Session 1.1 trees on private land

Trees on Private Land

A regulatory impact analysis in two states in India.

Chetan Agarwalindependent analyst

Importance of trees on private lands

• Growing stock in TOF is 25%

– Forest 4498 mcum

– TOF 1548

– Total 6047

• Production

– Recorded forest area 3 mcm

– Imports 6 mcm

– TOF (potential) 42 mcm

Tale of two states – MP & Haryana

India MP Haryana

Forest cover < 1/4 1/3 < 5%

Recorded Forest Area 769,538 94,689 1,559

Growing stock (Forest) 4498.7 249.6 4.893

Growting stock (TOF) 1548.4 85.1 15.268

Production (Forest) mcm 3.175 0.397 0.108

Potential production (TOF) 42.7 3.168 1.975

12.5% 5.5%

Trees of private lands: Nature of regulations

• Forest, deemed forest or Agro-forest ?• Reserved species whose felling requires permission and

transit requires permits, e.g. teak• Exempt species whose felling does not require permission

and transit does not require permits, e.g popular• In between species where transit is regulated.• Partially decentralized species where permissions /permits

are devolved to the revenue department or gram panchayat.

• Urban preservation of trees acts which put severe controls on cutting of trees primarily from an asthetic / environmental point of view in urban areas.

Context of regulation

• It is hard to ascertain the origin of wood –whether from farm or public forest.

• The presence of extensive public forestscreates additional pressure to regulate private lands,

• Forest-poor states like Haryana - easier to deregulate

• Exotic species like Eucalyptus and Populus are easily deregulated.

Context of regulation

• Forest rich states worry about poaching– Madhya Pradesh, – over a third of the geographical area is recorded forest land – commercially valuable sal and teak forests. – The total growing stock is approximately 50 million m3 and with

a gross value of Rs.2 500 billion or US$55.5 billion.

• Expectations regarding farmer behaviour– large scale felling on private lands if regulations are relaxed.

• Increasing value of alternate land-uses – e.g. real estate puts additional pressures in peri-urban areas

Review in a Forest Rich state

• diverse types of controls,

• multiple points of regulation and

• Regulatory burden on farmers

• considerable regulatory burden on the implementing agencies as well

nature of controls

Based on factors such as:• Location

– (distance from the forests).

• Species harvested – (is it a quintessential forest species?).

• Use– (commercial or domestic).

• environmental or social concerns – conserving trees near waterbodies, in high sloping areas,

near public paths.

• Condition of trees: – Dead and dying trees less strictly regulated than green

trees- often perverse incentive

Points of regulation in value chain

1. Pre-harvest 1. (permission – at several levels).

2. Post-harvest 1. (marking of harvested trees).

3. Pre-transit 1. (approval of transit permit 2. and charge of royalties and fees if applicable).

4. In-transit 1. (checking at check posts).

5. Point of sale 1. (nationalized species /monopoly buyer e.g. teak in MP).

Rules in MP – major revamp around 2000-2002

• Madhya Pradesh Prohibition or Regulation of the cutting of Trees Rules, 2002– Specify the institutional structure of permitting, location based constraints on

harvesting, harvesting of selected non-timber tree species with local permission.

•

• Madhya Pradesh Regulation of Felling and Removal of timber in villages adjoining Government Forests, Rules 2002.– Establish the institutional structure for permitting harvesting based on use –

sale or self-use, as well as conditions for reducing the regulatory burden.

• Madhya Pradesh Transit (Forest Produce) Rules 2000– Define the institutional roles of the Forest Department and Gram Panchayats

for regulating the movement of forest produce, especially timber.

•

• Madhya Pradesh Lok Vaniki Rules 2002– Provide requirements for managing “tree clad” areas on private lands and

revenue lands and exclusions from general rules.

objective implementation

• objective implementation

– various regulatory bodies involved

– to undertake a number of steps, if they followed the regulations to the letter.

Steps for objective implementation Regulatory burden on the regulator too

• These steps identified below are from a review of regulation in one state which has good forests, to highlight the complexity in the system:

1. Ascertain how the applicant will use the wood. 2. Cross check ownership of land3. Whether the tree is dead or dying.4. If dead or dying, was the process assisted or created by human help?5. Whether the slope of the land where each tree is located is above a specified level.6. The species of each tree and whether it is an exempted species.7. Estimate the potential volume.8. Whether the volume is above 2 m3, if it is for subsistence use and of non-exempted species.9. Whether the tree confers locational benefits near a path, or waterbody, or has other public benefits.10. Cross-check the harvested wood with the approved amount.11. Hammer mark the wood.12. Approve a transit pass.13. Cross-check the transit pass en route.14. Cross-check the wood if it goes to a sawmill for processing.15. Cross-check wood that comes back to the buyer to confirm it is put for domestic use.16. Buy the wood at the depot, if it is a monopoly item. 17. Grade it to determine the potential price.18. Sell the wood.19. Realize payment.20. Subtract costs.21. Send net payment to the seller.22. If the seller is a tribal, credit the amount to a joint account between the tribal and the district collector

and monitor the use of the money.

Lok Vaniki

• scientific management plan for private holdings

• continuity of forest/ tree cover

• Increased productivity

• Simplified periodic felling as per plan

• Regulatory by-pass for other regulations

• 150000 ha of pvt forests lands

• doubling timber production

Experience of Lok Vaniki

• 2005 Chartered foresters role reduced• 2007 Tree felling permission decentralized from

district collector to tehsildar• 2008-9 Ban on felling under lok Vaniki• 2911 Revised draft rule for lok vaniki

• 600 plus plans in one district (Dewas)• 2000 odd ha covered• Slowdown in growth, but hardly any change of landuse• Farmers facing constraints in felling permissions, and new/revised

plans• Land records and maps not geo-referenced

• Amendments

– Joint survey of Revenue & forest officials (regulatory scarcity and rationing)

– GPS boundary map in addition to Revenue boundary may - compatibility issues

• FSC certification of selected Lok Vaniki forests

Current situation in MP

• Non-exempt spp.• Harvesting of limited volumes for self use with an informational requirement. • Dead and dying trees of few species can be cut with Panchayat permission. • Commercial felling of existing non-exempt trees -fairly elaborate regulatory

procedure. • The delay in approving harvesting hits farmers hard. • Lok Vaniki is designed to motivate farmers to think of long term forest

management and not one time harvest and conversion of land use. • The primary benefit of Lok Vaniki provides is exemptions from numerous

harvesting regulations. Earlier, high transaction costs of the previous regulations, non-trivial benefit.

• In recent years, regular harvesting dencentralized to tehsildar, and complexities of Lok Vaniki increased, making it less attractive. Downside – less area under long term managed.

•

Burden on regulator

• Regulation implementaion burden on administrators

– high ascertainment costs should they try to implement regulations objectively.

– rationing, where only a small proportion of applications are likely approved.

Burden on regulated

• Corollary , regulatory burden for small and large farmers, significant, especially for any commercial use of healthy trees.

• Direct impact – transaction cost burden placed on landowners that try to

harvest and sell trees. • length of the approval process, • the uncertainty of approval, • Cost of lawyer or an agent to shepherd the application• Or - the costs of tens of trips to meet officials

• Indirect impact – Disincentive for protection and nurturing of naturally

regenerated and planted trees on private lands.

Haryana

• Forest cover 3.9%• Tree and forest cover 6.8%• Punjab Land Preservation Act

– Section 4 (General) – areas notified for restrictions on tree cutting without

permission – both rural and urban

• Exempt species – 7 on felling of transportation permission required

• For urban areas – no tree preservation act. • Identification of forests on private lands,

commonlands, and privatised commonlands

Is this a forest ?: Govt of Haryana yet to make up its mind…..

International Context

• International regulations encourage legality

– EU Timber Regulations

– US Lacey Act

• Verification of source is key

• Challenge – to allow tracability without increasing transaction costs and entry barriers for small farmers

Concluding thoughts

• Options to Increase ROR– Increase productivity of species– Review regulatory systems and assess implementation burden– Revise accordingly– Identify forests on community/pvt. Lands – reduce uncertainty– Apply technology

• Georeferenced land record maps• Tracing of timber – bar codes etc• Online availability of Transit Permits

• Benefits– Reduce ascertainment costs for regulator– Reduce delays for regulated– Allow env. Safeguards to be retained with lower regulatory costs– Faciliate sharing of eco-system services information, provide basis for

PES