This document summarizes a case study of the Village Reforestation Program (VRP) in Embilipitiya Range, Sri Lanka. The VRP involves farmers planting trees on leased state land for 4 years. It has successfully reforested over 30 hectares since 2001. Farmers grow cash crops between trees and are paid incentives. The case study found farmers' incomes increased and they benefited from social cooperation. However, younger generations lack participation. Forest officers built strong community bonds but faced challenges with wildlife damage and delayed payments. Overall, farmers and officers were satisfied with the VRP approach to community forestry.

1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF
VILLAGE REFORESTATION
PROGRAM.
R.M.T.D. Madusanka,
AS2012135

2. 1. Community forestry.
2. Community forestry in Sri Lanka.
3. Different approaches of community forestry programs.
4. Village Reforestation Program.
5. Present approach of VRP.
6. Present status of VRP.
7. Case study in Embilipitiya range.
8. Conclusions.
9. Farmers involved in the socio economic survey.
10. Contact persons.
11. References.

3. Community forestry.
“Any situation which intimately
involves local people in a forestry
activity”
 Comprise three main elements.
1. The provision of fuel and other essential goods to meeting
basic needs at the rural household and community level.
2. The provision of food and environmental stability necessary for
continued food production.
3. The generation of income and employment in the rural
community.

4. Community forestry in Sri Lanka.
Practiced in Sri Lanka since 1870.
Most of the teak plantations in the dry zone have
been established under this program.
During the period of 1970-1980 this program was
very successful.
The success of this program depends on the
level of participation by the local farmers.
Today the rate of participation & available lands
for this program has been declined.

5. Different approaches of community
forestry programs.
• Block planting by direct labour.
• Block planting by local level organizations.
• Block planting by taungiya.
• Community woodlots.
• Farmer woodlots.
• Farmer agroforestry plots.
• Private tree planting.
• Conservation farming with trees.
• Home garden improvement program.
• Distribution of Minor Export Crops.
• Tree seedling distribution campaigns.
Modified in to Village
Reforestation

6. Village Reforestation Program.
Carried out in areas which are identified by the
FD for reforestation.
Farmers living adjacent to the area are involve in
this program.
FD giving out contracts to
those farmers to reforest
state land.
Farmers are paid the amount
that would otherwise spend
by the FD on hired labour.

7. Present approach of VRP.
Selected farmers were given a block of 0.4ha of state land.
Mainly abandoned chena land or harvested plantation.
4 year period of lease agreement.
Farmers are responsible for the land preparation and
planting of timber species.
Planting materials and technical know how are supplied by
the FD.
Farmers are allowed to grow cash crops in between the
tree plants.
They are entitled for the entire harvest of cash crops.
In addition farmers are given a cash incentive for the
establishment and maintenance of their planting block.

8. A Case study…..

9. Case study…
• Village reforestation program which was conducted in
Embilipitiya Range.
Embilipitiya

10. Participatory reforestation in
Embilipitiya Range..
Reforestation has been done with co-operative
associations in 1950s.
Cash crops were grown in early stages of plantation.
More or less similar system to the VRP.
Very successful.
In 1998, mature teak plantations are started to fell.
Village reforestation has been introduced as a new
strategy to raise new plantations.

11. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Area reforested in each year by VRP in
Embilipitiya Range.
Area reforested / ha

12. Organization of the VRP in Embilipitiya
Range.
1 • District Forest Officer.
2 • Range Forest Officer.
3 • Beat Forest Officer.
4 • Forest Extension Officers.
5 • Farmers Association.
6 • Farmers.

13. Selection of farmers and offering
blocks.
Range office inform farmers association to
prepare a list of eligible farmers to have a block.
Farmers are interviewed by the FD.
Blocks are distributed among the selected
farmers by the interview, in a random manner.
Each farmer can have an one block. If there are
excess blocks, one farmer can get more than one
block.
Exchange blocks between farmers is possible if
both are ok.

14. The agreement.
Signed by the farmer & DFO.
For 4 year time period.
All the dos’ and don'ts’ are mentioned.

15. Incentive system.
1st year
• Land preparation – Rs 29755/=
• Planting – Rs 29755/=
2nd year
• 1st maintenance – Rs 16230/=
• 2nd maintenance – Rs 16230/=
3rd year
• 3rd maintenance – Rs 16230/=
• 4th maintenance – Rs 16230/=
4th year
• 5th maintenance – Rs 16230/=
(per ha values are mentioned)

16. What they prefer as the timber species?
Timber species is selected by the FD.
Farmers are satisfied with teak.
Favor Kohomba.
Reject Khaya.

17. Fruits
• Banana
• Papaya
Cereals
• Green gram
• Cow pea
• Peanut
Vegetables
• Brinjal
• Chilie
Medicinal plants
• “Katu wel batu”
• Asamodagam
Major cash crop species.

18. Pros…..
Income levels of the
farmers are increased -
High income from the
cash crops.
Year round income
rather than seasonal.
Create job opportunities
within the village.
-In the plantations.
-In the nursery.
Increased family bond
by work together.

19. Pros…..
Increased social bonds through the farmers
association.
-Help each other in the cultivation works &
even in the day today needs.
Cultural events.
• Pirith program.
• Paththini daana.
• Shanthikarma.
Increased life quality.

20. Cons….
Lack of participation from the
younger generation.
Decreased schooling of the
children.
Program is not a continuous
one.

21. Difficulties face by the farmers.
Attacks of wild animals to their cultivations.
- Cattles, Axis deer, Wild boar, Rats.
- Fencing materials were given by FD.
Delayed incentives.
Drought.

22. Difficulties face by FD officers.
Inadequate transport facilities for the field
inspections.
Difficulties in removing the farmers from their
blocks after the contract period.
Difficulties to detect violations of the
agreement by the farmers.

23. What are they requesting….
Only thing they requesting
is lands to cultivate.
Very big interest to take part
village reforestation
program.
But the limitation is the
lands.
There is a 7.38ha
unsuccessful khaya
plantation nearby.
Farmers propose that, fell it
and give them a opportunity
to establish teak plantation
with VRP.

24. Farmers involved in the socio economic
survey….
• V.R. Irangani.
• D.H.Podiappuhami.
• D.G. Podiappuhami.
• D.W. Piyadasa.
• R.P. Gunadasa.
• K.G.R. Heenmahaththaya.
• W. Somarathne.
The Questioner.

25. Conclusions.
All the farmers are representing the older
generation. It shows that younger generation
are not actively participate in the program.
About 50% of the farmers are women. So
rural women are highly benefited from the
program.
Farmers are really appreciating the service
provided by the forest extension officers.
Farmers are satisfied with the procedure of
the program.
Forest Department officers are able to built a
very strong bond with the community by VRP.

26. Contact persons.
• Mr. K.P. Ariyadasa,
Former conservator general,
Forest Department.
• Mr. E.A.P.N. Edirisinghe,
Assistant conservator of forest,
Forest inventory & Management
Division.
Forest Department.
• Miss. Hemantha Thennakon,
Librarian,
Forest Department.
• Mr. M.G. Premarathne,
Beat Forest officer,
Central Plant Nursery
Thimbolketiya, Embilipitiya.
• Miss. A.W.L. Padmini Wijedasa,
Forest Extension Officer,
Range Forest Office,
Embilipitiya.
• Miss. H.Shiroma Lakmani,
Forest Extension Officer,
Range Forest Office,
Embilipitiya.

27. References.
Operational guidelines for community forestry
Management – Forest Department (2007)
Participatory Forest Management of Sri Lanka – R.L.
Stirrat, University of Sussex(1998)
Development plan of the participatory forest resource
management project – Panakaduwa, Mahaaragama
Social forestry in integrated rural development planning of
Sri Lanka – FAO (1998)
Forest Departments’ Integrated rural development
project, Ratnapura Joint forestry program - Dewayalage
Tilakaratne.

28. Diggings
made by the
porcupines in
the base of
plants.
Considerable
Lantana
invasion in
the plantation.
After one year by handover the
plantations to the FD.
Pictures show
that the
importance of
the program