Filetype PDF | Posted on 20 Jan 2023 | 2 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
149x Filetype PDF File size 0.08 MB Source: 14.143.90.243
© JHE 2020 J Hum Ecol, 72(1-3): 148-166 (2020)
PRINT: ISSN 0970-9274 ONLINE: ISSN 2456-6608 DOI: 10.31901/24566608.2020/72.1-3.3279
Community Involvement in Forest Management:
A Social Analysis of Joint Forest Management
in Maharashtra, India
C.J. Sonowal
Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai 400 088, Maharashtra, India
Mobile: 9987521466, E-mail: moina@tiss.edu, chunuda@yahoo.com
KEYWORDS Feasibility of Exclusion. Incentives. Joint Forest Management. Participation. Symbiotic Relations
ABSTRACT With the formulation of Joint Forest Management Programme in India, the involvement of
communities in forest management has been recognised as a sustainable way of forest resource management.
Nevertheless, research conducted on the experiences of Joint Forest Management reveals that there are lots of
inherent factors that determine the success or failure of such forestry programmes. The present article is the
outcome of a research project conducted in the Thane and Raigad districts of Maharashtra state among some Joint
Forest Management Committees. Using primary and secondary sources of information, the study investigates the
characteristics of the resources, the characteristic of community, the characteristics of rules, the context of the
socio-economic environment and the extent of participation of JFMC members in forest management activities
and hereby tries to find out the reasons for success and failure of forest management programmes.
INTRODUCTION eration of forest have never come up as people’s
moral and emotional duties.
Joint Forest Management as a Strategy Contrary to all those previous forest manage-
for Resource Enhancement ment policies, Joint Forest Management (JFM)
came up as a ray of hope both for state as well as
Forest management as a strategy and also as for forest-fringe communities. There has been a
a requirement for both state and the communi- good deal of instances of successful JFM pro-
ties, has come across various stages with experi- grammes where the interest of both state and the
ments and experiences over a period of time. By communities has been served to a great extent.
the time the state recognised the interface and But many other cases show relatively and some-
importance of the relation between forest and times entirely unsuccessful results. Researchers
communities, the ever decreasing forest resourc- have primarily put the blame on the policy plan-
es had, in most cases, depleted to such an extent ners for such failure. The Ministry of Environ-
that regenerating them needed a full cycle. It has ment and Forest (MoEF) has come up with a new
been evident from numerous literatures and re- scheme, the “National Afforastation Programme”
ports that the plans and policies on forest man- (NAP), which has clubbed several other previ-
agement and benefits sharing between state and ous programmes in to one new programme aim-
the communities have remained very much tech- ing at larger coverage and activities of forestry
nical and procedural. The responsibility of pro- work. JFM has been revamped under Forest De-
tection of forest had to be assigned on certain velopment Authority (FDA) with more decentral-
groups of people like Forest Protection Commit- ization of planning and implementation of forest-
tee and Village Forest Committee etc. on selective ry activities enhancing community participation.
basis. In state system, the protection and regen- There again emerged two conflicting situations –
the interest of the forest department and the in-
terest of the forest fringe communities.
Address for correspondence:
Dr. C.J. Sonowal Joint Forest Management and Its Evolution
Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive through Time
Policies,
Tata Institute of Social Sciences
Sion-Trombay Road, Deonar, JFM is a process developed by the forest de-
Mumbai 400 088 partment to enhance forest development and for-
Maharashtra, India
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN FOREST MANAGEMENT 149
est protection in partnership with forest fringe between forest and forest-fringe communities. It
communities. In this process, mutual trust be- is symbiotic in the sense that when the forest
tween the forest department and the communi- provides a lot of resources used by the communi-
ties involved remains the central focus and roles ties as their means of livelihood, in turn the com-
and responsibilities are set jointly by the forest munities also help the forest regenerate in its nat-
department and the communities. ural way making it a renewable resource. The re-
In JFM, the local communities are defined as lation between forest and the forest-fringe com-
users of forest and the government is defined as munities, especially the tribal people have been
the owner of forest. Both this user and the owner discussed in detail by social scientist mostly by
of forest work together to manage the forest re- the last quarter of last century. The study of Fuchs
sources, and in this process they share the cost (1992), Adhikari (1989), Dutta (1989) and many
of management and the benefits of outcomes. others show that forest dweller communities de-
Nevertheless, due to diverse geographical, so- pend on forest not only for food but also for hous-
cio-cultural and resource base in India, it is quite ing, health care, fuel wood, fodder and recreational
difficult to generalize the concept of JFM and its purposes. Hoffman (1950), Elwin (1954), and Basu
approaches. During the first decade of inception (1987) Roy Burman (1988), Fernandes (1988),
of the programme various researchers have de- Fernandes and Menon (1987) and Hembram (1988)
liberated the relations between communities and has opined that that there is a good deal of inter-
forest. For instance, Raju (1999) sees JFM as “a relationship between the social system of these
mechanism to manage the forest that is owned by communities and the forests. The traditional prac-
the state but appropriated by local communities”.
Dutta (1997) identified it as “an approach involv- tices of these communities help protect and re-
ing the evolution of a very complex property rights generate forest around them, such traditional prac-
regime to generate a sustainable interface be- tices may include like imposing of taboo in cut-
tween the Forest Department (FD) and the local ting down or venturing through certain parts of
community”. According to Saxena (1999), it is “a the forest or in certain period in a year, planting
possible way through which the interests of peo- certain varieties of plants, restriction in hunting
ple and of long term sustainability are harmonized and grazing etc. Nadeem Hasnain (1991) noted
in a mutually supporting manner”. According to that the primary factor of violent incidence of tribal
Roy Burman (1999), “JFM does not have the struggle was the harshness of the forest laws
scope for genuine participation of the people and and regulations and the lack of sympathy and
is a means of ensuring protection of the forests at understanding in administering them. In such
a very low cost”. Hobley (1996) reports that “the backdrop, the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (Govern-
JFM programme has focused more attention on ment of India) has emerged as epoch making Act
initiating community protection rather than mak- to provide forest rights to traditional forest dwell-
ing the shift to active co-operation and to ad- ers in various states in India.
dress the technical, social and economical issues,
which accompany such transitions”. Saxena Primary Issues Related to JFM
(1997) views that “JFM has not made any major
change in the prevailing position of relations be- It has already been stated that the inherent
tween the state and the people nor has it herald- idea of JFM is to motivate people at involving in
ed the beginning of a new era of people’s power”. resource generation activities, and utilize their
He further added that the State governments look participation in forest management and sharing
upon JFM as a cost effective method of forest benefits regularized through adequate institution-
protection and economically rewarding activity al arrangements and rules. Following the launch
for the people. The aim is neither to empower of the JFM programme in India, several issues of
people nor to make committees autonomous. importance have emerged which have certain im-
The Relation between Forest and pact on the success and failure of JFM. Some of
Forest-fringe Communities those issues may be listed as - Fund Allocation at
various level of administrative and interactive
It has been very often stated by social scien- domains, involvement of women in JFM institu-
tists that there has been a symbiotic relationship tions, sharing of benefits and institutional power,
J Hum Ecol, 72(1-3): 148-166 (2020)
150 C.J. SONOWAL
legal and statutory provisions in forest manage- in the benefits may make a huge positive change
ment, the issue of awareness regarding the pro- in JFM. Sarkar and Das (2006) have emphasized
gramme, membership norms in JFMC, rules and the importance of planning the JFM programme
composition of the JFM committees, role of the on the livelihood requirement of the local and
Forest Department in the JFMC, status of JFM poorer communities for their immediate need and
committees and village funds etc. A lot of these survival. More emphasis must be given on pro-
issues are administrative and technical in nature, duction of NTFPs instead of commercial produc-
while other issues are related to the communities tion of timber which are not the means for fulfill-
and the resources as well. Some relatively recent ment of immediate and non-commercial needs of
studies have highlighted the potential benefits poorer stakeholders. For sustainability of JFM
of JFM as well as the inherent shortcomings as programme, it is quite essential that it should pri-
follows: marily be oriented towards local level poorer
Sinha and Suar’s (2003) study in Jharkhand stakeholders. Reddy and Bandi (2006) have right-
reveal that where choices of communities were ly opined that unless the local level institutions
given importance, participation was higher for like JFMCs and FPCs are recognised as the sole
resource conservation. People participated in a authority for the overall development of resourc-
half-hearted manner when external intervention es and people, a sustainable JFM programme can-
undermined local choices. In JFM, too much state not be guaranteed. Recognised merely as an in-
interference worked against people’s choices and strument for development of degraded forests, such
decreased participation. At the backdrop of find- institutions cannot settle the issue like benefit shar-
ing that JFM programmes are mostly outsider’s ing, selection of plant species, gender equity, graz-
concept introduced with little understanding and ing land demarcation etc. While planning JFM,
consensus of local communities, Ghazala (2003) these issues were not deliberated as to be under
has rightly emphasised the importance of a pre- the jurisdiction of local institutions.
existing societal consensus and understanding Study conducted by Das and Sarkar (2009) in
among various stake-holders regarding the use West Bengal reveals that the poorer and landless
of the forest before any claimed scientific study families are more involved in JFM activities due
takes a shape of programme in a community. Thus to relatively higher wage structure compared to
he recommended that “an open and wide-rang- the wage they get in other works. Further, poorer
ing consultative process be initiated amongst the condition of family leads to greater involvement
various stakeholders in forest resources at many in forestry work and greater dependence on for-
different levels: local, landscape and national.” est resources for both consumption as well as
Giving detailed overviews on the outcomes income generation. Sarap and Sarangi (2009) have
and shortcomings of JFM in India, Saigal (2003) highlighted the inherent loopholes in JFM struc-
reiterates the promising positive results of the tural arrangement by pointing out to the issues
programme in improving forest governance. The encountered by the poorer section of JFMC mem-
author shows with evidence that the successful ber families in Odisha. Highlighting the incen-
and sustainable regeneration and protection of tives and disincentive mechanism of the pro-
forest through community-based forest manage- gramme, the authors say that the JFMs and FDAs
ment have proved the forest dwellers or forest are characterised by inefficiency and inequality
fringe communities as the friends of forest, and in access and exclusion of certain groups in the
not the enemies as previously held by the forest state. There is gender gap in JFM participation.
departments. Amidst the phenomenal growth of There is lack of democratic mechanism in deci-
JFM activities in the country, the author also re- sion making and resource distribution as well.
minds the fact that there are significant challeng- Villagers hardly enjoy any secure rights over the
es remain within the institutional efficacy and forest resources. There have been conflicts of
economic viability of JFM. The most significant various nature hampering the activities and out-
aspect of JFM the author highlights is that of the come of JFM. The immediate needs of the poorer
rights. He maintains that a secure right of access people are hardly taken in to consideration mak-
to and control over forests resources, genuine ing them disinterested in forestry work. Sahu and
decision-making powers and an adequate share Rath (2010) find that in Odisha, JFM activities
J Hum Ecol, 72(1-3): 148-166 (2020)
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN FOREST MANAGEMENT 151
have great potential in providing immediate fi- societies and resource users. Nevertheless, the
nancial benefits to the poverty ridden population issue of inter-institutional conflicts, elite capture
and thereby arrest stress migration to a great ex- and patriarchy still persist in the system.
tent. The authors have attributed this positive
outcome to the devolution and decentralization Theoretical Perspective on JFM
of forest resources management policies.
The importance of community level local in- The theoretical perspective of the article is
stitutions and rules in place has been highlighted based heavily on the discussion made by Thom-
by Rout (2010). Considering the fact that JFM son and Schoonmaker Freudenberger (1997) and
brings together diverse interest group, there Ostrom and Ostrom (1977). The argument of the
needs to present local level community institu- discussion centers round the idea that various
tions to manage and regulate the JFM activities incentives plays major roles in community in-
and outcomes etc. To do so, there must be rules volvement in forest management which ultimate-
set in place and these rules must be functional. ly make forestry programme a success or a fail-
The institutional analysis of the ten studied vil- ure. The basic components of the argument may
lages reveals that institutions must be equipped briefly be described as follows:
with strong and functional rules and there must
be a monitoring mechanism in place. Roles of Incentives in JFM
That the objective of JFM must not be limited
to the regeneration of degraded forest land has Since the forest resources have become a
been reiterated by the findings of Das (2011) on state property and the authority of forest depen-
the basis of his study in Odisha. Rather, such dent communities over such resources have been
programme must address the basic problem of undone or curtailed, such communities have lost
livelihood of local poor and poverty stricken peo- their interests in regeneration and protection of
ple within its jurisdiction. Due to such shortcom- forest resources to a great extent. People lost the
ings, the poor and needy people are seen en- sense of belongingness once attached to forest
gaged in activities that degrade open access for- resources. In such situation, to get people in-
ests. Contrary to the claim of being decentralized volved in forest management, there needs certain
and community centered programme, JFM still incentives which can neutralize the repulsive forc-
has inherent characters of a top–down initiative es. Such incentives may be material, socio-cul-
with a rigid framework and unbreakable structur- tural or emotional aspects people deal with.
al constraints as elucidates by Shylendra (2015).
Specifically, the limited resource allocation and Incentives Related to Characteristics of the
donor dependence character of JFM are two ma- Resource Base
jor macro level constraints, whereas the domi-
nance state bureaucracy and its dictation over The characters of forest resources may be
the local institutions and community has made varied. For instance, if resources are naturally
the JFM participation by local communities just grown and value is limited, people will not be
mechanical in nature. The author also reveals that interested to put their investment in protection
where the relative importance of forest and liveli- and regenerating such resources. On the other
hood concerns for the poor and poverty ridden hand, if the resources are valuable and are plant-
people are recognised and addressed, the JFM ed with individual or common effort, people will
shows significant success. That meaningful de- try to protect and regenerate them at certain cost
centralization of power and authority in JFM pro- to get benefit of their investment. In terms of pro-
gramme is an important factor has been reiterated tection of such invested resources, communities
by Lavanya Suresh (2017). The author finds that may be benefitted by already existing and newly
engagement of local government with communi- laid down beliefs and practices, moral obligations
ty oriented institutions in JFM makes the stake- that deter unauthorized extract of benefits from
holder more comfortable in functioning because, such investment or deter people from destruc-
in such situation the local communities find space tion of such investment. Besides such cultural/
for greater interaction among authorities, civil moral aspects, institutional and socio-cultural
J Hum Ecol, 72(1-3): 148-166 (2020)
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
