Policy aberrations in social forestry project

By Roy Mathew

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DEC. 26. Serious policy aberrations are taking place in the implementation of the World Bank aided Forestry Project in the State.

While some of these are World Bank induced, others go against the Project's stated objectives such as conservation of biodiversity. Several of these are flaws pointed out by Assembly committees and environmental activists when the first World Bank assisted Social Forestry Project was under implementation in the State in the '80s.

As in the past, the Forest Department is now engaged in a construction spree, and planting operations in reserved forests. The implementation leaves considerable scope for corruption. (The earlier Project had become notorious for corruption. However, the Government did little to book those involved in large scale swindling of funds.)

The Forest Department is now planting reserved forests at several locations after clearing the undergrowth. The reason offered for this is that the forests are degraded and planting was needed to improve the stock. However, according to experts, such interventions are not needed in most of the State's forests owing to the heavy rain fall. Forests would grow back naturally, if the areas are protected from biotic interferences. Often the stock resulting from this would be qualitatively better than planted areas.

The clearing of the undergrowth for planting results in loss of biodiversity. The Department's planting operations are still being guided by the old view that only the trees are valuable. So, they cut down all the undergrowth. In fact, planting is possible in several of these forests only if the undergrowth is cleared. Small areas in the forests are turned into virtual agricultural plots for raising nurseries. Camp sheds are constructed for people to work and stay there until the seedlings mature.

The Department has undertaken one such operation in hundreds of hectares of forests near Kallar in the Palode range. This is an area lying close to the one of the 12 biological hotspots of the State. Nurseries were developed and the undergrowth cleared for planting the seedlings. Similar operations have been undertaken in Neyyar, Guderickal and other forests also. There are unconfirmed reports that the Department has identified forests for planting in almost every forest division. The Forest Minister, Mr. C.K. Nanoo, said in reply to a question in the Assembly that pulpwood and teak plantations were proposed to be raised in 5,500 hectares of forests under the Social Forestry Project with a view to increase revenues. The details of the forests to be used for this purpose were not given.

Under the earlier project, the Department had planted 16,000 hectares of forests. The Estimates Committee of the Assembly (1987-89) had strongly criticised this. The Committee found that the Department had encroached upon the forests when it found that no land outside the forests were available for block plantations. It even recommended against the extension of the project. However, the Government did not heed that. Moreover, a similar component for raising block plantations was incorporated in the new project also.

The new project proposed to promote conservation of biodiversity and arrest the degradation of forest lands so that these assets would continue to fully serve their ecological functions. It also proposed to raise sustainable production of both timber and non- timber forest products in designated forest land and farm land; and to improve the standard of living of local rural populations residing in and around forest areas. The Department could have achieved these objectives by promoting plantations outside the forest and improving the productivity of the existing plantations under the Department and the State Forest Development Corporation. This would have reduced pressure on the forests, and improved protection would have led to the nourishment of existing forests.

Absorption capacity

The project envisaged investments of about $ 150 million in social forestry over a 10-year period. It is a moot point that whether the State had the absorption capacity for this. The aid under the earlier project was $ 54.5 million only. However, the Department could not expend the funds in time, and the period had to be extended twice. (This was done against the recommendations of the Assembly Committee).

Moreover, the Department had been spending a sizable part of the money on construction work. The Committee had criticised this in its report. Now, the World Bank team has also found fault with the Department for this. The draft report of the mid-term review of the project done by the bank early this month said that the emphasis still continued to be on activities (in particular, on construction of buildings and other infrastructure) rather than on programs. This had serious implications for achieving the target of the project. The Review noted that the overall performance in the Conservation of Biodiversity, one of the components of the project, had been very unsatisfactory, although some progress has been achieved in certain areas. The major impediment to the successful implementation of the conservation of biodiversity component was the lack of objectivity, support and guidance of leadership, the Review said.

The Review observed that though very interesting activities have been undertaken under the component for `strengthening sustainability of protected areas', field visits and evaluation of the programme by biodiversity consultants indicated that the program had lost its objectivity and focus. In the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary, funds were being allocated for a number of projects with similar objectives and activities that are of a routine nature. These projects at Wayanad were lacking in innovation and cost-effectiveness, which are the basic principles governing the funding of the special habitat programme. Consequently, it was very difficult to justify support for these projects. Overall, the special habitat management program seemed to lack transparency and credibility. Clearly, there was need for a serious re-evaluation and re-direction of this programme, the Review said.

The Department has promised the World Bank that the Biodiversity Coordination and Monitoring Cell would undertake a full re- evaluation of the activities under the biodiversity component and submit a plan to it by January 15, 2001. Complete and critical evaluation of the special habitat programme would also be undertaken and projects that needed to be discontinued for lack of conservation value, innovation and potential for success would be identified. Measures of improving management and monitoring would also be charted out.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Red carpet welcome for PM at Kochi
Next     : Keralotsavam to open tomorrow