The following case studies were written by the UVM Community-Based Forestry class of 2002. They chose two different types of case studies to present . The first is a national case study set in Hayfork, California. The second is an international case study from Karnataka, India. These two case studies illustrate community-based forestry in action.
Hayfork, California
"If you're natural resource-dependent," says Lynn Jungwirth of Hayfork, "you have to re-couple with your landscape and reinvent that relationship. I came to believe that coming together to help heal the forest would bring social healing as well." In 1993 Jungwirth started the Watershed Research and Training Center in Hayfork, giving the people of her town new hope. The mission of the Center is to prepare those people who have been caught in the shift from logging to ecosystem management to do the kind of work that will allow them a role in the new system. Displaced loggers and sawmill workers are currently being trained in such positions as landscape surveyors and as restoration and maintenance workers.
Reviewing the town's social and economic history, the Center found that there actually was no direct correlation between high levels of logging and economic prosperity. The poverty rate was rising primarily because the high-paying jobs were going to outside contractors and the logs to other areas for processing. Jungwirth says the people of Hayfork were convinced that "if we were going to build an economic system that supports sustainable forestry, we had to find a way to make sure the benefits stayed in the town."
Working with local talent, the Center developed a machine that is able to pluck small diameter trees from the forest and cause minimum ecological damage. This thinning is not only required for forest restoration, it also provides lumber to local woodworkers who turn it into flooring and furniture. Jungwirth is also working on convincing the Forest Service to consider hiring local crews trained by the center to do restoration work, rather than specialized outside crews.
The Watershed
Research and Training Center has been successful to date due to
several favorable conditions. Government officials and local managers
of the forest have been collaborative partners throughout the history
of the project. People with varied interests, such as timber,
environmental, community, school, and tribal interests have been able
to work together toward a common goal. Policies including an emphasis
on community involvement, funding, and the designation of the Hayfork
area as one of ten Adaptive Management Areas created by the Northwest
Forest Plan have assisted the building of community capacity. Because
this town has decided to turn to community forestry as a means to cope
with an uncertain future, that future is beginning to look a little
brighter.
Follow the links below for more information on community
forestry in Hayfork, California
Saving Forests, Healing Towns by Theadora Lurie
Community
forestry initiatives for the creation of sustainable livelihoods: a
case from North America. By Cecilia Danks.
This is a PDF file.
Karnataka, India
Background of Social Forestry in India
Problems with forest degradation in Karnataka can be traced back to the social practices during British rule in India. Between 1947 and 1977, the forest cover of India decreased by 20 percent. Even more alarming was that in 2002 less than 11 percent of India's land was under sufficient tree cover. Poor forest cover has negatively impacted the majority of India's population who live off the forest. These individuals look towards the forest for needs such as fodder for animals, fertilizer, fuel for heat and cooking, and lumber for housing. The expanding population increased the demand for timber products.
Overview of Benefits of Projects in India
Social/community forestry projects began in India to help with the revitalization of the soil. Years of degradation led to dried-out soils with a loss of nutrients. Poor, dried-out soil without plants and trees led to high levels of erosion during rainstorms and monsoons. The government designed a project to increase the size of the forest so that firewood would be more accessible to local individuals and further degredation of the forest would slow down. The government was also hoping to clean up waterways and revitalize dried up streams and riverbeds.
Karnataka Social Forestry in 1980
The Karnataka Social Forestry Project was established to focus on the problems with forest degredation. The program called for small private landowners and farmers to own and maintain the land. The largest uncertainty in this project, however, was determining which trees should be planted on the land. The government thought that Eucalyptus trees should be planted, which were non-native, but would supply the fuel and firewood for the people. There were many problems with these trees, however. They did not burn well, which resulted in an inefficient fuel source, they did not provide fodder for the animals, their leaves did not add nutrients to the soil, and in some places they displaced labor which had previously worked in agriculture. Other tree species were a better choice for this social forestry program because not only did they provide firewood, but they also provided other necessary items that the Eucalyptus trees did not. Tree species such as the Honge, Tamarind, Pale and Neem not only provided individuals with the former essential items, but also provided an oil used in lanterns, fruit and an organic pesticide. Many small local farms planted these trees that were native to the local environment, while most larger landowners planted the Eucalyptus trees.
Eucalyptus Plantations: The Good and Bad
The number of Eucalyptus trees that were provided as saplings by the government far outnumbered the saplings offered of native species. This discrepancy resulted in large numbers of Eucalyptus plantations. In just a few years, 55,000 acres were covered with them. In 1980 alone, 14,000 acres were dedicated to Eucalyptus trees. Despite the vast amounts of land converted into Eucalyptus trees, the wood was poor for burning. It burned at a quick rate and sustaining a fire for enough time to cook a meal consumed a vast amount of wood. This was difficult for the local people who were forced to purchase large amounts of wood. High demand kept prices artificially inflated. The vast number of Eucalyptus trees also made it difficult to find fodder for the animals. An even further problem that locals faced was that most of the indigenous trees that they had previously found to be successful in a number of essential areas were limited in number and protected by the government.
Failure in the Social Forestry Plan
The Social Forestry Plan was not a success. It devoted too high a percentage of the tree planting to quantity rather than the type and quality of the trees. Although Eucalyptus trees grow more quickly than the standard varieties, and were at the focus of the forest revitalization project, they did not provide the community with basic subsistence items. Once Eucalyptus trees were established in an area, they needed little care or monitoring by the local people. This resulted in a decrease in employment opportunities for local individuals. Project planners originally believed that Eucalyptus was the only tree that could survive in the degraded conditions in Karnataka. This belief has since been disproved by smaller farmers who chose to plant indigenous tree species rather than Eucalyptus in the 1980s.
Knowledge Gained From Early Reforestation Programs in India
Research prior to the implementation of a large-scale project is necessary for a community. This can take the form of testing the project in a number of small areas for a period of time long enough to observe the positive and negative impacts of the project on the landscape and local community. If the project planners for Karnataka had tested the native trees on the degraded soil prior to ruling them out, they would have observed that these tree species were able to survive, as well as provide the necessary elements individuals needed for survival. Testing the Eucalyptus trees would also have provided the project planners with concrete data illustrating the detrimental impacts of the species before it was planted on a large scale. Funding played a large part in the Social Forestry Plan. Although the program was based off a project proposal to the World Bank, it was a smaller organization that actually implemented the program. Funding for the program was limited from the beginning, effecting both the preliminary research that took place, as well as the trees available to individuals.
For more information on Karnataka and social forestry check out these links:
Campaign for Participatory Forest Management in Karnataka
Karnataka Social Forestry Project (KSFP), India
The World Bank in India (This is a PIRG website - expect a biased report)
