The establishment of the vegetation cover is one of the most effective ways of conserving soil and water. As is well known, the magnitude of soil loss depends upon several factors such as erodibility of the soil, erosivity of rain, slope, vegetation types, management practices, etc.

Water infiltration in the soil is enhanced by both the trees’ root action and the accumulation of absorbant humus on the soil surface, thereby significantly reducing the volume, velocity and erosive as well as leaching capacity of surface runoff. Tree crowns lessen solar radiation on the soil, reduce soil temperatures, and thereby reduce moisture loss through evaporation from the surface soil where most annual food crops draw their moisture and nutrients.

In undisturbed forest ecosystems, under saturated conditions, water movement takes place in soil through macro-pores that dominate the pore space and therefore, surface runoff is generally low, even in regions of intense rains with a high drop-size distribution. The removal of the vegetation cover from the soil generally results both in an increase in density and a decrease in porosity, as well as a reduction in infiltration in addition to direct effects of trees on the physical properties of soils. There are also indirect advantages that could profitably be made use of in soil management, especially in agroforestry. For example, one of the well-accepted effects of mulching (which is one of the most feasible soil management practices in agro forestry) is the improvement of physical properties of soils.

These attributes of trees and their favourable influence and effect on soil conservation, physical properties, the hydrological balance, micro-climate, shelter belt effect, sequestration effects of trees, consume and stabilize the ecosystem for other forms of life to flourish, are sufficiently large to indicate the beneficial role of trees.

Many food-deficit countries and other developing countries find it difficult to pay for imports to meet their growing food needs. They, therefore, expand cultivation on to marginal lands and forest areas, woodlands and grasslands, fragment natural ecosystems and reduce biodiversity. Poor land management then increases erosion, reduces moisture retention, accelerates leaching of nutrients and pollutes land with salts. Productivity declines and, in the worst cases, the new lands become desertified or so damaged that it is not economic to recover them.

Under the GEF, the costs of activities to fight land degradation, primarily desertification and deforestation, are eligible for funding, provide they relate to at least one of the four main focal areas. The third GEF Council approved the Scope and Operational Strategy for Land Degradation in 1995, in consultation with the three implementing agencies and the GEF secretariat. In 1996, the GEF Council asked the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of GEF to examine the issue of controlling land degradation in more detail. The STAP outlined some key issues which included the importance of the participatory approach; the need to address problems of land tenure and distortions caused by inappropriate policies; data collection, analysis and dissemination as well as indicators of improvement; and effective institutional coordination.

STAP proposed that priority projects in arid, semi-arid and sub-humid areas should focus on:

• problems of biodiversity related to integrated ecosystem management;

• integrated resource management for the preservation and enhancement of biodiversity, management of carbon sequestration and water resources in the context of land degradation;

• problems of international use of surface or sub-surface water resources in the context of land degradation;

• provision of basic decision support information for climate change, biodiversity and international waters in areas such as land capability, GIS databases, in relation to integrated land, water and biodiversity use in areas affected by land degradation; and

• activities which address technologies which can help local people develop the sustainable use of drylands.

A regional, sub-regional and trans-boundary approach is a key aspect in responding effectively to local land degradation problems.

India was one of the first nations in the world to establish a professional forest service and nationalize its forest domain under the Forest Act of 1865. During the next 100 years much of the country’s unauthorised land was demarcated and planted under the management of the Indian Forest Service and state forest departments.

Tribal communities and other forest dwellers rights eroded as state agencies and the private sector established greater control. By the 1960s, efforts to regenerate forests with financial support from donors were restricted to private lands and village community lands with the total exclusion of concern for the nationalised forest lands. A lot of money and effort went into these private forestry ventures without much success and hence today issues of setting-up nurseries and afforestation on private lands is a low priority with donors.

By the 1980s, however, concern over rapidly disappearing forest cover and wildlife led to the passing of the Forest Conservation Act placing tight restrictions on timber felling. Yet, it was not till the National Forest Policy Act of 1988 was passed that community forest use rights were given greater recognition. By the early 1990s, when 23% of India’s land area was designated as public forests, only 9 to 11 per cent possessed good forest vegetation cover. Over the past 10 years, 17 Indian States have issued orders for implementation of Joint Forest Management (JFM) schemes. It is currently estimated that 20,000 villages have formed forest protection groups, many of which effectively controls access to 3 to 5 per cent of India’s total forest area representing approximately 2 million hectares. The challenge now is to continue the transition process and arranging villages and forest dwellers to protect forests which can be effectively done only by building buffer zones and providing alternatively livelihood opportunities and restricting grazing and firewood pressures on the forest. q