Economic growth versus climate balancing: some reflections on the sustainable management of forest resource in India


Designing of a sustainable forest policy is of extreme importance in our present world where the process of rapid economic growth is causing imbalance in the climatic cycles by denying ecosystems sufficient time for adaptation and the socioeconomic systems adequate opportunity for mitigation. In this paper, the forests are considered highly resilient natural resource that plays a major role in reducing the impact of global climate change through carbon sequestration, heat absorption, watershed protection, acid deposition, etc. This paper examines the prospect of sustainable forest management for an emerging economy like India, where forest coverage has gone up over the last three decades in spite of population growth, rapid urbanization, and fast economic growth. To assess the possibility of sustainable future growth in a globally congenial environment, the extent of ecological stress on Indian economy has been checked and pattern of public as well as private expenditure along with import and export of forestry and related products analyzed. The import of forestry-based products are increasing in terms of volume, value and unit prices throughout this period and the major importers of raw and semi-finished forestry-based inputs are the South and East Asian countries. From the perspective of material balance, the results of structural decomposition analysis reveal increasing dominance of economic growth over other effects indicating necessity of designing intervention to decouple potential future economic growth from forest resources to ensure long run sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. 1.

    BRIC stands for Brazil–Russia–India–China.

  2. 2.

    This section draws heavily from Bit and Banerjee (2015), Banerjee and Bit (2014).

  3. 3.

    The I–O tables are in the form of square matrices showing in each row the disposal (use) of output of a sector as input used in different sectors (intermediate use) and for final use in the economy during the year. They cover all sectors of the economy and their subsectors.

  4. 4.

    Sector codes are taken from 1993–1994 round of I–O tables in CSO site.

  5. 5.

    This section draws mostly from Banerjee and Bit (2014), Bit and Banerjee (2014).

  6. 6.

    Managed forest means a sustainable forest in which usually at least one tree is planted for every tree felled.

  7. 7.

    This section is taken from Bit and Banerjee (2015).

  8. 8.

    Initially the Forest Department was clubbed with the Department of Agriculture and later it became a part of the environment department.


  1. Aggarwal A, Mishra TK, Nagaraja BC, Maiti SK, Mandal DK, Ramprasad V, Jagannatha Rao R, Bhat PR, Nagendra MDV, Khan H (2004) Joint forest management: lessons from case studies. In: Ravindranath NH, Sudha P (eds) Joint Forest Management in India- Spread, Performance and Impact. Universities Press, Hyderabad, pp 180–195

  2. Banerjee S, Bit J (2014) Forest conservation in India: an inquiry into economic linkages and long-run sustainability. CBS J Manag Pract 1(2):19–28

  3. Bit J (2014) Sustainable forest conservation in India: economic linkages and livelihood dependence. Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Science) in Economics, Department of Economics, University of Calcutta

  4. Bit J, Banerjee S (2014) Consumption of wood products and dependence on imports: a study on post-reform India. Foreign Trade Rev 49(3):263–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bit J, Banerjee S (2015) Sustainable forest use and India’s economic growth: a structural decomposition analysis of direct forest intensity. In: Dinda S (ed) Handbook of research on climate change impact on health and environmental sustainability, IGI Global, USA (forthcoming)

  6. Bradshaw CJA, Giam X, Sodhi NS (2010) Evaluating the relative environmental impact of countries. PLoS One 5(5). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010440

  7. Butler R (2010) Protecting their rainforest: Amazon tribes embrace technology to save land, culture. 10 June 2011

  8. Chenery B, Watanabe T (1958) International comparisons of the structure of production. Econometrica 26(4):487–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chopra K (2006) Informal sector contribution to GDP: a study of the forestry sector. Accessed 20 June 2013

  10. Chopra K, Kumar P (2003) Forest biodiversity and timber extraction: an analysis of the interaction of market and non-market mechanism. EEE Working Papers Series 8

  11. Dhanagare DN (2000) Joint forest management in UP: people, panchayats and women. Econ Polit Wkly 35(37):3315–3324

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dietzenbacher E, Los B (1998) Structural decomposition techniques: sense and sensitivity. Econ Syst Res 10(4):307–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dutta M, Roy S, Saha S, Maity DS (2004) Forest protection policies and local benefits from NTFP—lessons from West Bengal. Econ Polit Wkly 39(6):587–591

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fikreyesus S, Kebebew Z, Nebiyu A, Zeleke N, Bogale S (2011) Allelopathic effects of Eucalyptus camaldulensis dehnh—on germination and growth of tomato. Am–Eur J Agric Environ Sci 11(5):600–608

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ghate R, Ghate S (2010) Joint forest management, role of communication and harvesting behaviour: evidence from field experiments in India. SANDEE Working Paper No. 53–10

  16. Haan MD (2001) A structural decomposition analysis of pollution in the Netherlands. Econ Syst Res 13(2):181–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Haripriya GS, Parikh JK (1998) Socioeconomic development and demand for timber products—a panel data analysis. Glob Environ Change 8(3):249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Harris J (2006) Ecosystem management: forest and water systems. In: Proceedings of environmental and natural resource economics: a contemporary approach. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, pp 327–353

  19. Accessed 10th May 2013

  20. Accessed 15 Mar 2014

  21. Accessed 20 Feb 2014

  22. Jones LP (1976) The measurement of Hirschmanian linkages. Quart J Econ 90(2):323–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Joshi A (1999) Progressive bureaucracy: an oxymoron? The case of joint forest management in India. Rural Development Forestry Network. Network paper 24a—Winter 1998/1999

  24. Lele S (2011) Rethinking forest governance: towards a perspective beyond JFM, the Godavarman case and FRA. The Hindu Survey of the Environment, pp 95–103

  25. Lenzen M (2003) Environmentally important paths, linkages and key sectors in the Australian economy. Struct Change Econ Dyn 14:1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mattila T, Leskinen P, Mäenpää I, Seppälä J (2011) An environmentally extended input–output analysis to support sustainable use of forest resources. Open For Sci J 4:15–23

    Google Scholar 

  27. McDermott CL (2012) Plantations and communities: key controversies and trends in certification standards. FSC Certified Plantations and Local Communities workshop: Overview paper. Forest Stewardship Council

  28. Mendelsohn R, Dinar A, Sanghi A (2001) The effect of development on the climate sensitivity of agriculture. Environ Dev Econ 6:85–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mizrach B (1992) The distribution of the Theil U-statistic in bivariate normal populations. Econ Lett 38(2):163–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mukherjee N (1995) Forest management and survival needs: community experience in West Bengal. Econ Polit Wkly 30(49):3130–3132

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mukherji S (2004) Fragile environment. Manak Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mukhopadhyay K, Forssell O (2005) An empirical investigation of air pollution from fossil fuel combustion and its impact on health in India during 1973–1974 to 1996–1997. Ecol Econ 55:235–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Muñoz JP, Hubacek K (2008) Material implication of Chile’s economic growth: combining material flow accounting (MFA) and structural decomposition analysis (SDA). Ecol Econ 65:136–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Paloviita, A (2004) Matrix sustainability: applying input–output analysis to environmental and economic sustainability indicators—case: Finnish forest sector. Jyväskylä Studies in Business and Economics, vol 35

  35. Pandey DN (2014) Traditional knowledge systems for biodiversity conservation. Accessed 9 Aug 2014

  36. Patil KKR, Manjunatha GR, Chandrakanth MG (2013) Economic impact of institutions on the consumption of forest products in India. Indian J Agric Econ 68(2):155–168

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pearce D, Cline W, Achanta A, Fankhauser S, Pachauri R, Tol R, Vellinga P (1996) The social cost of climate change: greenhouse damage and the benefits of control. In: Bruce J, Lee H, Haites E (eds) Climate change 1995: economic and social dimensions of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  38. Psaltopoulos D, Thomson KJ (1993) Input–output evaluation of rural development: a forestry-centred application. J Rural Stud 9(4):351–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rai KN, Niwas S, Khatkar RK (1983) Demand and supply analysis of forest products in India. Indian J Agric Econ 39(3):300–308

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rasmussen PN (1956) Studies in inter-sectoral relations. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  41. Reis H, Rua A (2006) An input-output analysis: linkages versus leakages. Working Papers 17, Banco de Portugal

  42. Roberts D (1999) Scottish forestry: an input–output analysis. Macaulay Land Use Research Institute with John Clegg & Co. and the University Of Aberdeen

  43. Rojas I (2012) What’s wrong with tree plantations? Accessed 4 Mar 2014

  44. Roy S, Dutta M, Bandopadhyay S (2001) Joint forest management and forest protection committees: negotiation systems and the design of incentives—a case study of West Bengal. EERC Working Paper Series: CPR-8

  45. Sivaramakrishnan K (1997) A limited forest conservancy in southwest Bengal. J Asian Stud 56(1):75–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Stone S, Leóne MC (2010) Climate change and the role of forests—a community manual. Conservation International. Accessed 26 April 2015

  47. Sudha P, Malhotra KC, Palit S, Kameswara Rao K, Srinivas M, Negi NK, Tiwari BK, Misra TK, Jagannatha Rao R, Bhat PR, Murthy IK, Ravindranath NH (2004) Joint forest management: synthesis of its spread, performance and impact in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Tripura and West Bengal. In: Joint forest management in India—spread, performance and impact. Universities Press, Hyderabad, pp 196–219

  48. Thompson I, Mackey B, McNulty S, Mosseler A (2009) Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change—a synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 43

  49. Tianjie M (2013) Interconnected forests: global and domestic impacts of China’s forestry conservation. China Environment Forum. Wilson Center. Accessed 25 Nov 2013

  50. UNEP (2012) The role of forest for the Kenyan economy. Report for UNEP, Nairobi

  51. Accessed 15 Mar 2014

  52. Zhang C, Fu S (2010) Allelopathic effects of leaf litter and live roots exudates of Eucalyptus species on crops. Allelopath J 26(1):91–100

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarmila Banerjee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Banerjee, S., Bit, J. Economic growth versus climate balancing: some reflections on the sustainable management of forest resource in India. Decision 42, 127–145 (2015).

Download citation


  • Sustainable forest management
  • Forward linkage of forestry sector
  • Direct, indirect and induced demand for forestry
  • Trade-flows in forest products
  • Direct material intensity of forestry
  • Structural decomposition analysis