0846-A1

Community Forestry for Sustainable Management of Forests in Papua New Guinea

M.B. Shrivastava^[1]

Abstract

Rural and tribal people in developing countries depend on forests for their subsistence. Forests meet their basic needs and provide them with food, fuel, fodder, fertilizer, fibre and timber. Forests also provide rural employment and raw material for cottage industries. The paper summarizes the basic needs of landless people and marginal farming families. The statistics of wood demand and supply hint not only at the future fuelwood crisis, but also at a serious ecological disaster that developing countries are heading for.

In Papua New Guinea indiscriminate clearing and uncontrolled burning of natural vegetation have resulted in the absence of or imbalance in distribution of forests, as a result of which timber and fuelwood is in short supply, especially in the densely populated areas of Chimbu, Eastern and Western Highlands, Enga, East Sepik and East New Britain provinces. The major problems are soil degradation and shortage of fuelwood. The only solution is massive afforestations of fast-growing multipurpose tree species capable of meeting the needs of rural society undertaken vigorously not merely in forest and government lands but also on community and village lands, farm and private lands. However, the task can only be accomplished with the involvement of the community - community forestry has to complement traditional forestry. The scope of social forestry programme should include both farm forestry and extension forestry.

The paper considers suitable species for use in Papua New Guinea, both exotic and indigenous. In conclusion the main constraints to the adoption of social forestry are discussed.

Introduction

Developing countries constitute 70 % of the world’s human population and over 60 % of the world’s cattle population (Singh and Negi, 1987); majority of which live in rural areas and in or around the forests. The rural and tribal people depend on forests for their subsistence. Forests meet their basic needs and provide them food, fuel, fodder, fertilizer, fibre and timber.. Also forests provide rural employment and raw material for cottage industries.

The annual basic needs of food, fodder, fuelwood and shelter for landless labourer and marginal farmer family in western India consisting of 3 adults and 3 children with 2 cattle works out to be 219 kg foodgrains, 2,000 kg dry fodder, 1,440 kg fuelwood and 300 kg construction timber (Shah, 1987). The global needs exert high pressure on forests to meet these demands. The pressure on wood supply is increasing every day and the existing forests do not appear to be capable of meeting this increased need. By the turn of the century, the annual demand for fuelwood alone will increase manifold. The statistics of wood demand and supply, hint not only at the future fuelwood crisis, but also at a serious ecological disaster that the developing countries are heading for (Hegde, 1987).

The year 1993 recorded the consumption of 5.4, 0.727, 0.106, 0.046 and 0.007 million cubic meters of fuel-wood, industrial roundwood, sawnwood, wood panels and paper/paperboard respectively for the population of 4.01225 million in P.N.G. which is projected to 8.158, 3.522, 0.186, 0084 and 0.01 million.cubic meters respectively in the year 2010. The fuelwood alone contributes 62 t of country’s energy requirements (FAO 1995). The indiscriminate clearing and uncontrolled burning of natural vegetation in PNG have resulted in the absence of or imbalance distribution of forests, as a result of which timber and fuelwood is in short-supply especially in thickly populated areas of Chimbu, Eastern and Western High-lands, Enga, East Sepik, and East New Britain provinces. The areas around Port Moresby, and Markham Valley in Morobe province also experience acute shortage of constructional timber and firewood.

In PNG the major problems are soil degradation and shortage of fuelwood. In hamlets distant from jungles, the rural fuelvood needs are largely met from sources outside forests which have almost dried up because of th absence of institutional arrangements designed for regenerating such gallery and non-forest areas The consequences are greater pressure on and resulting threat to the surviving forests which are concurrently subjected to other pressures too. The foresters are, therefore, faced with a situation in which forest frontiers are receding, tree growth outside forests is diminishing fast and demands on fuelwood are increasing substantially (Shah 1981).

The mishap can not be avoided, unless massive afforestations of fast growing multipurpose tree species capable of meeting the needs of rural society is undertaken vigorously not merely in forest and government lands but also on community and village lands, farm and private lands (Gupta and Shrivastava, 1983). Experience in India shows the past attempts of afforestation programmes suffered from inadequate participation of grassroot institutions and the absence of intermediate supportive institutions (Flegde, 1987; Rai, 1994). Thus the task is a challenging one, difficult to accomplish without the involvement of community. Therefore community forestry has to complement traditional forestry. The need for development of forest resources, outside the government/private owned forests through the active participation of. The rural population is imminent. Forestry and agriculture though compete with each other have to coexist with mutually reinforcing relationship. They are complementary in nature. Boundaries between agriculture and forestry have to disappear. Multi-use of land resources alone can save the situation. Integration of forestry with agriculture is the only answer. Thus growing trees on farmlands, field boundaries, community wastelands, roads, canals and any other land set aside for similar purpose is a must. That is what Social Forestry envisages (Gupta and Shrivastava, 1983), and also proposed in the National Forest Policy of Papua New Guinea, 1991.

Social Forestry

Social forestry, community for rural forestry or peoples forestry are synonym and involve the people (society or community) individually or collectively in forestry operations for the creation, management, maintenance, protection and utilization of forests for their mutual benefit. It is a programme of land transformation aimed at multiple use of lands and environmental rehabilitation in which the community is voluntarily involved as the prime beneficiary to harvest subsidiary gains other than conventional industrial raw material and in the process improved land, landscape,. environment and quality of life at large is ensured (Gupta and Shrivastava, 1983.).

Objectives

The aim of social forestry is to help solve people’s (society’s) own wood supply problems, meet their own needs, and preserve the environment in which they live by planting trees on their farms, fields, gardens and around their villages. It includes production, rural development and ecological improvement. Production is

Largely aimed at satisfying the needs of the rural population for small timber supply, fuelwood supply and the replacement of cow dung, fodder supply, cottage industry raw material, and recreational need. Ecological development has its main thrust in protecting, improving and reclaiming the environment and soil and decreasing the pressure on natural forests.

Scope

While promoting forestry it must be clear in mind that plantations should not be established on fertile agricultural fields at the expense of food production. There are only two options for growing trees - first, to grow on the wastelands and common grazing grounds which are mostly under the ownership of the government, public institutions and community; the second, to grow on agricultural fields, under farm-, agro- or homestead- forestry systems. For afforestation on wastelands, only a part of the society i.e. poor, landless labourers or marginal farmers can participate. On the other hand farm-, agro-, and homestead- forestry can involve each and every landowner in the country in planting trees. Thus the scope of social forestry programme would include both farm forestry and extension forestry.

Farm Forestry is the practice of forestry in all its aspects on farm or village lands, generally integrated with other farm operations, including Agro-and Homestead-forestry. It includes raising rows of trees on field bunds, farm boundaries and individual trees in private agricultural lands; raising of trees under various agro-forestry systems, and raising of wind-breaks.

Extension Forestry covers mixed forestry comprising raising of grass and leaf, fodder, fruit and fuelwood trees on suitable wastelands, community and village common lands; raising of shelterbelts in dry and arid regions; raising of plantations of different fast growing s road sides, canal banks -and railway strips; reforestation degraded forests; and recreation forestry.

Agro-forestry involves growing of forest and agriculture crops together on the same piece of land. It is a land use system in agriculture, where silvicultüre is combined with certain immediate benefits to the community. It provides a viable alternative, by involving the entire farming community in tree planting and increasing the supply of fodder and fuelwood in rural areas, without reducing food production. Agro-forestry is the technology, the only hope to overcome the crisis of food, fodder and fuelwood shortage. It is based upon the development of the interface between the agriculture and the forestry use of the land. It embraces the following systems.

Agri-silviculture System. The conscious and deliberate use of land for the concurrent production of agricultural crops (including tree crops) and forest crops. (Forest + Agricultural crops)

Silvo-pastoral Systems: Land management systems in which forests are managed for the.production of wood as well as for the rearing of domesticated animals. It integrates trees (timber, food or fodder producing one.) with pas tures and livestock. In this system the animals are kept and permitted to graze within the forests (Trees + Pastures, + Livestock).

Agro-silvo-pastoral Systems: Land is managed for the concurrent production of agricultural and forest crops and for the rearing of. domesticated animals. It combines food crops with trees (timber, food or fodder).and livestock, with or without pastures. (Trees + Agricultural Crops + Livestock).

Multi-purpose forest tree production Systems: Here forest tree species are regenerated and managed for their ability to produce not only wood, but leaves and fruit that are suitable for food and fodder.

In all agro-forestry systems there are two essential and. related aims sustainability and productivity; the system should conserve and improve the site, and at the same time optimise the combined production of forest and agriculture crop; keeping in view the chief objects as

- reduction of pressure on protective and productive forests for meeting the local demands of agricultural timber, fuelwood and fodder so that the forests can be fully spared for their protective and productive roles;

- increase in the productivity level of forest and agricultural lands per unit area and time to meet the future demands;

- provision of adequate employment and other opportunities to the tribal and rural people associated with forests in such a way; that a better symbiotic relationship is created;

- maintenance of ecological balance as a result of the presence of more number of tree on farm and village lands.

Community Forestry envisages the raising of forests on public or community land, with the sole aim to benefit the community as a whole. It provides mearns under which the landless class can associate themselves in tree raising and thus derive those benefits which otherwise are restricted for landowners. It checks the deforestation problem of village common lands brought about by the local people through mutual cooperation.

Choice of Species

Ecological adaptation and adoptability by farmers vis-a-vis economic benefits are two important factors governing the selection of species for social forestry. The species so selected should meet the basic needs of society for food, energy (fuel wood),fodder (for increasing milk production and cash) and shelter (for housing) on one hand and maintain the ecological balance in the village on the other hand.. It should also provide raw materials for rural industry and subsidiary occupations. It should be multipurpose, fast growing, high yielding, raised easily with least expernditure and should consist of fruit-, timber, fodder and fuel trees, bamboos, shrubs, grasses, palms, rattans, climbers, creepers etc. In the context of PNG the multi purpose tree species (MP should be compatible with agriculture crops, able to fix nitrogen in the soil, rehabilitate degraded sites, control - erosion provide sustenance and medicines to animals and people, and provide construction timber, fuelwood, and other minor forest products. The species should meet the following requirements

The tree species to be in conjunction with agricu1tural crops should meet the following requirements (King, 1981; Hegde, 1987; Huxley, 1983).

* Non-interference with main crop..
* Easy establishment and fast elongation.
* Easy decomposition of litte
* Ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen.
* No toxic effects on soil and crops.
* Multiple use and high yield.
* Amenable to early wide spacement
* Possibility to regulate easily; self-pruning properties and tolerance to high incidence of pruning.
* Small crown relative to bole diameter.
* Light branching habit.
* Tolerarant to side-shade.
* Light crown - permit light penetration to ground.
* Phenology - leaf flushing/sheding should be advantageous to the growth of the annual crop
* Deep root system.
* Efficient nutrient pumping.

Useful Species under PNG Conditions.

Both indigenous and. exotics have been tried in PNG in recent past. Exotics used on a large scale and on trial consisting of 24 spp. and indigenous consisting of 57 spp. are listed by Howcroft and Saulei (1990) and Louman, et al.(1993). As per potential uses like nitrogen fixing, site amelioration, erosion control, fuel wood, construction materials, food, forage, and landscaping the exotics found suitable are Acacia angustissima, A. cincinnata., Albizia chinensis, Allocasuarjna littoralis, Azadirachta Indica, Calliánda calothyrsus, C. houstoniana and a number of Leucaena spp. On the basis of initial rate and survival percent Tectona grandis, Acacia auriculiformis and Pinus caribaea were found promising in Markham valley.

Useful indigenous species are likely to be more readily accepted by farmers than exotic species in PNG. Indigenous species of Acacia aulacocarpa and A. crassicarpa are useful for the manufacture of ropes, fishing nets, clothes, dyes, fuelwood and construction materials. Native Albizia and Terminalia spp. are recognized for commercial wood products but only Casuarina oligodon is used on a wide scale. The Acacia, Albizia, Casuarina, Ficus, Schleinitizia and Serianthes are suitable on abandoned mine sites. To meet the fuelvood, fruit and building materiel requirements, large scale plantings of Canarium, Dracontomelon, Finschia,. Mangifera, Myristica and Terminalia under community forestry are recommended. The palms, Barringtonia, Casuarina, Ficus dammaropsis, Finschia, Gymnostoma and Terminalia are.of considerable value for landscape under different conditions.

Useful Species of Universal Importance.

The species fit for wide social forestry purposes should have following characteristics:

- Greater photosynthetic efficiency for biomass production.
- Capability to fix atmospheric nitrogen.
- Inbuilt system for gene improvement.
- Resistant to insect-pests, diseases and climatic stresses.
- Capable of water and nutrient uptake.
- Fast growing.
- Multiple uses.

Some of the species with above characteristics are Winged Bean (Psophocarpus zpp., Mesq (Prosopis spp.), Cinnamomunr spp., Guayule (Parthenium argentatum), Tropical Pines (Pinus caribaea, P kesiya, P. elliottii, hondurensis, P. oocarpa, P.patula), Eucalyptus spp., Leucaena spp., Bamboos (Bambusa tuldoides, B polymorpha, B. vulgaris, B. multiplex, Dendrocalamus strictus, Arundinaria amabilis, Melocanna baccifera, etc.), Populus spp., Casuarina spp., Dillenia indica, Wattles (Acacia mearnsii, A. decurrens, A. pycnantha, A. dealbata, A. melan.oxyion), Khair (Acacia catechu, A. chundra, A. sandra, A. catechuoldes).

Economic Benefits of Social Forestry

1. Employment generation 2. Capital gains from extensive plantations. 3. Increased food and fodder production. 4. Raw materials for cottage industries 5. Industrial raw materials. 6. Minor, forest produce. 7. Protection role- stream flow, soil conservation, etc. 8. Siltation check and increase in life of dams and reservoirs.9. Flood control. 1O.Contribution to energy requirements. 11.Reduction of burden on traditional forests.

Constraints

Lack of proper education, extension services, infrastructure and incentives are the main constraints in social forestry (Gupta and Shrivastava, 1983). Beside lack of knowledge, the most obvious constraint is the inadequate capital and lack of experience among farmers. Security of land tenure is another important constraints (Wanrazali and Abd. Razak, 1987).

Forest Education The foresters alone cannot give the care and attention that forests need. There must be close cooperation between the administration and the people. Forestry education has to include people’s education. Social forestry needs people who are dedicated. Both men and women must be inducted into forestry and given basic knowledge of tree cultivation. Farmers and rural people are to be made aware that trees are their greatest friends in adversity; they can grow economic plantations which provide their basic needs and a higher net income.

Forestry extension: The implementation of social forestry requires support activities and institutions which is possible by the creation of suitable forestry extension organizations both at central and provincial levels. Training in extension methodology and technology should be imparted to the persons to be engaged for the job. The strategy for the popularization of social forestry should include the establishment of a large number of field demonstrations. The active participation of basic village institutions, viz. local bodies, cooperatives and school staff should be secured in these demonstrations. The traditional forest organizations have now to take the role of an extension service and go on to motivate and train a large number of people and community leaders to produce the kind of trees wanted for social and other economic purposes (Rao, 1981). Erection of strong extension education agency for mass education of farmers, winning their confidence for encouraging social forestry and collecting feedback from farmers is essential to develop future research programmes.

Forestry extension education should aim at three main types of changes in human behaviour in relation to forest resources viz knowledge (what people know), skill (what they can do), and attitude (what they think and believe) through good demonstration areas, proper publicity and proper literature. The ultimate aim of forest extension education is to make people conscious of the importance of forests, their rational use and also to inspire people to develop forests.

Forestry research. Lack of research is also a constraint in the success of social forestry. We have no answers to fundamental questions regarding species selection in conjunction with crops; effect of trees on fertility and yield; relative economics of. pure and mixed crops plante with trees; spacings and tree density, etc. There is urgent need to conduct research on

* Yield maximization of fuel, fodder, fibre, fruit, timber and other products by growing multipurpose trees either simultaneously or sequentially on lands not suited to agriculture.

* Identification of tree species which are not only compatible but also cooperate with the agricultural crops in a beneficial manner to build up and maintain soil fertility and rehabilitate the land production base.

* Standardization of nursery technology, fertilizer and water requirements for various species.

* Soil studies to evolve suitable tree species and agriculture crops for different soil types. * Planting technology and silviculture of promising species.

* Improvement and tree breeding to develop short rotation, fast growing species for individual localities..

* Environmental effects of social forestry.

* Biomass production and rate of growth for a large number of trees species.

Incentives. It would bring very positive results if some incentives are provided to the people to motivate them. These could be in the form of concession in irrigation, land revenue; lease of land to the landless; provision of heavy machinery for levelling of marginal land; establishment of subsidised wood based cottage industries, distribution of certificates and prizes for good performance; interest free loans by the banks; provision of planting stock of desired species at nominal rates, and marketing facilities, etc (Sheikh, 1987)..

To make the social forestry programme successful, farmers and poor people should be provided with good quality seedlings either free or, at a reasonabIe ratw, made available at or near the planting sites. Desired species should be raised on large scale in local nurseries and distributed to individuals and community. To meet the planting, fencing and maintenance costs, financial support in the form of free grants, subsidies and loans should be provided particularly to the landless labourers, small and marginal farmers.

A corps of dedicated foresters, social workers, agriculturists etc. is needed who have energy and patience to reach every nook and corner of the nation, win over the confidence of the people and make him believe that growing of trees will bring him prosperity. Once the community becomes popular, adopted and accepted by the people and anchors its root in the country, the local daily needs of the people will be met at door steps and the indiscriminate felling and burning of forests will stop automatically. This will lead to sustainable development of PNG forests in perpetuity. With sufficient monetary benefits in view, with a little more persuation, guidance and motivation, there is every hope that the people would make the expected contribution to keep the country greener.

References

1.. F.A.O. 1995: Forestry Statistics Today for Tomorrow

(1945 - 1993... 2010

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Rome, 1995.

2. Gupta, D.S. and Shrivasta M.B. 1983 Case for the establishment of forestry education, research and extension work in agricultural universities for the success of social. Forestry. Indian J. For. 6(4),’ 257 - 263.

3. Hegde, N.G. 1987: Agroforestry under Indian Conditions. In N.G.Hegde and V.D. K (Eds). Agroforestry - Selected Readings. BAIF Publication, Pune, India.

4 Howcroft, N.H S and Saule S. 1990 Potential of Exotic and Indigenous Multipurpose Tree Species for - Agriculture and Forestry In.-A- Taylor and K G. Macr (Eds) Research on Multipurpose Tree Species in Asia. Proc. International Workshop Nov. 19- 23, 1990, Los Baños, Philippines,

WINROCK Publication.

5. Huxley, P.A. 1983 The Rôle of Tree in Agroforestry- some comments. In P.A. Huxley (Ed). Plant Research and Agroforestry ICRAF, Nairobi 257-270 Nairobi

6. King, K.F.S. 1981: Keynote Address - Some Principles of Agro-Forestry. In P. Jaiswal and Satya Pal (Eds). Proc. Agro-Forestry eminar, ICAR, New Delhi, India.

7. Louman, B., Leavasa, A. an A. Ona. 1993: Tree Species Selection for Villages on Markham Valley Grasslands. Klinkii 5(1): 4-10.

8. Rai, S.N. 1994: Prominent Findings of Forestry Research in India. FORSPA Publjc No.11.

9. Rao, G.V.K. 1981 Address. In P.L.Jaiswal arid Satya Pal (Eds). Proc. of The Agro-Forestry Seminar. ICAR, New Delhi, India.

10. Shah, S.A. 1981 Social F - A Tool to Integrate Forestry with Agriculture. In P.L. Jaiswal and Satya Pal (Eds). Proc. Agr Seminar. ICAR, New Delhi.

11. Shah, P. 1987: Potential bf Agroforestry as Landuse Technology for Rural Poor. In P.K. Khosla and D.K. Khurana (Eds). Agroforestry for Rural Needs. Vol.1, ISTS, Solan, India.

12. Sheikh, M.I. 1987: Agrofo in Pakistan. In P.K. Khosla andD.K. Khurana (Ed5). Agroforestry for Rural Needs.

Vol.1, ISTS, Solan, India.

13. Singh, B. and Negi, S.S. 1987: Tree Forages in Animal Rations. In P.K. Kho and D.K. Khurana (Eds). Agroforestry for Rur Needs. Vol.1, ISTS, Solan.

14. Wan Razali, M. and Abd-. Ra 0. 1987

Agroforestry in Malaysia. In P.K. Khosla and D.K. Khurana (Eds). Agroforestry for Rural Needs. Vol.1, ISTS, Solan.