forestry project

Example from the Hansard archive. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0
However, this is not true in all villages, and this is probably what has marred many social forestry projects.
Later, it has been demonstrated that the multi-criteria method adopted can be a useful tool for policymakers when sorting forestry projects into predefined ordered categories.
This cost will become the focus of attention if eco-forestry and directly subsidized forestry projects make significant inroads into areas earmarked for industrial logging concessions.
An important policy implication of these results is the need to consider household and site specific factors when designing and implementing community forestry projects.
There is therefore a great need to find out when social forestry projects are successful and why.
As a result, many large social forestry projects were carried out in the 1980s.
An analysis of underlying reasons for success, that could guide future plantation efforts, has great potential to increase the returns from social forestry projects.
This is yet another indication of a common experience in social forestry projects, viz. that adoption is much easier and faster among better-off people, including land owners.
Under the plan, the farm forestry projects with the quick growing species like bamboo and eucalyptus were launched to meet the requirements of the pulp and paper industries.
This is especially true for social forestry projects that have fared so badly that many large-scale projects have been discontinued and few new ones are planned.
The interest among farmers for social forestry projects has often been limited because of uncertainties regarding ownership and access and more fundamentally because it has not addressed their main concerns.
Perhaps tax breaks could be given to individuals who are not landowners but who wish to invest in local forestry projects and collective planting schemes.
From the
Hansard archive