CHAPTER-4

AN OVERVIEW OF FOREST POLICIES

The present chapter deals with the forest management and presents a review of the

various forest policies and also analyses the resource availability (Human and

Financial Resources) with the Forest Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh to

manage its forest wealth.

4.1 Genesis of Forest Policies in India

Traditionally, life styles of the people in India have been environment friendly and

conducive to protection and conservation of forests. The customs and religious

philosophy of nature worship, sacred groves, tree and animal worship and festivals

related to nature and seasons bear testimony to the fact that the traditions laid down

by the religious and social leaders were environment friendly (FAO,1997). Due to

multiple value and use of forest resources people in the past lived in synergy with

nature and its resources and hence, the need for forest management was not felt so

strongly as in present times.

The earliest evidence of forest management by the State is found in Kautilaya's

Arthashastra (321 B.C) indicating that forests were managed as State Reserves for

revenue and "LOKAVAM" (Public Forests) for public use (Country Report India,

1994).

Before 1850, shifting cultivation was a common practice and it was sustainable with a

small population. However, by 1850 the population had increased to 200 million the

pressure on forests had begun to be felt. The British rule continued with the earlier

practice of declaring certain tree species as property of the Government for the

collection of royalty and leaving the rest of the area to be used freely by the people

(Shyam Sunder, 1992).

It was in 1864 when Brandis was appointed as the first Inspector General of Forests of

India, the foundation of scientific and organized forestry was laid (GOI, 1999). In

1864 the Forest Department was established and a regular forest service began to

function. However, the first regular policy statement relating to forestry was issued in

1894 based on Voeleker's Report on the improvement of Indian Agriculture. The

report provided guidelines for the management of government forests in India and

94

underlined that public benefit would be the sole objectives for the State administration

of forests. The satisfaction of people's needs was a priority, more important than the

realization of revenue through felling of trees. Yield of timber by felling trees was

regulated based on the fundamental principle of sustainability. Further, forests that

yielded only inferior timber, fuel wood or fodder, or used for grazing, were to be

managed mainly in the interest of local people (MoEF, 1999).

This was followed by the creation of a separate forest service and adoption of legal

measures like the 1865 Forest Act which was revised in 1878 to confer powers to the

newly constituted Forest Departments. It recommended the creation of different

categories of forests as 'reserved' and 'protected' forests. The payment of

compensation was to be made for the rights over reserved forests whereas; the rights

over the protected forests were to be regulated through settlement reports. The

scientific management of forests led to the concepts of working plans and

management units as divisions and circles for the forest management in different

States.

In 1889, the Government of India invited Dr J.A. Volecker to examine the condition

of agriculture including forestry (Bhumbla, 1992). The report was submitted in 1893

providing guidelines for management of forests in India in which the public benefits

was underlined to be the sole objective for the administration of forests. Volecker's

Report resulted in the enunciation of the first Forest Policy in 1894.

4.1.1 Forest Policy of 1894

In 1894, a resolution on the forest policy was made for the first time and the first

Forest Policy was enunciated (GOI, 1976). India's first Forest Policy in 1894 sought

to provide guidelines towards uniformity in management of government forests over

the entire country. The policy laid down 'Public Benefit' as the sole objective of the

administration of public forests. With reference to their primary functions, the

government owned /public forest was classified as follows (FAO, 1993):

a. Forests, the preservation of which was essential on climatic or physical ground

which fulfill the benefit of the community.

b. Forests that supply valuable timber for commercial purposes.

c. Minor forests which produced only inferior timber and fuel wood.

95

d. Pasture lands.

The forest policy of 1894 provided the following guidelines:

i. The sole objective to which the management of forests is to be directed is to

promote the Public Benefit.

ii. The preservation of forests involves regulating the rights and restricting the

privileges of users in the forest areas.

iii. Forests that yield only inferior timber, fuelwood, fodder or used for grazing

should be managed only in the interest of people.

iv. The maintenance of adequate forests is dictated primarily for the preservation of

the climate and physical conditions of the country and secondly, to fulfill the

needs of people subject to following conditions:

a. Permanent cultivation should come before forestry and the cultivation must not

encroach on minimum area of forests to meet the present and future perspective

needs.

b. The satisfaction of the needs of local people at non-competitive rates, if not free,

should override all considerations of revenue.

c. After the fulfillment of above conditions, realization of maximum revenue should

be the guiding factor.

The Forest Policy, 1894 noted the 'claims of cultivation stronger than the claims of

forest preservation' for all type of forests. In addition, the policy supported the notion

that the forestry as such had no intrinsic right to the land and may be permitted on

residua) lands not required for any other purpose. Hence, the forest policy gave

priority to the expansion of agriculture over forestry which not only conduced to the

destruction of forests from which local populations should have obtained their timber

and fuel but "also stripped the land of its natural defence" against erosion by wind and

water (FAO, 1952). Whenever, the land for agriculture was needed for the provision

of food for the increasing population, the forest area was to be sacrificed for the

agriculture use. This was its major weakness because it prioritized agriculture over

forestry and subordinated the forest conservation to the promotion of agriculture

which resulted in large scale clearing of forest land for agriculture and other purposes

96

(Maslekar, 1983 &. Mukherji, 2004). The policy emphasized State control over forests

and the need to exploit forests for augmenting State revenue.

Further, the policy restricted the privileges of users in the forest areas. It is evident

from the statement that the forests of inferior quality should be managed mainly in

interest of local population, with care being taken to "protect people from their own

improvidence".

The rights of people were taken away and they were alienated from forest

management (Guha. 1998). More recently, Bandyopadhyay et al (2005) have

suggested that the preference to agriculture over forestry and the forced alienation was

due to the discovery of revenue potential of forest resources.

4.1.2 Forest Policy: Need for Reorientation

The colonial impact on the natural forests and environment was colossal and

devastating. The methods and the forest management practices were wasteful, and

destructive (Pouchepadass, 1995). This was on account of the quest for more revenue

and the insatiable demand for timber by the railways and military in the economy

(Nair, 1985).

Thus, after independence in 1947, it was felt that "the revolutionary changes which

have taken place during the interval in physical, economic and political fields, called

for a reorientation of the old forest policy" (Maslekar, 1983).

During the beginning of the twentieth century, far reaching developments in the

economic, social and political fields, took place in the country. The unprecedented

growth in population along with natural calamities like famines and droughts caused

food shortages. Hence, the main thrust of the Government of India was to increase

food production, generation of energy for industrialization and conquest of diseases.

All these requirements had serious repercussions on forests (FAO, 1993).

In addition, India passed through two world wars (Ministry of Food and Agriculture,

1952) which also had serious repercussions on forests in terms of heavy deforestation

in order to meet the defense needs. For example, during World War I forest resources

were severely depleted as large quantities of timber were removed to build ships and

railway sleepers and to pay for Britain's war efforts. Between the two wars, great

advancements in scientific management of the forests were made, with many areas

97

undergoing regeneration and sustained harvest plans being drawn up. Sadly, emphasis

was still not on protection and regeneration but on gaining maximum revenue from

the forests. World War II made even greater demands on forests than World War I

had done and resulted in the extensive tree fellings in the private as well as provincial

forests (Sharma, 1988). During World War 11 (1939-1945) enormous quantities of

timber of different species were supplied causing which caused excessive fellings

(Agarwala, 1985). There were also over felling in private forests of the Princely

States. Many varieties of timber which had not been used previously began to be

consumed in large quantities. Thus, the two World Wars disclosed unsuspected

dependence of defence on forests (Ministry of Food & Agriculture, 1952). The impact

of these world wars was severe on the forests and the tree felling reached far beyond

the sustainable limits in many cases (Gadgil & Guha, 1992).

In addition, to the impact of the two World Wars, a large slaughter of wild animals

(Elliott, 1973) and the conversion of large expansions of the forest woodlands into

tea, coffee and rubber plantations by the British business houses (Sinha, 1986), were

the other reasons for forest degradation during the colonial period.

After these destructive circumstances, the Government of India soon after the

independence realized the role of forests in maintaining ecological balance through

the prevention soil erosion. Apart from this, the importance of forests in the

agriculture industries, defense, commerce, construction and other developmental

activities was also realized. It becomes clear from the statement of FAO (1952) in the

context of the formulation of the Forest Policy of 1952 'it would be a mistake to

attribute this new orientation only to political change in India since 1894'. The

declaration says: "The part played by forests in maintaining the physical conditions in

the country has come to be better understood".

Hence, a new policy was considered necessary because of the changes that occurred

during the period since the first forest policy in 1864 was enunciated. In addition to

these changes on social, economic and political front, certain specific benefits of

forests, in maintenance of physical conditions and their value in defense, industrial

developments and other reconstruction schemes, were better understood. It was

clearly mentioned in the resolution of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture on

National Forest Policy, 1952 that the reconstruction activities after the two world wars

98

depended heavily on forest products. These activities included the river valley

projects, development of industries and communication.

4.1.3 National Forest Policy, 1952

In 1952, a new Forest Policy was enunciated, which was considered necessary

because of changes that occurred during the period since the enunciation of first forest

policy in 1894. This was the first Forest Policy declared by the Government of

Independent India (Bardhan, 1992). This policy of 1952 substantially removed the

deficiencies in the earlier policy. The policy for the first time recognized the

protective role of forests and discarded the notion that forestry has no intrinsic right to

land. The policy stated that the nation as a whole had a vast stake in the conservation

of forests and also identified the degradations of forests caused by the indiscriminate

extension of agriculture during the British rule (Shyam Sunder, 1993).

The Forest Policy of 1952 retained the fundamental concept underlined in the old

policy, but considered six paramount needs of the country in its formation (Ministry

of Food and Agriculture, 1952). These needs were:

1. The need for evolving a system of balanced and complementary land use, under

which each type of land is allotted to that form of use under which it would

produce most and deteriorate least.

2. The need for checking:

a. Denudation of mountainous regions, on which depends the perennial water

supply of river system whose basins constitute the fertile core of the country.

b. The erosion progressing pace along treeless banks of the great rivers leading to

ravine formation and on vast stretches of undulating wastelands depriving the

adjoining fields of their fertility.

c. The invasion of sea-sands of coastal tracts, and the shifting sand dunes, more

particularly in Rajputana deserts.

3. The need for establishing tree lands, where whenever possible for the amelioration

of physical and climatic conditions promoting the general wellbeing of people.

4. The need for progressively increasing supplies of grazing, small wood for

agricultural implements and in particular of firewood to release the cattle dung for

manure to step up food production.

99

5. The need for sustained supply of timber and other forest produce required for

defense, communications and industry.

6. The need for the realization of the maximum amount of revenue in perpetuity

consistent with the fulfillment of the needs enumerated above.

Hence, to facilitate fixing of priorities in management, the policy indicated the

following functional classification of forests:

i. Protected Forests: Those forests which must be preserved or created for

physical and climatic considerations.

ii. National Forests: Those which have to be maintained and managed to meet

the needs of defense, communications, industries and other general purposes of

public importance.

iii. Village Forests: Those forests which have to be maintained to provide

firewood, small timber and other forest produce for local requirements, and to

provide grazing for cattle.

iv. Tree Lands: Those areas which though outside the scope of forest management

are essential for the amelioration of the climatic and physical condition of the

country.

The National Forest Policy of 1952 was the First Forest Policy to be formulated by

the Government of Independent India. The salient features of the policy were:

i. The policy discarded the notion that the forestry as such had no intrinsic right

on land and rejected the belief that forestry should be restricted to residual lands

not required for any other purposes.

ii. The policy for the first time laid stress on having at least one third of the land

area under forest cover and the need for wild life conservation. The percentage

was determined to be at 60 per cent for the hill regions and 20 per cent for the

plains. However, its main focus remained on sustainable timber production,

without much emphasis on management of non commercial species and non

wood forest products.

iii. This policy also stated the need for checking denudation on the hills, soil

erosion and invasion of sand from deserts and coastal areas. The establishment

of tree lands to ameliorate conditions and promote well being of the people and

100

to maximize annual revenue in perpetuity consistent witii the fulfillment of all

the other conditions was also stated.

iv. Controlling grazing in forest areas and it should be regulated.

V. Awakening the interest of people in planting trees.

The National Forest Policy of 1952 thus laid stress on the stake of the entire nation in

forest conservation and the administration of forests from the point of view of

national wellbeing. It mentioned that the 'village communities in the neighbourhood

of a forest will naturally make better use of its products for the satisfaction of their

domestic and agricultural needs. Such use however, in no event be permitted at the

cost of national interest'. For the first time, the forest policy resolution emphasized

the ecological and social aspects of forest management, giving secondary importance

to the needs of commerce, industry and revenue (Kulkarni, 1987).

4.1.4 National Forest Policy, 1952: An Analysis

The National Forest Policy of 1952, which retained the fundamental concepts

underlying the previous policy, unfortunately remained almost unimplemented. Most

of the policy provisions could not be implemented due to the problems like chronic

food shortages and rapid expansion in human as well as livestock population

(Bahuguna 2000).

The National Commission on Agriculture (NCA, 1976) appointed by the government

to examine all aspects of agriculture including forestry contained clear indications that

most of the principles and policy measures outlined in the policy were not

implemented or implemented effectively. NCA pointed out the following reasons for

this failure of the policy measures (NFAP, (1999):

1. Administration of forests vested entirely with the states. They were ultimate

authority to implement a policy decision.

2. The provisions in the policy were not fully implemented by the states.

3. Functional classification of forests could not be implemented.

4. No systematic programme was drawn up to extend existing tree lands and to

establish the new ones.

5. No concrete efforts were made to bring the recommended percentage of area

under forests cover.

101

6. Hardly any of the principles of forests grazing was implemented.

Thus the policy failed to set up the specific agency in Centre and States which could

coordinate the forestry activities. As the NCA, 1976 stated that the implementation of

the policy would have been more effective, if the policy had been adopted by the State

Legislature.

The Commission recommended that the basic objectives of planned development in

India were removal of poverty, attainment of self-reliance and maximizing

employment and production, particularly of goods and services of mass consumption,

it advocated commercialization of forests with complete disregard for the sustenance

of adivasi and other forest dwelling communities. Its commercial bias was evident in

its statement that, 'free supply of forest produce to the rural population and their

rights and privileges have brought destruction to the forests and so it is necessary to

reverse the process. The rural people have not contributed much towards the

maintenance or regeneration of the forests. The rural people over-exploited the forest

resources, cannot in all fairness expect that somebody else will take the trouble of

providing them with forest produce free of charge' (NCA Report-Part IX, 1976).

The Report of Commission was instrumental in promoting large scale Social Forestry

Programmes in India as well as the establishment of Forest Development

Corporations for undertaking production forestry. Despite its efforts, many of the

Commission's recommendations were not acted upon (MoEF, 1999).

The guiding principles of forest management practices adopted under the Forest

Policy of 1952, until 1980, were focused on to make the forests more productive of

timber and other raw materials for the industries and thus curtailed the community

rights and authority on forests (Rangachari & Mukherji, 2000).

Thus, the Forest Policy of 1952 gave importance to forest management in view of the

production of timber for industries, railways, market and defence needs etc. and the

importance of restoring the rights to the use of local forest resources to the village

communities was not recognized which discarded the right of village communities to

use forests as the policy stated that the village communities should in no event be

permitted to use forests at the cost of national interest.

102

4.1.5 National Forest Policy: Need for Revision

The National Forest Policy of 1952 was considered a comprehensive policy, yet the

forest resources were under relentless pressure. Firstly, pressure was in the form of

increasing demand for fuel wood, fodder, and timber on the one hand and on the other

hand the inadequate protection measures, diversion of forest land to other uses and the

tendency to look upon forests as the source of revenue added more pressure (GOI,

1988). A period of aggressive settlement of land for enhancing food production led to

extension of agriculture into the forest areas. Secondly, forests were cleared

indiscriminately for rehabilitation and development of infrastructure such as dams,

irrigation, roads and industrial estates. In the three decades between 1951 and 1980,

0.42 mega hectare of forest area was diverted for these purposes (FAO, 1997). In

addition, genetic diversity had also been considerably affected. The Government had

also come to realize the importance of forests to ecological stability.

The Government of India (1988) stated that 'in view of the social, economic and

ecological importance of forests, considerable thought has to be given to the

multifarious implication of, the Forest Policy. This necessitated a re-examination of

the Forest Policy giving emphasis to the conservation and ecological aspects.

By the early 1970s, the ecological effects were being felt with the increasing

incidence of droughts and floods (FAO, 1993). Moreover, till the year 1970, the

traditional system of forest management was followed in India with very little

interaction with local people. However, there was a massive increase in the demand

for various forest products like fuel wood, fodder and timber due to a rapid expansion

in population of both the humans as well as livestock. Such a situation led to the

excessive exploitation of forests by the people to meet their subsistence needs for fuel

fodder and grazing. This created conflict between the forest officials and the local

people (Mukerji, 2004). Hence, the need for the involvement of local people in forest

management was being felt in the country to regenerate the natural forests.

In 1976, forests were brought under 'Concurrent list' from the 'State list', with the

42nd Amendment to the Constitution. After the transfer of forests from the State list

to the Concurrent list, the Government of India adopted the Forest (Conservation) Act

in 1980 prohibiting the State Governments from allowing the use of forest lands for

any other purpose without the approval of the Central Government (Kulkami, 1987).

103

These amendments and the NCA, 1976 pointed out the need for revision of National

Forest Policy. The NCA recommended two basic points as the basis of the new forest

policy. These were:

Firstly, to meet the demand for goods wood for forest based industries, defence,

communications and for daily needs of the rural communities like small timber,

fuelwood and fodder. Secondly, to satisfy the present and future needs for protective

functions of the forests (Bhumbla, 1992).

These pressures and the post-independence environment, resulted in the emergence of

forest protection groups first in West Bengal and then in other States (Chopra, 1995).

Further, the failure of policing of forests as a policy along with the need for

participatory forestry resulted in the formulation of new Forest Policy in 1988.

Hence, keeping in view the above mentioned changes in Indian forestry, the Prime

Minister, in the meeting of the Central Board of Forestry (1987) for the first time,

stressed the need for effective people's participation in forest protection in his

address. It resulted in the revision of forest policy in India and the new National

Forest Policy was enunciated in 1988.

4.1.6 Forest Policy of 1988

The National Forest Policy of 1988 marked a major departure from the forest policy

of 1952 and laid emphasis on conservation and meeting the local needs as well as

people's participation in forest protection and forest management (MoEF, 1999).

The new policy redefined the priorities in which the supply of wood as raw material

as industrial use has been relegated to the background. The main objective of the

policy was set to expand the forests estate of India to 33 per cent of its total

geographical area. Such an expansion included afforestation of wastelands (barren,

uncultivated) both 'outside forests' and within recorded 'forest lands' with

responsibility of assisting the States governments split between the Central Waste

lands Developments Board (non-forest) and National Afforestation and Eco

Development Board (forest lands).

The main objectives of the Forest Policy 1988 were as follows (MoEF, 1988):

i. Maintenance of environmental stability through preservation and restoration of

ecological balance.

104

2. Conservation of natural heritage on soil erosion and denudation in catchment

areas of rivers, lakes and reservoirs

3. Check on extension of sand dunes in desert areas of Rajasthan and along coastal

tracts

4. Sustainable increase in forest tree cover through massive afforestation and social

forestry programmes

5. Steps to meet requirement of fuelwood, fodder, minor forest produce and timber

of rural and tribal populations

6. Increase in productivity of forest to meet the national needs

7. Encouragement to efficient utilization of forest produce and optimum

substitution of wood, and

8. Steps to create massive people's movement with involvement of women to

achieve the objectives and minimize pressure on existing forests.

The 1988 National Forest Policy was radically different from its predecessor, in

seeking to re-orient both management principles and the focus of policy from forests'

commercial/production functions to environmental roles. The National Forest Policy,

1988 laid stress on environmental stability and ecological balance while meeting the

subsistence requirements of local people. This policy emphasized the need to meet the

domestic demands of the tribal and rural people for forest produce and also the need

to involve them in protection and management of forests. Derivation of direct

economic benefit by rural people from forests was subordinated to the objective of

ensuring environmental stability and maintenance of ecological balance. This policy

represented a significant change from the former period, which focused on

commercial production in order to create a surplus from rural areas The first charge

according to this policy, on forest produce would be the domestic requirement of the

people living in and around the forests but this fulfillment would be restricted to the

carrying capacity of the forests. Conservation and protection of existing forests and

restoration of productivity on degraded forests was prioritized. This policy also

emphasized the need for strengthening the Protected Area Network for overall gene

pool resource protection and conservation. Industrial requirements for raw material

were not being met from the natural forests but from the farm forestry and agro

forestry sector through tie up between farmers and industry. The objective of the 1952

policy of having 33 per cent of the geographical area under tree cover was reiterated

and the expansion through afforestation of the wastelands was recommended for the

105

fulfillment of this objective. The forest policy of 1988 for the first time recommended

the involvement and participation of people in forest management. The poor people

had always been treated as liabilities by the forest managers due to their dependence

but this policy through peoples' participation in forest management converted this

liability into an asset for the conservation (Bahuguna, 2000). In other words, National

Forest Policy of 1988 recognized the importance of people participation in forest

management. It provided a boost to the social forestry programme by recognizing the

fact that the rural people's livelihood was largely dependent on forests and therefore,

the first charge on the use of forests was of the people (Gupta, 2004).

4.1.7 Policy Initiatives after the National Forest Policy of 1988

The New Policy of 1988 made it possible for India's forests to be managed by the

government and the people together. In order to translate the forest policy's vision

into reality, Ministry of Environment and Forests issued guidelines in 1990 to

facilitate involvement of forest communities in the protection and management of

forests which led to the genesis of Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme (GOI,

1990). This is the programme under which the State Forest Departments and village

communities jointly protect and manage forest lands adjoining villages and share the

responsibilities and benefits. The ministry issued a fresh set of guidelines in 2000 to

further strengthen and streamline the programme. JFM has since been a major

element of the forest management strategy in India and 28 States across the country

had already adopted the programme till January, 2004. 84,632 JFM Committees were

managing around 17.33 million hectares of forest land in 28 States and over 83 lakh

families were involved in the JFM Programme of which over 27 lakh belonged to

Scheduled Tribes and over 15 lakh families to Scheduled Castes thus emphasizing the

dependency of marginal section of the society on forests and their role in forest

conservation whereas, the area under JFM was only around 4 million hectare before

1998 (MoEF, 2004). The status of JFM in India till 2004 has been presented in tabe-

4.1. JFM has led to regeneration of degraded forests, vacation of encroached forest

land and improved livelihoods. JFM has also led to an increase in income and

livelihood opportunities of the participant communities. The community members

have benefited from the employment generation schemes under JFM through the sale

of non-timber forest products, share in the final forest harvest etc.

106

Table-4.1 Status of Joint Forest Management in India

Note:'-' means information not available Source: MoEF, 2004.

However, it was reported in the mid term appraisal of the Tenth Five Year Plan that

the forest cover in India was 23.03 pr cent (State of Forest Report, 2001) which was

107

far below the recommendation of 33 per cent envisaged by National Forest Policy,

1988 and hence it was realized that the target of achieving 33 per cent of forest cover

by the year 2012 had become difficult unless the Ministry of Environment and Forests

streamlines the procedure to bring all the fringe villages under the ambit of JFM.

JFM is still viewed as a strategy to regenerate degraded forest lands. Forest

conservation and forest management has still been the domain of forest officers. The

role of the forest dependent communities still lie on the peripheries and red-tapism

threatens to derail the entire JFM process.

Hazra, (2002) also noted that both the content and the process by which most States

JFM resolutions have been framed reflect the inevitably unequal relationship between

powerful State bureaucracies and forest dependent communities. According to him

meaningful conservation could be expected only when a community is given property

rights over the forests and thus rights on extraction from the ecosystem they conserve.

'Multiple stakeholder negotiations' was the strategy recommended.

4.1.8 Policy Analysis

The National Forest Policy of 1988 initiated a process of reforms at the local

operational levels of forest management by ensuring that the Forest Departments

develop close collaborations with the local stakeholders for protection and sustainable

management of forests. However, the National Forest Policy, 1988 suffered from a

major weakness that it has been developed solely within the forestry sector, without

being closely linked to related sectors (NFAP, 1999). As a result, firstly, the forests

policy tended to be ignored by other sectors, which failed to see the benefits from

forestry towards to their own objectives. Secondly, India's forest policy indicated the

nature and intensity of action needed without providing a clear time frame for the

various activities required for achieving the specified objectives. A case in point is

one highlighted by NFAP, (1999) is the strategic recommendation to have a minimum

of 33 per cent of the total land area under forests. This was a repetition of the National

Forest Policy of 1952 and the new policy did not mention time frame to achieve this

particular objective.

The National Policy of 1988 has been criticized by World Bank (2006) firstly, for

promoting forest conservation at some expense to commercial forest use. Secondly,

the policy did no offer practical options for policy implementations. Thirdly, the

108

policy sustained the ail encompassing role of forest department including the

contradictory functions performed by the forest department, that of being the forest

authority on the one hand and operating as a public enterprise in commercial forest

production, on the other.

Further, the policy prioritized the needs of the local communities on the one hand and

on the other hand, the 1988 amendments in Forest Conservation Act of 1980 placed

forests under the jurisdiction of forest department. Hence, on the one hand

government adopted a sympathetic approach to the forest dwellers and on the other

hand restricted their access to the forests. As Singh (1995) had noted that "in the case

of Government of India, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. As

regard the forest development the right hand is undoing what the left hand is trying to

do".

However, according to National Forestry Action Programme of the Ministry of

Environment and Forests (1999), the failure to achieve some of the policy objectives

has also been mainly due to the ineffective implementation rather than inadequacies

of the policy. Forestry, although is now a Concurrent subject and the States take

various initiatives in forest management according to their needs. For instance. State

governments ultimately decide the amount of staff and the financial resources to be

used to manage their forests. In addition, the States enforce forest laws and the forest

policies at their own to develop the forestry activities as they find suitable for them.

While government of India may emphasize the need for environmental conservation,

the State governments may be facing other constraints like with their own revenue

needs as well as with the pressures from local people to meet their subsistence needs

for food, fodder and fuel etc.

The JFM programmme had also been under criticism as Hazra, (2002) stated that

'JFM is not the panacea to save India's forests, but a positive step in the ultimate

process of decentralization of decision-making and building up of the institutional

framework for meaningful preservation and efficient use of forests'. He also pointed

out the failures of JFM on the grounds that the participation of people was limited to

protection activities and wage labour for crop establishment whereas the opinion of

people did not reflect in decision making. Hence, the policy failed to understand the

social and economic features at the local level and the response of these local user

109

groups to changes in forest protection activities. Another reason for its failure was its

top down approach.

Thus, the National Forest Policy of 1988 has remained an advisory statement which is

not supported by the law. In other words, the property rights remained vested with the

States or Forest Departments. Hence, assigning of property rights was essential for the

success of any participatory forest management (Hazra, 2002).

Hence, it can be concluded that the Forest Policies in India have changed significantly

since the enunciation of the first Forest Policy in 1894. Unfortunately, these changes

could not realize the problems faced by the forest users. The people were blamed for

every thing that went wrong. More reliance was placed on legislation and less on the

understanding of the problems faced by tribals, nomads and the local population

(Bhumbia, 1992).

The Forest Policy initiated during British rule deprived the forest dwellers of all their

rights of ownership of land and promoted only the needs of revenue to the British

government. Since independence, these local people have been deprived of the right

to use these lands for meeting their minimum needs of fuel, fodder, timber and grass.

It was the forest policy of 1988 which for the first time realized the need of people

participation in forest protection and forest management and recommended the active

participation of local people in forest management.

4.2 State Forest Policies of Himachal Pradesh

The institutional framework for the administration of forest land and resources in

Himachal Pradesh dates back to the nineteenth century when forest settlements were

carried out. These settlements still provide the basic institutional framework for

administering the forest resources. However, the State over a period of time has

regulated public access to government lands and forests mainly through the revenue

and forest department (State Council or Science, Technology and Environment,

2000).

In Himachal Pradesh the management of forests is largely vested in the State Forest

Department. It is the responsibility of the Forest Department to protect and conserve

forests. The forest officials have been appointed to look after the forest management.

It is the duty of forest officials to see whether the rules and regulations and use rights

granted to the local people are exercised or not. In case these rules and regulations are

110

violated or any irregularity is found, the forest officials are authorized to take actions

against the defaulters. In addition, the forest department from time to time makes

efforts to increase the forest stock through various forestry programmes following the

National and State Forest Policy guidelines.

4.2.1 State Forest Policies -Emergence and Features

Historically, the traditional customary rights of the people living in and around the

forests, as well as those of migratory population, allowed them use of the produce of

the forests for their livelihoods. However since Independence, forest resources have

come under increased pressure resulting from increased population, local needs,

changing policies and the need for modernization of a fast developing State (Sood,

1996). The pressure has been further intensified by improved infrastructure and

communication; by commercialization; and the diversification of the economy,

including fast expanding tourism. The splitting of joint families, partitioning and

allotment of land, and recent prosperity have all put additional direct pressures on

forest resources and have undermined traditional local responsibilities towards those

resources.

The State of Himachal Pradesh came into being in 1948 and inherited the tradition of

scientific forest management introduced in India during the nineteenth century

(Department of Forest, Farming and Conservation, 1993). The National Forest Policy

of 1952 had envisaged that the hill States like Himachal Pradesh should have 66 per

cent of their geographical area under forest for the protective functions. This policy

statement proved helpful in the formulation of management plans for the forests in

Himachal Pradesh. Moreover, with the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1976,

forestry was brought under 'Concurrent list' from the 'State list' in India. It advocated

that the State Forest Policies must be within the national framework hence, the State

of Himachal Pradesh framed its First Forest Policy in 1980 under in the framework of

National Forest Policy of 1952 (Department of Forest Farming & Conservation,

1993). The policy was formulated keeping in view the peculiar conditions prevailing

and the requirements of the State (Government of Himachal Pradesh, 1980).

I l l

4.2.2 State Forest Policy, 1980

The State Forest Policy of 1980 was to meet the peculiar forestry situations within the

State (Department of Forest Farming and Conservation, 1980). The policy guidelines

covered almost all facets of forestry in the State. Some of the salient features of this

policy were as follows:

1. The Forest policy is to become an integral part of the land management policy.

The policy is to consider the available land resources and earmarking them to

meet and balance the conflicting demands of different segments of the society.

2. Felling is to be carried out by strictly in accordance with the prescription of the

sanctioned working plans. All fellings including those for meeting the

requirements of right holders are to be accounted for against the prescribed

yields. Fresh fellings will be permitted only after securing the regeneration of the

area felled.

3. Rationalization of the Timber Distribution rights for bonafied domestic use.

Timber for new houses to be given once in life time and for repairs once in 10

years.

4. Transfer of all areas acquired by the Government under the Land Ceiling Act,

1972 and the Village Common Act, 1974, bearing forest crops or having

potential to be brought under tree crop, to the Forest Department within a year.

5. Crash afforestation programme to be formulated to increase the area under

plantations and increase the density of forest cover in areas already notified as

forest by the year 2000.

6. Master plans for management of watersheds.

7. Strengthening of the wildlife wing.

8. Forestry programmes to meet requirements of the people and encourage people

participation.

9. Fuel saving devices to be encouraged.

10. Strengthening of Indian Forest Act to stop unauthorized removals and transport

oftimber.

11. Encouragement of eco-tourism.

112

12. Nationalization of sale of trees from private lands.

13. Incidence of forest grazing be checked by formulating programmes for cattle and

pasture improvement.

14. Stoppage of all hidden subsidies which affect revenue from forests.

15. Creation of facilities for carrying out applied forestry research.

16. Setting up of an effective monitoring and evaluation unit within the Forest

Department.

The most important feature of this policy was to bring 50 per cent of the geographical

area under forest cover whereas the National Forest Policy, 1952 envisaged this per

centage to be 60 per cent in hill States like Himachal Pradesh. The geographical

conditions of the State were not found supportive to the targets fixed by the national

forest polices. Nearly 33 per cent of the area of Himachal Pradesh was either above

snow line or rocky which was not suitable for any kind of vegetation and hence, the

policy recommended bringing 50 per cent of the geographical area under forest cover

by the 2000AD.

4.2.3 Policy Initiatives

The policy emphasized the preference to meet requirements of fuel, fodder and timber

by the people, through forestry programmes and encourage people's participation.

Hence, there was the emergence of social forestry in the State through the support of

many donor agencies. In 1984, social forestry was given impetus by the National

Social Forestry (Umbrella) Project (Gupta, 2004). The main objective of the project

was to increase the production of fuel, fodder and timber to enhance the income

opportunities to the village communities and to strengthen the forestry institutions.

People were involved in the various forestry programmes by developing the Village

Development Committees (VDCs), during the project period (1984-1993). The

response of the VDCs was quite encouraging towards the forest protection and forest

development. However, the initiatives were broadly 'top down'; VDCs tended to be

imposed rather than community-driven. The project achieved its objective of planting

more than 100,000 hectares of plantations, but such physical targets took precedence

over participatory objectives, and social and equity issues could not be addressed

(Sood, 1996). Moreover, most of the VDCs became defunct after the completion of

113

the project in 1993 because the thrust was on the achievement of the physical target

and the training aspect lagged behind. As a result the progress could not be sustain

(Gupta, 2004).

Himachal Pradesh followed the national initiative in Joint Forest Management. The

framework for JFM in HP was provided by the Government of HP's order of May

1993, which followed the 1990 Government of India (JFM) circular enabling the

spread of JFM.

The formal process of JFM started in the districts of Kullu and Mandi forest circles

through the Indo-UK Himachal Pradesh Forestry Project launched in 1994 with the

assistance from the Overseas Development Agency (ODA). According to Gupta

(2004) 153 Village Forest Development Committees (VFDCs) were created (which

were later converted into Village Forest Development Socities in 2001 (VFDSs) and

registered under societies Registration Act 1860) under the project to share the

responsibility of managing the degraded forest lands with an objective to involve

people in forest management. He further reported that the objective of sustainable

forest management was not achieved because the project model created micro plan

activities generating only the wage labour which was temporary compensation to the

village communities. Moreover, the working with VFDCs was lengthy and costly as

the VFDCs tended to be too large. These did not represent the needs and priorities of

the poorest well and the access of the poor people in forest protection activities was

not reflected.

Keeping in view the limitations observed in the implementation of the Indo-UK

Forestry Project the State Forest Department launched a scheme named Sanjhi Van

Yojna (SVY) in 1998. The main objective of the scheme was to involve people in

afforestation activities in the State. Under SVY 364 VFDS were formed to carry out

the afforestation activities in the State. Under SVY the Forest Department provided

funds directly to the VFDSs for carrying out these activities thus showing full faith in

these societies.

However, it must be mentioned that JFM in Himachal Pradesh has mainly been

applied to degraded forest lands which were to be planted and required investment for

plantation establishment. Hence the focus had been on plantations mainly for

114

growing fuelwood and fodder yielding tree species to be protected from grazing,

cutting and lopping (Morrison, 2000).

4.2.4 Policy Assessment

Some constraints have been observed in the State Forest Department which affected

the effective implementation of the various forest policy initiatives. These constraints

were pointed out by Morrison (2000) as follows:

Firstly, there were no provisions or structure for policy research with the Forest

Department to utilize the research capacity and experiences of its staff members.

Secondly, there was little internal tracking of the impacts of forest policies on forests.

In addition, an impact of the other sector's policies on the forests is also going

untraced. There has been no procedure for the regular review of State forest policy

and its provisions. The Forest Sector Review undertaken in 1999-2000 was the first

such review in the State.

in addition to the above mentioned constraints of Forest Department, the policy

initiatives undertaken after the enunciation of State Forest Policy of 1980 were also

criticized by Gupta (2004) on the ground that:

Firstly, the social forestry concept promoted under Umbrella Project during 1984-

1993 was largely target driven due to which the VDCs formed became defunct after

the completion of the project. Secondly, the sustenance of the project and the training

aspect were totally ignored which failed to deliver the long lasting benefits. Thirdly,

Sanjhi Van Yojna established in 1998, was largely target-driven and as such tended to

neglect the participation of village people in its formulation. SVY also lakhked the

capacity building element. Further, SVY was a scheme not a programme of the

GoHP, which depended on the introduction of the government funds and thus may be

considered unsustainable (HPFD, 2000).

SVY reflected an appreciation of the JFM concept in the State due to the positive

impact of the Indo-UK Forestry Project (1994-2001). However, the scheme did not

adopt the participatory aspects of the project and the attitude of the forest department

as a whole was found unchanged (Blunt et ai, 1999).

Further, out of the total State forestry budget of around Rs. 80 crore for the 1998-99,

the allocation for SVY/JFM was Rs. 10 crore, which constituted 12 per cent of the

115

forestry budget. At the implementation level, only Rs. 7-8 crore.v were spent during

that financial year (Blunt et al., 1999). Moreover, JFM was lakhking the meaningful

address of the livelihood concerns of the village communities.

4.2.5 Need for Revision of the State Forest Policy

The status of forest resources and the needs of the local people and other sectors

depending upon these resources had been changing drastically in Himachal Pradesh

(HPFD & IlED, 2000). It was felt that the policy and institutional frame work for

forestry was not suited to many of these new conditions and needs.

The forests of Himachal Pradesh have multiple uses to the stakeholders and the

pressure on forests had been increasing to fulfill the subsistence needs of these

stakeholders. On the other hand, there has been little change in the policy and

institutional framework to handle such pressures rather the policies have failed to

recognize the role of forests in socio-economic, ecological and cultural development

of the State (Verma, 2003).

As a result the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department (HPFD) called for a

comprehensive forest sector review (FSR) in 1999-2000 with the support of DFID-

India. The main objective of the review was to provide a basis of information and

consensus on which to build future policies and strategies by the Forest Department

and other key institutions so that they ensure the needs of stakeholder along with

sustainable forest management. The FSR presented findings on the physical status,

use, laws, intuitions and policies concerning the valuable forests resource base.

Moreover, it offered recommendations for policy and institutional change for the

formulation of State Forest Policy. These recommendations emphasized continuing

participation, strengthening of local institutions so that they become effective forest

stewards, finding ways to realize the high forest values to help social and economic

development and thoroughly updating the HPFD as a facilitating expert service.

Hence, a new Forest Sector Policy was formulated in 2005 by the State Forest

Department.

16

Box 4.1 Summary of Recommendations of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Sector Review Recognition of the key principles:

There are multiple forest values which sustain local livelihoods and economic growth There are multiple forest stakeholders involved in the forest sector, from those dependent on forests for subsistence to state, national and international stakeholders Changing conditions - whether economic, environmental, social or institutional, conditions are changing rapidly

• The need for a lead agency to coordinate the transition to sustainable forest management (SFM).

Policy objectives: Institute a multi-stakeholder HP Forest Consultative Forum - to create a platform

for continued discussion, at a high level, with local forest fora ensuring (inks with local interests. Cross-sectoral coherence towards SFM, with an early emphasis on agreeing criteria and indicators of SFM for Himachal Pradesh. Strengthen village-level institutions to enable them to fulfil local needs for forests, as well as to contribute to the production of state, national and global forest values. Liberalise off-reserve, i.e. plantation/farm forestry on private lands, with technical support from the HPFD. Improve investment in the public benefits from forests - HPSFC could invest in improving the quantity and quality of public forest assets. Undertake organisational change and capacity development in the HPFD to support other stakeholders, and especially village-level institutions, to take up sustainable forestry roles. Develop a vision for balanced land use and to establish what types of forest are needed to meet current and future needs, and where they are. Ensure biodiversity values are factored better into land use, including a better system of protected areas, and attention given to biodiversity conservation outside protected areas. Develop a transparent information system on forests, to inform stakeholders. Greatly improve efforts to spread cnvareness afforest values, objectives, rights and responsibilities, increasing political commitment to SFM.

Source: Morrison, (2000).

4.2.6 Forest Sector Policy, 2005

Keeping in view the recommendations of the forest sector review and recognizing the

changing economic, environmental, social and institutional circumstances, the State

Government enttnciated the new Forest Sector Policy in 2005 with major thrust on

biodiversity and livelihood security (GoHP, 2005). The Forest Sector Policy aims to

achieve sustainable forest management, for the maintenance and rehabilitation of its

environment and strive for enhanced livelihoods of the people especially, women and

other resource poor groups.

4.2.6a Objectives of the Forest Sector Policy, 2005

The basic objectives of the Forest Sector Policy are as follows:

117

1. To conserve and improve the status of natural resources in the state, especially

forests, wildlife and biodiversity through effective watershed management

practices.

2. To conserve and manage forests scientifically, contemporarily and incorporating

the best practices from within and outside the state, for the present and future

generations, and to increase their values-historical, cultural, religious, economic

and aesthetic- for communities and the environment on a sustainable basis.

3. To strive for livelihood security of forest dependent communities through

protection of rights to forest goods and services.

4. To establish and support an integrated governance system that effectively

involves all stakeholders in protecting, conserving, using, managing and

restoring forests and other natural resources of the state.

5. To fulfill obligations under various national policies and laws, international

instruments including covenants, agreements and protocols related to the forest

sector.

6. To strive towards an appropriate land use in the state especially in the context of

sustainable forest management, focusing on other primary land use sectors such

as agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and those related to infrastructure

development. r

7. To strengthen the capacity for research, training, extension, education and

awareness of the Government and non government institutions related to the

forest sector.

8. To apply the best scientific information, resources, management practices and

strategies available to implement the forest sector policy and create a mechanism

to periodically review the policy keeping in view the changing circumstances

and needs.

The Forest Policy has been framed within the framework of the National Forest

Policy, 1988 to achieve sustainable forest management. Some of the salient features

of the Forest Sector Policy, 2005 are as follows Government of Himachal Pradesh,

2005):

1. Policy gave functional classification of forests as follows:

118

i) Conservation Forests: Conservation forests are the forests controlled by forest

department with state having little biotic interference in it.

ii) Production Forests: This category of forests shall be maintained for sustained

production of timber and non timber forest products. These forests will be main

source of revenue to the government.

iii) Community Forests: These forests will be managed by village communities in

harmony with the participatory forest management rules with a basic objective to

meet the livelihood needs of people.

iv) Urban Forests: These forests shall be managed for improving the urban

landscape, aesthetic values and environment services.

2. State will aim at bringing 35.5 per cent of the total geographical area of the Sate

under forest and tree cover and the balance legally classified forest land will be

managed for other purposes such as alpine pastures and glakhiers.

3. Regeneration of felled trees will be ensured in a time bound manner. Whenever

feasible plantations would follow the multi-tier and multiple use afforestation

and rehabilitation strategy. Choice of species will be decided through a

participatory approach.

4. The State Land Use Board (SLUB) will be strengthened for streamlining the land

use planning process and existing arrangements of the state land use resources by

empowering it through adequate financial resources, representative staffing from

all land using departments and regulatory functions.

5. TD Rights will be decentralized through the institution of Gram

Panchayat/Gram Sabha prior to sanction by the forest department, to ensure

equity and transparency.

6. Energy saving devices and substitution of fuel wood with alternative energy

sources will be promoted especially in fuel wood scarce areas.

7. Conservation of representative ecosystems, habitats and species will be promoted

for the conservation of biodiversity and wild life.

8. Synergies between concerned government agencies, PRIs, and NGOs will be

developed for supporting watershed approaches for natural resource

management.

119

In addition to these new shifts, there is a greater recognition of environmental and

watershed services of forests in the new policy. The new policy suggests some

specific policy measures with strategies to support such measures. The Government is

committed to bring more area under forest and tree cover, it pragmatically recognizes

the uniqueness of Himachal Pradesh as a hill State and considering the uncultivable,

barren land, snow covered peaks which cannot sustain forests, therefore has set a

realistic target of 35.5 per cent of the total geographical area under forest and tree

cover. Systematic planning and implementation of afforestation and equally important

rehabilitation programme in degraded and open forests and available non-forest land

has been envisaged.

Forest Department (2006) realizing the increasing human and cattle population and

increasing demands and commercial needs, felt a need to review the rights and

concessions in forest areas in a participatory manner so that the right holders

significantly identify themselves with protection, development and management of

forests to ensure the continuity and sustainability of such rights and concessions. As

regards bio-diversity and wildlife management, the thrust of new legislations such as

Bio-diversity Act, 2002 and the new amendments in the Wildlife Act were

recommended by the new policy, to be followed where linkage of biodiversity

conservation to livelihoods, traditional knowledge systems, and equitable benefit

sharing and recognizing the unique role of women will be the guiding principles.

A special focus on medicinal and aromatic plants as a part of non-wood forest product

management would be developed with an emphasis on livelihood security in both

public and private lands. It is envisaged that the government will develop incentives

to encourage forest based industries and procure raw material for such industries from

sources other than government forests. It is proposed that nature based tourism

including wilderness tourism will be promoted in consonance with the eco-tourism

policy of the State (Department of Information and Public Relation, 2006).

A special focus of the policy is the cold desert areas of the Sate where native

medicinal and aromatic plants and cooperative micro enterprises will be promoted.

Demarcation and settlement still awaits urgent attention of the State which has

resulted in maximum encroachment and illegal occupation on forest land. Thus the

survey, settlement and demarcation of undemarcated and unsettled notified forests

will be taken up on high priority. Forest fires, invasive weeds and stray cattle

120

problems have become serious threats not only to forest and forest based resources

but also to the livelihood base of the rural people and thus measures to control them

will be taken up on an urgent basis. The requisite institutional support to implement

the new forest sector policy has also been outlined (Forest Department, 2005).

A key feature according to the Department of Information and Public Relation (2006)

of the policy is the strengthening and reconstitution of an independent, autonomous

and multi-sectoral Centre for Policy and Planning. The role of information

technology, research and development, a comprehensive Human Resource

Development strategy and robust monitoring and evaluation systems are the other

focus areas. The policy also delineates specific legal and administrative measures and

changes that are required to support the new forest sector-policy. Lastly, the policy

envisages a long-term investment programme for forest sector funding commensurate

with the contribution of forest to the state GDP through public sector participation and

need based international funding the regular budgetary allocation.

The Forest Sector policy has been evolved through a dynamic and consultative

process and it endeavours to achieve not only the vision of the State Government but

most importantly, the aspirations of people of Himachal Pradesh.

The foregoing analysis clearly indicates that the focus of the Forest Sector Policy in

Himachal Pradesh has shifted from sustainable development to sustainable livelihood

for the forest dependent communities.

However, Morrison, (2000) and the Government of Himachal Pradesh, (2005) argued

that the effective implementation of the policy objectives depend on the allocation of

funds and the improvement in capacity building element as per the radical changes in

forest policy objectives and there is no provision or structure for policy research,

despite some research capacity and experience amongst its staff. Thus there is little

internal tracking of the impacts of forest policies, or of other sectors policies on

forests. Further, neither are there regular review procedures for HP State forest

policies; the Forest Sector Review during 1999-2000 represented the first review of its

kind in Himachal Pradesh. Moreover, economic development and rural livelihoods

from forests in Himachal Pradesh are the concern of many departments, and not just

the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department. Greater inter-sectoral coherence is needed

both at the State and the village level for which, there is a need for Forest Department

121

staff to develop more broad-based skills than forestry. The new forestry sector policy

and strategy according to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (2005) will require

significant financial and human resources for its effective implementation.

Thus, the National Forest Policies laid stress on the 66 per cent of geographical area

to be under forest cover in hill States to fulfill both the protective and productive

functions of the forests and the State Forest Policy of 1980 laid this limit to be 50 per

cent to be achieved by 2000 A.D., keeping in view the land as a limiting factor. The

existing forest cover (25.8) in this light, is much below the limits set by the Forest

Policy of 1980. However, the new Forestry Sector Policy has provided the more

realistic limit as it advocates 35.5 per cent of the area to he under forest cover. Hence,

there is a need for the significant increase in the budgetary allocation to the forestry

sector for the achievement of policy targets.

4.2.7 Conclusion

The era of scientific forest management in India began in 1864, which marked a break

in the old indigenous practices. Since then in India three forest policies have been

enunciated in 1894, 1952 and 1988. India has witnessed three Forest Policies till date

which have been characterized by a paradigm shift and a synoptic view, the same is

presented in Table-4.2.

Early forest policies tended to consider timber production as the primary function of

the forests. In today's context, a multiplicity of interests competes for forest outputs

and correspondingly forest policies have become increasingly complex. India's first

Forest Policy enunciated in 1894 laid down 'Public Benefit' as the sole objective of

the administration of public forests. Even though the policy prescribed some

safeguards, it emphasized that the effective demand for cultivable land from forest

area should ordinarily be met, thus giving preference to agriculture over forestry.

Whereas, the forest policy of 1952 recognized the protective role of forests and

discarded the notion that forestry has no intrinsic right to land. The policy for the first

time laid stress on having at least 66 per cent of the land area under forest cover and

the need for wild life conservation. However, its main focus remained on sustainable

timber production, without much emphasis on management of non commercial

species and non wood forest products.

122

o £. a. 00 O tr

a ^ •^

i: o. S ob

> .5 ca

0 0 c O

« n\ C/1

o _c

nn ̂—̂ c ^ x: > u r/1 c 3 ea

_ 1 c

> >-

0 0

o 5 i2

.£ 2 S S c •" •- £ O O T3

s-i o-̂ S ^ :S fc / ^ 00 2 P > i> § .5

E o

Si O

•g §

?fl

5 » >. o

S <-) * - 3 c o-U U

O (0

O..S

o -i:

E B

1 - => t Q .

(3 U

5 •? (/] TO U

"• c

J, g ) M

c n t ) !«

5 i .2

> i

5 CO C3

.2 o »> •J-El g i o <a > (/)

1"^

-O — c >-> a u o —

« g l/i O .

u •£ u .> ^ c

a "I a: o

I a

T3 00

c

I

00 O c '5)

CD

T3

Q_ ca <a en

§>! ". o 00 u :

> ca t/1

E > ca t/1 CL

0 0 > O u E a o "̂̂

u 00 ca

o c

c ca

C/5

to u

^ o CO

> c 00 o o

c

E c

<•-o (/) U

^ z r/ y o

g £ 9 <iz _0 j : en u — 3 > 4> O O >

<£ "̂ = t* . 1 ^ U (U O /-^ ^ - ^ - T - O

o ^ ^ ^A-t ca ca CD c C

- g-

II

III

•o o o x:

w - S C <n J!i o >->

c u

• a 1 i tn 1 3 U

c

1 o 1 u u o r^ ^ 3

o . a. tA O S: o o Q U O

U . C/3 (N

3 c3

> u oi E o

eh

t 3

_o '5. £ o o

3

o

The national forest policy of 1952 unfortunately remained almost unimplemented.

The National Commission on Agriculture (NCA) appointed by the government to

examine all aspects of agriculture including forestry clearly indicated that most of the

principles and policy measures outlined in the policy were not implemented or not

implemented effectively by the States.

The National Forest Policy of 1988 marked a major departure from the forest policy

of 1952 and laid emphasis on conservation and meeting the local needs. Forest policy

for the first time recommended the people's participation in forest protection and

forest management. The poor people have always been treated as liabilities by the

forest managers due to their dependence but this policy through peoples' participation

in forest management converted this liability into an asset for the conservation.

The National Forest Policy, 1988 however suffered from a major weakness that it had

been developed solely within the forestry sector, without being closely linked to

related sectors. The failure to achieve some of the policy objectives had been mainly

due to ineffective implementation rather than inadequacies of the policy. While

government of India may emphasize the need for environmental conservation, the

State governments are faced with their own revenue needs as well as with local

pressures to meet the needs of local people.

The State of Himachal Pradesh formulated its First Forest Policy in 1980 under the

framework of National Forest Policy of 1952. Forests were declared as Concurrent

Subject in 1976 and mandated that State Forest Policy fall within the framework of

National Forest Policy. The most important feature of this policy was to bring 50 per

cent of the geographical area under forest cover whereas the national forest policy

envisages for 66 per cent of the area to be under forest cover in hill States like

Himachal Pradesh. The geographical conditions of the State are such that the targets

fixed by the national forest polices are not achievable. Nearly 33 per cent of the area

of Himachal Pradesh is either above snow line or is rocky which is not suitable for

any kind of vegetation and hence, the policy recommended bringing 50 per cent of the

geographical area under forest cover. Since, the forestry sector in Himachal Pradesh

had been experiencing drastic changes Forest Sector Review was conducted in 1999

which presented findings on the physical status, use, laws, intuitions and policies

concerning the valuable forests resource base and offered recommendations for policy

and institutional change for the formulation of State Forest Policy. These

126

recommendations emphasized on continuing participation, strengthening of local

institutions so that they become effective forest stewards, finding ways to realize the

high forest values to help social and economic development.

Keeping in view the recommendations of the forest sector review and recognizing the

changing economic, environmental, social and institutional circumstances. State

Government enunciated the new Forest Sector Policy in 2005, within the framework

of the National Forest Policy, 1988 to achieve sustainable forest management with

major thrust on biodiversity and livelihood security. A key feature of the policy is the

strengthening and reconstitution of an independent, autonomous and multi-sectoral

Centre for Policy and Planning. The role of information technology, research and

development, a comprehensive Human Resource Development strategy and robust

monitoring and evaluation systems are the other focus areas. The policy envisages a

long-term investment programme for forest sector funding commensurate with the

contribution of forest to the state GDP through public sector participation and need

based international funding the regular budgetary allocation.

The Forest Sector Policy has evolved through a dynamic and consultative process and

it endeavours to achieve not only the vision of the State Government but most

importantly the aspirations of people of Himachal Pradesh.

In this scenario, it becomes imperative to evaluate the resource availability with the

State Forest Department for the effective implementation of the above mentioned

Forest Policies, formulated for the forest conservation and forest management in

Himachal Pradesh.

127