SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF VILLAGE REFORESTATION PROGRAM.

R.M.T.D. Madusanka, AS2012135

1. Community forestry.2. Community forestry in Sri Lanka.3. Different approaches of community forestry programs.4. Village Reforestation Program.5. Present approach of VRP.6. Present status of VRP.7. Case study in Embilipitiya range.8. Conclusions.9. Farmers involved in the socio economic survey.10. Contact persons.11. References.

Content…

Community forestry.“Any situation which intimately

involves local people in a forestry activity”

Comprise three main elements.1. The provision of fuel and other essential goods to meeting

basic needs at the rural household and community level.2. The provision of food and environmental stability necessary

for continued food production.3. The generation of income and employment in the rural

community.

Community forestry in Sri Lanka.Practiced in Sri Lanka since 1870.Most of the teak plantations in the dry zone have been established under this program.

During the period of 1970-1980 this program was very successful.

The success of this program depends on the level of participation by the local farmers.

Today the rate of participation & available lands for this program has been declined.

Different approaches of community forestry programs. • Block planting by direct labour.• Block planting by local level organizations.• Block planting by taungiya.• Community woodlots.• Farmer woodlots.• Farmer agroforestry plots.• Private tree planting.• Conservation farming with trees.• Home garden improvement program.• Distribution of Minor Export Crops.• Tree seedling distribution campaigns.

Modified in to Village Reforestation

Village Reforestation Program.Carried out in areas which are identified by the FD for reforestation.

Farmers living adjacent to the area are involve in this program.

FD giving out contracts to those farmers to reforest state land.Farmers are paid the amount that would otherwise spend by the FD on hired labour.

Present approach of VRP.Selected farmers were given a block of 0.4ha of state land.Mainly abandoned chena land or harvested plantation.4 year period of lease agreement.Farmers are responsible for the land preparation and

planting of timber species.Planting materials and technical know how are supplied by

the FD.Farmers are allowed to grow cash crops in between the

tree plants.They are entitled for the entire harvest of cash crops.In addition farmers are given a cash incentive for the

establishment and maintenance of their planting block.

A Case study…..

Case study…• Village reforestation program which was conducted in

Embilipitiya Range.

Embilipitiya

Participatory reforestation in Embilipitiya Range..

Reforestation has been done with co-operative associations in 1950s.

Cash crops were grown in early stages of plantation.More or less similar system to the VRP.Very successful.In 1998, mature teak plantations are started to fell.Village reforestation has been introduced as a new strategy to raise new plantations.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Area reforested in each year by VRP in Embilipitiya Range.

Year

Area reforested / ha

Organization of the VRP in Embilipitiya Range.

1 •District Forest Officer.

2 •Range Forest Officer.

3 •Beat Forest Officer.4 •Forest Extension Officers.

5 •Farmers Association.

6 •Farmers.

Selection of farmers and offering blocks.Range office inform farmers association to prepare a list of eligible farmers to have a block.

Farmers are interviewed by the FD.Blocks are distributed among the selected farmers by the interview, in a random manner.

Each farmer can have an one block. If there are excess blocks, one farmer can get more than one block.

Exchange blocks between farmers is possible if both are ok.

The agreement.Signed by the farmer & DFO.For 4 year time period.All the dos’ and don'ts’ are mentioned.

Incentive system.1st year• Land preparation – Rs 29755/=• Planting – Rs 29755/=

2nd year• 1st maintenance – Rs 16230/=• 2nd maintenance – Rs 16230/=

3rd year• 3rd maintenance – Rs 16230/=• 4th maintenance – Rs 16230/=

4th year• 5th maintenance – Rs 16230/=

(per ha values are mentioned)

What they prefer as the timber species?

Timber species is selected by the FD.Farmers are satisfied with teak.Favor Kohomba.Reject Khaya.

Fruits• Banana• Papaya

Cereals• Green gram• Cow pea• Peanut

Vegetables• Brinjal• Chilie

Medicinal plants• “Katu wel batu”• Asamodagam

Major cash crop species.

Pros…..Income levels of the farmers

are increased -High income from the cash crops.

Year round income rather than seasonal.

Create job opportunities within the village.

-In the plantations. -In the nursery.Increased family bond by work together.

Pros…..Increased social bonds through the farmers association.

-Help each other in the cultivation works & even in the day today needs.

Cultural events.• Pirith program.• Paththini daana.• Shanthikarma.

Increased life quality.

Cons….Lack of participation from the younger generation.Decreased schooling of the children.Program is not a continuous one.

Difficulties face by the farmers.Attacks of wild animals to their cultivations.

- Cattles, Axis deer, Wild boar, Rats.- Fencing materials were given by FD.

Delayed incentives.Drought.

Difficulties face by FD officers.Inadequate transport facilities for the field inspections.

Difficulties in removing the farmers from their blocks after the contract period.

Difficulties to detect violations of the agreement by the farmers.

What are they requesting….Only thing they requesting

is lands to cultivate.Very big interest to take part

village reforestation program.

But the limitation is the lands.

There is a 7.38ha unsuccessful khaya plantation nearby.

Farmers propose that, fell it and give them a opportunity to establish teak plantation with VRP.

Farmers involved in the socio economic survey….

• V.R. Irangani.• D.H.Podiappuhami.• D.G. Podiappuhami.• D.W. Piyadasa.• R.P. Gunadasa.• K.G.R. Heenmahaththaya.• W. Somarathne.

The Questioner.

Conclusions.All the farmers are representing the older generation. It shows that younger generation are not actively participate in the program.

About 50% of the farmers are women. So rural women are highly benefited from the program.

Farmers are really appreciating the service provided by the forest extension officers.

Farmers are satisfied with the procedure of the program.

Forest Department officers are able to built a very strong bond with the community by VRP.

Contact persons.• Mr. K.P. Ariyadasa,

Former conservator general,Forest Department.

• Mr. E.A.P.N. Edirisinghe,Assistant conservator of forest,Forest inventory & Management Division.Forest Department.

• Miss. Hemantha Thennakon,Librarian,Forest Department.

• Mr. M.G. Premarathne,Beat Forest officer,Central Plant NurseryThimbolketiya, Embilipitiya.

• Miss. A.W.L. Padmini Wijedasa,Forest Extension Officer,Range Forest Office,Embilipitiya.

• Miss. H.Shiroma Lakmani,Forest Extension Officer,Range Forest Office,Embilipitiya.

References.Operational guidelines for community forestry

Management – Forest Department (2007)Participatory Forest Management of Sri Lanka – R.L.

Stirrat, University of Sussex(1998)Development plan of the participatory forest resource

management project – Panakaduwa, Mahaaragama Social forestry in integrated rural development planning of

Sri Lanka – FAO (1998)Forest Departments’ Integrated rural development

project, Ratnapura Joint forestry program - Dewayalage Tilakaratne.

Diggings made by the

porcupines in the base of

plants.

Considerable Lantana

invasion in the plantation.

After one year by handover the plantations to the FD.

Pictures show that the

importance of the program