The author argues that the project’s primary emphasis on increasing fuelwood supplies is misplaced as meeting fodder requirements appears to be a greater priority among villagers. Schemes targeting the landless and near landless were also limited due to heavy emphasis on farm forestry, which can only benefit those with at least a few hectares of land. Other major concerns include the lack of clear policies and regulations on how products from plantations on village commons are to be utilised, the absence of village-level institutions for managing such areas and the need to increase local participation in social forestry decision-making and management, particularly by marginalised groups.

The employment of men and women as motivators to increase local participation is seen as extremely positive, although it is suggested that motivators need to be better paid to sustain their enthusiasm over the long-term. The author emphasises the socio-economic complexities of Indian villages and the need for site-specific micro-planning followed up by regular monitoring and evaluation so that plans can be effectively adapted to new information or changing circumstances. In this context, he also stresses the need for including social scientists among the permanent staff of the Forest Department.