Success and failures in Community forestry1

Lessons from implementing large scale forestry projects.

Year 2000

by

J. Ravi Shanker.

1
Based on experiences collected while working with Sadguru Foundation. The views expressed are those
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Organisation, its directors, officers or staff or
of its funding organizations.
 1

INTRODUCTION
The over all increase in private tree management can be attributed to increased population as it
is widely observed in almost all-indigenous communities world over. Farmers as a strategy adopt
increased tree plantation on farm bunds, wastelands, stream banks, and other fallow lands, which
were otherwise used for low productive cropping. This transformation in tree cropping postulates
against population increase and sub-division of land among generations. In addition, increased
need for cash on hand in crisis, is apparent
in dry tropical countries (Chambers 1998). State of Indian forests 2001
11.17
With the advent of watershed programmes
7.95
in many parts of Africa and south Asia this
0.15
practice is further established. Under 1.74
integrated treatment models, plants have
secured a significant position on field bunds
and fallow lands.
78.99
Dence Forest Open Forests Mangrove
In this context, it is inevitable to draw some
Scrub Non forest
lessons from past experiences of successful
projects and study why and how they succeeded and failed. This paper observes some of the
factors influencing forestry programmes in general and how they perform over the years. These
experiences may be region specific, largely drawn from the author’s experiences while working
at Sadguru Foundation over 6 years in Gujarat & Rajasthan. Nevertheless, the experiences are
analysed in wider context and some critical factors debated at length in author’s point of view.

Scope for agro forestry practices are largely influenced by traditional tree cropping practices of
the community, availability of grants, subsidies or loans, ongoing other tree plantation schemes
of State and central governments, nature and condition of land and other resources. In addition
promoting agency’s ‘internal policies2’ also influence the programme success. Successful
projects, these factors generally assessed and incorporated into programme design and
implementation. There is however other factors like markets, fund availability, favourable
official attitude to forestry, working plans etc., influence the success externally. They are largely
governed by external environment and have equal bearing on program uptake. An attempt is

2
The amount of importance attributed by concerned organization to forestry programs in its annual plans.
 2
made to understand some of these elements while learning how certain agencies are more
successful than others in promoting forestry.

1. Importance of Agro- forestry in absence of (access to) state forests:

People in general are dependent on the adjoining forest resources for their living. This has,
over the years-accumulated greater complexity with deterioration of forest resources,
changing political priorities and unfazed imperialistic forest policies. Gujarat and Rajasthan
are the two states that are perennially scarce in forest resources. Degradation of the resource
system, linear accesses to the resource and active role of vested interests constantly kept poor
away from forest resource. For example in some degraded forestlands of Gujarat, the
rootstock also completely removed. There is absolute ‘0’ canopy cover in the so called forest
lands. It would roughly take 50 years to established forests again in these lands if one
sincerely puts her/his efforts.

In absence of access to remaining forest resources and complete degradation of existing

forest lands, agro forestry or farm forestry gained popularity as alternatives. People can grow
trees on their private lands, fallow lands, and field bunds to fulfil their forest related needs. It
is found that, when forestry programmes implemented on these models with simple
management practices, have succeeded. The only thumb rule here is timely management of
resources and rigorous follow-up.

Agro and Farm forestry programme promoted by SWDF: 1995-2001

Agro-forestry represents multi storied and multi-species compound farms, where tree/crop
mixtures can represent important components of the overall farm system and micor-
catchment. Site location and specifications largely allow certain plants to establish. It is
important to know the type of species that co-exists well with other varieties under agro
forestry pattern. The organisation on an average covers more than 120 villages every year
with 160 –240 decentralised nurseries covering more than 6000 families in the activity on
annual basis. Each year minimum of 1.8 million saplings are planted religiously and this
would shoot up to 4 million in good years.

In Sadguru, the forestry sector intervention started with private forestry plantations, where
people in large scale planted trees on their private wastelands, fallow lands, field bunds and
 3
nallas during food for work program in mid 70s. Communities were hesitant to plant
saplings as they though the land would be taken by NGO when the plants grown up.
However with educational camps the NGO succeeded in convincing people that the no one
could take the trees from them with out their consent and they own it.
The Organisation has not initiated with State lands, or other common lands. With high rate of
success (60-70% survival rates) communities realised that forestry is possible and beneficial
if monitored properly. Once they witnessed results in private plantations they were ready to
deal with complexities of common lands and degraded forest lands.
2. What type of management practices and approaches sustain farm/agro forestry.
8 One of the main objectives behind every social forestry programme is to offset the
excessive deforestation and resultant environmental damage in neighbourhoods.
8 Second assumption was to meet the basic self-sufficiency needs (fuel, fodder, timber
etc.) of poor at minimum cost contributions from people.
8 Third was to improve the small farm productivity and stabilise income to meet
contingencies.
It is important to study how far these assumptions are fulfilled? To what extent these
assumptions hold truth? Then why most of the community forestry programmes failed? Is it a
management approach issue or peoples involvement? Is it time to liberalise forestry sector
and invite greater community participation or private sector participation? When soil
conservation and irrigation are opened up for community management with clear institutional
guidelines and administrative sanctioning; why forestry sector is still holding back to its
police/control/protected roles? Why programs like Joint Forest Management guided to fail?

Answering some of the above questions, one has to analyse the factors that influenced the
programmes in different parts of the country. The most striking ones are the administrative
apathy in establishing a positive relation between programme and people, conversion of
natural forests to timber forests, negligible stake of people in benefits.

Experts in India attribute excessive deforestation to increasing firewood and fodder demand
of rural/tribal populations. Intensive firewood and fodder plantations under social forestry
programme witnessed during 80s. Social forestry program by mid 90 ended with mixed
results. Except few cases in Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Gujarat by and large the program was
quite unimpressive. A study in Gujarat found that 56% of energy needs in neighbourhoods
are met from firewood collected from “open forests” (GEC 2000). These are forest lands
 4
having less than 10% canopy cover and largely termed as scrub forests. This means poor
are not responsible for degradation of forests as predominantly understood.

The social forestry program of Sadguru demonstrated over the years that people contribute to
forestry projects once they are convinced about the benefits. However the mechanism for
contribution needs to be derived out of prevailing local practices. Secondly while calculating
the contribution and executing the mechanism should be done in consultation with people as
per their convenience. Failing which, the program would never succeed. This we would
discuss in detail at a later point of time.

Rehabilitation of common pool resources and evolving new common property regimes
substantiated by encouraging private plantations on field bunds, fallow lands, horticulture
have potential to re-establish lost empire of forests in India.

Sincere efforts should be made by State to generate political will to strengthen programs like
Joint Forest Management which are pro-poor policies.

State should take all needed measures to execute all GRs/Circulars that promote afforestation
and community initiatives like JFM. Non-implimentation of GR issued to incorporate
degraded forest lands in watershed plans and then execute is one example of State’s apathy in
this sector.

What Sadguru has done over the year’s is interesting! Organisation has incorporated
flexibility in program to improve is effectiveness. Initiated as a ‘free seedling distribution’ in
1982, the programme has witnessed major changes. Other components of forestry sector
incorporated into it. Species composition changed with changing needs of people. Additional
components added to improve survival rates of plants.

What generally lead to failure of social forestry, has been carefully avoided by Sadguru. For
example, in Karnataka farm forestry project (1980s), quality of plantations found poor. Some
of the reasons expressed here refer to, ‘unavailability of species they (communities) prefer,
pressure to take more seedlings than they need, late plantation, insufficient site preparation
and after plantation care’. Apart from this farmers needed plants in small quantities in
 5
different years rather all in one year. This kind of operational weaknesses in the
programme results to poor impact.

On the other hand pre-programme need assessment, supply of species as per people’s choice
and requirement, availability of plants in village, pre-plantation works, post plantation care
and constant follow-up & monitoring resulted in high survival rates of saplings in Sadguru’s
program.

3. Patterns of plantations :

There are three types of plantations by and large one can find in agro forestry model of
Sadguru. One is Small timber that is promoted as fallow land plantation. Second is firewood
and fodder plantation generally taken on field bunds. The third one is fruit corps largely
planted as homestead so that they can be well protected against grazing and theft (younger
plants and crop of matured plants). As they need initial watering under dry land-farming,
people prefer them nearer to houses so that domestic water can be diverted. Small timber and
other plant varieties are promoted along field bunds, contours and in blocks on fallow lands
and private wastelands. Regular and anticipated hospitalisation, marriage, festivals,
litigation, debts, housing, jewellery, purchase of calf’s, small trading etc., is part of agro
forestry network in household economy. Here plantations largely are of short duration,
relatively high value, and easily disposable varieties.

Chart showing % of species raised in 4

Apart from this, the planting phases.
stocks are ensured as non- 60
grazing varieties when they are 40

far from settlements. Eucalyptus 20

dominates among other tree 0

82-86 87-90 91-96 97-2000
species in preference either by
Small timber Fire wood and others Fruit varieties
women or men till year 2000.
However when families’ timber needs were fulfilled they prefer horticulture as next crop.
Land being most scarce resource here smallest portion is also planted with some kind of
trees.

Based on a study conducted by the author in year 2000 it is evident that people villages used
the small timber varieties largely for house construction and renovation. Energy and fodder
 6
plantations were able to fulfil those needs without depending on forests. Families self-
sufficient in these areas were able to allocate portion of their land for fruit varieties. These
plantations extended from homestead to farm lands on a greater scale in the successive
years. Hence it is the timing of the program that should match with changing community
needs.

Impact of Agro forestry programme on village and

households
Sample % tree cover % house Average cost Range of new % of Fuel
villages in the village holds own of wood sold and renovated wood self
trees in Rs. houses* sufficiency
5OO>

10 32 53 100 000 8 – 130 85

* In some villages more than 200 houses renovated or newly constructed

4. Intensity / scale of tree cropping:

In any given village net returns from the asset/occupation (agriculture) have reduces at
household level as consumption levels are increased with changing economy. Families are
increasingly looking for alternatives to increase their productivity from the available sources
and opportunities. Under these circumstances, in tropical dry lands or hilly lands people
either look forward to income from migration (best choice for skilled) or other productive
activities with in the village.

Analysing the factors influencing large scale forestry uptake - limited access to forestland
and degradation of other commons influenced people to readily adopt intensive tree cropping
on farm lands and fallow lands. On the other hand frequent droughts and risk of crop failure
also motivated farmers
People plant trees….
to shift to forestry
species that are • To maintain supplies of tree products like
firewood, small timber, lumber etc.
resistant to drought.
• To meet growing demand for tree products
like leafs, fruits, bark etc.
The ‘80s study in • To help maintain increased agricultural
productivity in monitory terms
Kenya (Bradley etals • To reduce risk in drought and manage
’85,91) found that household economy.
 7
dense population associated with more not few trees. Smaller the farms, so the denser
were trees per unit area. As farm size became smaller with increasing population density, the
proportion of the farm devoted to tree management increases.

Instead of increasing fuel wood deficit and land degradation following rapid population
growth, Kenyan farmers seem to apply wise and sustainable management practices, including
tree growing (Holmgren etal, 1994). Michael Arnold and Peter Dewees (1998) divided them
in 4 sets of reasons.

A household who owns about 2 acres of land could easily plants 500 to 1000 trees along field
bunds in hilly areas. Apart from this they would also come forward to take up horticulture in
additional ½ acre of land. Farmersopined that substantial plantations could only meet the
increasing needs of the family.

It is also observed that farmers consider parameters like recommended spacing between
plants etc., based on their experience and not expert advice. Based on these experiences once
could consider 3 to 4 lakh seedlings per every village of an average size of 500 hectares over
a period of 3 years. Sadguru apart from banking on its integrated model of NRM approach
followed some of the mathematical modelling to scale up its forestry sector programs.

5. Meeting contingencies through Agro/farm forestry:

The acceptability of afforestation also largely attributes itself to familiy’s strategy to

minimising the risk factor and plan for future. For example, families with relatively large
size, look forward to plantations, to meet the future needs such as children’s marriage,
education,
health etc. For example, in Dahod farmers who adopt Eucalyptus
after the second harvest at 10th year, they shift to
These future
horticulture or other value added crops in the same
needs are well land. Farmers said that the first harvest mainly
used for house construction and sale of surplus
planned at
poles. The second harvest is entirely for sale to
household level meet contingencies or fund social event. However,
contingencies top the priority list in both the
to minimise the harvests. Once family generates enough assets from
risk of ‘debt tree cropping, it moves towards value added farming
that gives annualised yields.
trap’, which
 8
they are aware of. In this case trees are like ‘Mutual Funds’ that have appreciation value
and easy to liquidate.

Apart from this they also provide greater flexibility in risk management as they do even out
seasonal drought, a recurring phenomenon in most tropical dry lands. Agro-forestry takes
care of these socio-economic factors, apart from its impact on soil moisture conservation and
ground water recharge. Hence it is important to understand the factors that influence a
family to adopt particular program.

In a developing economy, easy liquidity is another criterion for popularity of the scheme.
People go for early yielding varieties as their cash reserves are limited and earnings are
subsistence based. To come out of ‘debt trap’ they prefer trees that are short duration with
easy marketability. Any programmes that aim at increasing household productivity should
carefully consider these factors viz., ‘debt’-‘disposable assets’-‘marketability’. Once farmers
sail safely through drought or other contingency they, generally re-plant trees on their own
with out any assistance or subsidy.

6. Market forces and household strategies:

Teakwood at Dahod costs Rs.800 (per

Most of the farm forestry is
primarily to meet household
forest needs like fuel, fruit,
fodder, building material,
agriculture implements and
other forest produce. They are
also used as trading
commodity in developing
countries.
cubic feet) in a registered saw mill and
the same will cost Rs. 500 (per cubic
feet) at Godhra hat is closer to
Reserved Forest. The same teakwood costs
anywhere around 1500 to 2700 in
registered timber depot in Ahmedabad
city located at 150 km. distance. Here
again it would cost around Rs.850 to
procure in black market. The market
value of teak is largely based on
transaction costs rather production
cost. And these transaction costs are
higher under permits and controls Raj.

The only alternative is to leberalise

Quite different from the
predominant notion, local
people largely prefer not to
sell the produce in urban
markets. It is not the difficulty
forestry sector and let people have
fairer chance to grow and sell timber at
fair market price. With this the markets
will develop and enough employment could
also be generated though community
forestry.
 9
in access, but other factors such as internal demand and chances of getting duped by
middle men influenced them to sell locally. Apart from other externalities, it is the available
market in and around village help poor farmers, to sell the produce locally. Low-cost supplies
(through illegitimate means) from natural forests often fulfil the needs of urban or industrial
markets. Forest produce is globally undervalued and often sold at unsustainable prising. Lack
of political will, poor awareness in public and misplaced environmental priorities grossly
undervalued forest trade and hence lost opportunity for poor to sustain their livelihood.

Prise controls, government restrictions on private harvesting, transportation and sale of wood
encourage black markets in urban centres. The wood prise gets further lowered in black
markets as the production cost amounts to nil to a black marketer.

The tragedy of Eucalyptus in Haryana and Punjab of northern India is a standing example of
chaotic markets and misplaced
priorities. Farmers, who adopted
Eucalyptus as commercial
plantation here failed to assess
markets. Yet, the case with many
hilly areas (scheduled) is
somewhat different.
Most of the farm and agro forestry
plantations are evolved out of
livelihood strategies at household
level. Wherever the local forest
resources turned unproductive
Key principles in promoting
community forestry.
• Know peoples priorities in
forestry
• Involve all households of the
village in programme
• Prioritise women leadership
• Institutionalise village forestry
with community dialogue
• Build capacity of local leaders
• Encourage native species
• Programme around women’s need and
priority
• Provide strategic inputs in
personal earnings & investments
• Integrate with other development
activities

community forestry succeeded and established a separate identity. People readily plant
timber varieties and sell to the immediate customer next door who would build a house. The
case is not same in Punjab and Hariyana. They targeted external markets where black
markets rule the roost.

Local market based production system would sustain longer in current circumstances. Once
the demand saturates, people should shift to other local needs to sustain demand and supply
cycle. In this case the risk factors are much under control as household could avoid black
 10
markets in the entire trade cycle. However the practice should change to generate
positive and growth oriented markets in forestry sector. Unless the markets are improved the
uptake of forestry among communities would not be encouraging. It is not just about timber
but also other forest produce also.

7. Suitability of the programme:

Large number of projects has failed to achieve projected results because the design is not
client centred. The programs promoted under unrealistic, risk prone and poorly developed
institutional and socio-economic framework. For example, a Kisan nursery under any
government scheme takes minimum 5 months to get sanctioned. By the time farmer gets
approval he/she misses all due dates for raising nursery and land up with poor survival rates.
Only good institutional linkages with regional offices will help to get it done little earlier.
These projects also impose considerable amount of burden on poor in form of people’s
contribution (on the assumed lines of equity and participation) without assessing he condition
of poorest. Arguably projects fail.

Blame the poor for failure of forestry program and centralise works with high costs is another
trend commonly observed across the country. Most of the rural development programs under
forestry opt for high cost wire fence to protect plantations in commons instead of low cost
social fencing. Social fencing could only fail if the involvement of poor in program is less.
Mismatched priorities of institutions and communities lead to failure of forestry programs.

For example, most of the forestry programmes under food for work in Orisa, in early 80’s
largely failed as the main objective is targeted to mitigate hunger rather plant and survive
trees. As a result the programme nether attained hunger-less society not income for people.
Apart from geophysical factors, market forces, legal constraints (licence & controls) and
administrative failures (Trickle down value of net fund) also badly affected the programme.
Similar the fate of rural development programs like DPAP, EAS and IRDP programmes in
`80s through out the nation (C.H. Hanumanthrao 1994).

8. People’s choice for tree plantation under watershed:

Experience at Sadguru suggests that women often are clear what species they want plant and
for what. They also are aware of the environmental consequences of certain species, positive
or negative. User groups and women groups should be contacted before promoting agro
 11
forestry under any watershed. Species raised of their choice will yield good survival at
nursery level and at plantation sites. People generally know technical parameter like site
suitability and hence their knowledge need not be undervalued.

When people plant trees?

þ When they get trees of their choice

þ When trees are available in village nurseries
þ When they get good market value and
þ When plantation programme continue for more than two years.
þ When they are exposed to pre and post plantations care in training.
þ When they get plants timely and in required number.
þ When the land gets divided among generations.
þ When transaction costs to get and raise nursery are lower.

Why people plant?

þ Trees require less labour than most other crops

þ Trees are also planted where surplus labour is available
þ Trees are planted where land production is marginal and water is scarce.
þ Trees are planted where surplus lands and fallow lands are available
þ Trees are planted to pass on the assets to next generations
þ Trees are planted to cope with contingencies
þ Tree plantation programmes generate seasonal employment.

When people don’t plant trees!

ý When the species are not of their choice
ý When the species are not of economic value
ý When the gestation periods are large
ý When the transaction costs of liquidity are higher and complex
ý When the initial investments are higher
ý When the nurseries are far from plantation sites

9. How subsidies fail and when they work?

Subsidies to offset the establishment and maintenance costs of plantations, in many
cases did not provide desired results. However the initial establishment cost in
 12
forestry programmes were relatively less in comparison to the crops. In many
cases (rather Schemes), farmers plant trees in response to the short-term gains i.e.,
seasonal employment. Subsidies often availed by large farmers (well documented in
many reports on UP forestry programmes under World Bank support in 80s) as the
targets are achieved quickly with fewer transactions, reducing the workload of
supervisors at field level.

However the subsidies are necessary to increase the tree planting stocks every year. It is
wiser to bear the cost of plants in agro and farm forestry models rather to manage plantations
under state social owned forests. The experiences suggest that not only earning the hard cash,
but also reinvesting this sum in other productive assets like Water pumps, Tractor, Floor mill,
bullocks etc., to further boost their agriculture productivity. Should this minimal subsidy
erased, we are loosing the battle against poverty. We will also loose our battle when we
divert these small amounts from
NGOs to State administered
For example, it costs Rs. 3 (6.8
forests, where the farmers get cents) to raise a seedling under
agro or farm forestry model. And
nothing but uncertain daily wages.
the same costs the state not less
than Rs. 15 (34 cents). It is
expensive for the State to manage
So what kind of trade off, a policy
social forestry or community
maker disposes when s/he forestry under its control or
ownership. Secondly the resulting
promotes centralised state assets directly benefit people who
managed programmes to that of raise them. SWDF experience
reveals that local people earned
bottom up programme suggested up to Rs. 100 000 ($2275) in a
by NGOs. Global players in period of 10 years per family with
an initial investment of Rs. 3600
development like World Bank, ($82) on agro forestry pattern.
UNDP, Asian Development Bank This productivity can not be
achieved with out subsidy as poor
should seriously consider these farmer can not invest $82
experiences from grassroots before initially.

they embark decisions relating to subsidies/grants in some sectors.

Many argue on how far making the planting stock available at less cost is justified? " In
many cases the actual costs of raising and managing planting stocks are distorted by
subsidies to keep the overall cost low to attract greater subsidies. However the question
remains whether the planting stocks are really subsidised? How much a nursery raised earns
 13
and how much the planter earns? Even if the plantations are subsidies, how much they
receive at the end? This is again a major cause of resentment to subsidies, as the amount
eventually does not reach the poor. Then, should we change the programme approach and
make administration more accountable, put in checks and balances, and increase participation
of NGOs and communities or withdraw subsidies?

The probable answer could be to enhance the service delivery mechanism, improvising the
project designs and decentralise execution. Experiences through out the country suggest that,
afforestation promoted through NGOs succeeded far better than that executed through
regular administrative channels for the above reasons. Success of many watershed projects in
early 90s in different
states substantiate SWDF Forestry sector mile stones:
this fact that 1982 Free seedling distribution from
decentralised, forest nurseries
community centred 1987 Decentralised nurseries in villages
micro watersheds are 1991 Decentralised women nurseries with
more accountable and separate bank accounts
result oriented than 1993 Introduction of Joint Forest
conventional soil Management
conservation 1995 Decentralised women nurseries with

approaches adopted capacity building inputs

by States directly. 1997 Introduction of Women Horticulture

Here the role of Orchards

NGOs must be 1999 Initiation of networking forum

recognised. “CDEF”.

In light of above argument, the general assumption that 'subsidies benefit only rich and never
reach poor' (and hence scrape them) seems illogical. As the focus of desired change should
subscribe to decentralised delivery mechanism and greater value (appreciation) of the
‘subsidy’ amount at beneficiary level rather amount of subsidy allocated at central level.
There are large number of small village institutions, groups and NGOs who sincerely deliver
the services at low cost. If bureaucracy doesn’t deliver it effectively then these mechanisms
should be adopted.
 14
10. Why many tree grower societies failed and how?

Trees in farming system should be seen as integral part of household needs and livelihood
strategies for survival. However many interventions responded to economic changes in
demand and supply of wood and its subsidiaries. "Many forestry projects were a response to
a perceived energy supply problem, rather than to real local needs for trees and tree
products". In third world countries markets (timber and non-timber forest produce) are often
volatile and often controlled by invisible forces that are outside the legal framework of
governance.

This has abandoned many innocent tree grower societies to enter the markets. With this the
purpose of such societies was at stake where they could neither bear the losses not regulate
the market. The NDDB experiences in Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, attempts by
VIKSAT(NGO) in NTFP in Gujarat are some of the recent examples on these lines. Apart
from this, common land as prime resource to promote community forestry succumbed to
encroachments, litigation and long drawn administrative procedures for procurement. As a
result the scope for initiation of any activity under tree grower co-operatives itself has
narrowed.

Many governments’ control the commercial sale of private forest products also. Permits to
harvest transport and sell wood resulted in cumbersome and costly bureaucratic procedures
and involved middlemen who have the skills and resources to navigate the procedure. This
resulted in complex, uncertain and distorted markets where fairer production and market
failed flatly. However local, internal trading with in villages continued based on outside
market values as benchmark. This has resulted in good markets for households involved in
agro-forestry and who never thought of collective marketing at local level.

11. Hurdles in promoting community forestry :

Deceptive markets and political interference in tree subsidies: "Prices of fuel-wood in urban
markets are frequently kept low, for the same reasons of political gain that lead government
to keep urban food prices artificially low". On the other hand forest produce sold by the state
forest departments far below the actual costs say a bamboo prised at @ Rs.1/- to the
authorised contractor or villager, where it costs about Rs.15, in open markets. Neither the
 15
prising of State Forest Development Corporations not local markets is hold true when we
calculate its actual costs of production and fair transactions.

The situation can improve and markets become more transparent only when the farm
production substitutes the current state owned forest produce. With this the markets could
become relatively open where product can get real value. This could also result in
rationalising subsidies. Subsidies based on deceptive market values often hamper the real
cost of production and proportional losses are burdened on the farmers where many of his/her
services are counted as "free services". Which in fact costs much higher than the subsidy s/he
gets to raise the planting stocks?

There is however fair scope exists to promote commons under watershed approach as long as
they cater to local demands and potential to supply. “In common based regime the
management of land is a community affair. Scarcity of land and its resulting hardship tend to
be a shared phenomenon, because the survival of all depends upon no one putting any one
else in the community at risk… This does not mean that every one is equal in commons.
Gender cast and class inequalities for instance certainly exists both between households and
with in households. In general however, a rough equity prevails in which every one has some
degree of bargaining power. (Nicholas Hildyard 1997)

12. Deceptive targets & poor quality:

High targets in forestry plantations resulted in ‘poor quality’ programme. Number of

seedlings planted is often seriously counted but not the survival rates. Many times the
quantity also influenced the technical standards that need to be maintained and practised at
nursery level. Lack of extension services on regular basis and too much centralised
management resulted in failures. There is need for flexibility, in programme implementation.
It is general political atmosphere that pressurises officials in bureaucracy to achieve targets
(often financial) not getting too concerned about results. This virus inflicted the entire system
right from central Ministries to the last official in chain- village extension officer. Yearly
fund allocation by Finance Ministry depends on how much the ministry spent last fiscal year
but not how much it achieved or what result’s it has derived with last years’ budget. The
same flows down to district level. With this the targets tend to get unrealistic.
 16
To avoid this, bottom up approach where village micro plans decide how many trees they
will grow and what varieties they prefer. The watershed approach can care these factors
under participatory planning.

13. Role of Extension:

Extension services in species choice, range, market forces, programme system will help a
long way in promoting forestry under watershed model. Flexibility in responding to the needs
of farmers who are involved in the programme will also add to the success. Most of the
foresters believe in the myth that unless some material or financial incentive is offered to the
villagers, they will never take up forest conservation. Some foresters have no clear idea about
how to involve the community and how to build a bridge of trust at local level. (S B Roy
1998).

In a programmatic mode, these practices often need to be reviewed, debated and evolved
with people in the form of trainings, exposures and meetings. This will give the programme
continuity and people also relate to the programme in much better way. In contrast to this
approach in many not so successful PFM/JFM programmes, commitment and involvement of
junior level staff in State departments with people is less visible. Some times the ‘Samiti’
(institution) formed to manage community forestry maintains the same old advisory attitude
leading to rapid and drastic decline in effectiveness. Training and orientation courses for staff
on new strategies need to be regularly organised. (R K Gvardhan etal 1996)

Trainings at Sadguru in community forestry*

Experiences at Sadguru indicate that training and exposure to nursery raisers, planters,
extension agents, foresters, and even Range Officers helps in programme success. People

Subject (Year 2000) No.of Total training Participants

Trainings days female male total
Nursery raiser technical and 08 08 304 101 405
Awareness camps
Staff development workshops 11 11 0037 0061 0098
Village environmental camps 10 10 0178 0132 0310
Exposure visits to other areas 07 07 0193 0037 0230
Regional Training/ workshops for11 26 0245 0339 0584
GO & NGO partners
Technical input camps 20 20 2073 0573 2646
(post plantation)
Co-operative management 16 16 0540 0143 0683
Camps and Trainings
Total 83 98 3570 1386 4956
 17
understand their environment better, feel to contribute, negotiate to further the cause and
organises with in themselves once they see similar efforts elsewhere. Training provides them
constant inputs on ways to raise quality seedlings? Their rights as nursery raisers/planters.
What are their responsibilities with in the immediate environment? Interaction between the
officials and people on training course also creates mutually amicable environment where
each one is obliged to respect other point of view.

14. Data base & Monitoring:

Data need to be pooled at district level on sample basis to observe the trend of vegetation and
its impact on community. This could be on Aerial photographic coverage, satellite imagery
of different periods, secondary data on agroecological regions, land use systems, conditions
of wealth and market access, monitoring, evaluation, household and regional surveys,
involving people at planning and decision making level. Baseline and Impact surveys feed
the program from time to time to monitor the progress and measure the impact. The results of
such data analysis should feed back into the district level governing council for yearly plans.
Implementing agencies should adopt sample surveys to monitor community needs, natural
resource condition and market forces. This should be done on regular basis with the help of
district administration.

Generally the data collected is not strictly analysed and findings are not incorporated in to the
programmes as feed back. With this the data so collected remains in store, or some times lost
forever. At Sadguru, such data is processed and analysed to measure the impact of the
programme and also draw feedback to make necessary changes in programme strategies.
Apart from this regular and continuous photo documentation has also been maintained to
measure record the impact of programme. This information stored digitally to retain on long
term basis.
Staff and external research institutions, to assess and record the impact, document case
studies on varied experiences in field, and trends in programme on constant basis. This helps
in reviewing and understanding the programme better.
This is an important consideration that needs to be strictly confined to, by all the
implementing agencies, so that the programme will ultimately succeed.

00000