Participatory Forest

UNIT 13 PARTICIPATORY FOREST Resource Management

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Structure
13.1 Introduction
Objectives
13.2 What is Forestry?
13.3 What is Participation?
13.4 Types of Partnership
13.5 Origin of Participatory Forestry
The Eco-crisis and the Basic Needs Debate
What is Participatory Forestry?
Property Rights and Participatory Forestry
Benefits of Participatory Forestry
13.6 The Decentralization Debate in the Forestry Sector
Decentralization versus Devolution
13.7 Participatory Forest Management in India
People Resistance against the State
Genesis of Joint Forest Management
Facilitative Role of NGOs
Policy Trends in Joint Forest Management
13.8 Development of Sustainable Forestry Context: South Asia
Advent of Social Forestry
Drawbacks of Social Forestry
Challenges of Social Forestry
13.9 Summary
13.10 Terminal Question

13.1 INTRODUCTION
Forests with large global biodiversity constitute home for forest-dependent
communities and peoples. Forests cover about one-fifth of the earth’s land area.
Humans in some or the other way manipulate more or less all these forests. Most
people are dependent on forest for several purposes like fuel wood, food, fodder, and
medicine etc. This makes forest protection more important than even before. Forests
constitute an important component of natural resources that need to be managed
prudently so as to meet the increasing population’s demands, without depriving the
future generations, as well as preserve the ecological balance and biodiversity. The
task is so great that the Government alone cannot do it. Local community’s voluntary
agencies have to play an important role in the management of forests.

Therefore, participatory forestry emerged as a new worldwide practice for forestry

development and was promoted by international organizations. Participatory
management involves working together with the beneficiaries, various government
and non-governmental organizations and is broadly accepted as the most appropriate
strategy for implementing programmes for sustainable development of natural
resources. Although the types of interventions are diversified, the profession
continued to embrace those traditional practices of forestry that were dominated by
the twin dogmas of timber primacy and sustained yield. Participatory forestry is
claimed to be the unique vehicle by which the needs of local people could be met and
the quality of rural lives enhanced.

In India forest communities have faced increasing marginalization for several

centuries. Though forest departments have grown in size and numbers, their financial
and human resources remain woefully inadequate to ensure proper management of
nearly one-quarter of the Indian subcontinent classified as public forest land. Forest
departments are firmly entrenched in institutional procedures and regulations and
5
Participatory Resource attitudes on both sides are often hostile towards each other. But in participatory
Management management forest departments have to help local communities in building
institutional management capacity and must approach the task in a supportive, rather
than directive, top-down manner.

Unfortunately, current governance systems and political-economic arrangements at

national and international levels ignore the rights and abilities of communities in
managing forests thus continuing to support the destruction of forests. Even to
conserve biodiversity we need to consider both the future of the forests, and the
security of the communities that live in them.

This unit provides a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of these new
approaches and considers whether participatory forestry provides a new paradigm for
forest management or whether it is another fashionable, soon to be marginalized,
development trend. We have also described participatory forest management in India
that is based on co operative-management and a give and take relationship with Forest
Department, mediated in most cases by a non-governmental organization.

Objectives
After studying this unit, you will be able to:
• define the term forestry and describe its types,
• explain the concept of participatory forestry, and trace the origin of this new
approach,
• appreciate the paradigm shift in forest management from centralization to
decentralization, and
• describe the recent trends in part icipatory forest resource management in India as
well as in South Asia.

13.2 WHAT IS FORESTRY?

Forestry is the science, art and practice of managing and using trees, forests and their
associated resources for human benefit. It is the scientific answer for the question we
have asked but a more elaborate explanation will be that all the operations in the forest
such as plantation of trees, their protection, monitoring, proper and sustainable
utilization and any other aspect of management constitute forestry. It also includes
scientific, socio-economic and legal aspects.

There are three functional divisions of the forest sector, which come under state
governments in India.
i) Territorial sector – which involves raising forest, its protection and utilization of
forest land hold by State Government (as forest land is owned by State
Government)
ii) Social forestry – in which trees are grown on road side, canals, barren land, waste
land, village land with the help of farmer s.
iii) Wild life – Conservation of wild life that is flora and fauna in forest through bio-
reserves, parks and sanctuaries. Tourism also constitutes important part of wild
life. Sustainable tourism also brings conservation of wild life as discussed in
Unit 11, Block 2 of MED-006.

Forestry Research: Forestry Research has become important part of forest. There is
necessity to strengthen the research base as well as new priorities for action. Research
disciplines required for the support of forestry which include; economics,
microbiology, history, increasingly political science, anthropology, sociology, law
ecology, chemistry, soil science, zoology, botany among many others. Forestry, alone
among the professional disciplines, derives its power base from ownership of large
areas of land. It is highly centralized with a diversity of roles and products, where
6
internal conflicts and contradictions often dominate. Its practice requires the Participatory Forest
development of multi-disciplinary skills and their accommodation within a framework Resource Management
that allows their full expression.

Some broad areas of research and development that need special attention are:
i) Increasing the productivity of wood and other forest produce per unit area per
unit time by the application of modern scientific and technological methods;
ii) Revegetation of barren/marginal/waste/mined lands and watershed areas;
iii) Effective conservation and management of existing forest resources (mainly
natural forest eco-systems);
iv) Research related to social forestry for rural/tribal development;
v) Development of substitutes to replace wood and wood products; and
vi) Research related to wildlife and management of national parks and sanctuaries.

Forestry Education: Forestry should be recognized both as a profession and a

scientific discipline. In Agriculture University there should be courses for imparting
forestry education and research. Specialized orientation courses for developing better
management skills, and in service training need to be encouraged because of the latest
developments in forestry and related disciplines .

Forests and the Forestry Scenario in India

Resources: India’s forest cover is estimated to be about 64 million hectares, or 19.5
percent of the country’s area. The per capita availability of forest land in India is one
of the lowest in the world, 0.08 ha, against an average of 0.5 ha for developing
countries and 0.64 ha for the world. Dense forests in almost all the major states have
been reduced and forest degradation is a matter of serious concern.

Fires destroy about 35 million hectares of forests, some 55 percent of the forest area,
annually. Other factors leading to forest degradation are transfer of forest lands for
other uses – encroachment on forest lands for agriculture and other purposes, grazing,
and pests and diseases.

Products: Forests formally contribute 1.7 percent to India’s GDP. India produces a
range of processed forest (wood and non-wood) products ranging from saw wood,
panel products and wood pulp to bamboo, rattan ware and pine resin. The paper
industry produces over 3 million tonnes of paper annually from more than 400 mills
(however, the raw material to produce that volume comes substantially from non-
wood fibre) (Fig. 13.1).

Total industrial wood consumption by wood-based processing industries is about 30

million cubic metres. This, however, accounts only for about 10 percent of total wood
consumption; 90 percent is consumed in the form of small timber and fuel wood. An
important cause for sub optimal wood use is its relatively low price because of
subsidies on wood raw materials and free fuel wood supply.

India is world’s largest consumer of fuel wood. The country’s consumption of fuel
wood is about five times higher than what can be sustainably removed from forests.
However a large percentage of this fuel wood is grown and managed outside forests.
Fuel wood meets about 40 percent of the energy need of the country. About 70
percent of the fuel wood is used by household and the rest by the commercial and
industrial units. Around 80 percent of rural people and 48 percent of urban people use
fuel wood.

7
Participatory Resource
Management Forest

Job and Income Household Income Environmental Benefits

– Fuel wood, charcoal – Fuel wood – Environmental conservation

– Poles and logs – Building poles – Soil fertilizers
– Gum resin oil – Fodder and forage – Flood and landslide
– Saw matter, carpentry, – Fruit, nut, honey prevent ion
handicraft – Agriculture – Water availability
– Medicine – Thatching – Green manure
– Mushroom – Weaving – Biodiversity conservation
– Leaves, silk –Tourism
– Tourism
Fig. 13.1: Benefits of Forest.

Forestry Options in India

Revegetation of degraded lands could be aimed at one or more of the following goals:
- to meet the biomass needs of local communities and industries; demand factors;
- to conserve soil, moisture and biodiversity: local and national ecological factors;
- to sequester carbon: global ecological factors; and
- to generate employment, income and reducing the burden of balance of payments:
macro-economic factors.

The natural resource management and conservation efforts are at cross-roads today.
The sustainability of ecological processes and life support systems is threatened in the
forests and also the security and dignified livelihood of the people living in or on the
outskirts of forest and protected areas.

There are a host of Forestry encompasses (Table 13.1) many objectives , such as commercial and rural
forestry organizations development (poverty alleviation, employment creation, empowerment of
contributing to various
marginalized groups (in particular, women), tourism and amenity, and conservation.
aspects of forest
management issues Often conflicts arise between these objectives and the priority assigned to each in a
including the Forest given area. The power base derived from its landholdings has made it vulnerable to
Survey of India, the attack by a number of environmental and human rights groups who contend that this
Indian Institute of Forest power has been wrongfully wrested from those local groups whose livelihoods are
Management and the
Wildlife Institute of
deeply associated with the fores ts (Fig.13.2).
India.

Fig. 13.2: Forests are life line of people living on its edges.

8
Timber, logging concession, government officials, local forest users, democratic Participatory Forest
institutions, corruption – all these words link up in different forms of open and hidden Resource Management
relationships (fig13.3). As early as 1975, Jack Westoby, reflecting on 20 years of
development assistance to the forest sector questioned its contribution to the economic
and social life of underdeveloped nations. Still, in many countries of South-East Asia,
the nexus between timber merchant, the state, and the trade is seriously undermining
the development of any form of local democratic institution for the management of
forest resource. The practice of dealing out logging licenses to members of the state
legislature to secure their allegiance is commonplace currency. Thus the potential
impact of decentralization on the formal and informal institutions is dramatic.

Fig 13.3: Timber is one of the most significant produce of the forest.

Together with the global clim ate of decentralization and bureaucratic divestment, this The change from
primary objective of
has led to the current situation where forestry (so long impervious to the decrees of the revenue maximization to
outside world) has been forced to response to th ese changes and examines its own multiple objectives
institutional framework. This framework for democratization now contains ranging from
responsibility for a wide range of often-conflicting local management objectives as conservation
indicated above. Structures, which were established to fulfill the primary objective of management to
development of local
revenue maximization, are now redundant in a world that insists that forest lands be organizations for forest
managed for a multiplicity of benefits. The debate about decentralization is by no management has
means confined to the developing world but is a live issue in every country. profound consequences
across the forestry
The implementation of decentralization process has brought issues of ownership and sector.
control to the forefront of debate. In forestry, the historical development of state
control over forestlands has meant that the land base held in trust by the institution for
the public good is enormous. ‘The following statistics provide an indication of the
extent of forestry estates in Asia. In India, Forest Departments control 22% of the
national territory (Agarwal and Narain, 1989); in Nepal forests and shrub lands
comprise some 4/3% of the total land area (Nield, 1985). In Indonesia, 74% of the
territory is controlled by the Forest Department; and in Thailand, the Royal Forest
Department administers some 40% of the nation’s land (Colchester, 1994). These
extraordinary figures underline the fundamental challenge posed to these departments
by the call for devolution of some of this control to the millions of people living in
forest areas. The means by which this is being done needs considerably more analysis
and the form of the linkages between state and people need to be critically assessed.

9
Participatory Resource Table 13.1: Regeneration of trees in India, through various options.
Management
Options Goals End uses and features
Natural - promotion of - no felling of trees or clear felling
regeneration (NR) biodiversity
- cons ervation of soil - only NTFP and felled wood collection
and water
- provision of NTFP - harvest of grass or controlled grazing
- Carbon sequestration - only protection and promotion of NR +
planting of a small number of desired
tree species ( trees/ha)
Enhanced natural (same as for NR) (same as for NR)
regeneration
(ENR) - involves soil and water conservation +
protection and promotion of NR +
planting of a small number of desired
tree species native to that location as
desired by local community (100-300
trees/ha)
Community - to meet local biomass - sustainable harvest of timber
forestry (CF) needs
- to promote in situ - harvest of grass or controlled grazing
biodiversity
- conserve soil and - felling of trees to meet local needs
water
- seq. of Carbon - mainly for local needs only surplus if
any to be exported
- to provide grass for - conventional silvicultural practices
livestock including soil + water conservation -
species choice and density to be left t o
local communities
Agro-forestry - to meet biomass needs - harvest of firewood
(AF) of farmers and
generate incomes
- seq. Carbon - planting trees on crop land bunds,
boundary and in between crop rows -
species choice and density to be left to
the farmers
Shot-term soft - to meet industrial soft - short rotation forestry every year 1/6
(ST) wood, packaging and of area clear felled at 6 year rotation
other needs (non- for soft wood industry
structural timber)
- to conserve forests - standing woody biomass to be constant
and Carbon sinks at any given time as 1/6 of area is
felled
- conventional high density plantation of
fast growing tree species -intensive
cultivation for high yields (like
Eucalyptus plantation)
Long-term timber - to meet timber needs - timber trees (hard wood) to be felled
wood (LT) for structural purposes sustainably
- to conserve forests - after the trees mature, quantity of
and Carbon sinks wood to be harvested and vested equal
to annual C sinks productivity of trees
- to ensure sustainable supply of timber
and constant standing woody biomass
with m aturity = 25 years and selective
logging
- conventional silvicultural practices of
timber plantation

10
 Participatory Forest
13.3 WHAT IS PARTICIPATION? Resource Management

In recent years, there have been an increasing number of analyses of development

projects showing that the participation is one of the critical components of success in
irrigation, livestock, water and agriculture forestry projects. As a result, the terms
‘people's participation’ and ‘popular participation’ are now part of the normal
language of many development agencies, including NGOs, Government Departments.
It has become a fashion that almost everyone talks of participation in work.
‘Participation’ is one of those terms that are very difficult to define because while it is
very widely used in today’s language the scope and mea ning that are ascribed to it is
often different and very widely used. The term ‘Participation’ or ‘Participatory’ is very
often used to cover all terms of action by which citizens ‘take part’ in the operation of
administration. The word ‘Participation’ is used broadly to refer to the role of
members of the general public, in influencing the activities of go vernment or in
providing direction to community needs. It may occur at any level − from village to
the country as a whole (Fig. 13.4).

Concept of Participation
Participation is a key ingredient of, and an
essential requirement for:
Participation

Democracy

Social
Equity Justice

Fig 13.4: Concept of participation.

(Source : nrsp ‘participation’ workshop: session 1)

Participation in real sense means that rural support institutions must have greater
involvement of people and empowerment of diverse people and groups, as sustainable
development is threatened without it. But there lies a dilemma of authorities. They
need the people's agreement and support but they fear that this wider involvem ent is
less controllable, less precise and will have adverse effect by slowing down the
planning process.

The term participation can mean different things to different people. In part, rural
development projects, participation has often centered on encouraging rural people to
sell their labour in return for food, cash or materials. Yet these material incentives
distort perceptions, create dependencies, and give the misleading impression that local
people are supportive to externally driven initiatives. This paternalism then
undermines sustainability goals and produces results, which do not persist once the
project ceases and little effort is made to build local skills, interests and capacity.
Local people have no stake in maintaining or supporting new practices once the flow
of incentives stops.

Participation may be direct, as in community projects and in the work of private

welfare organizations. Thus, participation comprises every kind of citizen intervention
in administrative action. Participation gives an ordinary citizen a mean of voicing his
opinion and action that he is able to take on responsibilities. Participation may take
different forms. It may be in form of voluntary contribution, it may also take a form of 11
Participatory Resource empowering people to gain power to influence the decisions that affect their life and
Management livelihood.

Participation in natural resource management calls for shared ownership, shared

management and shared benefits from natural resource management. The main
workers in the participatory process ar e voluntary organizations, government
department and the people. (Fig. 13.5).

NGOs Shared Management

People Forest Shared Shared

Ownership Benefits
Department

Fig.13.5: Participatory Triangles

The root cause of many of the problems currently being experienced in both India and
Nepal can be traced back to the form of participatory practice developed by any
project or programme.

13.4 TYPES OF PARTNERSHIP

Now that you have an idea of what is participatory forestry let us discuss about the
types of partnerships (Table 13.2). The arguments surrounding the decentralization
debate involve discussion of what is an appropriate institutional form to manage forest
resources. There is no one solution to these questions, but rather an array of
arrangements according to the particular requirements of the forest users. How far the
forest bureaucracy can or will divest itself of some of its authority remains to be seen?

However, in an atmosphere of increasing intolerance of bureaucratic inappropriateness

there seems little doubt that forest services will be forced to divest some of their
authority, at least at the margins of their power base, with the release of some
degraded lands to joint management schemes with local people. (Fig. 13.6)

Fig.13.6: Decentralization of power towards - Participatory forestry.

12
Just as questions are being asked about the role of the state in regulation and Participatory Forest
management of natural resources, so too are question being asked about the nature of Resource Management
local organizations being developed by governments and the interests of those they
represent. Participatory institutions, which purp ortedly give the village a role in
making rural development decisions, are the facilitators of a paralyzing
bureaucratization of village procedure, which has replaced the more informal
institutions reflecting on community development practices of the 1960’s and 70’s.
It is disingenuous to characterize development as the two simple alternatives –
decentralization or centralization, local people versus government together with the
contention that grassroots environmental movements are necessarily going to lead to
more widespread benefits. The whole process has to be carefully evaluated.

The call for grassroots development brings into question the conditions under which it
is appropriate. As the vast literature on collective action shows that there are many
conditions under which collective actions have broken down and resources have
degraded. The defining features under which such action is appropriate remain elusive
in the forest sector, although certain patterns are emerging – most particularly those
seen in resource-scare situations.

By identifying and separating out these objectives and forming destine organizations
each with primary responsibility for a major objective (Fig. 13.7), conflicts become
public (i.e. intra-departmental wrangling is more visib le than intra-departmental
disputes). Such an approach may also be recommended for South Asia.

Demarcation of territorial responsibility is very necessary which makes accountability

easier. As such, the advisory and regulatory functions are the responsib ility of the
Ministry of Forestry Conservation, a subject that has frequently brought forestry
professionals into conflict with environmentalists, and which is considered by many to
be irreconcilable with practice of commercial forestry, has been assigned to a
Department of Conservation (primary responsible for natural forest conservation). The
state-owned Forestry Corporation was made responsible for commercial plantation
resource-based forestry activities. In addition, the great power base of a forest ser vice
– its land has also been largely privatized.

Fig.13.7: Cooperation of Ministry people an d community people is necessary

(Source Photo: Government of Orissa Directorate of Soil Conservation)

There is no blueprint for institutional change; the structure of organizations necessary

to meet international, national and local imperatives must emerge from the particular
circumstance of each nation. The principle of decentralization, although global, does
not necessarily lead to a globally uniform response. These responses need to be
discussed as this implies transition from public to private sector operation. T he degree
to which divestment can occur should also be assessed.
13
Participatory Resource Table 13.2: A typology of participation (modified from Pretty, 1994).
Management
Typology Components of Each Type
1. Passive Participation People participate by being told what is going to happen o r has
already happened. It is unilateral announcement by an
administration or project management without any listening to
people’s responses. The information being shared belongs only
to external professionals.
2. Participation in People participate by answering questions posed by extractive
Information Giving researchers and project managers using questionnaire surveys
or similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to
influence proceedings, as the findings of the research or project
design are neither shared not checked for accuracy.
3. Participation by People participate by being consulted, and external agents listen
Consultation to views. These external agents define both problems and
solutions, and may modify these in the light of people’s
responses. Such a consultative process doesn’t concede any
share in decision-making and professionals are under no
obligation to take on board people’s view.
4. Participation for Material People participate by providing resources, for example labour,
Incentives in return for food, cash or other material incentives. Much in-
situ research and bioprospecting falls in this category, as rural
people provide the fields but are not involved in the
experimentation or the process of learning. It is very common
to see this so called participation, yet people have no stake in
prolonging activities when the incentives end.
5. Functional Participation People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined
objectives related to the project, which can involve the
development or promotion of externally initiated social
organizations. Such involvement does not tend to be at early
stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major
decisions have been made. These institutions tend to be
dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may
become self-dependent.
6. Interactive Participation People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans
and the formation of new local groups or the strengthening of
existing ones. It tends to involve i nterdisciplinary
methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of
systematic learning processes. These groups take control over
local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining
structures or practices.
7. Self-Mobilization People participate by taking initiatives independent of external
institutions to change systems. Such self-initiated mobilizaition
and collective action may or may not challenge existing
inequitable distributions of wealth and power.

SAQ 1
i) List the major causes for deforestation.
ii)How can the participation of root level people help forestry?
iii)
How can the devolution of power from bureaucracy help the forestry?
iv)Explain how decentralization of power can become the basis of participatory
forestry?
v) Describe the role of participatory approach in forest conservation.

13.5 ORIGIN OF PARTICIPATORY FORESTRY

Throughout last 20 years, international attention has focused on the plight of tropical
forests, issues of resource degradation, declining biodiversity and the impact of
14
decreasing forest resources on global climate. As indicated in many studies, the forest Participatory Forest
sector has adjusted national policies and practices in response to number of internal Resource Management
and external factors.

At the international level, proportionately less attention has been focused on local
issues of decreasing access to forest resources, and the implications for local people
dependent on forests for securing their livelihoods. In recognition of this, local forestry
programmes have sought to improve the well being of forest dependent villages.

13.5.1 The Eco-crisis and the Basic Needs Debate

The post-war period from the mid 1940s was a period of increasing prosperity, rapid
industrialization and full employment within the core countries of the Western world.
The economic climate was strongly relaxed in modernization theories, which held that
poor countries could follow the stages of growth experienced by developed countries
if industrialization and modernization were stimulated by capital investment. The
central concerns of modernization theory were the dichotomy between tradition and
modernity and the assumption that the advance from tradition to modernity is a simple
unilinear progression. The so-called ‘Third world’ was supplied in the form of large
infrastructure packages to develop an economic base from which to promote
industrialization and thus economic development in the expectation of diffusion or
trickle-down of benefit s to urban and rural poor.
Modernization theories permeated all sectors, including forestry. It has been argued by
many authors that industrial forestry would stimulate development in underdeveloped
countries. They held that forest-backed industries had strong forward and backward
linkages with the rest of the economy because they furnished a wide range of goods
and services and used mainly local inputs.

The demand for forest products was forecasted to rise rapidly following the rapid
industrialization of all economies. This provides a useful critique of the analysis and
contends that the drive to an effective economy can only be achieved through the
sound development of a productive rural economy rather than by imposition of a
modern industrial framework.

These arguments provided the basis for forest policy development in both developed
and less developed countries. They strongly influenced the form of forestry
development proctored by the new international aid agencies such as the World Bank
and the Food and Agriculture Organization, among many others for further refer ences
to this era. At this time in Nepal, working plans were being drawn up for the extensive
Tarai Sal (Shorea robusta) forests. In India too, the increased demand for forest
products era met through heavy investment in plantations for the production of
industrial wood-based products. Capital was invested in large forest industries
supported by the raw material from plantations and intensively managed natural
forests. One example was plantation of Eucalptus sp throughout India.
The boom in Western economies ended abruptly with the economic crises of the early
1970s. Inflation, fuelled by the United States spending on the Vietnam War, soared
further when the OPEC cartel of oil-exporting nations secured a four-fold increase in
the price of oil. The economic crises led to a realization that industrialization did
not necessarily lead to the economic or social development of underdeveloped
countries. Rural and urban poverty became the focus of development theory, with
sustenance of basic needs forming the objective of development.
The focus on energy forced attention on the rest of the world where most people are
dependent on wood as their main fuel for cooking and heating. Research reports were
influential in revealing the growing gaps between rich and poor. This showed how the
inadequacy of modernization theories and the policies thus derived from theory has
contributed to the increasing poverty of many countries, The debates within
development theory pursued the path of fulfilling the basic needs of the poorest and
15
Participatory Resource focused on securing the economic advancement of rural populations, This scenario of
Management eco-crisis and livelihood degradation was well developed and has been formative in
the construction of forest policy and practice in both India and Nepal.

Partic ipatory forestry emerged as a new world-wide practice for forestry development
and was promoted by international organizations and sold in programme and project
packages. Although the types of interventions diversified, the profession continued to
embrace those traditional practices of forestry which were dominated by the twin
dogmas of timber primacy and sustained yield. Forestry was claimed to be the unique
vehicle by which the needs of local people could be met and the quality of rural lives
enhanced. This was seen as the means by which social change could be affected.

13.5.2 What is Participatory Forestry?

Participatory forestry Balancing the effective, sustainable management of forest resources with economic,
refers to processes and social and environmental factors has emerged as one of the key challenges in natural
mechanisms that enable
those people who have a resource management. The environment and forum in which decisions concerning
direct stake in forest natural resource management are made are evolving as a result of global trends such
resources to be part of as: growing awareness of and response to environmental concerns; decentralization
decision-making in all and devolution of government control; participatory management, the need for
aspects of forest
management, from
secured property rights etc.
managing resources to
formulating and Among the responses to these trends is a greater willingness to consider local forest
implementing management as a viable alternative to centralized State control. Throughout the world,
institutional frameworks. a large number of forestry activities (national, multilateral, bilateral and non-
governmental) with participatory, local and community forestry components are being
More specifically,
community forestry
implemented. Although much remains to be done, it is increasingly recognized that
refers to a component of participatory approaches are essential to sustainable forest management. In India we
participatory forestry that have several successes cases in forest management.
focuses on local
communities as key Although much attention was focused on the drudgery and increasing difficulties of
stakeholders for
sustainability.
fuel wood collection, the social and political problems relating to resource access and
property rights were largely ignored. Let us examine the relationships between
Property Rights and Participatory Forestry.

13.5.3 Property Rights and Participatory Forestry

At the heart of participatory forestry lies the battle for ownership of forestlands.
Property rights structures have for the last century been skewed in favour of the state,
at the expense of local people’s needs. Under recent forestry initiatives, new tenure
arrangements have been introduced. It is not clear, however, that these changes alone
have made a sustainable difference in villagers’ well being. In some cases, villagers
have de facto use rights to forest lands already (and formalization of these rights has
in fact led to a diminution in the benefits available). In other cases, the rights were
more short-lived than expected.
Although use rights have been important in increasing the villager’s security of access
to land, there continues to be debate about whether they should press for full
ownership. Advocates of indigenous people’s rights feel that these communities
should have their original land claims recognized by the state. Such views underpin
Principle 22 of the Rio Declaration – a Declaration which guides (or should guide) the
approaches of governments to local communities and management of natural
resources. The principle is reproduced here as it describes the new philosophy and
provides the ideological backbone for interventions in the forestry sector. “Indigenous
people and their communities, and other local communities, have a vital role in
environmental management and development because of their knowledge and
traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture
and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable
development.”

16
13.5.4 Benefits of Participatory Forestry Participatory Forest
Resource Management
The net benefits of promoting participation are manifold and as key elements of
sustainability they can be summarized as consisting of four “Es”.
• Effectiveness – participation allows people to have a voice in determining
objectives; supporting project administration; and making their local knowledge,
skills, and resources available.
• Efficiency – participation allows more efficient use of resources available.
• Empowerment – participation increases people’s sense of control over issues that
affect their lives and helps them to learn how to plan, implement, and prepare
themselves for participation in broader terms.
• Equity – it ensures an equitable sharing of the benefit.

In the following sections the background to the development of participatory forestry

approaches in South Asia is considered, including an analysis of the global content in
which policies of decentralization and divestment of public sector authority have
become the currency of action.

13.6 THE DECENTRALIZATION DEBATE IN THE

FORESTRY SECTOR
Why has participatory forestry become such an important initiative within the forest
sector? One of the major reasons result s from the desire of the international
community to achieve sustainability and efficiency through decentralization and
public sector reform. Participatory forestry represents the major attempt to achieve
this aim . The new management method talks about clients, stakeholders and interest
groups, and asks the private and public sector to identify their client groups and their
needs, and to respond with services that will support these groups. This new
managerialism is mirrored by political theory, where decentralization also requires
interaction with these groups, with government bureaucracies restructuring to support
their clients. The institutional change implied by these approaches is far -reaching.

Elements of these changes are still unexplored within the forest sector; forestry
projects charged with facilitating institutional change are now beginning to address
these issues.

In this section, we will consider the following questions surrounding the impact of
decentralization as it is manifested through participatory management practices within
the forestry sector.
• What are the impacts of this process on to formal and non-formal forestry
institutions?
• Under what new institutional arrangements should forests be managed?
• How central government is restructuring the property rights framework to enable
effective decentralization?
• Who are the winners and losers?

13.6.1 Decentralizations versus Devolution

There are many questions still to be addressed about the effectiveness of
decentralization as a political tool to ensure devolution of power as many authors
indicate:

“Decentralization has been seen as a means by which the state can be made more
responsive, more adaptable, to regional and local needs than is the case with a
concentration of administrative power and responsibility in the central state… But
decentralization of government in itself does not necessarily involve devolution of
power. The extension of the state outwards and downwards can equally serve the
objective of consolidating the poor of state at the center as well as that of devolving
17
Participatory Resource power away from the central state; it can both extend the state’s control over people as
Management well as the people’s control over the state and its activities. Decentralization is a two-
edged sword and at different levels it has different meanings.

We will describe decentralization at different levels and its meaning. At the level of
designing decentralization means that a person’s knowledge and imagination be
allowed to contribute to the making of a programme, be it for employment generation,
or for preservation and conservation of nature and forests, or for primary education.
This prevents monopoly of knowledge and information, which restricts their access to
only a few people.

Decentralization of implementation implies that the process of translating an idea

into action and activities are to be the responsibility of all members of a group who
have designed it. Accordingly, this group distributes responsibility and work-tasks
equally. Each person has the freedom to take decisions and plan the process of
institutionalization. This prevents bureaucratization and ensures team administration.
It dissolves the repression and domination that normally accompany the process of
accountability. Each person is simultaneously accountable to one’s own self and to the
group. This makes a person aware of his or her limitations and opens the door to
finding out ways of overcoming them.
Finally, at the level of monitoring, decentralization implies that the group of persons,
who have engaged in designing and implementation, must also be engaged to monitor
a programme. For themselves they are ‘experts’, when this occurs, criticism tends to
be mutually beneficial. Further, the group comes together as a collectivity in the
course of sharing the burden of each other’s limitations and benefiting from each
other’s capabilities. This spirit of criticism could prevent corruption and also work
towards creating appropriate conditions for transparency. Further, the process of
decentralization provides people a feeling of confidence in them. We may say that
confidence in one’s ability, granting everyone human dignity and operating in an open
and honest manner are the main principles of decentralization.

Although the calls for devolution of power to the local level are pervasive across the
international community, and all recognize the central role of local users of resources
in management, how effective has this devolution been? As discussed, in the earlier
section is it necessarily such a good thing? Since much of the experience gained with
the implementation of new forms of forestry is relatively recent, it is perhaps too soon
to be able to pronounce definitively on success or otherwise. Although major donor
organizations and international agreements may all subscribe to the following view,
the reality of such a goal is still distant.

The pursuit of sustainable development requires a political system that secures

effective participation in decision-making. This is best secured by decentralizing the
management of resources, upon which local communities depend, and giving, these
communities and effective say over the use of these resources. It will also require
promoting citizens, initiatives, empowering people’s organization and strengthening
local democracy. (See Box 13.1 Aravali Project).

Box 13.1: Aravali Project – Successes of decentralization of power.

The Aravali afforestation project was started with the target of revegetation of 115,000
hectare and distributing 75 million saplings of different species to farmers in ten districts. The
project was based on a partnership between NGOs, local people and the forest department.
To encourage involvement of the village community, the idea of “Community Controlled
Regulated Access Management System” was adopted to replace the “Open Access System”
where people were free to exploit the resources. Slowly villagers accepted the idea and
became willing to participate in the programme. The Aravali Project has already achieved
most of objectives and in several areas even exceeded expectation. This is a case of
decentralization of power in participatory management to fulfill the objective of the project.
18
 Do decentralization and devolution lead to greater equity? Is this an obtainable goal? Participatory Forest
Divestment, privatization is an appropriate response to the needs of villagers wanting Resource Management
to gain greater control over the use of and access to natural resources. Some
influential commentators on the political economy of countries such as India question
the validity of a direct transfer of Western ideology (Ghosh, 1994). In the following
section we have tried to assemble some evidence to indicate the complex nature of the
impacts of decentralization (whether partial or total) as Forestry approaches should
match the complexity of environments in which it is being developed.

SAQ 2
Give your views on the following statements:
i) “Participatory Forestry will be only successful if the property rights of forest lies
with the people living in it”.
ii) Does participatory management fulfils it objective of decentralization or
devolution of power?
iii) Describe how participatory management can fill the void created by eco-crisis and
basic needs of the people in developing countries .
iv) Describe the benefits of participation, using the example of a forest and explain its
benefits.

13.7 PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT IN

INDIA*
India offers excellent opportunities to learn about past and future methods of forest
management. Under British colonial rule, the nation was one of the world’s first
countries to establish a national forest service in the mid -nineteenth century.

Forest Management under British Rule Natural resources have always been an
integral part of the Indian economy and culture and are held in high esteem. Even
today, some of these so-called self-initiated forest protection groups have survived or
have been re-invented in response to the need of the hour to conserve community
forest. Given this context, it is necessary to point out at the outset that
participatory/joint forest management is not new to India. It is a re-invention of the
successful forest management practices of the past.

For management purposes, the British administration divided the forests into four
classes, as described in the National Forest Policy of 1894. Using forests to meet
people ’s needs was not a priority consideration for the British administration. People’s
requirements were to be met by the third class of forests – minor forests that yielded
only inferior timber, fuel wood or fodder – and by the fourth class of forest ‘pastures
and grazing grounds ’ to which certain restrictions were applied.

To conclude, people ’s interests were made subservient to the state’s commercial

interests with regard to forests during colonial rule.

13.7.1 People Resistance against the State

rly one- An analysis of the National Forest Policy, 1894 and the Indian Forests Act 1927
suggests that the rights of people to forests under erstwhile rulers in the pre-colonial
d public
era were further limited. It is also evident that many of the informal forest
management institutions that operated at the grassroots level collapsed after the
takeover of the forests by the British administration. However, in some cases people
actively opposed the state take over and demonstrated against the curtailment of
public rights.
w to 1.5
bilizing
19
Participatory Resource With the passage of time, the tribal communities were marginalized and their
Management traditional usufruct rights were restricted or eliminated. These forest-dependent
communities were further affected by worsening ecological conditions resulting from
conversion of forests for Sal (Shorea robusta) logs to meet the demand for railway
network. Even after independence, the living conditions of tribal communities and
other low caste people further deteriorated in this region. Tribal community revolted
violently and there has been number of protests.

T wo such cases of As a result of such protests, the Forest Grievances Committee was set up by the state
resistance by local to look into the matter. Realizing that further efforts to impose forest regulations were
communities in the state
of East Bengal
likely to be met by stiff resistance and thus strengthened calls for independence. T he
(Poffenberger 1995) and committee recommended reclassification of state forests. In consequence, the status of
Uttaranchal (Guha 1983; reserved forests of low commercial value but of high livelihood value to local people
Ballabh and Singh 1988; was rebuked and Van Panchayats were instituted for their management. Van
Ballabh et al, 2002).
Panchayats were instituted on the principle of participatory forest management and
The tribal communities gained the full legislative support of the state. This is a classic illustration of how the
reacted violently to the concept of participatory forest management originated well before the independence
British administration in of India in 1947 as an outcome of popular resistance to state management regimes.
a series of armed revolts.
The first of these,
popularly known as the 13.7.2 Genesis of Joint Forest Management
Chur Rebellion, lasted Continuous deforestation and the degradation of forests leading to a decline in forest
from 1767 to 1800.
cover have long been sources of concern for policy makers in India. Indeed, had there
Today, the state of not been such large-scale deforestation and forest degradation in India, it is unlikely
Uttaranchal has more that any policy maker would have given serious thought to the ‘participatory forest
than 4,800 Van management’ model (Fig. 13.8). The need of the hour and the backlash of policy
Panchayats managing
244,800 hectares of failures have led to the emergence of a new institutions and rationale for the origin of
forest area spread over a ‘participatory forest management’ model within the Indian forestry sector. This
six districts. section discusses why the government commenced participatory forest management in
India. (Fig. 13.9).

Sharing Concerns

Sharing

Forest Village
Department Communities

Responsibilities
Re

Sharing Usufructs

Fig. 13.8: JFM concept in India.

20
 Participatory Forest
Resource Management

Joint forest management

is the sharing of products,
responsibilities; control
and decision, making
authority over forest
department and local user
groups. The basic
philosophy of JFM is
“Care & Share ”.

JFM is the sharing of

three basic things:
i) Sharing the concerns
ii) Sharing the
responsibilities
iii) Sharing the usufructs

Fig. 13.9: Estimated distribution of India’s forest protection committees

(Source: Asia Forest Network)

The Arabari experiments in JFM

The relevance of the ‘give and take’ principle between the Forest Development (FD)
and the community surfaced in the early 1970s. A group of FD personnel realized the
importance of ‘peoples participation’ in regeneration of degraded Sal (Shorea
robusta) forest in Arabari Range of Midnapur district in the state of West Bengal. This
forest rejuvenation started was stated as an experiment and later on replicated on a
large scale first in this state followed by its adoption in different parts of country.

This successful experiment led to the development of a new forest management

strategy known as “Joint Forest Management ” (JFM). The village communities
involved in the management of government forests in their vicinity under the JFM
became known as forest protection committees. This is the first recorded case of co-
management of forests by FD and village communities in India (Yadav et al 1998). It
is important to note that the forest protection committees formed in Arabari have
emerged out of a persistent conflict between people and the goverrment for control
over fores t resources as in the case of Van Panchayats in the state of Uttaranchal.

21
Participatory Resource At present, there are 63,618 forest protection committees ( joint forest management
Management committees) in India spread over 27 states managing about 14.09 million hectares of
forest. This means that 22 per cent of the total forest cover of 63.73 million hectares in
India is being managed under JFM. There are also a number of tree growers
cooperatives and numerous self-initiated forest protection groups (SIFPGs) managing
forests in India on the principle of participatory forest management. They are still
surviving, in the states of Orissa, Bihar, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Madhya
Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, and are protecting areas of state forests (Fig. 13.9).

Subsequently, the government of India launched a social forestry programme,

including farm forestry on private lands and established community self-help
woodlots on community lands on a large scale during the 1970s and 1980s to reduce
pressure on the government owned forests and also to incorporate people in the
afforestation programme.

13.7.3 Facilitative Role of NGOs

In the development of participatory forest management initiatives, active involvement
of non-governmental organization (NGOs) in promoting participatory forest
management at the grassroot level is very important (Fig. 13.10). In most cases, NGOs
are facilitating the village communities as well as the FD in the formation of JFM
committees. In many cases, NGOs and tree growers’ cooperatives have developed
their own participatory forest management models for JFM based on the policy
directives of the government.

Fig. 13.10: Collaborative work of NGOs with community members

(Source: Asia Forest Network)

Over the last decade, however, the state of affairs has changed in favour of NGOs,
which may be mainly attributed to the change in mind set of FD personnel towards
forest management. Now, substantial rural developmental funds earmarked by the
government of India are routed through NGOs for the participatory forest
management programmes.

According to Sarin (1998), JFM has gone through three phases since the late 1980s.
Primarily idealistic and democratic NGOs and a few liberal officers led the first phase.
In the second phase NGO learnt from practical experience an exposure to ground
realities. The present third phase is dominated by donor funding with forest
departments becoming the major implementers, whereas NGO and community efforts
have been pushed to the sidelines. Nevertheless, NGOs remain a major stakeholder in
forest policy formulation in the country.

13.7.4 Policy Trends in Joint Forest Management

I) Policy Directives
First forest policy has to emphasize the role of people’s participation in forest
protection and management. National Forest Policy 1988, the second forest policy
after India’s independence, has in the last decade changed the face of the Indian
Forestry sector (Resolut ion No. 3A/86-FP, dated 7th December 1988, Ministry of
22
Environment and Forests, Government of India). It is both conservation and Participatory Forest
production-oriented. The basic objective of this policy is the maintenance of Resource Management
environmental stability through preservation of forests as a natural heritage. It also
places emphasis on increasing substantially the forest/tree cover and the productivity
of forests in the country to meet national needs. This policy had been conceptualized
in the wake of the success of the participatory forest management scheme in the
country, albeit on a small and localized scale (Fig. 13.11).

Fig. 13.11: NGO s interacting with men and women of village community
(Source: Asia Forest Network)

II) Creating a people’s movement

The distinctive feature of this new policy was mention of creating a massive people’s Sites for National Forest
movement with the involvement of women for achieving the above-mentioned Policy, 1988.
http://www.rupfor.org/ht
objectives and to minimize pressure on existing forests. This is a complete departure m.india.htm.
from the previous National F orest Policy of 1952 as it envisages people’s participation
in the development and protection of forests. The National Forest Policy is a harbinger
of management change i.e. from government managed to people-managed forests
(Also see Box 13.2).

In some ways, this Act has helped in facilitating the implementation of the JFM
programme on forest land, as generally encroachment takes place on land otherwise
suitable for JFM management typically at the periphery of existing forests.

III) Establishment of a JFM monitoring cell

Realizing the importance of the ongoing JFM programme for the effective
management of forests in the country, the ministry of environment and forest created a
JFM monitoring cell within the ministry in 1998. This cell was created with the
objective of monitoring the impact of JFM being carried out by state governments for
the improvement and protection of forests.

IV) Expansion of JFM to non-forest areas

In India besides the forest land owned and managed by the State Forest Departments,
there is a large area (around 76 million hectares) which is non-agricultural and non-
forest land, such as barren and uncultivable wastelands, cultural wastelands,
permanent pastures and other grazing lands. The revenue department and other
government departments own such lands de jure, though in some cases they are de
facto common property resources. Mostly such lands are open access resources.
Though these uncultivated lands are highly degraded having suffered the tragedy of
commons, they nonetheless hold the potential for the expansion of JFM in the country.

23
Participatory Resource V) Sharing of experience
Management
Each state in India has passed its own resolution on JFM to fit local socioeconomic,
political and geographical conditions. It is vital that experiences of its implementation
both successes and failures be shared with one another. Thus it becomes essential to
find ways and means for the sharing of experiences between various states. With this
in view, the government established a committee comprising of forest officers from
six states and a member of the JFM cell in November 1999. This committee was also
given the responsibility of preparing formats for monitoring JFM programmes and
identifying items of the JFM programme for systematic funding, with due regard to
long-term sustainability.

For example when forty Saora tribal families in Mahapada village began protecting 25
hectares of denuded hillside on Rupabalia hill in Orissa in 1981, higher caste groups
ignored them. Fifteen years later, all ten communities surrounding the hill are
involved in protecting over 2000 hectares of healthy mixed deciduous and secondary
Sal trees. (Fig.13.12)

Fig 13.12: Mixed deciduous secondary sal trees

(Source: Andhra Pradesh Forestry Project VSS members at work)

Box 13.2: Some examples of Community Conserved Areas in India.

• Protection of 1,8000 ha of reserved and protected forest, for more than two
decades, by Gond tribals in Mendha (Lekha) village, Maharashtra. This is an
offshoot of the struggle towards tribal self-rule.
• Regeneration and Protection of 600-700 ha of Reserved Forests and grasslands,
struggle against limestone mining, and in-situ conservation of hundreds of
varieties of indigenous crops by the villagers of Jardhargaon village, Uttaranchal.
• Protection of sea turtle eggs, hatchlings and the nesting sites by fisher folk
community in Kolavipalam, Kerala.
• Traditional conservation of Painted Stork and Spot-billed Pelican nesting sites by
villagers in Kolkkare Bellur village, Karnataka.
• Six hundred hectares of regenerated village forest in the Loktak Lake
catchment’s by Ronmei tribe in Tokpa Kabui village, Manipur. Here hunting ban
on endangered Sangai deer (Brow -antlered deer) is self-imposed.
• Thousands of sacred groves across the country, though fast depleting, are still
being preserved by the local communities.
• Regeneration of forests, revival of traditional water harvesting structures,
regulated use of water and forests resources; ban on hunting of wild animals by
villagers in and around Sariska National Park in Rajasthan, under the leadership
of an NGO Tarun Bharat Sangh.

24
VI) Creating a JFM network Participatory Forest
Resource Management
In order to give added impetus to JFM in India, the government instituted a JFM
network at the national level in February 2000. The JFM network act as a regular
mechanism for consultation between various agencies engaged in JFM work and also
obtains constant feedback from various stakeholders on the JFM programme for
proper policy formulation and suitable directions to states.

Given the mammoth size of the ongoing JFM programme on a national level (Fig.
13.13), promoting feedback and exchange including the views and reactions of
different stakeholders through the establishment of a JFM network is considered an
appropriate step.

Fig. 13.13: JFM in Indian states.

(Source : http://www.asiaforestnetwork.org/pub/pub23.htm)

VII) Issuing guidelines for strengthening JFM

The government has developed guidelines for strengthening the JFM programme
based on past experience. Almost a decade after the first governmental notification of
JFM was issued in June 1990. T hese guidelines represent the latest JFM policy
directives, and present a structured and broad framework for implementation of JFM
in India.

The guidelines set forth a number of measures for strengthening JFM in India,
including increased legal support for JFM committees, promoting of women’s
participation in JFM programmes, the extension of JFM into good forest areas , the
preparation of micro plans in JFM areas conflict resolution and the official recognition
of self-initiated forest protection groups (SIFPGs). The guidelines also highlight the
need to plough back a minimum of 25 percent of the revenue earned on products
harvested by village communities into meeting the conservation and development
needs of the forests.

25
Participatory Resource VIII) JFM in afforestation schemes
Management
Government’s emphasis on participatory forest management, investments in
afforestation under the five year plans are being revamped in order to promote
people’s participation in project formulation and implementation. After the
independence of India in 1947, the successive government launched a series of five
year plans with targeted budgetary allocations for the development of various sectors.
The first five year plan was implemented during 1951-1956. At present, the tenth five-
year plan (2002 – 2007) is underway. In short, the purpose of the National
Afforestation Programme is to make JFM a central and integral part of all the
afforestation projects in the country.

Policy issues and challenges ahead

The emergence of new policy directives from time to time as summarized in th e
preceding section also implies that JFM is not bereft of problems. The inception of the
JFM programme in India was a daunting task for the FD, NGOs and other
stakeholders. The state governments issued their own JFM resolutions to set the
guidelines for their implementation. However, it was not possible to visualize at the
outset the range of problems that would be confronted in each situation and at the
different stages of JFM implementation.

Equity in participation
Equity in participation in a JFM context refers to the participation of all
stakeholders/users with an emphasis on weaker/under -privileged societal elements
(such as the landless labor force, marginal and small scale farmers, scheduled castes,
tribal groups and women as defined in the nations forest policy of 1988. JFM
programmes also create employment for poor people and up to 60% of money is spent
on the wages. It is important to emphasize here that it is primarily the weaker sections
of society that are involved in the plantation and protection activities in JFM.

The government resolutions on JFM in India advocate active participation by women

in the decision-making process and in determining forest management priorities. In
the state of West Bengal, a woman automatically becomes a member of JFM
committee by virtue of her husband being a member, but even then the husband is
regarded as the primary member (Agarwal 2001).

A recent study undertaken by the government suggested that the FD should recruit
female staff at all levels and also increase the number of women extension officers to
reach out to women more comprehensively. Nevertheless, it is difficult to speculate
when the much needed and veritable participation of women in JFM in India will be
ensured.

Equity in benefit sharing

Equity in the sharing of benefits derived from protected forests managed under the
JFM programme is as important as equity in the participation in the JFM programme
itself. This is one of the major challenges affecting the sustainability of JFM in India.

Problems regarding benefit sharing have also been confronted by participatory forest
management schemes in neighboring countries, such as Nepal (Shrestha 1996) and Sri
Lanka (MacKenzie 1998). In the case of India, two sets of problems can be discerned:
that relating to the distribution of benefits amongst the users themselves, and those
relating to the distribution of benefits between users/village communities and the FD.
For example economically, the forests of Sarangi range are most important for
Orissa’s village women (Fig. 13.14). Fuel wood head loading can bring Rs. 15-30
each day to low income families, while thousands are employed making leaf plates
and thus JFM are helping in the family income of poor families.

26
 Participatory Forest
Resource Management

Fig. 13.14: Women from Orrisa village benefitted through JFM

(Source: Asia Forest Network)

In overcoming this problem, it is important for policy makers to examine the history
of past settlements during the colonial rule, wherein forest users were granted certain
rights (Hobley 1996). These rights should not be abruptly extinguished by imposing
new benefit sharing arrangements under participatory forest management, as that will
determine the response of local people to JFM. The policies have also to ensure that
poor families and women get equal entitlements in benefit sharing.

Institutional finance Moreover, in recent years

the amount disbursed by
The National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD), an apex financial institutions to
development bank in India, supports and promotes agriculture and rural development afforestation programmes,
including tree plantations on private and community lands. Inter -institutional mostly for farm forestry
cooperation is a pre-requisite for the future success of this strategy. Unless constraints projects, has declined
considerably (Government
are overcome, the NABARD cannot by itself play any effective role in speeding up of India 2001a). In 1998-
the funding of JFM in the country. 1999, the figure was INR 90
million as compared to INR
Institutional impediments 290.5 million in 1990-91

With the wide acceptance of JFM in India, the need to overcome various institutional Most of the funds for JFM
impediments, which result in high transaction costs, is being increasingly realized. come from government
The JFM programme lacks legislative support even when it is based on administrative sources and donor agencies.
orders (Sarin 1998).

For the continued success of JFM, village communities need to be provided with
enough flexibility to build institutional arrangements that are sustainable. As such,
there is a pressing need to unify policy in at least the more important aspects of JFM
structure across the country in order to achieve better coordination among the states
and for efficient monitoring and evaluation.

Marketing of forest products is often affected by institutional impediments. For

example, in several states, provisions of the Forest Law impose restrictions on felling,
transportation and sale of timber.

Lack of appropriate marketing infrastructure for forest produce has always been a
serious constraint in the Indian forestry sector, in contrast to the well-developed
marketing infrastructure that exists for agricultural produce in the country. It would be
a mistake for policy makers to watch and wait rather than to resolve this important
issue, as in many states JFM is still in its infancy and marketing has not emerged as a
serious constraint.

27
Participatory Resource Conclusions
Management
With the passage of time, policy makers have realized the need for new policy
measures for expanding JFM programmes together with the need for overcoming the
constraints in their implementation.

Furthermore, the present analysis of forest policies on participatory forest

management in India reveals the government of India’s determination for the
successful implementation and expansion of JFM throughout the country.
Nonetheless, such a resolve is insufficient on its own without the collective effort of
all stakeholders, encompassing governmental and non-governmental organizations.
Development of any successful doctrine is likely to be beset with failures also. JFM
programme in India currently confronts several teething problems inherited from the
past. It is also facing the range of challenges that normally crop up when an
institution begins to take root. A sound forest policy is necessary in order to
overcome these issues and challenges.

Now, the time has also come to streamline the plethora of forest policies, rules and
regulations inherited from the colonial period as well as those formulated since
independence, in view of JFM as a major forest management model .To sum up, these
issues and challenges to the JFM programme in India require in-depth study and
analysis for their expeditious resolution.

It seems reasonable to predict that all forests in India will eventually be managed
under the principles of JFM, given the government's resolve to expand the programme
to good forests, rather than keeping it confined to degraded forests only. The recent
policy initiatives on participatory forest management by the government of India have
set an example to be emulated by other countries in South Asia as well as other parts
of the World.

13.8 DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY

CONTEXT: SOUTH ASIA
South Asia has been witness to a series of dramatic experience in the participatory
management of forest resources. Since the 1970s social and community forestry
programmes in both India and Nepal have attempted to transform the relationship
between a powerful state bureaucracy and local people directly dependent on forest
resources. There is failure of traditional custodial management of forests by
government. There will be no halt to the loss and degradation of the sub-continent’s
forests, without the active participation of local communities.

The inadequacy of government based approaches to forest protection and management

led to the search for alternatives, and experimentation with a number of approaches.
These can generally be classified into social forestry, farm forest, community forest,
joint forest management and rural development forestry. In this unit, the umbrella
term used to refer to all these approaches is participatory forestry, accepting the
diversity of interpretations of participatory. Although as some have contended the use
of the word participatory is probably more problematic than some of the more clearly
focused terms such as collaborative or good forest management.

13.8.1 Advent of Social Forestry

The earliest mention of social forestry was in India where several States pioneered
tree-growing programmes outside the traditional forest boundaries. For example, in
India, the State of Gujarat in 1970 set up a community Forestry Wing in the Forest
Department and Tamil Nadu started a tree-planting programme for local employment
generation on tank foreshores and village wastelands as early as 1956. After 1973 half
of the proceeds from these plantations were given to local panchayats (the lowest unit
28
of local government administration) and local people were allowed to collect fodder Participatory Forest
from the plantation areas. Resource Management

Social forestry-practice is of raising tree to fulfill the basic needs of fuel wood, fodder,
small timber and medicinal plants for local populations (Box 13.3). Under some
interpretations of social forestry it could be considered that its formal origins lie in
government programmes of the late nineteenth century where village forests were
demarcated. However under other interpretations this would be considered to have
been a programme of removal of local people’s rights to manage forests. Indeed many
commentators in both India and Nepal would assert that participatory forestry has
been implemented, informally and unrecognized, by local people over many decades
and generations, and that the so-called new approaches are merely reproducing (often
badly) indigenously derived systems of forest management.
Box 13.3: Bio biodiversity enhancing practices in tribal people.

Kol people (Fig . 13.15) in Satna and Panna districts of Central India , interesting members of the
community visiting different places for various purposes collect land races or ethno cultivars
currently not available with them. They plant this germplasm near the traditional orchards. Ten
such mango orchards were surveyed at Sarai, Amraiha, Barha, Khagaura and Lakhaha villages in
and in district Satna, Sugaraha and Dadwaria village in district Panna in Madhya Pradesh. These
orchards held 162 types of trees, supposedly landraces, bearing unique fruits. These differed in
shape, size, taste, aroma, pulp content, period of ripening, colour of epicarp and other traits. Seeds
and vegetative materials of a large number of medicinal plants are also collected and planted near
settlements and courtyards. Similarly, people in southern Aravalis plant trees along the fencing
around their huts (See Table 13.1). All these practices contribute to landscape heterogeneity and
biodiversity enhancement.

Table 13.1: Five m ost preferred trees for traditional courtyard and farm planting by tribals of Aravalis
No Species Traditional use for subsistence
Food, fodder, fuelwood, fencing material, grass storage
1. Ber (Zyzyphus mauritiana)
larder
2. Sandesada (Delonix elata) Food, fodder, fuelwood, grass storage larder
3. Bamboo (Dendrocalamus strictus) Small timber, fodder, fencing, thatching
4. Aam (Mangifera indica) Shade, fuelwood, timber, food
Shade, timber, fodder, fuelwood, medicine, grass
5. Neem (Azadirachta indica)
storage larder

Fig. 13.15: Kol tribal people restored Kudada forest.

(Source: Asia Forest Network)

Thus, by the early to mid-1980s it is was possible to make some assessments of the
social and community forestry programmes. Dichotomy of understanding the meaning
29
Participatory Resource of ‘social’ in social forestry has interesting and long-running consequences for
Management participatory forestry. In the early years external funding was given on the basis of
poverty alleviation where forestry was seen to be the appropriate entry point to reach
the more marginal groups in society. However, as evidence from India indicates this
ideal was far from realized through the social forestry programmes and in many
instances poorer groups are dispossessed from the land they had been using,
particularly those groups whose livelihoods were dependent on access to grazing
lands. This was also the cause of people s’ conflict in participatory forestry.

Although there is evidence to indicate that farm forestry in certain parts of India
proved to be immensely successful in the initial stages, as demonstrated by the
demand for seedlings which for outpaced projects or supply . Private tree growing on a
large scale was confined to parts for North-western India, Gujarat and Karnataka,
resulting in localized over-production of poles and a consequent depression in prices,
Perhaps because of falling prices and local surpluses, the initial boom in farm forestry
has slowed.

13.8.2 Drawbacks of Social Forestry

Reviews of social forestry programmes, which had objectives of developing the
common property resource, have been far less positive. One of the common factors
identified in their failure was the absence of people’s participation in planning and
management, which led to poor survival rates and the reluctance of community
institutions to take over responsibility for the management of plantation (Table 13.3).

Furthermore, even though both these programmes shared the common objective of
reducing pressure on forest lands through creating alternative sources of fuel, fodder
and forest products, degradation still continued. The intense focus of funds and energy
on private and common lands in India, has redirected attention away from investment
and management of natural forests.

While community forests are being managed in Nepal, joint forest management
arrangements are being explored in India between local people a State Forest
Departments, in the process many self-initiated and indigenous forest management
systems are being doc umented and are gaining recognition. Social forestry and farm
forestry were the first new practices in recent history to bring foresters out of the
forest and into the villages and farms of the people who are the forest's primary users.
New community forestry programmes seek to stop further, degradation recognizing
the role of these users in the management of natural forests – bringing the people back
into the forests.

13.8.3 Challenges of Social Forestry

Experiences of practitioners of social and community forestry in India and Nepal
suggested that, although there were many similarities in experiences, there were also
some major differences. Although these two nations may have many points of
interaction there has been little or no sharing of experiences in the forestry sector
(Fig. 13.16). Large sum of money is invested yet these new forestry experiments are
still evolving, and their focus on local institutions and equity make them more
process-oriented, and less amenable to rigid target-based development planning.

People’s participation, reorientation and training of forest staff, building local level
institutional participatory micro planning, equitable benefit sharing, and gender-
sensitive programming have all become new development imperatives. Community
forestry in Nepal and joint forest management in India are beginning to take on these
challenges in different ways. The nature and extent of the shift of control from
State/national to local/ community level also differs considerably.

30
 Participatory Forest
Resource Management

Fig. 13.16: Flow chart of diagnostic research activities, analysis in community forestry

Ironically, the programmes in both countries have focused more attention on initiating
community protection (India) (Fig. 13.17) or simple operational plans (Nepal) than on
making the more dramatic shift to active co-operative forest managing and to
addressing the technical social and economic issues which accompany such a
transition. Many of the problems, faced by both countries, are therefore very similar.

Fig. 13.17: Nursery developed by community for social forestry

31
Participatory Resource Table 13.3: Various types of forestry their benefits and short comings.
Management
Alternatives Strengths / potential benefits Shortcomings/ potential risks
Traditional Primary objective was Environmental and social concerns
forestry management of timber resources did not receive attention. Biotic
interference continued to degrade
the forests
Social forestry Pressure on state owned forests Pressure on forests by local
for meeting requirement of pulp communities for their domestic and
for forest based industries, small livelihood not addressed. Activities
timber and firewood for general too scattered to have impact. No
public likely to be eased. holistic approach to management of
Optimum utilization of waste forests. Activities were planned and
lands. Small and marginal managed with little sustainability
farmers targeted. considerations.
Joint Forest Improvement in forest density Forest management driven more by
Management and quality. Community economic considerations. May not
participation leading to better be sustainable in long run.
appreciation of forestry issues Productivity issues inadequately
and better management of addressed. Community ownership
forests. Targeted to forest concerns. Initiatives not fully
dependent and vulnerable instutionalized and dependent
groups. heavily on local leadership.
Community Forest Holistic development of all Potential conflicts in big and
Management natural resources. Improved heterogeneous VSS. Still
environmental management. untested.
Increased forest productivity.
Sustainable management of
forest and other natural
resources. Environmental and
social management plans
integrated into planning at the
village level.
Without Project Continued degradation of forests,
Scenario acceleration in run off, and increase
in soil erosion; limited recharge of
ground water; inadequate fuel wood
and fodder supply; limited
availability of NTFP;
greater biodiversity loses; less
sustainable forest management;

poverty among the forest dependent

communities not likely to be
addressed; limited community
empowerment; limited women’s
empowerment; increase in
incidence of conflicts.

India’s experiences indicate that community forest protection can be highly effective
in regenerating degraded natural forest. Government planners in many developing
nations increasingly recognize the need, to devolve management downward from
forest agencies to local communities. More interaction among planner's, forest
administrators and rural communities will provide learning ground, which would
accelerate change towards sustainable growth and development.

Sustaining well-being of people in developing countries, particularly in the tropics,

can be achieved by bringing people back into the equation and promote community
involvement in forest management, through collaborative, strategic and applied
research and through the transfer and adoption of appropriate new technologies and
social systems for national development. Helping local communities and small
32
farmers gain their rightful share of forest resources, while increasing the production Participatory Forest
and value of forest products, can help to conserve forests and improve the livelihoods Resource Management
of people, especially in the tropics.

13.9 SUMMARY
Let us summarize what you have studied so far:
• Forestry, as a follower of development strategies evolved in wider fields,
straggled behind the changing modes of development policy. The shif t away
from industrialization as the vehicle for development slowly percolated through
the forestry sectors of aid agencies.
• The wise management of forests is a major environmental priority. Many new
plans and programs have been proposed, especially for tropical forests.
• A major goal of forest management is sustained yield; some forests are managed
like mechanized farms.
• Indigenous people and their communities, and other local communities, have a
vital role in environmental management and development because of their
knowledge and traditional practices.
• States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and
enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable
development.
• There is no blueprint for institutional change; the structure of organizations
necessary to meet national and local imperatives must emerge from the particular
circumstance of each nation.
• The principle of decentralization, although global, does not necessarily lead to a
globally uniform response. These responses are the transition from public to
private sector operation.

13.10 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. Study the forest Policy 1988 and discus how it favours the participatory
management in India.
2. What is participatory forestry and how it can be used in sustainable development
of forest in India?
3. Make a project on JFM of your area describing its successes or failure and why?
4. Make a map of India and show the places where JFM is successes.
5. What measures do you suggest apart from described in unit to make JFM a
successes.
6. Discuss your views on Participatory Forest management in relation to gender
issues, equity and socio-economic development.
7. Give your views on the word “participation ” and its importance in forest
sustainable development and management.
8. How participatory management can help the people living on the edge of forest
and also helping in the conservation of forest, also give examples by going
through magazines, papers and case studies in India.
9. What are your opin ion or experiences of JFM in India?
10. Is conservation of forest ecosystem possible without involving local people?
11. Are foresters today equipped to reorient their approach to forest management?
12. How does forest dependent people ’s relationship with forest under go change
with the depletion of forest resources.
13. How do the local village communities find access to forest?
14. What type of property regime is joint forest management?
15. Make a list of major items of wood procured by tribal from the forest in your area.

33
Participatory Resource
Management
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agarwal, B. (1997). Environmental action, gender equity and women’s participation.
Development and Change 28(1) : 1-43.

Anderson, L. 1998. Sustainable development and environmental issues, Module 13,

CYP diploma, Youth in development work, Commonwealth Secretariat, London.

*Balooni Kulbhusha (2002). Participatory Forest Management in India - An Analysis

of Policy Trends amid ‘Management Change’, Policy Trend Report.

Cunningham, W.P and Saigo, B.W, 1995. Environmental Science: A Global Concern,
Wm. C. Brown Communication, Inc.

Ebrahim Alnoor (2004). Institutional Preconditions to Collaboration, Indian Forest

and Irrigation Policy in Historical Perspective, Administration and Society, Vol. 36
No. 2, May 2004 208-242.

Hobley, M. (1996). Participatory forestry - The process of change in India and Nepal.
Rural Development Forestry Study Guide 3. London : Overseas Development
Institute.

MacKenzie, C. (1988). The challenges of participatory forest management in Sri

Lanka. In Community forestry at a cross-roads : Reflections and future directions in
the development of community forestry - Proceedings of an International Seminar,
held in Bangkok, 17-19 July 1997, RECOFTC Report 16, edited by M. Victor, C.
Land and J. Bornemeier, 231-245. Bangkok : RECOFTC.

Pretty, J.N. and P. Shah (1994). A Trainer’s Guide to Participatory Learning and
Interaction, IIED Training Materials Series No. 2, IIED; London.

Sarin, M (1998). Grassroots priorities versus official responses - The dilemmas facing
community forestry management in India. In Community forestry at a crossroads :
Reflections and future directions in the development of community forestry -
Proceedings of an International Seminar, held in Bangkok, 17-19 July 1997,
RECOFTC Report 16, edited by M. Victor, C. Land and J. Bornemeier, 19-26.
Bangkok : RECOFTC.

Shrestha, M.L. (1996). Problems in developing private forestry in Nepal. Community

Forestry Case Study Series CR002/96. Bangkok : RECOFTC/FTPP.

Smith, R., Simard, C. and Sharpe, A., 2001. A Proposed Approach to Environment
and Sustainable development indicators based on capital. Prepared for national round
table on the environment and sustainable development.

For most of the pictures we Acknowledged Asia Forest Network, USA.

34
 Annexure 1 Participatory Forest
Resource Management
CAMPAIGN FOR PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT IN KARNATAKA
Sharachchandra Lele, 2001
The Concept of Participatory Forest Management, its Rationale and Implications for
Karnataka
Background: The JFPM experience
The question of how forests should be managed has been one of the burning issues concerning
rural livelihoods and the environment. About ten years ago, mainly due to the sustained and
concerted efforts of activists, scholars and rural communities, the government of India accepted
in principle the need for the participation of village communities in forest management. The
concept was then implemented under various joint forest management programmes. In
Karnataka, the initiation of Joint Forest Planning and Management (JF PM, as it is called) in
1993 coincided with the initiation of the Western Ghats Forestry and Environment Project with
British funds. Here again, a coalition of activists and scholars, led by FEVORD-K, was
responsible for ensuring that the concept of people’s participation was incorporated into the
project. Subsequently, JFPM was also incorporated into the Eastern Plains Forestry Project
executed with a loan from the Japanese Bank for International Co-operation.
The past eight years of experience with JFPM in Karnataka as implemented by the Karnataka
Forest Department leaves much to be desired. While JFPM programmes have engendered
significant interest and general awareness in forest management from rural communities in the
project areas, JFPM has neither made a serious dent in forest degradation or deforestation, nor
has it benefited local communities significantly, whether in subsistence or income terms. The
main reasons for this, which have emerged from many rounds of discussions, studies,
consultation wit h Village Forest Committees (VFCs) and independent reviews, are:
a) lack of clear and adequate rights over forest produce;
b) lack of sufficient autonomy in day-to-day management and no transparent guidelines for
ecological sustainability;
c) lack of attention to existing rights and privileges leading to confusion and often
aggravating intra-village inequities in forest access;
d) lack of security of tenure and sustainability of institutions due to the programmatic and
project-dependent and funding-oriented nature of implementation;
e) focus on only degraded forest department lands leading to only partial coverage of the
public lands used by villagers.
Further, JFPM has not been implemented uniformly in all parts of the state and local
communities are not in a position to ensure its implementation.
In short, it is not just the implementation of JFPM that is faulty, but also the very conceptual
and policy framework within which JFPM has been set up needs to thoroughly re-examined.
Thus, the time has come for us not just to demand Government’s support for continuing JFPM
and VFCs as they now exist but rather to revitalise the campaign for truly participatory,
sustainable, equitable and economically-viable model of people’s participation in forest
management. This campaign would have to begin by re-stating the basic premises of
participatory forest management in the Karnataka context and pointing to the broad directions
of policy change that are required. This concept note attempts to do so.

ISEC-ATREE Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment & Development (CISED)

ISEC Campus, Nagarabhavi
Bangalore 560 072, INDIA
Tel: 080-321 -7013, Fax: 080-321-7008
Email: lele@socrates.berkeley.edu

Joint Forest Management in Haryana

TERI
2001
The success of the JFM (joint forest management) in Haryana is manifest in the improved
status of its forests, socio-economic development of the people and the evolution of an
institutional process of cooperation between the HFD (Haryana forest department) and the
HRMS(hill resource management societies). The maximum average yield of bhabbar grass
35
Participatory Resource was 850 kilogram/ha under six years of community protection compared to the yield of 300 to
Management 360 kilograms/ ha in the unprotected areas. The total number of trees/ha increased from a
minimum of 700 in unprotected forest areas to a maximum of 3960 in case of 10 years of
protection. The number of shrubs/ha is maximum in unprotected forest areas 13,885 whereas
in areas protected for 10 years, it is as low as 3247. Water-harvesting structures help villagers
to increase their earning from farming through diversifying the agricultural activities. Supply
of bamboos to Bhanjda community at concessional rates provides employment and a source of
income. Leasing out of forest areas to HRMS for extraction of bhabbar contributed to the
development of village infrastructure and also economic betterment of the local communities,
especially Banjaras. Leasing out of forest areas to HRMS for extraction of fodder grasses
helped the pastoral community to re-stock their livestock with more productive breed.
Forests in India have continued to deteriorate under pressure from the growing population,
both human and livestock. A growing number of foresters, economists, social scientists, public
administrators, and policy-makers now acknowledge that unless local communities are
effectively involved in establishing sustainable forest management systems, deforestation will
continue at a rapid rate. Therefore, the challenge for forest regeneration and protection is to
develop a management practice that combines the economic interests of forest users and their
active involvement in forest regeneration and conservation.
The area under the Shivaliks, which was once covered by dense forests with a variety of flora
and fauna, reached its worst form of degradation in the early 1970s. Reckless felling of trees,
frequent forest fires, and increasing biotic pressure destroyed the vegetation in the area. Large
tract of lands was cleared for agriculture. The problem of grazing was so serious that in heavily
grazed areas, 4-6 cm of topsoil used to disappear after just one heavy shower. On the other
hand, because of the poor economic conditions of the people, forest laws and traditional
methods of forest regeneration proved ineffective. Against this background, an intervention
has been designed with three criteria, namely ecological viability, economic feasibility, and
social desirability (social and political acceptability).
The programme site is located in the Himalayan foothills (Shiwaliks) of northern India
covering about 3000 square kilometers of north and north-eastern Haryana. The tract is hilly
with rugged and undulating topography. The slopes are gentle to very steep. The seasonal
torrents, which originate from the hills and get wider as they enter the plains, are a peculiar
feature of the drainage system of the area. The area falls under two territorial forest divisions,
namely Morni Pinjore and Yamunanagar, on the forest administration map. The local
population consists of to Gujjar, Jat, Ramdaisya, Rajput, Banjare, and Bhanjda castes. The
economy of the area is primarily dependent on agriculture and livestock. However, agricultural
productivity in the area was beholden to the whims of nature in the absence of irrigation .
Livestock, the other main source of livelihood, consisted of mainly unproductive stocks
because fodder was scarse. The Bhanjdas (the basket -making community) and Banjaras (those
who make ropes from a grass locally known as Bhabbar) are directly dependent on availability
of such NTFP(non-timber forest products) as bamboo and ‘bhabbar’.s
An integrated approach to rural development has been adopted to elicit people’s participation
in regeneration and conservation of forests. The stress is on fulfilling the social, economic, and
human development needs of communities in the belief that a self-reliant community is
essential to sustaining forests and should be the basic philosophy for community Forestry
Programmes.
TERI began a programme of JFM ( joint forest management) support programme in the
Haryana Shivaliks in July 1990 in collaboration with the HFD (Haryana forest department),
with financial support from the Ford Foundation. The programme envisages people’s
participation in the management of forest resources of the state jointly with HFD. TERI has
been providing all the necessary backup support in developing and implementing the
programme.
Saif Alauddin, Information Analyst
Information Dissemination Services - Tata Energy Research Institute
Darbari Seth Block, Habitat Place
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003, India
Tel: +91-011-468 2100/ 4682111(Extn.2213)
Fax: +91-011-4682144 / 4682145
http://www.teriin.org
email: allaudin@teri.res.in

36