CHAPTER - II

AN OVERVIEW OF THE

SOCIAL FORESTRY PROGRAMMES

 The word 'Forest* means 'Out of doors' and

etymologically it is 'a large uncultivated tract of land covered

1
with trees.' In the British Common Wealth Forest terminology

Forest is defined as "a plant community predominantly of trees

2
and other woody vegetation usually with closed canopy." The

Forest in India has been described as 'an area set aside for

the production of timber and other forest produce or maintained

3
under woody vegetation for certain direct and indirect benefits."

The forest is a plant formation consisting of trees growing close

together and forming a layer of foliage that largely shades the

ground.

Legally Forest is "an area notified and covered under

4
Indian Forest Act." This does not indicate the presence of

trees etc., in the area, but the hidden object is to manage

the area for the purpose not other than the forest. Forest

land as defined by Food and Agricultural Organisation in 1963,

"All lands bearing vegetative association dominated by trees of

any size, exploited or not, capable of producing wood or other

forest products, or exerting an influence on the climate or

water regime or providing shelter for livestock and wild life,11-

 15

Another definition provided by the Society of

American Foresters explains "the scientific management

0
of forests for the continuous production of goods and services."

Inview of the protective, productive importance of

the global respective environment and economic systems, there

has been a serious and sincere move in the promotion, conserva­

tion and administration of forests from local-regional to global

scales. In these essential endeavours several forestry

programmes have been promoted in different parts of the world.

Social Forestry Programme is one among them.

The Evolution of Social Forestry Concept

The concept of Social Forestry is not alien to the

Country as it has been preached since the times of Lord Buddha

though it was not properly implemented. King Ashoka ordered

the complete planatation of trees by roadsides for providing

shade for travellers. The Britishers have also been eulogised

for the fact that during their administration they devoted much
7
to the development of forests.

During Chandra Gupta Maurya's period forests were

specifically kept apart for public use. Social Forestry meant

A
thatpeople could use forest resources freely without any

restriction. Free access and use of forest resources continued

 16

In the Mughal era. However, the royality imposed levy on the

O

cutting of trees to earn revenue for the kingdom, :

If one can examine the evolutionary process of the

population, it appears that the concept of Social Forestry is not

a new one to the mankind, the society and the Nation as a

whole. The beautification of ashrams of sages by shady and

flowering plants, the avenue plantation carried out by emperor

Ashoka, the development of kitchen gardens and the development

of village groves, temple groves serve as examples of the tree

awareness of the people in the past.

Social Forestry is a concept still in an evolutionary

stage. It still lacks a precise definition. A large number of

terms connected with Social Forestry have come into existence.

They are Community-. Forestry, Farm - Forestry, Agro-Forestry

etc. Whatever may be the term the essence of Social Forestry

is to make the Country tree-conscious, make the tree-culture

and love for trees a way of life. The mass awakening that has

come as a result of extensive Social Forestry Programmes must

be sustained and the movement supported and expanded till it

becomes a people's movement.

These Forestry development programmes have different

names in different Countries. They are Social Forestry (India),

Village Forestry (Senegal), Co-operative Forestry (South Korea),

 17

Agro-Forestry {Phillippines) and Fuel wood Management

(Honduras), The United States Agency for International

Development refers to many of these endeavours as

Farm-Forestry, while Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)

groups all these programmes under the title of

Community-Forestry.g

These terms are often used synonymously and loosely.

But they are by no means equivalent, as some describe concepts

and objectives, while others only indicate techniques of afforesta­

tion. it is therefore essential to define Social Forestry and

to delineate essential components of Social Forestry systems at

the outset.

Social Forestry - Definition

Social Forestry has gained World-wide popularity.

But Social Forestry as a concept and practice has remained

vague to lay persons as well as to forestry professionals who

11
implement Social Forestry Programmes. The phrase "Social

Forestry" was used for the first time in 1968. In the words of

Forest Scientist, Westoby "Social Forestry is a forestry which

aims at producing the flow of protection and recreation benefits

12
for the community."

National Commission on Agriculture (NCA) in 1976 has

defined Social Forestry as "that aspect of forestry which deals

 18

primarily with the rural society and its immediate requirement

like fuel, small timber, fodder, protection against wind and

water erosion as different from traditional forestry which keeps

in view the basic concept of national needs in relation to

industry, defence, power generation, watershed management for

multipurpose river valley projects and other protective needs." 13

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (1978)

has defined community forestry, "as any situation which closely

14
involves local people in a forestry activity."

Srivastava and Pant (1979) have opined that, "Social

Forestry is a new concept of forest creation, management and

utilization of goods and services generated there from for the

15
benefit of the society."

Lantican (1982) has defined Social Forestry as, a

"branch of forestry which deals with the involvement of people

in forestry activities that are designed to promote the

socio-economic well being of the people themselves as well as

16
the conservation of the soil, water and other forest resources."

Tiwari (1983) has defined Social Forestry as, "the

science and art of growing trees and/or other vegetation on all

available land and managing the existing forests with intimate

involvement of people with a view to provide a wide range of

1 '
goods and services to the individuals as well as to the society."
 19

Bachketi (1984) has defined, "Social Forestry as an

activity concerned with tree plantation in and around human

habitation, the objective being to make available within easy

reach the basic needs of the inhabitants with respect to wood,

fuel, fruits, and fodder and to restore a deteriorating ecological

balance." ^

Pelinck et. al., (1984) have described, "Community

forestry as an activity of development of awareness, knowledge

and responsibility for forestry in communities that will benefit

19
from the presence of near by forests and trees."

Weirsum (1984) has referred Social Forestry, "to all

professional forestry activities that aim specifically at the

participation of local people in forest management and at the

fulfilment of the forest related needs and aspirations of these

i „20
people."

Foley and Bernard, (1984) called Social Forestry as,

"Farm-forestry and community - forestry" and stated its aim as

"to help to solve their own wood supply problems, meet their

own needs, and preserve the environment in which they live by

21
planting trees on their farms and around their villages."

Cernea, (1985) has stated that, "Social Forestry

programmes are defined to trigger cultural change in the

 20

behaviour of large number of people with respect to the

22
planting and protection of trees."

Noronha and Spears (1985) have stated that, "the

essence of the Social Forestry Programmes lies in the word

"Social" that is, the programmes serve local needs through the
active involvement of the beneficiaries in the design and
implementation of the reforestation efforts and the sharing of
the forest produce. They differentiate Social Forestry from
conventional forestry by stating that it covers "non-monetized"
sector of the economy, involves direct participation of
beneficiaries, and implies different attitudes and skills on the
part of forests who have shed their role as protectors of

forests against the people.

Hadley, (1988) has viewed that "Social Forestry as

an "Extension-Forestry" which is an informal, needs oriented
educational process, carried out through individual and small
group communications, and characterized by audience
participation." 24

To avoid the controversies arising often by attempts

at apt definitions, Vergara has summarized the characteristics
of Social Forestry as follows: "Social Forestry is a small-scale
land use operation ranging from pure forestry to integrated agro-
forestry, and planned and implemented by individual farmers or
communities to yield products and services for their primary
 21

use and benefits. The land use of Social Forestry Programmes

could be sole-owned, community-or-class-owned or Government

25
controlled but made accessible to farmers."

A critical examination of the above definitions and

explanations on Social Forestry reveals that subtle differences

exist in the scope, objectives and approaches of this concept.

For instance, National Commission on Agriculture (NCA) (1976),

specified it under privileged section of the community as the

priority target group, while Westoby, Pelinck et.al., (1984),

focussed on the overall community. Noronha and Spears,

(1985), restrict their definition to only those forestry activities

that cover "non-monetized sector." In many Social Forestry

Programmes commercial farm-forestry is a major component,

Gujarat Social Forestry Programmes (India) being the best

example for this. In their objectives Westoby, NCA (1976) and

Bachketi (1984) limited their definitions to environmental

benefits, and fuel, fodder, fruits and small timber availability,

where as FAO's (1978) definition encompasses the whole range

of situations from planting trees to processing of forest products,

and from subsistence to commercial forestry. In Westoby's,

NCA's (1976) and Bachketi's (1984) definitions "people

participation" was not expressed explicitly and paternalism was

implicit in them. In Pelinck et. al, (1984), Cemea's (1984)

and Hadley's (1988) definitions educational approaches were

 22

specified. These were meant to develop awareness and

knowledge, and for behavioural change in people.

In all the definitions given by the Scholars and

Organisations, certain common elements are noticed and they are:

the people, their requirements, and their participation. It is

also understood that Social Forestry is not just a technique but

interlinked with the process of socio-economic change. To sum

up: Social Forestry is an activity of tree growing and

harvesting and processing either exclusively or in combination

with food and fodder crops, either individually or

organisationally, either intensively or extensively by involving

and participating the people with the objective of meeting their

needs, either subsistence or commercial or environmental

protection.

Distinction Between Social Forestry and Other Forestry concepts

Farm Forestry concerns itself with planting of trees

by people on lands owned by them. These include:

(a) Planting on bunds of agricultural fields,

(b) Interplanting and

(c} Block planting, etc.

The aim here is to grow trees for providing timber, to meet

the requirement of small timber and to earn revenue by selling

 23

of the produce. Social Forestry on the other hand includes:

(a) All farm forestry activities listed above.

(b) Afforestation of village common lands.

(c) Rehabilitation of barren and waste lands.

(d) Reclamation of saline and alkaline soils, and

(e) Planting of trees along roads, canals, and railway

lines.

It recognised and aims at meeting the three-dimen­

sional needs of fruit, fuelwood and fodder of rural people.

Community forestry on the other hand concerns itself

with afforestation of village common lands with people's

participation. It was generally observed that people take

interest in farm-forestry practices as they consider it themselves

to be the sole owners of the receiving benefits. On the other

hand some people looked upon the benefits of other Social

Forestry Programmes as belonging to Government and themselves

being denied the benefits which they thought rightfully belonged

to them.

The concept of Community Forestry unites Government

and private interests in a compatible set of objectives. The

conservation of forests and development of the rural people, a

Governmental objective and raising the income of rural people

26
and provision of adequate fuelwood, fodder, etc.
 24

The conceptual differences between Farm-Forestry,

Social Forestry and Community Forestry from the view point of

Government and as envisioned by rural people are summarised in

the following Table. 2:1.

TABLE 2'. 1 : CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES AMONG OTHER TFRMS

OF FORESTRY

Concept Farm Forestry Social Forestry Community Forestry

Type of Private land Govt, lands and Village common

Lands used holdings private lands lands

Type of Commercially Species that Species that provide

trees salable, quick provide fuel wood small timber, fuel-
planted growing fodder, selection wood and fodder.
usually done by Emphasis on broad
Forest Dept. leaved local species
chosen by people
themselves

Objective Self oriented Achieving the Community includ­

oriented State 8 People's ing exclusively
objectives poor
Initia­ By individuals By Government Community facilitator
tive
taken

Role of Provide benefits Provide indige­ Increase supply of

trees for industrial nous use and fuelwood, fodder,
or indigenous use maintain ecolo­ etc., for local
gical balance consumption
 25

Characteristics of Social Forestry

Social Forestry is designed to meet the bona fide needs

of the rural people as opposed to the needs of the industry

and the urban elites. Social Forestry in its broad sense is

27
community forestry development characterised by:

1) Involvement of the beneficiaries from the planning stage .

2) Production of consumption goods such as fuel, fodder,

timber, bamboos and small timber.

3) Putting the community lands to such uses.

4) Following mixed production system, i.e., gross,

fodder, fruits etc.

5) Introducing minimal Government control by involving

local people in protection, management and distribution

of benefits, and

6) By providing inputs (funds, materials and labour) by

the Government, Panchayats, Voluntary contributions

etc., and Tribal development department.

Need for Social Forestry

Forests have traditional links with human life in the

form of fulfilling the people's need. Trees are for people, for

their food, medicines, fuel, fodder, climate for the

 26

preservation of the eco-system and even as a means of

generating income.

The rate of deforestation or the felling of trees for

diverse purposes has caused concern to environmentalists and

Governments all over the World. It has been estimated that 17

million hectares are deforested every year leading to a vicious

cycle of less rainfall,less food, soil-erosion, and increased

pressure on the available land.

Estimates show that 2000 million people are

dependent on fuel wood for cooking their food. Timber exports

from Developing Countries were worth of 13,400 millions in.

1989. Forest based industries employ 30 million people in

India. Forest foods become crucial, seasonal foods for the

'hungry' periods andlivestock are increasing in number but

the area available for grazing is being reduced on account of

conversion to agriculture.

The World population is already put at 5,000

millions, and is expected to rise to 8,500 millions by 2025

A.D. The demand for feeding more from fast depleting land

resources will be difficult to meet food production, especially

in the Developing Countries, should expand by 60 per cent to

match the demand.28 In this context the role of trees becomes

crucial. They protect the environment by reducing erosion and

 27

replenishing the soil by replacing nutrients used by crops.

The conservation and development of forest resources and the

integration of trees in agriculture are simple and effective

means to meet the essential needs of the rural people.

In the name of economic development and progress,

man has, over the Centuries, meddled with nature and there by

disturbed the ecological balance. As it has been very rightly

pointed by Gilbert that, "Man is nature's sole mistake," he

has polluted the water, air, land, ocean, atmosphere etc.,

29
through indiscriminate use of the natural resources.

Cutting trees also contributes to global warming or

the Green House Effect. The Sun's rays pass through the

atmosphere to the earth's surface where they radiate as

infrared rays. Some rays are trapped by Corbon-dioxide

emitted into theatmosphere by burning fossil fuels such as

oil, natural gas, and coal. Trees and green plant life
30
naturally absorb Carbon-dioxide for photosynthesis. When

forests decline, the Carbon-dioxide level in the atmosphere

increases, trapping more infrared rays and raising earth

temperature. It is predicted by Scientists that the average

global temperature may rise by two to five degree C during the

next Century. ^

Forests store Carbon. It is released in places

where trees are stripped. Scientists believe that the release

 28

of Carbon and other gases contributes to global warming and

climatic deterioration. The effects include a rise in sea

levels, changes in wind and ocean currents and of accumulations

of ice and snow on polar caps, frequent severe storms, and

variations in the range of disease bearing organism. To-day

mankind is facing a grave threat to their survival due to fast

depletion of the Ozone layer in the atmosphere due to air

pollutants like Chloro-Fluro Carbons. Ruthless exploitation of

natural resources created deserts, droughts and famines. The

Carbon-dioxide and Chloro-Fluro Carbons have all resulted in

the increase in the incidence of cancer of all kinds, blindness

32
and skin diseases. So there is a growing emphasis on

afforestation programmes and the drive to plant more trees.

Governmental and Non-Governmental Organisations all over the

World have taken up Social Forestry Programmes. The concept

of Social Forestry has been popularised by touching the

economic side of the rural poor. The people living

immediately around these new forests stand to gain financially

by protecting the trees first and then using them as fuel or

sellling them to eke out a living.

Social Forestry and its Components

An interesting part which needs to be clarified to

sharpen the understanding of the Social Forestry concept is to

identify its different components. Although there exist some

 29

disagreements as to what really constitutes the practice of

Social Forestry, a review of the literature on this subject is

also considered necessary to distinguish the concept from other

labels associated with it, some of them being community

forestry, village forestry, extension forestry, rural forestry,

etc., With increasing attention given to Social Forestry,

perhaps it is also high time to treat these terms separately to

avoid confusion.

Although as early as 1979 this was already

implicitly suggested by Srivastava and Pant (1979), in more

recent literature about the subject, it is becoming clear that

Social Forestry is an all-encompassing or generic term to

include community forestry, village forestry, rural forestry

etc. Since these practices have, as a common denominator, a

"Social" approach to forestry, Kirchhofer and Mercer (1984)

suggest that these are better regarded as typologies/categories

of Social Forestry rather than its equivalent.

Specifically, they suggest the following as typologies

of Social Forestry based on programmes being implemented by

some Countries.^

(A) Those Requiring Collective Action

1) National Canpaigns This includes raising the level of

awareness of the benefits oftree planting and

 30

celebration of National tree planting days (India,

Gambia and Senegal).

2) Special Interest Group Activities This ranged from

the collection of some amount by urban women to pay

rural women or handicapped individuals to plant and

care for trees for a given period of time (Kenya) to

voluntary tree planting activities of civic organisations,

school group, etc., (Senegal and India).

3) Community Forestry This is directed at better adminis­

tration of village woodlots, the designation of parcels

of public (State) forests as community forests, the

reforestation of degraded public forest lands, the

afforestation of wastelands, and the development of

village level forest product, cottage, and artisan

industries to improve the living standards of the

villages. The primary characteristics of community

forestry activities include collective decision making

and action, and the sharing of benefits and costs by

the community as a whole.

(B) Trees for residential areas (or) Homestead Plantation

This component of Social Forestry encourages

individuals or families to plant trees around homes (China) and

other private lands in both rural and urban areas (India). It

 31

includes entrusting the establishment and care of particular

trees along avenues in residential areas to individual families

(India).

(C) Contractual Programme

This is based on contractual relationship between

landless farmers and an outside entity (Forest Departments or

Private Companies) for landless families to reforest degraded

forest lands with a fixed salary, supply of building materials,

minor forest products and promise of a share from the net

profit of the harvest at the end of a given period of time

(India).

On the other hand, HSiersum (1984) proposes the

following as specific activities within the confines of Social

Forestry.

1) Participatary Forestry This relates to forest administra­

tion planned by professional forestry services in which

popular participation with the administration of centrally

controlled forest land is encouraged, but the prime

responsibility for administration still rests with

Forestry Department.

2) Village Forestry This relates to the small-scale admini­

stration of forest and tree resources practiced by non-

professionally trained people, either or private or

 32

public forest lands. In such village forestry profe­

ssionals and foresters may have an advisory role

but not an executory one. The planning and execu­
tion of forest administration can be carried out either
by private persons or by some form of cooperative
or communal effort.

3) Communal Forestry This is a form of village forestry

in which forest administration practices are carried

out as a communal effort.

4) Farmer's Forestry This relates to a form of village

forestry in which the administration of tree resources
is the responsibility of the private farmer.

Implicit in their formulation of a cost-benefit-

analysis framework for Social Forestry, Srivastava and Pant
(1979) also provided the following classified schemes.

i) Farm Forestry,

ii) Rural or Extension Forestry, and

iii) Urban Forestry.

(i) Farm Forestry This relates to raising rows of trees on

the bunds and boundaries of fields and individual areas in
private agricultural lands, agro-forestry on marginal and sub­
marginal lands, and shelterbelts.
 33

(ii) Rural or Extension Forestry This relates to raising block

plantations of fuelwood, fodder, fruit, small timber on village

wastelands, Government Porambokes, grazing lands, roadsides,

railwaylines and canal banks.

(iii) Urban Forestry Urban Forestry, on the other hand, is

directed to the aesthetic development of urban areas through

the planting of flowering shrubs and trees with ornamental

characteristics.

Slade and Noronha (1984) reported that Social

Forestry in India is being implemented with the following

components.

(i) Farm Forestry Under this scheme tree planting is under­

taken by individual households or cooperatives usually working

on privately owned or rented land.

(ii) Resettlement It differs from farm forestry only in that

the Government has granted title or leases to public, land

for the specific purpose of tree farming to the landless, the

urban unemployed or people displaced as a result of other

programmes.

(iii) Village Woodlots Under this small plantation on communal

or Government lands, operated by or onbehalf of the village

generally for the benefit ofthe villaga as a whole, and are

 34

usually intended to provide preferential treatment to the

underprivileged.

(iv) Strip Plantation This denotes establishment of tree planta­

tions on narrow areas along the sides of roads and railroads

or on the banks of rivers, tanks and canals established by

the Forest Department with similar objectives to village

woodlots.

(v) Reforestation This denotes replanting or rehabilitation of

relatively large blocks of forest or public lands, which have

been severely degraded and which are often in environmentally

critical areas. Reforestation is not Social Forestry if it is

primarily a Government activity without significant involve­

ment of local people.

Certainly, these suggested components of Social

Forestry are by no means complete nor mutually exclusive.

The need to combine some components that are seemingly similar

to arrive at a more comprehensive classification scheme is

also apparent. But be that as it may, the proposition that

Social Forestry is an all - encompassing term to include

community forestry, rural forestry and other labels associated

with it seem to be justified.

 35

Major Objectives of the Social Forestry Programmes

The major objectives of Social Forestry Programmes

have been classified under three heads, namely (1) Production,
(2) Rural Development and (3) Ecological Improvement. ^

(1) Production

In the process of obtaining several products, the

Social Forestry Programmes have been concentrating on the
following.

1. To satisfy wholly or partly some of the basic needs

of the rural people like small timber, fuelwood and
fodder.

2. To produce raw material for cottage industries.

3. To generate marketable surplus of forest products to

yield cash incomes and improve the consumption level
of the village poor.

4. To increase crop yield through appropriate agro­

forestry models, and

5. To enhance yields of edible flowers, tubers, and other

minor forest products.
 36

(2) Rural Development

In this perspective the main emphasis has been laid

on the following.

1. To create additional gainful employment for the rural

poor with an accent On women and to develop self-

employment activities related to forestry programmes.

2. To improve income for the weaker sections of the

village community.

3. To create new assets which can form a part of village

based cottage-industry or which can be incorporated

in the existing forest based economic system.

4. To introduce sustained basis systems for common

property resources managed by the village community

which strengthens the benefit of storing mechanism and

local decision-making process.

5. To increase the participation of landless, small and

marginal farmers in the administration of common

property resources, and

6. To help and develop tribal intensive areas.

(3) Ecological Improvement

It includes the following.

1. Protection and improving the soil.

 37

2. Reclaiming degraded forest lands,

3. Decreasing pressure on natural forests; and

4. Providing stability to environment and inturn

maintain the ecological balance.

Role of Social Forestry Programmes

The Social Forestry Programmes envisage planting of

trees mainly outside the forest areas to meet the people's

demand for fodder, fuelwood, and small timber. It is mostly

a self-propelling, self-sustaining, and self-reliance programme

of the people. It is a programme of mass production wherein

masses produce a small quantity to meet their requirements

by their own effort. Particularly, the small and marginal

farmers would organise themselves to use their marginal lands

in an effective manner through agro-forestry or farm-forestry.

To assist these people, the Government and Ouasi-Governments

would provide the financial, technological, and marketing

support. There is no exception to even land-lords who can

replace high - risk and high-input agricultural crops by less-

risky and high - land rent value tree crops for industrial

purposes. The Social Forestry aims at tree planting as

everybody's interest rather than the effort of the Forest

Department alone. It also envisages the involvement of Social

organisations like Educational Institutions, Public Sector

Undertakings, National Service Scheme (NSS), Mahila Mandals,

Voluntary Organizations etc., Social Forestry is a programme

 38

of the people, by the people, and for the people. By all

themeans, the development of Social Forestry certainly

provides a sustainable economic base for rural development.

It also acts as a significant contributor towards environmental

protection. Social Forestry will generate sustainable

employment of the right type in the right place and at the

right time leading to reduction of migration substantially.

Social Forestry would become a potent and powerful instrument

for ushering an economic, social and environmental revolution

in the rural areas.

The Strategy of the Social Forestry Programme

To protect the forest cover at optimal level and to

restore ecological balance, conservation and afforestation are

the strategies. Conservation of all natural resources have

come to mean wise administration to ensure "the greatest good

35
for the greatest number over the largest time."

The strategy implied major emphasis on the village

approach i.e., villagers shall participate and that the

resources created shall belong to the villages and should be

shared, regenerated and expanded by everybody.

If private plantations are produces mainly to meet

the needs of industries, public plantations are produced to

meet the other needs of the society.

 39

The satellite mapping by the National Remote Sensing

Agency (NRSA) reported recently that in the seven year period

between 1972-75 to 1980-82, India lost about 10 million

hectares of forests (16.52 per cent) which comes to 1.5 million

hectares per year. This shows the gravity of the problem

of deforestation.

The NRSA study shows that degraded forests increased

from 2.67 per cent to 3.06 per cent, while the closed forests

dropped from 14.12 per cent to 10.96 per cent.

Though the Government claims that about 23 per cent

(about 75.0 million hectares) of the total geographical area

of the Country is under the control of Forest Department

against the recommendation of 33 per cent by the National

Forest Policy (1952), NRSA reported that during 1972-75 the

area under actual forests in the Country was only 16.89 per

cent of the total land area (328.8 million hectares) and by

1980-82, the forest cover had gone down to even 14.12 per

cent.

However, Table 2.2 reveals that in terms of propor­

tion the States and Union Territories which already had a

low forest coverage suffer most. Thus, Punjab list over half

of the forest cover that existed in 1972-75, and Rajasthan,

Gujarat and Haryana nearly half States like, Himachal Pradesh

and Jammu and Kashmir lost over one-third of their forest

 40

cover, while Maharashtra a quarter and West Bengal and Tamil

Nadu over a fifth.^

TABLE 2.2 FOREST COVER IN INDIA

State/Union Total Forest Area in Change in Forest

Territories Sq. Km. Area in Sq.Km.

1972-75 1980-82 Total Forest

Andhra Pradesh 49049 40435 (-) 8614

Assam 21055 19796 (-) 1259
Bihar 22607 20139 (-) 2548
Gujarat 9459 5057 {-) 4402
Haryana 757 401 (-) 356
Himachal Pradesh 15075 9130 {-) 5945
Janmu 8 Kashmir 22335 14361 (-) 7974
Karnataka 29480 25655 (-) 3825
Kerala 8611 7376 (-) 1235
Madhyapradesh 108568 90215 (-) 18353
Maharashtra 40682 30350 (-) 10332
Manipur 15090 13572 (-) 1518
Meghalaya 14390 12450 (-) 1932
Nagaland 8154 8095 (-) 59
Tripura 6330 5130 (-) 1192
Orissa 48383 39425 (-) 8958
Punjab 8
Chandigarh 1120 499 (-) 621
Rajasthan 11294 5972 (-) 5322
Tami1 Nadu 16676 13187 (-) 3489
Uttar Pradesh 25869 21022 (-) 4847
West Bengal 8347 6483 (-) 1864
Sikkim 1761 2883 (+) 1122
Arunachal Pradesh 51438 58104 (+) 6666
Delhi 18 10 (-) 8
Goa, Daman 8 Diu 1221 1139 (-) 82
Mi zoram 13860 11971 (-) 1889

Total 551709 462873 (-) 103404

 43
79510

Cur forests, essential for human survival and sustainable

development are increasingly being depleted and destroyed. At

the same time human demand for this remarkable resource is

growing fast. It is estimated that at the present rate of

clearance anddenudation, the remaining area of productive

tropical forest will be halved before the end of this Century.

Forests, like othe,p living resources, "have two important

properties, the combination of which distinguishes them from

non-living resources: they are renewable if conserved; and

37
they are destructible if not." Thus the conservation and

development of tree crops wherever possible, to yield the

greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while

maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations

of future generations, is the cry of the day.

A time has come when the Forest Department has to

re-orient its policy and look at forestry in a totally new

approach, in which forest officials play a multipurpose role

in not merely protecting the existing forests, and growing

industrial woods, but also in planting more trees on every

available land in the interest of common man.

The increasing contribution of forest sector to GNP

is at the cost of deforestation, which is a serious threat

to the entire eco system. Hence, the National Commission

on Agriculture (1976) in its report recommended to increase

S.K. UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

ANANTAPUR-51 5 003
 42

the forest cover through afforestation. The Eighth Five Year

Plan draft on "Agricultural Policy Resolution" also stresses

the need for the increase of the forest resources through

Social, Farm - Forestry to maintain environmental balance.

Further, farmers will be encouraged to take up Social Forestry

as an income-generating programme and to use effectively in

QQ
the marginal lands. Therefore, it has become necessary

to take the forests nearer to the people. The need for Social

Forestry Programmes arises in the context.

 43

REFERENCES

1. C. Sarvotham Rao, People's participation in Social Forestry,

Van Vikas (Issued by Research 8 Development Wing), Andhra
Pradesh, Forest Department, Hyderabad, 1982, p.l.

2. V.P. Aggarwala, Forests in India, Oxford IBH Publishing

Co., New Delhi, 1985, p. 2.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.
5. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Forestry for development.
Forestry Paper No. 3, Rome, 1963.

6. S.S. Negi, A__ Hand__Book of Forestry, International Book

Distributors, Dehra Dun, 1986, p. 8.

7. Moin Qazi, "Social Forestry: Issues At Stake," Economic

Times, Dated, 4-9-1988, pp. 4-5.

8. A.K. Gulati, Community Forestry or Social Forestry for Rural

Development - A Critical Review, Indian Forester, (JOU),
Vol. 116, No. 9, September, 1990, p. 687.

9. Jordan and B.K. Charles, Forestry Programme fights rural

poverty. Journal of Forestry, May, 1988, p. 37.

10. Hinkelord, "Introduction: Towards aa global forestation

strategy in strategies and__ designs for afforestation,
reforestation and tree planting" Edited by Wiersum, K.F.
Netherlands, PUDOC, Wageningen, 1984.

11. S.A. Shah, Concept and Philosophy of Social Forestry,

Indian Forester, (JOll), Vol. Ill, No. 10, 1985, pp. 769-773.

12. K.M. Tiwari, Social Forestry in India, Nataraj Publishers,

Dehra Dun, 1983,' p. 13.

N.S.S. Varadan, "Social Forestry at the cross roads,"

(Article), Hindu, (Daily Newspaper), Dated, 21-3-1989.

Op. cited, S.A. Sah, p. 769.

13. ISO/Swod Forest, "An anti-people afforestation policy, India's

Environment," The Centre for Science and Environment. New
Delhi, 1984, pp. 7-8.
 44

13. D. Sen, Social Forestry for rural development, Workshop on

Rural and__Social Forestry, NIRD, Hyderabad, 5-7, August,
1982, p. 3.

Op. cited, S.A. Shah, pp. 769-773.

14 J Food and Agriculture Organisation, Forestry for local

community development. Forestry Paper No. 7, Rome, 1978,
p.l.

15. Srivastava and Pant, Social Forestry on a Cost-Benefit

analysis frame work, Indian Forester (JOU), Vol. 106, No.l,
1979, pp. 2-3.

Slade and Noronha, An operational guide to the monitoring and

evaluation of Social Forestry in India (Working paper), FAO,
Rome, Italy, 1984. ~

16. Lantican, Forestry View, Conservation Circular (JOU), Vol.

17, No. 1, UPLB College of Forestry, College, Laguna, 1982,
p. 11.

17. Op. cited, K.M. Tiwari, p. 7.

L.K. Jha, and P. Sen, Social Forestry, Himalaya Publishing

House, Bombay, 1991, p. 2.

18. Bachketi, Social Forestry in India: Problems and Prospects,

Radiant Publishers, New Delhi, 1984, p. 14.

19. Pelinck et. al., Forestry Extension Community Development in

Nepal, Unasylva (JOU), Vol. 36, No. 143, 1984, p. 2.

20. W ei rsum, Developing__ Strategies for Social Forestry: A

conceptual approach__ (Working___ Paper), East-West Centre,
Environment and Policy Institute, Honolu, 1984, p. 8.

21.i Op. cited, S.S. Negi, p. 160.

22. Cernea, 11 Alternative_units__of Social Organisation__Sustaining

Afforestation strategies, in putting people first sociological
variables in rural development,11 Edited by Cernea, World
Bank Publication, Oxford University Press, New York, 1985,
p. 267.

23. Noronha and Spears, "Sociological Variables in__ Forestry

Project Design", Edited by Cernea, World Bank Publication,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1985, p. 229.
 45

24. Hartley, "Extension Forestry: The Second Bridge," The

Forestry Chronicle _(JOU) , Juno, 1900, pp. 203-207,

25. N.T. Vergara, "Expanding populations and___ Shrinking

Resources: The Economic Settling and Development Potential
for Social Forestry: in Community Forestry: Socio-Economic
Aspects,", Edited by Rao, Y.S,, Vergara, N.T. and
I/welnse, G.N. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific,
FAO, Bangkok, 1985, p. 5.

26. A.K. Gulati, Distinction Between Social Forestry and other

Forestry Concepts, Indian Forester, (JOU), Vol. 116, No.
9, September, 1990, pp. 689-691.

27. D.N. Tiwari, Social Forestry in India, Plant Trees, (JOU),

Vol. 81, June, 1991, p. 2.

Desh Bandhu and R.K. Garg, Social Forestry and Tribal

Development, Natraj Publishers, Dehra Dun, 1986, pp.
40-41.

28. V. Jayanth, "Help Green the Earth," (Article), Hindu

(Daily Newspaper), Dated 20-10-1991.

29. Hoshiar Singh, Environmental Policy and Administration

(Keynote address by C.A. Perumal), Printwell, Jaipur,
1991.

30. Attila Karosmanoglu, Business India (JOU) 10-23, July,

1989, p. 54.

31. Op. cited., V. Jayanthi.

32. Op. cited, C.A. Perumal.

33. Felix M. Eslava J.R., "An Overview of the Concept of

Social Forestry: Forestry__Teachers__ Develop ment__ Course,"
Institute of Forest Conservation, UPLB College of Forestry,
Laguna, Phillippines, 6, September to 5, December, 1989,
p. 8.

34. A. P. Dwivedi, Forestry__in India, Jugal Kishore 8 Co.,

Dehra Dun, 1980, pp. 258-259.

Op. cited, L.K. Jha and P. Sen, p. 2.

35. S. Varadarajan, Marketing of_Social Forestry Produces,

Regional Centre for Planning Monitoring 8 Evaluation of
Social Forestry__ Programmes (Sponsored by NWDB,
Government of India, New Delhi), Report No. 5, 27-28,
December, 1990, p. 11.
 46

36. D. Sen and P.K. Das, Wasteland Development in India,

Rural Reconstruction (JOU), Vol. 21, No. 1, January, 1988,
pp. 14-15.
37. K. P. Muniswarni, Social Forestry - A Means to increase
area under Vegetation, Seminar paper, National Seminar on
Forest and Environment (Sponsored by Karnataka Forest
Department), 2,3, December, 1981, p. 160.
38. S. Rajcndran and Dr. H.G. Ilanumappa, Social Forestry:
Lessons from Tamil Nadu, Green_File, (A Selection of
Clippings on the environment), No. 43, 1-31 July, 1991, p.
81.