TREE
PLANTING ON PRIVATE LANDS
Dr. Narayan G.
Hegde
BAIF Development
Research Foundation
Pune 411 058
Need for
Afforestation
With increasing population and growing
consumerism, there has been severe pressure on food production and employment generation,
particularly in agro-based development countries like India. This has had a direct impact on deforestation,
increase in soil erosion and run off of rain water, resulting in depletion of
natural resources and environmental pollution. Simultaneously, increasing use of fossil fuel
for industrial production, power generation and automobiles has accelerated the
emission of green house gases (GHGs) which are responsible for global warming
and climate change. The negative impacts
of global warming are far more serious in India
due to prolonged droughts, rising sea level and melting of snow caps of the
Himalayas thereby affecting steady supply of water to major rivers of North India and our food security. To reverse this trend, it is necessary to
reduce the emission of GHGs, while taking up massive afforestation to serve as carbon
dioxide sink and for supporting rural livelihood.
Trees have a significant role in keeping
the environment clean, while supporting the livelihood. Over 43% of the cooking
energy in the world is met from biomass. In rural areas, where 65% of the population lives,
biomass is the only accessible and affordable source of energy. In the developing countries, the average per
capita consumption of biomass in rural areas is equivalent to a ton of wood per
annum and 50% of the wood cut in the world is used for fuel (Hall and de Groot,
1985). More than 2 billion people in the
Third World are dependent on biomass to meet
their energy needs which is equivalent to 22 million barrels of oil every day. In 1979, about 68.5% of the total rural
energy was met from wood in India. In 2000, the annual demand for wood in the Indian
rural sector was 192.6 million tons while it was difficult to meet even 50% of
it from the available sources. This indicates
the extent of damage caused to the natural forests. Most of the rural people
have been dependent on Government-owned forests
and community woodlots, which are
under severe
Commissioned Paper. 2010. Western
Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP). Constituted by the Ministry of Environment
and Forests, Government of India,
New Delhi.
www.westernghatsindia.org
pressure and vanishing rapidly. Thus, deforestation has been severely
affecting the ecosystem and economy in India as well.
Presently, only about 12% of the
geographical area in the country is under close forests as against the
stipulated forest cover of 33% required for maintaining an ecological balance (Anonymous
1989). To solve the energy crisis, the
strategy is to promote production, and ensure judicious use of wood energy
which will indirectly conserve our forests. This calls for improving the existing forests
through people’s participation and increasing the area under forest cover even
on non-forest lands, by bringing available barren and wastelands under
afforestation. It is estimated that India
has about 80-100 million ha of denuded forests and wastelands, which are
neither put to any productive use nor considered for conservation. As such, these denuded lands have been
accelerating soil erosion, wastage of rainwater and loss of bio-diversity,
contributing to global warming.
Social Forestry
– A Drive for People’s Participation
With the background of developing private
and non-forest public wastelands under afforestation while protecting the
natural forests, the Government of India introduced several people-oriented
afforestation schemes in the early 1950s.
However, the activity gained significance only during the Sixth Five
Year Plan (1980-85) under social forestry, as a powerful tool to generate
sustainable livelihood for rural people.
To support this programme, afforestation was introduced under various
development schemes such as Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Scheme (RLEGS),
National Rural Employment Programme (NREP), Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS),
Drought Prone Programme (DPAP), Western Ghats Development Scheme, etc. In the 1980s, all the State Governments had
set up a separate wing either in the Forest Department or in the Department of Social
Forestry to operate social forestry schemes.
Various schemes such as development of community woodlots on public
lands, establishment of decentralised kisan nurseries for free distribution of
seedlings and promotion of tree plantations on marginal agricultural lands were
launched with huge financial support.
The objective was to increase the supply of fuelwood, bamboo, small
timbers and fodder, while generating rural employment and maintaining
environmental stability. The strategy
was to grow fuelwood closer to the consumption points. Among various afforestation activities under social
forestry,
raising block plantations in the form of
village woodlots on community lands, degraded forests and wastelands was the
major programme. Such plantations aimed at
reducing the hardship of women and children, who travel long distances in
search of fuelwood. The remaining 30% of
the programme included raising of seedlings for free distribution to farmers
and schools. The focus was on fodder and
fuelwood production.
Based on the recommendations of the
National Commission on Agriculture (1976), the Sixth Five Year Plan focussed on
the production of fodder, fuel, small timber, minor forests produce and
industrial raw materials under the social forestry programme. The theme was “Development without destruction”. The overall target of the Sixth Plan was to
bring 1.65 million ha under tree cover. In
addition to afforestation on community wastelands, 37.25 million seedlings were
distributed free for establishing farm forestry. Simultaneously, production forestry was also given
a boost to bring 0.62 million ha under industrial wood plantations. Except for farm forestry, the other programmes
could not make a significant impact because the objective of meeting the basic
needs of fodder, fuel and timber of the local participants could not be
fulfilled.
Looking at the drawbacks of the Sixth Plan,
the Seventh Plan (1985-89) introduced a new programme with the theme “Forest for Survival” for expanding rural fuelwood
plantations with the involvement of NGOs.
In 1985, the National Wastelands Development Board (NWDB) was
established to increase tree and other green cover on wastelands with a target
of 5 million ha coverage every year, while promoting fuel and fodder plantation
to meet local needs. NWDB intended to
coordinate soil and water conservation, dryland farming, fodder development and
conservation of land resources to prevent desertification as well. To popularise afforestation, various
innovative schemes were also launched and significant among them were
decentralised plant nurseries for distributing among small farmers, cultivation
of fodder, fuelwood and round timber species through Forest Development Corporations,
fuelwood plantation on urban wastelands, production of industrial raw materials
on Government-owned wastelands and leasing revenue wastelands to poor for
growing trees, etc. In 1988-89, after
observing the performance for 4 years, the programme was restructured to cover
activities such as reclamation of wastelands through agro-forestry,
silvipasture and farm forestry, involving small farmers.
Under NWDB, 7.18 million ha wastelands were
brought under afforestation during the first 4 years of the Seventh Plan with a
survival rate ranging from 43.6 to 70.4% (GoI, 1989). Many NGOs, public sector undertakings and
cooperatives such as NDDB and IFFCO initiated various innovative schemes to
promote afforestation on degraded lands.
All these programmes heavily depended on People’s Participation for
their success. Apart from planting and
maintenance, cooperation from local people was also expected for protection of
plantations from stray animals and illicit felling, until harvesting for ensuring
equal distribution among the participant families. However, the outcome was not very
encouraging. Only 9% villages were
covered under the programme. Community
wastelands were not easily available in many villages because either the
Panchayats were not prepared to spare the lands or there were many encroachments.
The outputs from fodder and fuel were very low as compared to the local needs. Hence, the benefits were not significant
(NCAER, 1988). Poor rate of survival of
saplings, poor growth, poor protection from livestock and trespassers were
other factors which contributed to the failure.
In many States, the focus was shifted from fodder and fuelwood species
to species such as eucalyptus because of local demand, fast growth and
protection from stray animals. With regard
to employment generation, fodder and fuelwood plantations generated only 60-80
mandays/ha while farm forestry generated 600-800 days/ha. The wage rate under these schemes being low
compared to the local wage rate, there was no enthusiasm among the poor to take
active part in the fuelwood production programme (Saxena, 1988; 1989; Sathe,
1990).
To enhance people’s participation in tree
planting programme, the schemes were modified to integrate livestock with
forage production and shift from fuelwood production to income generation by
introducing short rotation species with long rotation trees and timber species
with fuelwood. Emphasis was laid on extension programmes to motivate local
families to take active part in afforestation (Shingi, 1988, Deshpande et al,
1990, Singh, 1990). During 1980-88, the
State Forest Departments across the country claimed that 20 billion seedlings
were distributed for planting. This meant
an average of 35,000 plants per village but there were hardly any villages with
such significant number of trees in the country. This reflected the poor performance of social
forestry schemes in the country. This
failure could have been avoided if suitable tree species had been selected. Most of the farmers would have taken good
care if species of their choice had been provided (Hegde, 1987). Lack of marketing arrangements was another
weakness of the social forestry programme.
Interestingly, farm forestry scheme
which was promoted by Forest Development Corporations and private paper and
pulp mills by distributing seedlings of eucalyptus and other commercial species,
had exceeded the target as the participants were motivated by the prospects of
economic gains. Fast growth, high value
for the produce, sustained demand from industries and existence of an easily
accessible market were the reasons for the popularity of eucalyptus plantation
(NCAER, 1988). Higher profitability due
to higher rate of survival, short gestation period, higher yield, ready market,
high value products like round wood, remunerative price, negligible impact on
seasonal crops, easy management of labour, ease in protection and favourable Tax
and Land Ceiling Acts were the other reasons for acceptance of eucalyptus by
farmers (Gupta, 1990). Farm forestry
introduced on agricultural lands as a substitute for low yielding food crops
with species such as eucalyptus was also successful (Muranjan, 1988). Farmers
also preferred farm forestry as it demanded only 120-140 mandays of labour
ha/year while bajra, gram and other rainfed crops demanded about 120-130
mandays/ha crop in 3-4 months (Singh, 1985).
Choice of Tree Species
for Private Lands
Based on various social forestry
projects implemented over the last 2-3 decades, it is clear that choice of
species is the key to the success of any afforestation programme. When it comes to tree plantation on private
lands, profitability is the main factor followed by other minor factors such as
gestation period, demand for produce, level of investment, access to market,
availability of planting material and specific local uses, which influence the
farmers to select tree species for planting on their lands.
Selection of suitable species is the
most important motivating factor for people’s participation as it influences
the profitability. Tree planting on
private lands is being carried out by the land owners either because they are convinced
or motivated by some of the agencies engaged in promoting afforestation. There are very few farmers who take
initiative in establishing plantations of new species, based on the information
they have gathered about the utility and profitability of these species. However, most of the small farmers are driven
by the publicity and attractive benefits as highlighted by the promoters, while
selecting tree species for planting on their lands. The popularity of the species also varied
from region to region, based on the demand for produce, marketing
infrastructure, agro-climatic conditions, available inputs and the extent of
awareness and publicity created by the programme implementing agencies.
Tree Species for Income Generation: In a study conducted in Pune and Nashik districts of Maharashtra, where multiple agencies were independently
promoting tree planting, a majority of the farmers preferred growing fruit
trees on their marginal and wastelands.
This was followed by timber and round wood species. Among 35 most popular tree species promoted
in the state, 18 species were grown for food, 8 for timber, 3 for fuelwood, 2
each for oil and ornamental purpose and 1 each for fodder and fibre. The most
preferred among them were eucalyptus (Eucalyptus
hybrid), mango (Mangifera indica),
teak (Tectona grandis), custard apple
(Annona squamosa) and jujubee (Zizyphus mauritiana). The list of these species with their
popularity rank is presented in Table 1 (Hegde, 1991). This preference is based
on the profitability as well as market demand for the produce and field publicity. However, eucalyptus was the most popular
species because of reasons other than high returns. First of all, eucalyptus had
good demand as round wood in the local market. Any wood that was not sold as pole was
purchased by paper and pulp mills at the site. In addition to assured demand, easy
marketability and an attractive price, eucalyptus is a fast growing,
non-browsing, coppicing species with a short harvesting cycle and well adapted
to adverse agro-climatic conditions. Being
one of the few species promoted by the wood-based industries, it has received
wide publicity. Other tree species
cultivated in India on a
commercial scale under farm forestry by farmers are casuarina in coastal areas
and poplar (Populus deltoides) which
is confined to Northern India, beyond latitude
28o N.
In interior areas, where marketing
facilities for wood were inadequate, farmers preferred to grow fruit crops and
used existing market outlets for selling their produce. Thus, about 50% of tree selected were fruit
species. Among fruit trees, seedlings of custard apple, jujubee (ber), tamarind, jambolina, drumstick, jackfruit, cashew, Indian
gooseberry, wood apple and bullock's
heart (Annona raticulata) were raised
by farmers in decentralised rural nurseries while other species such as mango, guava, pomegranate,
coconut, mandarin, orange and sapota were raised in commercial
nurseries promoted by the
Horticulture Department. Most of the
farmers did not mention any other species although there were many with high
income potential because there was neither any publicity nor availability of the
planting materials locally.
The farmers were also confident of
selling timber of eight species, namely eucalyptus, teak, chinaberry (melia),
leucaena (subabul), portia (bhindi),
casuarina, bamboo and shishum in local markets. Three fuelwood species preferred by the
farmers were Ramkathi acacia (Acacia
nilotica var. cupressiformis), Gum acacia (Acacia
nilotica var. telia) and Australian acacia (Acacia auriculiformis). The former two species are native to Maharashtra and used as fuel and timber, while the latter
has been introduced only recently. Five
other species selected by the respondents were gulmohar (Delonix regia), Ashoka (Polyalthia
pendula), neem (Azadirachta indica), sandalwood (Santalum
album) and agave (Agave sisalana). Of these, the former two were planted as ornamental,
the other two for oil and agave shrub for fibre. Sesbania (Sesbania
sesban) is the only fodder species, although other multipurpose species
like subabul, and Shishum could yield fodder to some extent. Neem is an excellent species as a source of
oilseed and biopesticide and drought tolerant.
However, farmers did not prefer neem as there was no attractive market
for selling the seeds and they also lacked awareness about its yield and profitability.
Table 1. Choice
of Tree Species by Land holders of Different Categories
S. No.
|
Name of the Species
|
Common Name
|
*Use
|
Total
Responses
|
1.
|
Eucalyptus
spp.
|
Eucalyptus
|
T
|
143
|
2.
|
Mangifera
indica
|
Mango
|
F
|
129
|
3
|
Tectona
grandis
|
Teak
|
T
|
109
|
4.
|
Annona
squamosa
|
Custard apple
|
F
|
102
|
5.
|
Zizyphus
mauritiana
|
Jujubee
|
F
|
71
|
6.
|
Melia
azedarach
|
Chinaberry
|
T
|
52
|
7.
|
Tamarindus
indica
|
Tamarind
|
F
|
41
|
8.
|
Psidium
guajava
|
Guava
|
F
|
41
|
9.
|
Leucaena
leucocephala
|
Leucaena, Subabul
|
T,Fo
|
39
|
10.
|
Punica
granatum
|
Pomegranate
|
F
|
28
|
11.
|
Syzygium
cumini
|
Jambolina
|
F
|
22
|
12.
|
Moringa
oleifera
|
Drumstick
|
F
|
19
|
13.
|
Thespesia
populnea
|
Portia
|
T
|
18
|
14.
|
Azadirachta
indica
|
Neem
|
Oi
|
15
|
15.
|
Artocarpus
heterophyllus
|
Jackfruit
|
F
|
13
|
16.
|
Acacia
nilotica var.telia
|
Gum
acacia
|
Fu
|
11
|
17.
|
Cocos nucifera
|
Coconut
|
F
|
11
|
18.
|
Manilkara
zapota
|
Sapota
|
F
|
11
|
19.
|
Citrus medica
|
Sweet
lime
|
F
|
9
|
20.
|
Casuarina
equisetifolia
|
Casuarina
|
T
|
6
|
21.
|
Anacardium
occidentale
|
Cashew
|
F
|
5
|
22.
|
Dendrocalamus
strictus
|
Bamboo
|
T
|
5
|
23.
|
Acacia
auriculiformis
|
Australian
acacia
|
Fu
|
3
|
24.
|
Citrus
reticulata
|
Mandarin
|
F
|
3
|
25.
|
Agave sisalana
|
Agave
|
Fi
|
3
|
26.
|
Polyalthia
pendula
|
Ashok
|
O
|
2
|
27.
|
Delonix regia
|
Gulmohar
|
O
|
2
|
28.
|
Citrus
sinensis
|
Sweet
orange
|
F
|
2
|
29.
|
Acacia
nilotica var. cupressiformis
|
Ramakathi
acacia
|
Fu
|
2
|
30.
|
Sesbania
sesban
|
Sesbania
|
Fo
|
2
|
31.
|
Emblica
officinalis
|
Indian
gooseberry
|
F
|
3
|
32.
|
Annona reticulate
|
Ramphal
|
F
|
1
|
33.
|
Dalbergia
sissoo
|
Shishum
|
T
|
1
|
34.
|
Santalum album
|
Sandalwood
|
Oi
|
1
|
35
|
Feronia
limonia
|
Wood
apple
|
F
|
1
|
No.
of Respondents
|
296
|
* T -Timber, F-Food, Fo-Fodder, Fu-Fuel,
Fi-Fibre, Oi-Oil, O-Ornamental
The small holders had shown preference
for fruit species, while the medium and large holders preferred timber species.
Inspite of its popularity among farmers, it was surprising to observe that
eucalyptus was not the most profitable species promoted under social forestry
in India.
This indicated that with wider publicity
and market linkages and in the absence of knowledge on better alternatives,
farmers are often influenced in making wrong judgments (Hegde, 1991).
Profitability
of Tree Species: The benefit-cost analysis of
14 important fruit and timber species based on the data collected from farmers
is presented in Table 2. While pole timber such as melia, eucalyptus, leucaena,
bamboo and portia start generating
income from the third year, sesbania starts generating
income through fodder during the first year itself and completes its economic
life in 2-3 years. Melia, leucaena and
eucalyptus coppice well and thus, the plantations can be maintained to harvest
3-4 crops. Portia trees are pollarded at
an interval of three years and maintained for 20-25 years. Harvesting of bamboo starts in the third year
and continues every year for about 20-25 years. While leucaena and eucalyptus have good demand
as pulpwood, melia and portia are used as poles for housing and agricultural
implements with limited demand.
Drumstick starts fruiting from the
second year and continues to provide income for 10-15 years. Fruit trees like jujubee, custard apple,
mango and cashew start fruiting from third year while tamarind starts producing
fruits after 7-8 years. Neem starts
fruiting after 7-8 years and continues for 75-100 years, yielding 50-100 kg
seeds every year. As these species have
different gestation period and various uses, it is extremely difficult for
common farmers to take a quick decision about planting them. However, as all these species except neem, mango,
cashew and tamarind, can be planted on field bunds without affecting arable
crops, farmers do not mind planting these species if some support is given in
the form of free seedlings and inputs. If
they have to establish a sole plantation on good lands using their own
resources, then they will certainly explore more about investment and profitability
before taking a final decision.
Among the above species, portia was the
most profitable (Rs.52,000), followed by teak,
drumstick, leucaena, melia, sesbania, eucalyptus, bamboo, custard apple,
mango and neem. It is interesting to
observe that except in certain districts of Maharashtra,
by and large, farmers are not aware about the management of portia to induce
poles and the use of poles as light wood for agricultural implements.
All the 14 tree species listed in Table
2 were most popular because of easy marketability of the produce and higher
return. The popularity among these species varied from district to district based
on local use, availability of planting material and extension efforts. There
are many other species which can produce timber (White siris, siris, shishum, White
teak), fruits (citrus, guava, sapota, coconut, jackfruit, jamun, kokum, oil seeds (pongamia and mahua) and other non-wood produce (Indian gooseberry, myrobalan,
and soap nut) which can be promoted for cultivation, if cost-benefit analysis is
carried out and silvicultural practices are standardised. Even neem
Table 2: Analysis of Income (in Rs.) from different Species
Table 2: Analysis of Income (in Rs.) from different Species
Name of the Species
|
Common
Name
|
Duration
|
No. of trees/
Ha
|
Net/Tree/Year
|
Net/ha/year
|
Sesbania
sesban
|
Sesbania
|
2
|
5000
|
4.80
|
24000
|
Melia
azedarach
|
Chinaberry
|
9.
|
974
|
24350
|
2500
|
Leucaena
leucocephala
|
Subabul
|
9
|
2500
|
13.88
|
34575
|
Eucalyptus
Hybrid
|
Eucalyptus
|
9
|
2500
|
9.24
|
23100
|
Dendrocalamus
strictus
|
Bamboo
|
10
|
625
|
23.33
|
14581
|
Thespesia
populnea
|
Portia
|
10
|
625
|
83.93
|
52456
|
Tectona
grandis
|
Teak
|
20
|
625
|
80.00
|
50000
|
Azadirachta
indica
|
Neem
|
75
|
200
|
50.00
|
10000 *
|
Moringa
oleifera
|
Drumstick
|
10
|
400
|
124.00
|
49600 *
|
Annona
squamosa
|
Custard apple
|
10
|
400
|
29.69
|
11876 *
|
Zizyphus
mauritiana
|
Jujubee
|
10
|
400
|
48.52
|
19568 *
|
Mangifera
indica
|
Mango
|
50
|
100
|
100.00
|
10000 *
|
Anacardium
occidentale
|
Cashew
|
50
|
156
|
125.00
|
19500 *
|
Tamarindus
indica
|
Tamarind
|
50
|
45
|
463.00
|
20835 *
|
* Income from wood not
included ** According
to prices of 1989-90
can be profitable, if plants of elite
genotypes, multiplied vegetatively are used for planting and the seeds are
processed for bio-pesticide production.
Likewise, many non-wood product species having different uses such as
edible products, oil, gum, resin, wax, pesticides, tan, dyes, fibre, soap and
medicines can be profitable, if plants produced through vegetative propagation
are used for establishment and the produce is processed for value addition.
As compared to the economics of fruit
and timber species, production of fuelwood is least attractive because the net
annual income per ha is only about Rs.347/-. Thus, it is not attractive for farmers to grow
fuelwood species inspite of intensive programme promotion and heavy
incentives. If a ton of wood is sold for
fuel, it would fetch only Rs.1000/-. The
same wood when sold as pulpwood would fetch 50% more and as round timber, 200%
more. When the wood is used as timber
either for construction or furniture, it would fetch 400-500% higher
price. In such a situation, naturally farmers
would prefer species with higher returns.
Under Social Forestry Programme, the poor farmers were persuaded to
plant fuelwood and fodder, while large farmers had the option to grow wood for
round timber, paper and pulp. Thus,
unknowingly, there was discrimination and the poor were left out of an
excellent opportunity to earn more from the programme. This was the major reason for lack of people’s
participation and failure of many projects, which were intended for the benefit
of the poor.
Preference
for different Tree Species: While calculating the
profitability of different tree species, it is necessary to take their entire
life cycle and convert into annual returns.
For instance, teak and many timber trees mature after 60-100 years,
while the round timber species are ready for harvest at the age of 15 to 30
years. Pulpwood will be ready in 4-6
years and fuelwood can be harvested in 2-5 years. In case of fruit trees, tamarind has a
productive life of over 80 years, while mango and cashew have a productive life
of 40-50 years. However, fruit trees
start generating income from an early age and contribute to profit every year. In case of timber species, income is
generated after a long gestation and only when trees are cut. Thus, fruit and non-wood tree species deserve
to be promoted on a wider scale.
Even for expansion of various fruit
crops, there are limitations of labour, resources and market beyond certain
scales of operation. For instance, the area
under fruit crops such as ber and amla could be expanded well during the
last two decades. However, with larger volume
of these fruits arriving in the market, which is more than the existing demand,
the prices have started falling down.
Unless efforts are made to process these fruits for value addition and
preservation, farmers are not likely to cultivate these species on a large
scale in the future. For crops like
mango, in the absence of cold storage and processing, glut during a particular
period in the year may affect the price realisation. Similarly, for crops like grapes which are
highly labour intensive, farmers may not expand the area due to shortage and
inefficiency of labour. In such a
situation, farmers are likely to select the next best crops for cultivation. Looking to the present status of tree
planting on private lands, it can be concluded that private land owners opt for
different types of tree species in the following order of priority:
Preference
for tree species in the order of priority:
1.
Fruits and nuts
2.
Round wood species and plywood
3.
Non-timber forest products and oil seeds
4.
Paper and pulpwood
5.
Forage and fuelwood
The above preference is based on current
profitability and subject to availability of good soil, assured soil moisture
and easy availability of inputs. The priority may change for different sites, based
on adaptability of the species to local agro-climatic conditions,
infrastructure for backward and forward integration, investment capabilities,
etc. In areas prone to natural
calamities, it is better to select hardier species even if the returns are low
instead of growing sensitive crops capable of higher returns. There are many useful and valuable species
like sandalwood, teak and red shishum, which are highly priced but the
gestation period is very long. Farmers
may plant these species on a small scale but not for income generation in the
short run. The species covered in this
paper are suitable for tropical regions and there are different species suited
for sub-tropical and temperate regions.
To ensure selection of suitable species,
it is better to prepare a land use plan, based on the soil productivity of the
site earmarked for tree planting.
Fertile soil with assured soil moisture is highly productive, where
fruit trees grow well and give high returns.
Hence, such lands can be reserved for establishing fruit orchards, if
farmers are not intending to grow arable crops of high value. Medium quality soils with moisture stress,
not suitable for fruit crops can be used for growing round wood, soft wood or
ply wood. Soils of slightly inferior
quality can be used for pulp and paper wood. Soils of low fertility with moisture stress,
not suitable for above types of species can be used for establishing fuelwood
plantation. There are shallow soils with
moisture stress, where it is extremely difficult for tree species to survive.
Such soils can be used for growing fodder shrubs and grasses. Thus, soil productivity and profitability of
different tree species should be taken into consideration, while making final
selection of tree species for growing on private lands.
Strategy for Solving
Fuelwood Crisis
From various studies, it is clear that
establishment of tree plantations for fuelwood and fodder is neither economically
viable nor attractive to farmers for cultivation, particularly when they have
other options. Further, there is no scope for selling fuelwood at a higher
price, firstly, because most of the poor who are dependent on fuelwood for
cooking, try to fetch it from public properties, free of cost. Secondly, they do not have the purchasing
power to buy at higher prices. Therefore,
in the absence of easy supply of fuelwood at an affordable price, pressure on
community lands and forests will further increase, resulting in further
denudation of the natural resources. To reduce
this problem, the following alternatives need to be considered.
Promotion
of Commercial Plantation:
In
a forestry plantation for industrial raw materials and round timber, only about
40-50% wood is used for timber or industrial raw material and the rest is used
as fuelwood. If the community forestry
programme can promote commercial plantations to meet the annual demand of 65-70
m3 of wood, these plantations can also meet 25% of the demand for
fuelwood. As the returns from commercial
wood are very attractive, tree growers can afford to sell the leftover fuelwood
as by-product at a lower price. Thus,
the poor can be benefitted. Local grasses
which grow in abundance in a well managed plantation, can be cut and carried to
feed the stall-fed livestock.
Mixed
Plantations:
Introduction of fuelwood species in a mixed stand with fruit, timber and
commercial tree species is feasible.
Species like teak, mango, cashew, neem, etc. need wider spacing but the
interspace remains idle for about 8-10 years, till trees attain normal
size. It is possible to establish
fuelwood species of short gestation between these trees and harvest them in 3-5
years. Selection of nitrogen-fixing tree
species which are known for high calorific value, can further benefit farmers
by nursing the main tree species through soil enrichment. This strategy can further boost the fuelwood
production. Fodder cum fuelwood species like leucaenea, gliricidia, sesbania, acacia
and albizia are ideal for establishing a mixed stand. Non-browsing tree species such as Australian acacia,
kassod and casuarina are also useful as fuelwood species for planting on bunds
and borders in fruit orchards.
Simultaneously, wood saving devices and
alternate energy sources such as biogas plants, improved wood stoves,
processing of biomass to improve the burning efficiency and solar cookers should
be promoted.
Trees under
Agroforestry System
With depletion of agricultural lands and
lack of irrigation facilities, agriculture in arid and semiarid regions is
becoming uneconomical. Agroforestry
provides a viable solution for such problems. Under this system, woody
perennials are introduced in the agricultural field without hampering arable
crop production. Trees serve as wind breaks,
source of organic matter, shade and soil binder to prevent soil erosion while
generating additional income. Depending
on the fertility and depth of soil and moisture availability, different tree
species can be introduced. In areas
receiving more than 800 mm annual rainfall, it is possible to introduce various
fruit crops while planting multipurpose tree species on field bunds and
borders. The interspace can be used for
cultivation of food crops for 8-10 years, till the trees spread widely in the
field.
Establishing shelterbelts by planting
tall growing trees on field bunds is very popular in India. Popular species used under shelterbelt
planting are eucalyptus, poplars, casuarina, bamboo, acacia, dalbergia, leucaena,
Silver oak, sesbania, gliricidia, melia, etc. To
avoid adverse effects of these trees on
agricultural crops, regular pruning of side branches and lateral roots will be
helpful. These trees will be ready for
harvest as poles, while contributing foliage and twigs for fodder, fuel and
green manure. Shelterbelt plantations
are profitable where farmers have fertile lands with irrigation facilities,
with 200-300% cropping intensity like in Punjab, Haryana and Terai regions of Northern India.
Many farmers, particularly large land
holders and absentee landlords, have been cultivating eucalyptus as a monocrop
in non-irrigated areas, where very little care is needed after
establishment. In a few districts of
Andhra Pradesh, leucaena is cultivated as a sole crop and harvested at an
interval of 3-5 years for pulp wood. This system is becoming popular as the
local paper mills are offering a remunerative price, apart from arranging to
harvest and transport wood from the field. Such buy back support is needed to
expand tree plantations on a large scale.
The Wadi programme promoted by BAIF
Development Research Foundation is another good model for promoting trees on
degraded private lands particularly in hilly terrains. Under this programme, 0.4 ha land owned by
each family is being developed under agri-horti-forestry system. The agricultural crops grown as intercrops
between the fruit trees start generating income from the first year itself, while
fruit trees start bearing fruits after 4-6 years. Large numbers of less known species of fruits,
nuts and multipurpose plants are planted on the boundary and bunds to meet
various household needs, while protecting the orchard. These orchards provide gainful employment all
round the year, while improving the ecosystem of the location and income of the
land owners.
Bio-diesel Plantation is a wave to promote non-edible
oil tree plantations in the country. Major oil seed trees in the country are neem,
mahua (Madhuca indica and Madhuca longifolia),
pongamia (Derris indica), undi (Calophyllum
inophyllum) and jatropha (Jatropha curcus). Among these, jatropha and pongamia have received
wider publicity. The Government of India has launched a massive extension
programme to promote jatropha cultivation, by projecting very high returns and
providing partial financial support for establishing the plantation. The programme with good publicity, was
launched to cover a larger area.
However, the programme faded away as the farmers realised that they were
not receiving the anticipated returns.
This is an excellent example of how the programme can receive a severe
setback if the anticipated benefits are not accrued. Pongamia cultivation is also not well
accepted by farmers due to lack of precise information about the yield and
incomes, although it has several other benefits such as tolerance to drought, ability
to prevent soil erosion, source of woody biomass, green manure, bio-pesticides
and better micro-climate. Species such
as mahua, neem and pongamia are excellent for planting on community lands, village
forest lands and along roads.
Trees
with Religious Sentiments: Trees have religious and
sentimental values. In ancient Hindu
scriptures, uses of many trees for different purposes and their placement in
home gardens have been very well described.
Establishment of tree groves around the community temples with a wide
range of tree species is also a traditional custom. These groves known as sacred groves, with a
wide range of naturally grown and introduced trees and shrubs, are protected with
respect by the community. Many species
of ficus and acacia are also considered holy trees and people generally do not
cut them. However, they do not want to
plant a large number of such species unless they find some tangible
benefits.
Trees
for Beautification: Economics and tangible benefits are the
primary considerations for selecting tree species by farmers. Trees are also planted
for beautification, to improve the micro-climate, arrest soil erosion and many
other functions. Trees provide an excellent
ambience to the site, either residential or work areas. Trees absorb carbon dioxide, thereby reducing
the harmful effects of air pollution.
Thus, trees act as lungs of our cities to purify air and keep the
surroundings cool, healthy and beautiful.
Selection of suitable tree species will enhance the aesthetic value and
beauty of the surroundings. The
selection of species for various locations depends on the size, height and root
system. A strong and deep root system
ensures better establishment and prevents uprooting by wind.
Tall growing trees with wide branches to
provide shade, such as mahogany, rain tree, ficus and rubber tree can be
planted to bring the open area under tree groves. For the outer border of the campus, tall
growing tree species may be planted. Along the internal roads on the campus,
trees of small size, preferably with colourful and fragrant flowers may be
planted. There are smaller flowering
herbs which do not cause any damage to the buildings when planted close to the
buildings. Plants like bamboo, bottle
brush and weeping willow can be planted along lakes and canals. Apart from plants of small and large size
trees, a wide range of creepers with colourful and fragrant flowers can also be
introduced. Thorny hedges may be avoided,
except for fencing as they require regular pruning.
Different tree species which can be
selected for planting in Tropical gardens are presented in Annexure I.
Conclusion
While promoting tree planting on private
lands, the preference of farmers should be considered. Tree species to be selected should be based
on the quality of land, availability of moisture, suitability of climate, growth
rate, gestation period, profitability and for fulfilling other specific
objectives. While most of the farmers consider profitability as the primary
consideration, beautification, conservation and improving micro-climatic are the
other considerations. For the success of any afforestation programme on private
lands, income being the primary consideration, arrangements should be made for
backward and forward linkages. The
extension programme to promote afforestation, should be based on well tested
technical and economic data to guide the farmers and general public in the
right direction.
References
Anonymous.
1989. Indigenous greens become active
again. Hindu, Madras. September 10.
Deshpande,
R.S.V. Ratna Reddy and P. Borse. 1990. Resurrection
of Institutionalism: A trade off between social and farm forestry. Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics,
Pune (Unpublished) 17 pp.
GOI.
1989 B. Developing India’s Wastelands. Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi: 82 pp.
Gupta,
J. 1990. Some socio-economic and
management aspects of farm forestry. In
Studies on Social Forestry in India. Edited by P.M. Shingi. RAPA
Publication 199/1. FAO, Bangkok and IIM,
Ahmedabad: 97–103.
Hall,
D.O. and P.J. de Groot. 1985. Biomass
for fuel and food. Paper presented at
the World Resources Institute Symposium on Biomass
Energy System
Building blocks for sustainable
agriculture, Virginia, USA: 158 pp.
Hegde,
N.G. 1987. Scope for increasing the profitability of social forestry
programme. In Social Forestry for Rural Development. Ed. By P.K. Khosala and R.K. Kohli. Indian Society of Tree Scientists, Solan:
68-85.
Hegde,
N.G. 1991. Impact of Afforestation Programme on Socio-economic transformation
of the Rural Poor. Ph.D. Thesis, Pune University,
Pune: 299 pp.
Muranjan,
S.W. 1987. Management of Social Forestry in Maharashtra.
Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune: 199 pp.
NCAER.
1988. A review of social forestry
projects and programmes in selected states in India. National Council of Applied Eco.
Research. New Delhi: 71 pp.
Sathe,
P.G. 1990. A system research approach
for social forestry in Maharashtra. Report prepared for USAID and Government of
Maharashtra, Pune: 98 pp.
Saxena, N.C. 1988.
Wastelands development for rural needs.
Some policy issues. In Wastelands
development for fuelwood and other rural needs.
Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia. Field Document No. 19. FAO, Bangkok:
149 – 166.
Saxena, N.C. 1989. Development of degraded village
lands in India. Experiences and Prospects. GCP/RAS/111/NET. Field Document No.15. FAO, RWEDP, Bangkok : 55 pp.
Shingi,
P.M. 1988. Status and prospects for
forestry extension in India:
An introduction to papers. In Planning
Forestry Extension Programmes – India. Edited by P.M. Shingi and C.P. Veer. IIM, Ahmedabad, RWEDP, FAO, Bangkok: 1-8.
Singh,
G. 1985. Impact of social forestry
project on locals – A Case study in Badaun Division U.P. Centre for Management
in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.
Singh,
G. 1990. Impact of social forestry
project – A case study in Badaun Division.
In Studies on Social Forestry in India. RAPA
Publication 1990/1. Edited: P.M.
Shingi. FAO, Bangkok and IIM, Ahmedabad: 195-208.
Annexure I
Tree Species of
Gardens
1. For Outer Border
·
Silver
Oak (Grevillea robusta)
·
Ashoka,
drooping variety (Polyalthia pendula)
·
Cork
tree (Millingtonia hortensis)
·
Copper pod (Peltophorum pterocarpum)
·
Spethodia
(Spathodea
companulata)
·
Bamboos
(Dendrocalamus strictus)
·
African
Mahogany (Khaya senegalensis) / Indian
Mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni)
·
Shishum
(Dalbergia sissoo)
·
White
siris (Albizia procera)
·
Casuarina
(Casuarina equisetifolia)
·
Bengali babul (Acacia arabica) or Australian babul (Acacia auriculiformis)
2. Along Road sides
·
Pink
cassia (Cassia javanica)
·
Amaltas, local
name - Bahava (Cassia fistula)
·
Gulmohar
(Delonix regia)
·
Champa
(Michelia champaca)
·
Bakul
(Mimusops elengi)
·
Jacaranda
(Jacaranda mimosifolia)
·
Plumeria
(Plumeria alba)
3. Around Lakes /
Canals
·
Bottle
brush (Callistemon viminalis)
·
Thin
thornless bamboos (Bambusa nutans)
·
Kanchan
(Bauhinia purpurea)
4. For Groves in vacant space
·
Raintree
(Samania saman)
·
Ficus (Ficus benjamina, Ficus religiosa, Ficus indica)
·
Mahogany
(Swientenia macrophylla)
·
Fern
tree (Filicium decipiens)
5. In Front of
Buildings
·
Hibiscus
(Hibiscus sabdariffa)
·
Plumeria
(Plumeria obtuse)
·
Champa
(Michelia champaca)
·
Bakul
(Mimusops elengi)
·
Kanchan
(Bauhinia purpurea))
·
Powder
puff – Calliandra (Calliandra haematocephala)
6. Creepers
·
Passion
flower (Passiflora incarnata)
·
Wood
rose (Merremia
tuberosa)
·
Almonda
·
Ipomia - Magenta flowers
·
Jasmine (Jasminium officinalis)
There are many other species, which fit
into these categories. Based on the
preference of individuals and availability of planting materials, these species
can be selected.
No comments:
Post a Comment