." TheEcologist 12(l):4-22.

Borthakur, D. N., R. P. Awasthi, and S. P. Ghosh.1980. "Alternative Systems of Farming for

Increasing Productivity in Jhum Lands," in ShiftingCultivation in North East India. Shillong, Meghalaya:North East India Council for Social ScienceResearch.

Braun, H. 1974. "Shifting Cultivation in DevelopingAgriculture." Pages 112-116 in FAO Soils BulletinNo. 24. Rome: FAO.

Brokensha D., D. Warren, and O. Werner. 1980.Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development.Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.

Browder, John O. 1995. Redemptive Communities:Indigenous Knowledge, Colonist Farming Strategiesand Tropical Forest Conservation. Agriculture andHuman Values.

. 1988. "Public Policy and Deforestation inthe Brazilian Amazon." Pages 247-298 in PublicPolicies and the Misuse of Forest Resources (RobertRepetto and Malcolm Gillis, eds.). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

. 1988. "The Social Costs of RainforestDestruction" Interciencia 13(3) 115-20.

. 1987. "Brazil's Export Promotion Policy(1980-84): Impacts on the Amazon's Industrial WoodSector." Journal of Developing Areas 21, April: 285-304.

Capistrano, Ana Doris. 1990. "Global EconomicChange and Tropical Broadleaved Forest Depletion."Economic Catalysts to Ecological Change. 39thAnnual Conference, Center for Latin AmericanStudies, University of Florida, Gainesville,February.

Chambers R. and J. Jiggins, 1986. "AgriculturalResearch for Resource-poor Farmers: aParsimonious Paradigm." Discussion Paper 220.Sussex, England: University of Sussex.


Conway, G.R. 1985. "Agroecosystem Analysis."Agricultural Administration 20:31-55.

Crocombe, Ron. 1971. "An Approach to theAnalysis of Land Tenure Systems." In RonCrocombe, ed. Land Tenure in the Pacific.

Das, D. C. 1980. "An Integrated Approach forTreating the Lands Subject to Shifting Cultivation."Pages 45-53 in Shifting Cultivation in North EastIndia. Shillong, Meghalaya: North East IndiaCouncil for Social Science Research.

Feldstein, H. And J. Jiggins, 1992. MethodologiesHandbook for Gender Analysis in Farming SystemsResearch. New York: Population Council.

Fujisaka, Sam. 1986. Pioneer Shifting Cultivation:Upland Ecosystems and Social Forestry Policy in thePhilippines." Philippine Sociological Review 34(104): 26-36.

. 1991. "A Diagnostic Survey of ShiftingCultivation in Northern Laos: Targeting Research toImprove Sustainability and Productivity."Agroforestry Systems 13:95-109.

Hardjono, J. 1983. "Rural Development inIndonesia: The 'Top-Down' Approach." In D.A.M.Lea and D.P. Chaudhri, eds. Rural Development andthe State: Contradictions and Dilemmas inDeveloping Countries. New York: Methuen.

Hauck, F. 1974. Introduction. Shifting Agricultureand Soils in Africa. Rome: Food and AgricultureOrganization.

Hinton, Peter. 1978. "Declining Production amongSedentary Swidden Cultivators: the Case of the PwoKaren." In P. Kunstadter, E. C. Chapman, and S.Sabhasri, eds., Farmers in the Forest: EconomicDevelopment and Marginal Agriculture in NorthernThailand. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Kio, R. 1972. "Shifting Cultivation and Multiple Useof Land in Nigeria." Commonwealth ForestryReview. Vol 51(2) 144-148.

Knight, C.G. 1980. Ethnoscience and the AfricanFarmer: Rationale and Strategy (Tanzania). Pages203-230 in Indigenous Knowledge Systems and

Development (Brokensha, D., D.M. Warren, and O.Werner, eds.). Langham, Maryland: UniversityPress of America.

Kunstadter, Peter and E. C. Chapman. 1978."Problems of Shifting Cultivation and EconomicDevelopment in Northern Thailand." In P.Kunstadter, E. C. Chapman, and S. Sabhasri, eds.,Farmers in the Forest: Economic Development andMarginal Agriculture in Northern Thailand.Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Ledec, George. 1985. "The Political Economy ofTropical Deforestation." InH. J. Leonard, ed.Divesting Nature's Capital: The Political Economy ofEnvironmental Abuse in the Third World. New York:Holmes and Meier.

Nepsted, D., C. Uhl, and E. A. Serrao, 1990."Surmounting Barriers to Forest Regeneration inAbandoned, Highly Degraded Pastures: A CaseStudy from Paragominas, Para, Brazil." In A.Anderson, ed. Alternatives to Deforestation.Columbia University Press: New York.

Norgaard, R. 1984. "Traditional AgriculturalKnowledge: Past Performance, Future Prospects,and Institutional Implications." American Journal ofAgricultural Economics 66: 874-878.

Repetto R. and M. Gillis, eds. 1988. Public Policiesand the Misuse of Forest Resources. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Rudel, Thomas K. "Population, Development, andTropical Deforestation: A Cross-national Study."Rural Sociology 54(3): 327-338.

Scherr, S.J. 1990. "The Diagnosis and DesignApproach to Agroforestry Project Planning andImplementation: Examples from Western Kenya." InW.W. Budd, I. Duchhart, L.H. Hardesty, F.Steiner, eds. Planning for Agroforestry. Amsterdam:Elsevier.

Schultz, T.W. 1964. Transforming TraditionalAgriculture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press


Schusky, Ernest L. 1989. Culture and Agriculture:an Ecological Introduction to Traditional and ModernFarming Systems. New York: Bergin & GarveyPublishers.

Seymour, Francis J. 1991. "Social Forestry on PublicLands in Indonesia: a Blurring of Ends and Means."in Social Forestry: Communal and PrivateManagement Strategies Compared. Washington,D.C.: John Hopkins University School of AdvancedInternational Studies.

Sharma, Tarun C. 1980. "The PrehistoricBackground of Shifting Cultivation." Pages 1-5 inShifting Cultivation in North East India. Shillong,Meghalaya: North East Council for Social ScienceResearch.

Tommy, J. L. 1984. "Shifting Cultivation andPossibilities for Improving it in Sierra Leone." FAOSoils Bulletin No. 53. Rome: FAO.

Vayda, A.P., C.J. Pierce Golfer, and M.Brotokusumo. 1980. Interactions Between People andForests in East Kalimantan." Impact of Science onSociety 30:179-190.

Veit P. 1995. From the Ground Up. Washington,D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Vermeer, D. 1976. "The Tradition ofExperimentation in Shifting Cultivation among theTiv of Nigeria." In Frazier and B. Epstein, eds.Proceedings of Applied Geography Conference.Binghamton: State University of New York.

Weinstock, J.A. and S. Sunito. 1989. "Review ofShifting Cultivation in Indonesia." Jakarta,FAO/Ministy of Forestry.

World Bank. 1989. Striking a Balance: theEnvironmental Challenge of Development.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Vanclay, Jerome K. 1993. "Saving the TropicalForest: Needs and Prognosis." Ambio 22(4):225-231.

World Resources Institute1709 New York Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20006, U.S.A.http://www.wri.org/wri

WRI's Board of Directors:Maurice F. StrongChairmanJohn FirorVice ChairmanJohn H. AdamsManuel ArangoFrances BeineckeRobert O. BlakeDerek BokBert BolinRobert N. BurtDavid T. BuzzelliDeb CallahanMichael R. DelandSylvia A. EarleAlice F. EmersonShinji FukukawaWilliam M. Haney, IIICynthia R. HelmsCalestous JumaYolanda KakabadseJonathan LashJeffrey T. LeedsThomas E. LovejoyJane LubchencoC. Payne LucasRobert S. McNamaraScott McVayWilliam F. MartinJulia Marton-LefevreMatthew NimetzPaulo Nogueira-NetoRonald L. OlsonRuth PatrickFlorence T. RobinsonRoger W. SantStephan SchmidheinyBruce SmartJames Gustave SpethMeg TaylorMostafa K. TolbaAlvaro UmaflaVictor L. UrquidiPieter Winsemius

Jonathan LashPresidentJ. Alan BrewsterSenior Vice PresidentWalter V. ReidVice President for ProgramDonna W. WiseVice President for Policy AffairsRobert RepettoVice President and Senior EconomistThomas H. FoxVice PresidentKentonR. MillerVice President and Director of BiologicalResources and InstitutionsMarjorie BeaneSecretary-Treasurer

The World Resources Institute (WRI) is an independent center forpolicy research and technical assistance on global environmentaland development issues. WRI's mission is to move human societyto live in ways that protect Earth's environment and its capacity toprovide for the needs and aspirations of current and futuregenerations.

Because people are inspired by ideas, empowered by knowledge,and moved to change by greater understanding, the Instituteprovides~and helps other institutions provide—objectiveinformation and practical proposals for policy and institutionalchange that will foster environmentally sound, socially equitabledevelopment. WRI's particular concerns are with globallysignificant environmental problems and their interaction witheconomic development and social equity at all levels.

The Institute's current areas of work include economics, forests,biodiversity, climate change, energy, sustainable agriculture,resource and environmental information, trade, technology,national strategies for environmental and resource management,business liaison, and human health.

In all of its policy research and work with institutions, WRI tries tobuild bridges between ideas and action, meshing the insights ofscientific research, economic and institutional analyses, andpractical experience with the need for open and participatorydecision-making.

n

World Resources Institute1709 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006, U.S.A.http://www.wri.org/wri

· the diversity and dynamics of shifting cultivation: myths, realities, and policy implications...

Documents