LAISHA Explains
Forestry and agroforestry

Social and community forestry

Social and community forestry in India: NCA 1976, farm and extension forestry, Arabari and Joint Forest Management, the Forest Rights Act, lessons.

Exam essential6 min read
On this page
  1. Social forestry: the NCA model
  2. Community forestry and the Arabari experiment
  3. Joint Forest Management
  4. Rights-based approaches: the Forest Rights Act
  5. Trees outside forests
  6. Key points
  7. What the exams ask
  8. Questions people ask
  9. Sources
  10. Related on Laisha
  11. Discussion

For most of the colonial period and the early decades after independence, Indian forests were managed by the state, for the state. The Indian Forest Act of 1927 made most forest land government property. Local people's grazing, fuelwood and timber use was reclassified as a "privilege" that could be restricted. Yet hundreds of millions of rural people depended on forests for fuel, fodder, small timber, food and medicines. As population grew and forests degraded, the gap between their needs and what state forests could legally supply widened, and conflict and illegal extraction rose.

Social forestry and community forestry grew out of this tension. The idea is to grow trees by, with and for people, outside or inside traditional forests, to meet local needs and protect the environment. The term "social forestry" is credited to Jack Westoby, an FAO forest economist, in 1968.

Timeline of people and forests in India: the Indian Forest Act of 1927 consolidated state control; the 1952 Forest Policy aimed for one-third of land under forest; the National Commission on Agriculture coined social forestry in 1976; the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 restricted diversion of forest land; the National Forest Policy of 1988 put local needs and conservation first; the 1990 Joint Forest Management resolution created village committees that share benefits; the Forest Rights Act of 2006 recognised individual and community rights; and the 2014 National Agroforestry Policy promoted trees on farms 1920194019601980200020201927 Indian Forest Actstate control1952 Forest Policyone-third under forest1976 NCA reportcoins social forestry1980 Forest (Conservation) Actlimits diversion1988 Forest Policypeople's needs first1990 JFM resolutionvillage committees share2006 Forest Rights Actcommunity rights2014 Agroforestry Policytrees on farms
Milestones in the relationship between people and forests in India, from state control in 1927 to community rights in 2006.Diagram: Laisha, original.

Social forestry: the NCA model

The National Commission on Agriculture (NCA) report of 1976 made social forestry a national programme. Its aims were to supply fuelwood, fodder, small timber and minor forest produce to rural people, and to reduce pressure on natural forests. Its components were:

  • Farm forestry: farmers plant trees on their own land, along field boundaries, in woodlots or in agroforestry systems, either for their own use or for sale.
  • Extension forestry: planting on public land outside forests. This includes:
  • mixed forestry on wastelands and village commons (panchayat land);
  • linear (strip) plantations along roads, railways and canals;
  • shelterbelts and windbreaks to protect crops from wind and erosion.
  • Reforestation of degraded forests near villages.
  • Recreation forestry: green belts and parks near towns.

Large state social forestry projects in the 1980s, many supported by the World Bank and other donors, distributed billions of seedlings. Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal were leading states.

Results and lessons

Farm forestry was a commercial success, but often not in the intended way. Many farmers planted eucalyptus and poplar for the pole and pulpwood markets, not fuelwood and fodder for the poor. A glut in the late 1980s then crashed prices. Village woodlots on common land often failed: there was little sense of ownership, benefits were unclear, the poorest households were excluded, and protection was weak. Critics also pointed to the ecological effects of monoculture eucalyptus plantations.

The main lesson was that tenure, benefit sharing and genuine participation decide whether people protect trees. Planting targets alone do not.

Community forestry and the Arabari experiment

In Arabari, West Bengal, starting in 1971–72, forester A. K. Banerjee offered villagers 25% of the final harvest of sal coppice, along with employment and rights to non-timber products, in return for protecting degraded forest. Within a few years, the coppice had recovered strongly. Similar local initiatives followed, such as the Sukhomajri watershed in Haryana, where villagers protected hill slopes in exchange for water from check dams and grass.

Older traditions of community management already existed. The Van Panchayats of Uttarakhand, set up under rules of 1931, are village councils that manage local forests. Many indigenous communities protect sacred groves. The Chipko movement of 1973, in which villagers hugged trees to stop commercial felling, made people's stake in forests a national issue.

Joint Forest Management

The National Forest Policy, 1988 changed direction. It made the primary aims of forest management environmental stability and meeting the needs of local people, with revenue as a secondary goal. It also called for people's involvement in protection and regeneration.

On 1 June 1990, the Government of India issued a resolution on Joint Forest Management (JFM). Under JFM:

  • the Forest Department and a village committee (Forest Protection Committee, Van Suraksha Samiti or JFM Committee) jointly manage a defined area of, usually degraded, forest;
  • the community protects the forest from fire, grazing and illegal felling, and helps with planting and tending;
  • in return, the community gets usufruct rights to grass, fallen wood and non-timber forest products, and a share of the final harvest, set by each state, often 25–50% and sometimes more;
  • the forest remains state-owned.

India now has more than 100,000 JFM committees, covering over 20 million hectares.

Worked example

Benefit sharing in a JFM area

A JFM committee has protected 150 ha of teak plantation for 20 years. At the final felling, the timber sells for ₹1.8 crore. Under a state rule giving the committee 40% of net proceeds after harvesting costs of ₹30 lakh, the committee receives 0.40 × (180 − 30) lakh = ₹60 lakh. It typically deposits this in a village development fund for roads, water supply or further forest work. Long waits for such payments, and uncertainty over them, were a common complaint, which is why states also allowed earlier intermediate benefits such as thinnings and NTFPs.

Criticisms of JFM

  • JFM depends on government orders, not law, so the Forest Department can change the terms.
  • Committees were often dominated by the department and local elites, and women and the poorest households had limited voice.
  • Benefits from degraded forests take years to arrive.

Rights-based approaches: the Forest Rights Act

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, usually called the Forest Rights Act (FRA), shifted the approach from participation to rights. It recognises:

  • individual forest rights to land occupied and cultivated before 13 December 2005, up to 4 ha;
  • community rights over minor forest produce, grazing and water bodies;
  • community forest resource (CFR) rights, which give the Gram Sabha authority to protect, regenerate and manage its customary forest.

Villages such as Mendha-Lekha in Maharashtra used CFR rights to harvest and sell bamboo themselves, earning substantial income. Implementation has been uneven, however, and many claims remain pending or rejected.

Trees outside forests

Today, a large share of India's timber comes from trees outside forests: farm boundaries, agroforestry, and roadside and urban trees. The National Agroforestry Policy, 2014, the Green India Mission and the Nagar Van Yojana for urban forests all continue the social forestry idea under new names.

Key points

  • Social forestry means growing trees by, with and for people to meet local needs. The term came from Westoby (1968), and it became a national programme after the NCA report (1976).
  • The NCA components were farm forestry, extension forestry (mixed, strip plantations and shelterbelts), reforestation of degraded forests and recreation forestry.
  • Farm forestry succeeded commercially, mainly with eucalyptus; village woodlots often failed for lack of tenure and benefit sharing.
  • Arabari (1971–72) pioneered benefit sharing; the 1988 policy and the 1990 JFM resolution scaled it up through village committees and harvest shares.
  • The Forest Rights Act (2006) recognised individual and community forest rights, and gave Gram Sabhas management authority.
  • Van Panchayats (1931) and the Chipko movement (1973) are earlier milestones.

What the exams ask

  • Define social forestry and list the NCA components.
  • Distinguish farm forestry, extension forestry and agroforestry.
  • Describe the Arabari experiment and Joint Forest Management.
  • Explain the key provisions of the Forest Rights Act.
  • Evaluate why social forestry projects succeeded or failed.

Described in general terms: the kind of examination, not a past paper. Laisha never reproduces exam questions.

Questions people ask

Is social forestry the same as agroforestry?

They overlap but are not identical. Agroforestry is a land-use system that integrates trees with crops or livestock on the same land. Social forestry is a broader programme approach that aims to meet people's needs through tree planting. It includes agroforestry and farm forestry, but also roadside strips, village woodlots and community forests.

Why did farmers prefer eucalyptus?

Eucalyptus grows fast, is not browsed by cattle, coppices after cutting, needs little care, and had a ready market for poles and pulpwood. For a farmer, it was a low-risk cash crop. Social forestry planners had expected fuelwood and fodder species, which had little market value.

What is the difference between JFM and community forest rights?

Under JFM, the state owns and controls the forest, and villages participate under government orders, with shares set by the state. Under the FRA, the Gram Sabha holds legally recognised rights and authority to manage its community forest resource, so the arrangement cannot be withdrawn by an executive order.

Sources

  1. National Commission on Agriculture. Report of the National Commission on Agriculture, Part IX: Forestry. Government of India, 1976.
  2. Ministry of Environment and Forests. Resolution on Involvement of Village Communities and Voluntary Agencies in Regeneration of Degraded Forests (Joint Forest Management). Government of India, 1 June 1990.
  3. Poffenberger, M. and McGean, B. (eds) Village Voices, Forest Choices: Joint Forest Management in India. Oxford University Press, 1996.
  4. Saxena, N. C. Farm Forestry in North-West India: Lessons from the 1980s. Ford Foundation, New Delhi, 1994.
  5. Government of India. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

More in forestry and agroforestry

Agroforestry systems and their classification7 min readMAI, CAI and rotation5 min readForest mensuration: diameter, basal area, volume6 min readForest types and world biomes6 min read

Discussion

Questions, corrections and notes from readers on this article. Every comment is checked before it appears: keep it on the topic, and do not share phone numbers, links or contact details.

Last reviewed

Ask Laisha about this

Opens Laisha's chat with your question ready to send. Sign in or start free.