0930-B1
Jamal Ahmad Khan[1]
Over the years, rapid expansion of degradation of forest and non-forest lands has irreversibly damaged the productive resource base in many countries, endangering vital life-support systems. Because of this, a programme for regeneration of degraded non-forest areas becomes imperative for reducing the burden on production forests. However, these lands pose a major challenge to modern society if they are to be successfully regenerated, effectively managed and gainfully utilized by raising suitable species of trees on a sustainable basis.
Many developing countries took considerable initiatives to launch social forestry for raising tree plantations on non-forest lands. Funds were mobilized under various schemes with assistance from many bilateral and multilateral donor agencies. The activity received a very high level of recognition and appreciation by the national and international organizations. Subsequently, evaluations have raised major questions about the sustainability of these projects and it was concluded that social forestry is not sustainable.
In view of this fact, by the end of 1980s, the policy of funding for social forestry was changed and funding agencies suddenly became totally apathetic towards these projects. This has caused a big setback for growing trees outside forests and the global mission has become unachievable because of poor vision and inadequate provision of funds. The non-forest degraded lands have very low capacity to support any commercially profitable tree growth. It is impossible to get a positive cost-benefit analysis in all situations. Since this is a multi-disciplinary and a complex activity, no single agency can handle it in toto by itself. Even if tree plantations on degraded non-forests lands yield less profit in terms of money, the scheme needs to be continued in the interest of the local economy to help maintain the ecological balance and environmental stability of our planet, the earth.
According the FAO's latest report, only one-third of our globe is occupied by designated forests having a composition of 95% natural forests and 5% forest plantations. The tropical and subtropical forests occupy 56 percent and the remaining forests are temperate and boreal forests. In most of the developing and underdeveloped countries, majority of people are dependent upon use of forest biomass for their daily survival needs, especially for firewood, fodder, small timber and grazing purposes.
With continuous rise in population, pressure on forests has increased considerably throughout the world, leading to shrinkage of tree cover in many countries. The estimated rate of global deforestation in 1990s was 14.6 million ha per year and the estimated rate of forest cover increase was only 5.2 million ha every year, showing a net change in forest area worldwide in the 1990s was -9.4 million ha. Consequently, many countries have been facing severe land degradation problems (both forest and non-forest lands which have been constantly subjected to over-use). Needless to reiterate, over the years, deforestation, degradation and diversion of forests in many parts of the world have adversely affected the availability of forest goods and services.
The situation of the non-forest lands (including commons and private agricultural lands) is also not very encouraging, particularly with reference to their scientific utilisation and sustainable regeneration. During the course of time, major portions of non-forest lands have reached to a critical stage of degradation in many parts of world. The situation has further aggravated manifold in recent years because of innumerable socio-economic reasons. In nutshell, rapid expansion of land degradation has irreversibly damaged the productive resource base in many countries, endangering vital life support systems. The estimates indicate that almost half of Indian landmass is degraded in one form or the other, which need special attention to sustain the increasing demands of rural people. Therefore, a befitting programme for regeneration of degraded non-forest areas is imperative for reducing the burden on production forests. However, the non-forest lands pose a major challenge to the modern society for successful regeneration, effective management and gainful utilization by raising suitable species of trees on a sustained basis.
Many instances in different countries indicate the public-initiated tree growing in the past. But the attempts to encourage and involve village communities in tree planting were unmethodical, slow, disorganised and confined to smaller areas. Examples include China, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Korea, Peruvian Andes, Senegal, Mali, Malawi, etc. However, in the ninth Commonwealth Forestry Conference held in India (1968), Jack Westoby gave an idea of tree growing for the benefit of the community. He used the term social forestry for the first time as "a forestry which aims at producing a flow of protection and recreation benefits for the community". According to the World Bank, the social forestry is
"a programme designed to create the necessary conditions for tree planting outside the traditional domain of the forest lands...includes the tree planting in farmers' fields; in village common lands; along roads, railways, and canals; and in degraded wastelands...are multi-dimensional and complex...involve much more than just planting tree".
Exactly, after a decade, the theme of the Eighth World Forestry Congress held in Djakarta in 1978 was 'Forests for People'. This development brought a new dimension and diverted the attention of several countries towards the regeneration of non-forest areas through a massive social forestry programme by involving local community, particularly the rural poor.
Consequently, the policies and programmes were reoriented to support social forestry for the people. Many developing countries took considerable initiatives to launch social forestry for raising tree plantations on non-forest lands. The Government of India took few years to standardise the social forestry programme for the country as a whole. Its focus became tree growing for augmenting the supply of firewood, fodder, small timber and minor forest produce for the benefit of local communities. The main components comprised farm forestry, extension forestry (on public lands and village common lands), rehabilitation of degraded forest lands, and recreation forestry. Several new schemes of social forestry were initiated to deal with different kinds of situations, concerning land ownership, type of produce, etc. India became one of the leading countries to take up social forestry on a massive scale during eighties with the involvement of the local communities. Funds for social forestry in India were mobilised under various schemes of central government and respective state governments; private industries and individuals; and foreign-aided social forestry projects with assistance from many bi-lateral and multi-lateral donor agencies. Tree planting was further boosted up by giving a place in the most prestigious Twenty Point Programme of the country. Consequently, there was a phenomenal rise in social forestry activities during eighties. The programme became very popular among the government, non-government, donor agencies, institutions, communities, farmers, individuals, school children, women, etc.
In order to achieve the objectives of social forestry, all-out efforts were made to involve local communities, governmental and non-governmental agencies in raising trees on the degraded lands. Various plantation models were designed to suit the region-specific requirements of each state. Higher emphasis was given to people's participation in nursery raising, planting and protection of trees. The basic approach to implementation of social forestry in India was more or less similar in all states. In terms of the physical and financial achievements, the reported progress of social forestry in India was highly encouraging and satisfactory. The proportion of farm forestry (tree planting on private agricultural lands) was nearly 50-60% of the total planting effort in the country. Millions of farmers in Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamilnadu, Karnataka, West Bengal, etc. took up farm forestry in a big way mainly for higher financial gains. These projects helped in creating awareness among the people for environmental and economic benefits of the tree planting programme. Developing the technical and managerial skill (of the government departments, non-governmental organisations and individual tree growers), strengthening of the forestry institutions through education, training, research, and extension activities were also an important parts of these projects.
Whatever be the deficiencies in social forestry, the objective of planting more trees was principally achieved in many parts of India. Its visual impact is highly appreciable and millions of well grown standing trees are now the proof of this overwhelming success. It is not difficult to find exceptionally good tree plantations on private agricultural lands and village common lands. Other significant achievements comprise a great deal of employment generation within the reach of the rural poor, a significant upgrading of forestry knowledge of the people, and a turnabout in the long-standing degradation of common grazing lands. In fact, the people have noted the improvements around their villages and have found that these lands, if properly managed, can provide a substantial amount of benefits on a sustained basis. It has shown its potential to become an integral part of rural and urban environment and has a vast potential to provide gainful opportunities for meeting the growing needs of the society, particularly the rural countryside and the interior parts.
Village common lands (non-forest grazing lands) in India and in many other developing/underdeveloped countries act like "Natural Superstores" and are treated as no man's properties, leading to over-use without any gainful management and effective protection. The local people keep on deriving a number of benefits from these lands without feeling any responsibility towards the regeneration aspects. They also graze their cattle without making any endeavor to improve fodder production. In view of this, social forestry projects included a specific model for improving the vegetation cover on such village commons. The total achievements accounted for more than one-fifth of the total achievements of social forestry plantations in the country.
The type of output from village woodlots is directly interlinked with many factors, i.e. soil, climate, moisture, choice of species, protection, management technique, etc. Particularly, looking at the objectives and interests of the people, the management aspects are very important. The overall success was found to be directly related to the prevailing agro-climatic conditions and the degradation of village common lands. According to the level of degradation, the village commons can be classified as follows:
permanently barren and unculturable lands (unfit for tree planting),
totally degraded lands (unfit for trees, but fit for grasses, shrubs and bushes),
Choice of species for village woodlots was, therefore, considered very important from the output, particularly intermediate produce at early stages may increase the overall net benefit. The planting of some shrubs/grasses for providing additional fruits, leaves, twigs, fodder, etc. was taken up for diversifying the benefits from the village woodlots. The village panchayats (locally elected body) were persuaded to part with their land on the plea of the enhancement of their income. In fact, this was main reason why some of the village panchayats prefered commercial species in their village woodlots, like Tectona grandis, Gmelina arborea, etc. The method of clear-felling does not seem appropriate in the interest of the people. In fact, gross volume of wood (branches and twigs) can be substantially increased by choosing multi-purpose species and by simple adoption of a proper management system of pollarding, thinning and coppicing. In addition, the leaves, pods, fruits, etc. can provide substantial yield for local people.
No doubt, village woodlots on the village common lands became a centre of attraction for local people. But it is very unfortunate that most people do not feel directly responsible to maintain a minimum level of protection and management of resources which are meant for them. In general, villagers attach protection responsibility to the forest department and/or the village panchayats. Very few of them feel that it should be their own responsibility. A simple implementation of scheme as per its action plan has, therefore, no meaning for the people. It needs to be translated into a well-accepted operational plan, acceptable to all villagers. The most important thing is co-ordination and a proper understanding among the forest department, village panchayats and different groups of people residing in the villages. The participation of villagers and their panchayats is, therefore, very vital for the success and continuity of the scheme. In fact, the village woodlots can be transformed into real community assets if one is able to increase the participation of local villagers and village panchayats. The villagers feel reluctant in making any voluntary investment of money and/or labour because most villagers see the woodlot as a property of the panchayat. As the villagers do not see any direct benefit for their own household, their participation remains in the doldrums.
Lack of local initiatives to raise and manage village woodlots seems to be a common deficiency. In many cases, forest department is approached to resolve any local issues. The villagers considered the scheme as merely a government scheme although it was meant for furtherance of their own essential needs. In fact the people want to enjoy benefits without making any efforts. They have a strong feeling that principally it is the government's responsibility to raise trees for improving village common lands. They want that the forest department should continue to implement and manage woodlots in their villages.
In the past 20 years, the external funding in the forestry sector has supported significantly in supporting the overall efforts of developing and developed countries for raising extensive tree planting programmes, conservation and sustainable development of forests. They have funded several country specific projects for industrial plantations, social forestry, environmental forestry and the sustainable management of forest resources through local communities. Large-scale externally aided social forestry projects were implemented in many countries (including India) with foreign assistance from various international development agencies like the World Bank, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF) and European Economic Commission (EEC) and Overseas Development Administration (ODA). Needless to mention, the World Bank became the principal funding agency for social forestry projects. The programme received a very high level of recognition and appreciation by the national and international organisations, especially the FAO, the World Bank and many international development agencies. Subsequently, the evaluations raised a question about sustainability of these projects and funding agencies concluded that social forestry programme is sustainable only when donors provide the resources out of their public funds. In view of this fact, by the end of eighties, they changed their policy of funding for social forestry and suddenly became totally apathetic towards funding the projects for raising trees outside forests. So the focus of donor agencies has undergone drastic change over the past 20 years and they are now putting more emphases for development and management of the degraded forests through joint forest management. This approach of funding agencies has become a big inhibitor for growing trees outside forests. The global mission has become unachievable and unrealistic because of poor vision and inadequate provision.
There are several underlying issues (agro-climatic, socio-economic and socio-political) behind the drawbacks of social forestry. For instance, regional disparities due to agro-climate has had its effects on total yield of grass, fruits, leaves, pods, etc., leading to a wide variation in accrual of intermediate produce to villagers, as well as in yield of main produce, affecting total income for the village panchayats. Apart from technical requirements in raising trees, many other important issues also emerged during the implementation of the social forestry programme. Some of these (management/protection responsibilities, benefit sharing, sustainability, etc.) were related to socio-economic importance of tree planting for rural people. It is so because of intrinsic socio-political and institutional weaknesses. It is also linked up with distribution of benefits.
The decisions for social forestry projects were taken after considering many criteria, the most important being economic appraisals. However, there were certain factors, which were not considered in appraisals of those projects. Later, it was observed that appraisals were based on very high estimates of yield (particularly firewood, poles and timber) from tree planting. In many cases, role of intermediate products was not addressed in a realistic way. In fact, they relied on the estimated figures on costs and benefits. It was also found that the costs had been under-estimated and they had also ignored the distributional aspects, which related to different groups in the society.
The social forestry programme can not be implemented in isolation and socio-cultural considerations warrant greater attention. Political and bureaucratic support is essential for continuance of social forestry. Its forward and backward linkages and regional disparities of the state have to be recognised. Sincere efforts are required to encourage conservation, improvement and management of the existing tree cover in the countryside (outside forest areas) to ensure that they are not destroyed and continue to provide a wide range of benefits to the people. Effort is also required for bringing the neglected non-forest woodlands under the management plans of social forestry. It is necessary to provide suitable incentives for growing and maintaining trees outside forests. Future of social forestry depends on the land availability, sufficient funding for expanding the activity in newer areas, finding out realistic solutions to the labour issues, proper selection of species, improving the quality of planting stock, adopting innovative ideas and new technologies, effective protection mechanism, people-friendly management practices, harvesting methodology and disposal of the produce, realistic distribution mechanism for sharing of benefits, regeneration of the harvested areas, solving the organisational issues pertaining to the field staff of social forestry and meaningful peoples' involvement.
Social forestry is much more complex and requires a more comprehensive exercise for maintaining the stability and continuity of its activities, at least at the present level of achievements. Forest department has to continue to play a central role in the development and continuance of social forestry by restructuring of programme and by following a missionary approach. It is necessary to improve relationship among all the concerned agencies and to exchange ideas, experiences and discuss problems and their probable solutions. It requires a very harmonious and organised approach of government, funding agencies and non-government organisations to raise participation of local people to a required level of self-motivation. Barring few exceptional cases, this may be certainly a difficult task to strike through. But it needs to be taken up with the involvement of local people, as it concerns restoring the delicate balance of ecology and environment in the national and international perspective.
The theme of XIIth World Forestry Congress 2002, Forests, source of life is very rightly directed towards shaping the global vision for future of forests and this can be achievable only if our society learns to manage the non-forest lands on a sustained basis for meeting the ever increasing demands of forest produce. As such the non-forest degraded lands have very low capacity to support any commercially profitable tree growth (in financial terms). It is impossible to get a positive CBA in all situations. So, the sustainability of the tree growing outside forests over time depends on the government support, costs and returns of alternative use of non-forests lands, availability of funds, etc. Since this is a multi-disciplinary and a complex activity, no single agency can handle it in toto by itself. Even if the tree plantations on degraded non-forests lands yield less profit in terms of money, the scheme is required to be continued in the interest of the local economy to help maintain the ecological balance and environmental stability of our planet, the Earth.
| [1] Conservator of Forests
(Research & Working Plan), Kothi Annexe, Raopura, Vadodara, Gujarat
State, India 390001. Email: [email protected] |