While an overall farming systems approach is an appro- also distinct advantages and opportunities for agroforestry
priate starting point, an effective, equitable approach to within women's separate domains of space, time, activities,
agroforestry requires something more. Among those aspects interests, and skills. Women may also have special knowthat demand a broader approach are the system-wide scope of ledge, rights, and obligations relating to certain catethe topic, the variable scale of the land units involved gories of artifacts (tools), natural objects, and phenomena
(plot to watershed or community), the variety of clients (water, fire, plants, animals).
and land managers, the diversity of activities involved, Agroforestry may impose new demands on women clients
the combination of production and environmental objectives, such as the need to negotiate new arrangements for use and
the time factor required for testing and growing trees, and management of shared lands, labor, or capital inputs, to
the relative ignorance of researchers about the past and learn new skills, and to observe more careful management of
current use of woody plants by farmers and herders soil, water, plants, and animals in existing woodland,
(Rocheleau 1986). These characteristics overlap to some soland, pas, and an s rexi stma
extent with gender and class issues. All of these factors cropland, pasture, or boundary lands. Agroforestry may
combined require a more comprehensive and complex approach also validate women's land and tree use rights or ownerthan might be needed to deal with gender issues in ship, increase production and decrease gathering time, and
crop-based farming systems research and extension (FSreE). council conflicting objectives for shared household or
The problems and opportunities inherent in the gender A few project histories (Hoskins 1979; Scott 1980; Wiff
division of access to land, labor,- cultivated and wild 1984; Jan 1984; Fortmann and Rocheleau 1984) and a wealth
plants, and products present a special challenge to agro- of experience in traditional and evolving agroforestry
foresters. They require specific consideration and pro- systems suggest that rural women and agroforestry programs
grams not yet part of the mainstream approach to agro- hyse uh t at ra womenfand and programs
forestry research and development projects. The implica- have much to gain from a well-informed and well-defined
tions of these differences extend to the content of tech- association. Among the explicit gender issues of relevance
nology designs and social contracts for management as well to women's participation in agroforestry projects are
as to the way that research and development is conducted women's legal status and access to productive resources,
with women clients. Gender based differences in legal sta and the division of space, time, knowledge, and decisiontus, use of and access to space, type of activities, and making.
control over labor and resources, all have a direct bearing This heightened awareness of gender issues has surfaced
on what type of plants can be planted, managed, used and a tie when agroforesters and social foresters are still
harvested, in terms of place, person, purpose, and benefit learning to involve the population at large (FAO 1985) and
(Rocheleau 1987b). to think in terms of "clients" rather than "targets." Much
Whether or not women are considered apart or as a of the action research and organizational experiments
distinct client sub-group within the larger population, the required to find viable rules of tree and land ownership,
terms of their participation will usually be distinct from as well as access to and management by women, can be nested
that of men. This is especially true with regard to the within broader programs based on a land user perspective.
quantity, quality, and terms of access to land. Women's A general land user perspective for agroforestry
access to other productive resources (water, draft power, research and development programs should consider multiple
agrochemicals, labor, information) also differs from men's. uses, multiple users, landscape as a major focus in a
Moreover, women's control over the components (animals, larger context of sliding scale analysis and design, and
crops, trees, shrubs, pasture) and the products (food, consideration of indigenous knowledge as science. In
fodder, fuel, timber, cash, fiber, medicine) of addition to these four conditions for understanding and
agroforestry systems is often subject to rules distinct serving users' interests, the terms of client participation
from those governing men's actions. All of these must be considered. Treating land users as clients is a
differences are expressed in the existence of men's and critical ingredient in the successful integration of users,
women's separate places and activities, in nested concerns into analysis, design, and action. "Clients" macomplementary roles in the same places and activities, or be seen as passive recipients c; seixices or active pati-.
in sharing of interchangeable roles. cipants. Incorporating clients as active participants proWhile these differences may limit the scope and nature duces the best results for development projects and builds
of agroforestry technology and project design, there are local capabilities for continued agroforestry analysis,
design, and management efforts (Rocheleau 1987b).