Community - RCDC India · Nilambar Patra by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest(PCCF) of...

CommunityCommunityCommunityCommunityCommunityForestryForestryForestryForestryForestry

(Issue-27, January-April 2013)

Editorial Address

REGIONAL CENTRE FORDEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

A/68, 1st FloorSahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar -7

Odisha, India.Tel: 91-674-2545250Fax: 91-674-2545252

E-mail:[email protected]

[email protected]

URLwww.rcdcindia.orgwww.banajata.org

Editor-in-ChiefKailash Ch. Dash

Thematic EditorBikash Rath

Layout & DesignRamakrishna Maharana

Bhagyarathi Sahoo

Please feel free to use, reproduceor translate materials fromCommunity Forestry with duerespect to the self esteem of theforest protecting communities andacknowledgement to the author(s),RCDC and the source. We willappreciate receipt of a copy.

The opinions expressed in'Community Forestry' do notnecessari ly reflect those ofRegional Centre for DevelopmentCooperation, and all legal liabilityin respect of the information/statements/images/charts/tablesetc. given in the articles rests withthe respective authors unlessotherwise mentioned.RCDC and the editorial teamappointed by it for its periodical(s)do not endorse any unfair/unlawfulallegations made against anyindividual/organization whileallowing critiques or articles ofsimilar nature in public interest.Readers are welcome to share theirgrievances(if any) in case they findone or more of the facts presentedin the articles do not reflect thereality in its totality or are otherwiseerroneous .

Regd. Office

FOR NON-COMMERCIALCIRCULATION ONLY

Regional Centre forDevelopment Cooperation

424, Sahid Nagar,Bhubaneswar-751 007

Odisha, IndiaTel: 91-674-2547585

91-674-2547897Fax: 91-674-2545252

E-mail: [email protected] cover photo :A symbolic transfer of right from Government to the community. Details on page-4. Photo : Sudhansu Sekhar Deo

Back cover photo :A hilly patch cleared under departmental bamboo working (near Bhutigad, Kalahandi district. Photo : RCDC

COVER STORY Jamguda - A New Beginning under FRA 04

CURRENT ISSUEThe Corroded Corridors 07

LAW & POLICY

Protected Areas: With or Without Human Presence?

A Review 10

ROLE MODELSProtection at its best : A Case Study from Deogarh, Odisha 13

CONSERVATION

Communities versus Government:

Women reject Eco-tourism Project for Livelihood 18

ECO-COMMERCE

The Cycad trade 23

LIVELIHOODImpact of MGNREGS on NTFP-based livelihood 24

EMERGING TRENDS

From Management to Governance :

Implications of the Change in Participatory Forestry 28

NEWS & EVENTS

Protection of Forest Rights versus Conservation of Wildlife 43

C O N T E N T S

Community ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity Forestry Issue-27, January-April 20132

EditorialThe concern raised in a recent meeting of the National Board for Wildlife on the forest rights versus wildlifeprotection doesn't seem to be a vague one. In fact, although our conservation policies much preceded ourforest rights policy, the country is yet to have a well-coordinated system in which wildlife(and ecosystem)conservation is secured without any conflict of interest with the genuine stakeholders. Yes, we have madeprovisions in the Forest Rights Act, 2006 that the forest right holders need to ensure biodiversity/wildlifeconservation, and in the Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 that community management of wildlife is to berecognized in two new types of Protected Areas: Community Reserves and Conservation Reserves. But in spirit neither of thesides has actually been complementary to each other. The reason: they did not emerge from a common background andwith a common objective. The Wildlife Protection Act, like the Indian Forest Act, emerged from an orthodox bureaucraticmindset that was inherited from the colonial administration; whereas the Forest Rights Act emerged as an outcome of thedecade long struggle against the injustice caused due to such orthodoxy. On the ground however the reality was a bitotherwise. The indigenous forest dwellers and the wild animals used to lead a life that considered each other a natural part ofthe same ecosystem. In other words, they were natural partners and not exactly adversaries. A nomadic Mankdia would bequite at ease to see a snake and a Kandha would see the tiger as if like a relation. Hunting did not affect this relationship becauseit is normal even in the animal world. In fact, these people were more intimate with the wild than the world of elites. Theproblem started when we elites tried to expand 'civilization' to all possible corners of the world. Intimacy with the wild wassomething that was almost completely against our sense of being civilized, except for the sages and hermits. We wanteddeforestation, we wanted gaming. And in our attempt to civilize the nomadic, we broke the very intimacy that existedbetween them and the wild. The complications thus started ultimately assumed three different directions: one, a growth at thecost of the disadvantaged; two, a growth at the cost of ecosystem; and three, a counter-action that tried to uphold the rightsof the deprived. In practice, each such action has seen its extreme. Misuse of the Forest Rights Act by vested interest groupshas been reported, though not so frequently; but the concern thereof doesn't stand much against the devastation that hasbeen allowed in the name of development, even after so much loss to our green cover and biodiversity. It is for this reasonthat the formal or informal antagonism against the Forest Rights Act has lost its ground because the foresters could notstrongly act when the forests were cleared for mining and other development projects, with permission from their owndepartment. Now, circumstances have forced the opponent parties to come for a possible solution which is how the conceptof participatory management emerged gradually transforming into community management or ownership without how-ever harming the basic stake of the Forest Department. Neither PESA Act nor FRA actually gives full ownership over theforests, and indirectly creates a scope for participatory management. On the other hand, although communities have dem-onstrated examples of efficient conservation of resources, to be more systematic, comprehensive, holistic, and inclusive theyneed the technical support of the foresters; and in climate change context a mutual collaboration between science and societyis much pertinent. This realization should form the basis of a new beginning of the relationship between the communities andthe conservationists. In fact, the communities have a potential to be reliable conservationists; and the forest- and wildlifemanagers should rather focus more on those non-living factors(so called development projects) which, once allowed, canhardly be undone unlike the community spirit that can be revived for the cause of ecosystem almost anytime.

Bikash RathBikash RathBikash RathBikash RathBikash RathSr. Programme Manager

Regional Centre for Development Cooperation

Issue-27, January-April 2013 Community ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity Forestry 3


COVER STORY

IntroductionAfter Mendha-Lekha of Maharashtrawhich is the first village in the countryto have legally exercised its commu-nity right to harvest bamboo under theprovisions of the Forest RightsAct(FRA), it is now the turn of Jamgudain Odisha to become the first village inthe state to do the same. The villagewas in the national news when two cen-tral ministers (Mr.Jairam Ramesh,Honourable Minister for Rural Devel-opment and Mr.V. Kishor ChandraDeo, Honourable Minister for TribalAffairs) and the revenue minister of thestate, Mr.Suryanarayan Patra visitedthe village on 3rd March, 2013. Onthis day, the transit pass was handedover to Jamguda Gram sabha leaderNilambar Patra by the Principal ChiefConservator of Forest(PCCF) of Odisha,Mr.P. N. Padhi. On the same day, theJamguda Gram sabha issued the transitpass to the Member of Parliament(MP), Kalahandi Mr.Bhakta CharanDas whose parliamentary constituencyJamguda belongs to. After getting thetransit pass from the Gram sabha, he

transported the bamboo from the vil-lage by a tractor.

Jamguda village is located inBarabandha Gram Panchayat of M.Rampur block in the Kalahandi district.Out of 65 households in the village, 60are tribal (Gonda tribe) and rest 5 areScheduled Caste. Among them 6 house-holds are landless. So, most of the villag-ers are totally dependent on the forestfor their livelihood. They collect mush-rooms, edible fruits, char, mahua flow-ers, siali leaves, honey, tubers, and leafyvegetables from the forest. The forestproduce thus forms a major part of theirdiet. These NTFPs also form a source ofincome. The forest is dry deciduous innature. The dominant species is bam-boo (Dendrocalamus strictus). The for-est comes under the Norla Range ofKalahandi North Forest Division.

History of forest protectionCommercial working of the forest fortimber was in practice even since thepre-independence days. The ForestDepartment had coupes here. This

coupled with the pressure from theadjoining villages, brought the forest onthe verge of extinction. The forestsgave in to illegal trading of timber bythe timber mafia. Understanding theimportance of forests and its survivalrelation with the people, in 1990, theyouth committee of Jamguda villagestarted protection of this patch. Thiswas done with the basic motive of pro-tecting the forests against illegal timberfelling. The youth committee laid downsome rules for the protection. It re-stricted green felling and put a stop toillegal smuggling of timber. The sale ofbamboo or timber was restricted butthese could be harvested for personaluse. Collection of NTFP was allowedfor personal use as well as for sale. In2004, the Forest Department managedto lure the villagers into joint forestmanagement(JFM) and VanaSamrakshan Samiti (VSS) was formed.The community was entrusted withsome area under JFM. Since then it hastotally protected this patch and there isa ban on extraction of any forest mate-rial from here. Though attracted to

Jamguda - A New Beginning under FRA

Transit pass handed over to the Gram sabha leader Nilambar Patra byPCCF, P. N. Padhi

Bamboo of MP, Kalahandi being transported after receiving the transit pass.The ministers share the occasion.


COVER STORY

joint forest management provisionsearlier, it took no time for the villagersto understand that they were slowlylosing their grip on the hard earned andwell protected forests. Even after pro-tection of this patch they were not freeto take decision independently for thisforest.

Current forest managementsystemAfter the government came out withthe most effective Act of FRA in 2006,the villagers decided to shift to com-munity forest management by claim-ing their rights over their forests. In2010, Jamguda village got recognitionof community forest rights in the re-serve forest area. After getting the pho-tocopy of the title deed from KalahandiJungle Surakshya Mancha orKJSM(federation of the forest protect-ing villages of the Kalahandi district),VSS was dissolved by a resolution ofthe Gram sabha and it was decided thatthe community forest resources wouldbe managed by the Gram sabha as perthe FRA rules. The Gram sabha meet-ing is held as per the need. The entirevillage participates in this meeting. The

Gram sabha has formed a committeefor executing its decisions with regardsto forest conservation and manage-ment. The committee has 5 female and10 male members, two belonging toSchedule Caste and the rest ScheduledTribes.

Rights assertion on bambooBamboo was given the status of MinorForest Produce for the first time in For-est Rights Act (FRA), 2006. Within theframework of FRA, the right holdersare entitled to collect and market mi-nor forest produces including bamboo.This right had been ensured to theJamguda Gram Sabha.

After observing large scale floweringof bamboo in the Community ForestResource(CFR) area the Gram sabhaplanned the harvesting with the tech-nical support of a retired forest officerMr. Biswanath Hota (advisor to KJSM).170 numbers of bamboo clumps weremarked for harvesting with prior in-formation to the Forest Department.On 20th June 2012, bamboos wereharvested from the CFR areas throughcollective labour. On 23rd June,Mr.Bhakta Charan Das,MP inaugu-rated the bamboo depot of the villageand became the first buyer. He pur-chased 100 culms of bamboo for Rs.3000/-. The Gram sabha requested theForest Department to issue transit passfor the sale of bamboo, which was de-nied. The Forest Department also de-nied the request of the honourable MPfor the same. This issue was highlightedby the media and Mr.K.C.Deo, Minis-

ter for Tribal Affairs (MoTA), Govern-ment of India then issued a letter toChief Minister of Odisha requesting toarrange transit pass for Jamguda Gramsabha for selling their harvested bam-boo. In spite of this, the Governmentof Odisha did not make any arrange-ment for the sale of the bamboo ofJamguda Gram sabha. Instead, Mr.Deowas given a tactful reply that onlyserved the purpose of the state gov-ernment, with no clarity on the actualissue.

Denial of transit pass leadsto income lossIt was estimated that the harvest couldfetch around Rs. 1,00,000/-, but dueto delay in issue of the transit pass, theflowered bamboos were likely to de-cay. The Gram sabha feared loss of in-come due to degradation of the qual-ity of bamboo. The local buyers wereready to pay Rs. 30/- per pole, but dueto non-issuance of transit pass, theydidn't purchase the bamboo from theGram sabha. So, to save the village froma big loss, the Gram sabha had to reluc-tantly sell the bamboo at a very lowprice. Also due to this problem the

Bamboo forest of Jamguda

Flowering of bamboo in Jamguda Harvesting of flowered bamboo

Collection of harvested bamboo

Storage of harvested bamboo


Gram sabha harvested only 20 clumpsinstead 170 clumps. These unharvestedflowered bamboos started decayinginside the forest. This was a huge mon-etary loss to the villagers.

Issuance of transit passIn September, 2012, the Governmentof India amended the Forest Right Rule,where it was mentioned that GramSabha had the authority to issue thetransit pass. Although the Forest De-partment of Odisha had issued a notifi-cation to this effect on 28 December2012, it did not actually hand over thetransit pass to the Gram Sabha . In amove to put pressure on the Govern-ment, Mr. Bhakta Charan Das plannedfor the visit of two central ministers toJamguda, Kalahandi on 3rd March,2013. Both these ministers have beenknown for their pro-people and sin-cere activism. This move worked welland put pressure on the Governmentof Odisha. Finally the Forest Depart-ment succumbed to the pressure andhanded over the transit pass to theGram Sabha on 3rd March, 2013.

COVER STORY

Future plans of the GramSabhaAccording to the plan of JamgudaGram sabha, the whole CFR area of thevillage will be divided into four parts.On basis of rotation, mature bambooswill be harvested from one part amongthese four parts each year. There areapprox. 12,000 bamboo clumps. TheGram sabha is planning to harvest ma-ture bamboo from 3000 clumps thisyear (by June 2013).

The Gram sabha has decided that dur-ing the next harvest each labourerwould be paid Rs. 3/ per bamboo. It isestimated that a labourer can harvest50 bamboos a day and so will be earn-ing Rs. 150 per day. According to theirbamboo management plan, the villag-ers will protect the upcoming greenflush of bamboo seedlings. They planto develop earthen mounds around thebamboo clumps. Fire lines for protec-tion of the bamboo forest from fires insummer season also forms a part of theirmanagement plan.

ConclusionAfter a long struggle of eight months andsupport of the local MP Bhakta CharanDas and the community forestry fed-erations at district- and state level, theJamguda Gram Sabha managed to getthe transit pass to sell bamboo. Nowthere is a ray of hope for other such vil-lages in Odisha. But it is the responsibil-ity of the government to spread the in-formation among the other villagers and

Mr. Bhakta Charan Das, MP, Kalahandi, thefirst person to purchase the bamboo

support them according to the need.Government also needs to develop ca-pacity of the villagers for value additionand marketing of bamboo by which theeconomic condition of the villagers canchange. Civil society organizations canalso play an important role facilitatingthis process.

Last but not the least it is important tomention here that the 28 Decembernotification allows the forest rightholder gram sabhas to assert their rightsover bamboo only for the 2012-13harvesting year, i.e. from October’12to June’13. Hence, this is a kind of tem-porary arrangement. However, thegood point is that the Forest Depart-ment has agreed to provide technicalsupport through the ST & SC Depart-ment to help the gram sabhas preparethe microplan for harvesting.

Decay of harvested bamboo due to delay inissuance of transit pass

Yashmita UlmanYashmita UlmanYashmita UlmanYashmita UlmanYashmita UlmanProgramme Officer, Vasundhara,

E-mail: [email protected]

Sudhansu Sekhar DeoSudhansu Sekhar DeoSudhansu Sekhar DeoSudhansu Sekhar DeoSudhansu Sekhar DeoConsultant in Natural Resource Governanace and Management

E-mail : [email protected]

Photo Credits : Sudhansu Sekhar Deo

ReferencesPati, B. 2012.Bamboo as Green Gold. The Orissa Post. September 18, 2012

Internet sourcesInternet sourcesInternet sourcesInternet sourcesInternet sourcesxa.yimg.com/kq/groups/13213061/.../name/Jamguda+Bamboo.pdfwww.downtoearth.org.in/content/bamboo-under-siege, www.wikipedia.org


Wildlife corridors have great signifi-cance for some flagship species such astigers and elephants. Natural instinctand the habit passed from one genera-tion to another leads them to followcertain specific geographical tracts notobliging any political boundary.Among other immediate benefits suchas availability of food, the corridorialmovements are supposed to be goodfor the population psychology as wellas physical health of the concernedwildlife.

Zoologists Sandeep Sharma and TrishnaDutta of the Smithsonian ConservationBiology Institute, who made a geneticstudy of the tiger population in theSatpura-Maikal region, found that thetigers showed a high amount of geneticdiversity because of the wildlife corri-dors that allow tigers to travel past min-ing operations and developed areas tothe haunts of their striped neighbors. Itwas thus obvious for the researchers toconclude that the pathways that allowthe felids to travel and interbreed mustremain open. The study also observedthat for the leopards these corridors

The Corroded Corridors

assumed additional significance(Switek, B. 2013).

It is therefore natural for wildlife con-servationists to focus on the conserva-tion of the wildlife corridors of the coun-try. In fact the Wildlife Trust of Indiahas identified as many as 88 corridorson priority basis for this purpose (Eu-ropean Outdoor Conservation Associa-tion, 2013). Moving a step forward,two non-profit organisations, WildlifeTrust of India (WTI) and its foreign

partner International Fund for AnimalWelfare (IFAW) transferred to theKarnataka Forest Department the landthey bought from farmers and villag-ers in 2005 to safeguard a wildlifecorridor(Edayargalli-Doddasampigecorridor). This was the first such in-stance in the country, and the corridorwas linked to the Biligiri RangaswamiTemple sanctuary(The Business Stan-dard, 2007).

The natural wildlife corridors have nowbeen severely disrupted in many areasleading to various negative conse-

quences, the most important being hu-man-animal conflicts. This has had dif-ferential impact on the wildlife. For thetiger, the loss of corridor has led to arather silent decrease of the populationwithout much conflict with the humanswhereas for the elephants it has led toviolent conflicts killing both elephantsand humans, and even to accidentaldeath of jumbos by the trains. The Rail-way Minister stated recently that asmany as 49 jumbo deaths were causedin train accidents since 2010(The Timesof India, 2013)

In Odisha, the great natural wildlifecorridor extended fromKoraput(Balimela hills) throughKalahandi and Phulbani districts pass-ing then through Sambalpur(Badramapass) upto Meghasani hill in theMayurbhanj district1 (Nayak, 1997).These have now been fragmented andlocalized in many places. Even the lo-calized corridors are being fragmentedfurther causing critical threats to thevery survival of the species.

The unfortunate fact is that while theweak and diluted system of this coun-try allowed such kind of fragmenta-tion and corrosion of the wildlife cor-ridors, the legal flaws further increasedthe vulnerability. The Wildlife Protec-tion Act, 1972 doesn't define or men-tion an wildlife corridor, and as suchthe concept is not a legal entity underthe Indian law. Only corridors thatcome under a Protected Area come

"A wildlife corridor or green corridorA wildlife corridor or green corridorA wildlife corridor or green corridorA wildlife corridor or green corridorA wildlife corridor or green corridor is an area of habitat connectingwildlife populations separated by human activities (such as roads, develop-ment, or logging). This allows an exchange of individuals between populations,which may help prevent the negative effects of inbreeding and reduced ge-netic diversity (via genetic drift) that often occur within isolated populations.Corridors may also help facilitate the re-establishment of populations that havebeen reduced or eliminated due to random events (such as fires or disease). Thismay potentially moderate some of the worst effects of habitatfragmentation."(Wikipedia, 2013)

CURRENT ISSUE

1 All undivided districts


under a legal umbrella. While someNGOs demanded that all wildlife cor-ridors including those that wildlife ani-mals use frequently but do not residein as well as other wildlife patches re-gardless of legal status should also comeunder the scrutiny of the NationalBoard of Wildlife Board while clearingdevelopment projects, the Ministry ofEnvironment & Forests decided to putonly wildlife areas with a legal statusunder the panel's scrutiny (Sethi, 2012).This is a serious setback to the conser-vation programme and in fact ques-tions the very sincerity of the con-cerned authorities in ensuring wildlifeconservation. Although the Ministerfor Environment & Forest Mrs.Jayanthi Natarajan had announced inOctober 2012 that the Ministry wouldtake necessary steps to amend the lawto give a legal identity to the corridorsused by elephants, tigers and other ani-mals (WebIndia123, 2012); it is yet tobe done.

Under such circumstances the compe-tent authority in wildlife management,i.e. the Forest Department should en-sure all possible measures to safeguardthe existing corridors in one way or theother, i.e. if legal action is not possible

then community action/initiative mightbe considered. However, the instanceof the artificial corridor in Dhenkanaldistrict displays sheer negligence of theauthorities. In the Kamakshyanagararea of this district, the Rengali LeftBank canal was constructed whichpassed through an elephant corridor.An artificial corridor was thus proposedwith plantation of those species that canprovide food to the elephants,alongwith the construction of gametanks. However, what happened inpractice was different. Local peoplewere not properly consulted beforeplanning the construction. In fact, thecitizen's committee of Brahmania, thevillage near which the corridor wasconstructed, was informed later in re-sponse to an application filed under theRight to Information Act that since itwas done in public interest hence nopublic consultation/hearing was carriedout (vide letter N.483, dtd. 25-6-2008of the Sub-divisional Officer, OECFSub-division No.III, Jiridamali2). SomeAcacia plantation(Basu, 2011)alongwith few other species was raisedalong the artificial corridor, and noth-ing more. The elephants however re-jected this and used their own preferredpath. The project not only failed but

The elephant corridor artificially built over the canal Acacia plantations on both sides of the artificial corridor

created a menace for the local villages.Elephants are now frequently visitingthe area, staying nearby, and eating thecrops(Rath, 2012). In fact, the wholeRengali dam project in the twin districtsof Dhenkanal and Angul have provedto be so destructive to elephant habi-tats that about 50% of the total humandeaths caused by human-elephantconflicts in the state are reported fromthis region(Basu, 2011).

The corroded corridors are among themany examples that suggest how theecological stake has been ignored prac-tically in the name of development. Thegovernment has tried to honour thisstake by terms such as 'compensatoryafforestation', but such superficial at-tempts would obviously be not able torestore the lost ecological assets anddynamics. While it is high time that asincere political dialogue and debate onthis issue becomes a part of the elec-tion/political manifesto followed byadequate compliances, the concernedcommunities should also come out witha conservation approach & strategythat looks beyond their 'own' resourcesand considers a larger ecosystem to betaken care of.

Bikash RathBikash RathBikash RathBikash RathBikash Rath

CURRENT ISSUE

2 RCDC acknowledges the kind sharing of such documents by Sri Gadadhar Nayak, Brahmunia whose RTI application received the response of the concerned authority.


This cement board pointing at the local elephant corridor also witnesses how a human corridor (road) runs at the cost of elephants' stake

CURRENT ISSUE

References:

1. Basu, M. (2011). Jumbos won't cross this bridge. The Pioneer. 9-3-11. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.animals.wildlife/7hamlO-GXvM/9QjC8gBEgs4J

2. European Outdoor Conservation Association(2013). Elephant Corridors in India. http://www.outdoorconservation.eu/project-detail.cfm?projectid=24

3. Nayak, S. (1997). Aranya Samrajya. Sudha Prakashan, Cuttack

4. Rath, S. (2012). Bipathare Hati Chalapatha?. Ama Jangala Amara. December 2012. RCDC, Bhubaneswar

5. Sethi, N. (2012). Wildlife corridors with no legal status to come under panel's scrutiny. http://mobilepaper.timesofindia.com/mobile.aspx?article=yes&pageid=15&sectid=edid=&edlabel=CAP&mydateHid=20-12-2012&pubname=Times+of+India+-+Delhi&edname=&articleid=Ar01501&publabel=TOI)

6. Switek, B. 2013. Corridors Critical for India's Big Cats. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/21/corridors-critical-for-indias-big-cats/

7. The Business Standard (2007).NGOs Buy Land to Protect Wildlife Corridors. 21-12-2007. http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/ngos-buy-land-to-protect-wildlife-corridors-107122101048_1.html

8. The Times of India (2013). Forty-nine elephants killed on track since 2010. 2-3-13 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-03-02/flora-fauna/37389545_1_elephant-corridors-zonal-railways-rail-way-minister

9. WebIndia123 (2012). Amendments proposed to give legal recognition to wildlife corridors. 5-10-2012. http://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/India/20121005/2076878.html

10 Wikipedia (2013), Wildlife Corridor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_corridor, accessed 8-3-13

Photo credits : RCDC


Though the history of biodiversity con-servation through protected areas goesback to the colonial period, the last threedecades of 20th century created manyheated debates around the world on in-tension, impact and methods ofbiodiversity conservation. One of thedebates on biodiversity conservation isabout protected areas with or withouthuman presence. This review, primarily,choose 6-8 scholarly written articles onthe topic and critically evaluates somemajor arguments and their underlyingassumption, judgment and contentionmade for and against with respect to hu-man presence in protected areas. Thereview takes political ecology discourse,and attempts to evaluate & distinguisheach argument with widely availablework.

"…No apology should be required foradhering to the accepted definition of a(national) park as a haven for naturewhere people, except for visitors, staff,and concessionaires, are excluded. Toadvocate anything else for developingcountries, simply because they are poor(one hopes, a temporary condition) is toadvocate a double standard, somethingwe find deplorable" 1. (Terborgh. 2002,p. 6)

Arguments like this for conservation canbe reviewed critically for their assump-tions to regard indigenous communities

Protected Areas: With or Without Human Presence?A Review

as a threat to nature by overlooking re-spectful social co-existence of naturewith humans for over 8000 years. Forinstance, nature and wildlife is still an in-tegral part of cultural and religious life ofindigenous community in India andmany parts of world. Many authors cri-tique such narratives as a product of co-lonial mindset, ideology based on exclu-sion and suppression to create 'wilder-ness'- a place without human presencefor their own objectives (Whande &Busher, 2007; Adams and Hutton,2007). The establishment of protectedareas (PAs) that exclude people reflectsa conceptual division between natureand human society that has deep rootsin the Western thought. The displace-ment of people in this way needs to beunderstood in the context of wider mod-ern engagement with nature (Neumann2004 in Adams & Hutton, 2007).

The traditional conservation narrativesadvocate for restructuring nature tohave it serve human needs but don't giveplace to the needs of "people" living in it.In such arguments there is no place forlocal people's participation in decisionmaking, rather reliance on federalagency managers and decision makers ispreferred. Since traditional conservationbelieves in a linear process, top downcommand & control management, andsingle issue; it generates confrontationand polarization of masses. Further,

terms like "human" and "people" for in-digenous communities is mentioned asforces of destruction. What about visi-tors, staffs and concessionaires; are theynot "people" or "human"? How staffs,tourists and concessioners surpass"people"? How it is ensured that touristdo not bring virus of disease that impactlocal flora and fauna….and what is theguarantee that staff and concessionairesdo not get corrupted? The evidencesare in plenty where the government- orprivate run parks have not done anymiracle in order to save the bio-diver-sity. The conventional approach to con-servation has failed to deliver better out-comes. Critical ecosystems are on theverge of extinction, many animal andplant species have disappeared, and thosethat remain risk disappearing for good.A prominent elder in Ngorongoro com-munity (Tanzania) had this to say wheninterviewed on the current status of wild-life in the area:

"Where are all the rhinos we used to havearound? They have disappeared. I canonly say the day will come when all of uswill be forced out and nothing of theremaining rhinos will be left, not eventheir bones for one to see".(WilliamOlenasha, 2004)

According to various estimates, a majorpart of population is dependent on for-ests e.g. Lynch and Talbot (1995) sug-

1. Extinctions are occurring at hundreds of times the rate recorded through normal times in fossils history… Humans have a moral obligation to share the earth with otherforms of life. That moral obligation has been acknowledged by at least 80 per cent of the governments on earth in the form of legally constituted protected areas. Butthis is not enough; first, there needs to be more land dedicated to biodiversity-much more than is currently 5% devoted to the purpose. Second, land that is dedicatedto bio-diversity conservation must be adequately protected from a whole host of erosive forces…" in "Making the Park Work" (Terborgh, 2002)

LAW & POLICY


gest that 447 million people may dependon forests in India, Indonesia, the Philip-pines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand alone,White and Martin 2002 estimate a num-ber closer 500 million for the world, theWorld Resource Institute suggests thatthe figure may be about 350 millionpeople of the world (WRI, 2002), and incontrast, the WWF-UK estimates thetotal number of the forest-dependentpeople to be close to 1.2 billion (WWF,2002: 2, in Arun Agrawal 2007). Thearguments for PAs "without human pres-ence" do not give insights, if this popula-tion is driven out of the forest; where is itgoing to be settled for their livelihoods?In villages…..but, do people find enoughwater for irrigation, same soil qualities asthey had before, and some extra benefitthat these communities use to get fromNon Timber Forest Produce ? OR incities...but, how cities will absorb suchnumber ? Is it possible to provide liveli-hood options to this number of peoplein cities ? How cities (already overpopu-lated) are going to maintain their eco-systems ? What about the life style andknowledge of indigenous communities ?Is it going to be feasible in urban set up ?Unlike colonial masters, as Hingstonpoints out,

"What the sportsman wants is a good tro-phy, almost invariably a male trophy,and the getting of that usually satisfieshim….The position is not the same withthe native hunter. He cares nothingabout species or trophies or sex, not doeshe hunt for the fun of the thing"(Hingston, 1931, p.404. in Adams, et al.2003)

For the native, it is a matter of specificneeds for their survival thus in-turn pro-tecting nature becomes an obligation fortheir life and livelihoods. This interde-pendency between nature and human

is ignored by conservationists who ad-vocate PAs as heaven for nature with-out human presence. A distinguishedMaasai elder in Ngorongoro (Africa) hadthis to say when interviewed on the sub-ject:

"We conserve nature because we live init, because it is our life, it is the life of ourcattle. The conservationists do it becauseit gives them employment, because theyget money from the white men [tour-ists]. For them, if the white man does notbring money, it is the end of the story.For us, even if the white man does notbring money we will still preserve theenvironment. We did it before the whitemen came. We do because it is our lives;it is the life of our ancestors and our un-born children".(William Olenasha, 2004)

"Nature conservation must be pur-sued… according to scientifically vali-dated principles..." (Terborgh, 2002).According to Hutton and Adams, thework of contemporary scientific con-servation planners, identifying and lob-bying for the preservation of hotspots,or the work of their colonial forbears,certain ideas of nature are formulated,purified and harnessed to social action inways that reveal profound differencesin the power of different actors. Ideas ofnature are laid out on the ground in PAs,and the needs, rights and interests ofpeople are bent to fit the resulting con-servation landscape. All this takes placeagainst the backdrop of a wider socialassault on nature through processes ofindustrialization, urbanization, pollution,and the conversion of terrestrial andmarine ecosystems to industrial purposes(Adams & Hutton, 2007). Such a phi-losophy basically prefers to evict andmake life miserable for present genera-tions of certain communities - the fa-thers and mothers of the future genera-

tions in whose name conservation takesplace. The million-dollar question is:from which communities will future gen-erations come when present ones are de-stroyed in the interest of conservation?As far as to claim that scientific knowl-edge is the ultimate way, to look at thething, needs to be rechecked with fol-lowing empirical illustrations:

Jushpur, a small tribal populated townof Chhattisgarh province in India; peoplesurvive here on subsistence farming. Iwas on my visit to see progress of a com-munity development program initiatedby a local group. While I was travellingto a local village with a young man, sud-denly he expressed that it is going to raintoday. I exclaimed and thought that thisguy must be crazy as there was no signof cloud in the sky and sun was shiningbright. I thought the young man mustbe joking and I forgot the incident. Icould not believe, that evening it rainedreally heavily and it was very difficultfor us to walk for 3 km due to muddyand flooded roads. I was shocked andasked with curiosity to the boy as howcould he predict it. The boy smiled andsaid, you did not notice that I was halfnaked and I could feel the wind and it'smoister on my body, which indicatedthat it is going to rain. "My father taughtme this", the boy said. Yes, indeed beinga formal science (Biology) student it wasdifficult for me to understand this knowl-edge of 'ordinary' people but it was areality.

I forgot the above mentioned incidentand this time I was travelling from Agrato New Delhi by bus for my officialwork. Before leaving home I was watch-ing NDTV News (one of the most re-spected English TV news chanels in In-dia) and in the last slot of news they pre-sented weather report that according to

LAW & POLICY


meteorological department it was goingto be a sunny and warm day with noindication to rain shower anywhere closeto Delhi and Agra. I cannot forget theday because on half of the way it wasraining like hell and when I reach Delhiit was difficult to find any auto rickshawdue to heavy water logging on the roads.This time, it was hard to believe that evenscientific calculations can be so wrong.

These two personal empirical illustra-tions are basically to put things into per-spective that "the principle of incom-pleteness of all kinds of knowledge is thecondition of the possibility of epistemo-logical dialogue (Santos, 2006:20 inVazquez, 2008 ). It creates a space forfurther exploration into struggle one Vsother. There are successful examples forthe use of indigenous knowledge of na-tive people that brought effective com-munal management of resources.Zanjera system in Philippines is an ex-ample of community irrigation operat-

ing, at least, since 1630. It has rules, offi-cials, monitoring and maintenance. It isbased on shared knowledge on irriga-tion that provides long standing successeven though it involves hundreds of in-dividual farmers who have to contrib-ute material and labour (Ostrom, 1990in Pellegrini 2009). Makuleke commu-nity from South Africa is another ex-ample of successful community basedmanagement of forest conservation.Therefore, incorporation of different'ways of knowing' and due respect totraditional indigenous knowledge is re-quired in biodiversity conservation.

ConclusionThe conservation without people is anidea that has its root from the colonialpast, which was based on exclusion oflocal people and believed in conceptssuch as "Democracy is problematic"(Kaplan, 1994) and "park as a haven fornature" (Terborgh, 2002). The narrativesbased on the principles of rationality and

command & control management cre-ate imbalance in power and lead to con-flict between haves and haves not. Thereare not many substantial examples whereconservation in this fashion has done anymiracle. Therefore, such model is re-quired to re-evaluate its course in lightof Zanjera system and Makuleke com-munity and people's right to participateand right to livelihood must be respectedin biodiversity conservation. CBNRMmight not be perfect, but at least it's bet-ter than old-fashioned fortress conser-vation (Dowie, 2006).

Note: Note: Note: Note: Note: The author is currently workingas Regional Programme Officer on Re-silient Livelihood and Sustainable FoodSecurity for South Asia inDanChurchAid. He wrote this review in2009 during his studies in Netherland.

Deepak SinghDeepak SinghDeepak SinghDeepak SinghDeepak SinghE-mail : [email protected]

LAW & POLICY

References

Adams, W.M and Martin Mulligan (2003) 'Nature and the Colonial Mind', Decolonizing Nature : Strategies forConservation in Postcolonial Era: Pp 16-50.Agrawal, A. (2007) 'Forests, Governance, and Sustainability: Common Property Theory and its Contributions',International Journal of the Commons 1(1): 116 -136.Büscher, B.E.a.W.W. (2007) 'Whims of the Winds of Time? Contestations in Biodiversity Conservation and Pro-tected Areas Management', Conservation and Society 5(1): 22-43.Dowie, M. (2006a) Conservation Refugees. When Protecting Nature Means Kicking People Out. Seedling 1: 6-12,from http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/161/.Adams, W.M. and J Hutton (2007) 'People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation',Conservation and Society 5(2): 147-183.Kaplan, R. (1994) 'The Environment As A Hostile Power', Atlantic Monthly February.Pellegrini, L. (2009) Property regimes and natural resources. ISS.Terborgh, J., C. Van Schaik in: J. Terborgh, C. Van Schaik, L. Davenport, M. Rao (eds.) (2002) 'Why the World NeedsParks', in Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature (pp. 3-14). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.William Olenasha (2004) 'Parks Without People: A Case Study of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania',PINGOS Forum, Tanzania and revised and edited by the Indigenous Information Network.Vazquez, S. (2008) 'Post Colonial Thinking and Development', Lecture Notes Session 6 (2101 General Course ISS):12.


Odisha has seen large-scale initiatives bylocal communities to protect and man-age state forest lands (Kant et al., 1991;Singh and Singh, 1993) known as com-munity forest management (CFM) sys-tems. Almost ten thousand communi-ties are protecting de jure state ownedforests in the state, some from as earlyas 1940's - 1950's, though most are re-cent in origin (Singh and Nayak, 2003).In many cases the forest protectionstarted in late 1970's and early 1980's(Singh, 2002). This came as a spontane-ous response to forest degradation(Singh, 2001) and acute scarcity of for-est products (Singh and Nayak, 2003).These efforts made by the communityfor forest protection has not been prop-erly recognized and documented, par-ticularly at the governmental level. TheForest Right Act, 2006 for the first timeis helping in recognizing this effort witha legal mandate. With the venture ofthe Act many communities have ap-plied for their individual as well as com-munity rights. Vasundhara, as a facilita-tor to this process tried to undertakeecological assessment of these CFM ar-eas whose results later on could also beuseful to the community to indicatetheir role in forest protection.

Protection at its best : A case study from Deogarh, Odisha

This study was conducted in Deogarhdistrict of Odisha. Four villages withself-initiated forest protection groupswere selected for the study. The nameof the sample villages are as follows:Budhabahal and Badasiradehi (jointprotection), Rangamatia andKhajuribahal. These sample villageswere selected randomly with the helpof local organizations and institutions.

The methodology used for the study isgiven in Box 1. For ecological assess-ment of the forest we adopted thetransect method, alongwith a GISanalysis of the satellite imageriessourced from Goggle Earth. The sizeof transect was 100 m length and 10 mwidth with 5 belt transects at each site.The plots were chosen as per foresttypes and dependency level, like, Salforest (dry deciduous), riparian forestand mixed Sal forest (moist deciduousforests). Accordingly, the species countfor herbs, shrubs and trees were car-ried out. Measurement of gbh(girth atbreast height) was done for each treeabove 10 cm diameter to know thedensity and standing biomass includ-ing species diversity, distribution, basalarea, total volume and important value

Revenue forest of Budhabahal

Ecological assessment of the CFM forests

Box 1 : Methodology followed in the study

ROLE MODELS


index. In the transect we have alsocounted the number of birds sighted,their call, presence of foot marks ofwild animals, their scat/droppings etc.,and also the number of butterflies spot-ted. We have documented the floraand fauna of the area with the help oflocal communities.

Status of forest before theinitiation of protectionForests in all the four villages had de-graded due to expansion of agricultural

lands and dependency of people onforests. Forests were in complete chaosdue to departmental tree felling, ille-gal tree felling and timber smugglingby the mafias. Due to complete habi-tat destruction even the numbers offaunal diversity and its populationplummeted. The forest destruction re-flected in the lives of people as theywere totally dependent on the forestsfor their daily needs like fuel wood,NTFP's and meat.

Village level institutions forforest protectionAll the villages protect a part ofBadautela Reserve forest. They allstarted protection since 1992 exceptRangamatia which started the protec-tion from 2001. Till some years backBudhabahal, Khajuribahal andBadasiradehi had a joint protection

group. Now Budhabahal andBadasiradehi are protecting the forestjointly and Khajuribahal is protectingits part of the forest independently. In1970's and 1980's there were no forestprotection committees. Forest protec-tion committees were formed five yearsback in these villages. Now a generalbody and executive committee are con-stituted which look after the forest pro-tection rules and regulations. All themembers of every household are mem-bers of the general body. There is varia-tion in the composition of the execu-tive committee from village to village.The frequency with which the generalbody meeting is held also varies fromvillage to village. All the issues related toforest protection are discussed in thegeneral body meeting. The executivecommittee meeting is held fortnightly.Forest is protected through"Thengapalli" (protection of forestthrough patrolling on a rotation basis).Both men and women are involved inthe protection activity of the village.

Study on land use changesbefore and after protectiona) Budhabahal and Badasiradehia) Budhabahal and Badasiradehia) Budhabahal and Badasiradehia) Budhabahal and Badasiradehia) Budhabahal and BadasiradehiOut of the three surveyed plots, twowere in reserve forests and one was in

Ethnography of the sample villages

Village nameVillage nameVillage nameVillage nameVillage name TotalTotalTotalTotalTotal TotalTotalTotalTotalTotal Name of CommunityName of CommunityName of CommunityName of CommunityName of Community

householdshouseholdshouseholdshouseholdshouseholds populationpopulationpopulationpopulationpopulation GENGENGENGENGEN SCSCSCSCSC STSTSTSTST OBCOBCOBCOBCOBC

Khajuribahal 87 412 - Dhivaro Gondo -Dhuva Kandho, Munda

Kulho, Kisano -Budhabahal 55 212 - Pano Gondo Gound

Duba ChasaBadasiradehi 11 47 Banya - - -

PykaThuriya - - -

Rangamatia 85 333 - - Gondo, Kolho GoundBhuiya Chasa

ROLE MODELS

Illegal felling of trees

Collection of firewood from forestSiali leaves collected from the forest


revenue forest. In 1979, onlyBabajimath reserve forest had forestpatch. But the other two plots had noforest cover. In 2006, the forest coverin Babajimath reserve forest remainedunchanged, but the other two plots hadpartially regenerated. In 2011, nochange in forest cover was observedin Babajimath reserve forest.Handitupa Jharna Revenue forest hadregenerated fully and the forest con-dition of Kutrachua Reserve forest hadimproved slightly from its condition in2006.

b) Khajuribahalb) Khajuribahalb) Khajuribahalb) Khajuribahalb) KhajuribahalOut of the three surveyed plots, twoplots were in revenue forest and onein reserve forest. In 1979, all the threeplots had forest cover. In 2006, onlyBhattachua reserve forest had nochange in its forest cover. The othertwo plots had lost its forest cover par-tially. In 2011, the earlier deforestedplots showed total regeneration.Bhattachua reserve forest showed de-crease in forest cover due to landslidein that area.

c) Rangamatia:c) Rangamatia:c) Rangamatia:c) Rangamatia:c) Rangamatia:Out of the four surveyed plots, twoplots were in revenue forest and twoin reserve forest. In 1979, all the fourplots showed forest cover. In 2005,only one plot of Rugdikhoni revenueforest showed loss in forest cover. Theremaining three plots remained un-changed. In 2011, one plot ofRugdikhoni revenue forest showedforest regeneration and the other plotshowed loss in its forest cover. In theremaining two reserve forests the for-est cover remained unchanged.

ROLE MODELS


ObservationsAfter critical analysis of the satellitedata it was found that a lot of positivechanges had occurred in terms of for-est cover. All the forests under protec-tion had revived in forest cover in allthe sample villages due to active forestprotection and conservation of the lo-cal communities of the village.

We recorded highest species richness,canopy cover and tall trees in the for-ests protected by Rangamatia followedby highest species diversity where ashighest stem density was recorded atKhajuribahal. The basal area was found

to be high in Budhabahal andBadasiradehi (joint protection)whereas the least basal area was re-corded in Khajuribahal. Highest totalvolume of trees (biomass) was re-corded in Budhabahal andBadasiradehi. The forest patch atBudhabahal and Badasiradehi , andRangamatia are remnant of an old

mixed forest stand, chiefly growingfrom old and new coppice. The patch,with wide species diversity and thickstems indicates the age of the stand.Moreover, the relative density of thedominant species Shorea robusta is

around 31% - the lowest amongst theforest patches studied, which impliesthat the species composition is moreevenly shared by more species in thisforest than in any other forest patchunder study. However, the currentforest stand in Budhabahal andBadasiradehi contains a large numberof snags (ca. 12% of stands); most of

these snags are cut above 0.5 m, pro-hibiting the scope of coppicious regen-eration of trees. This implies that therecruitment of trees is considerablythwarted, while the harvest and re-moval of trees continues. The unre-

ROLE MODELS

ParametersParametersParametersParametersParameters BudhabahalBudhabahalBudhabahalBudhabahalBudhabahal KhajuribahalKhajuribahalKhajuribahalKhajuribahalKhajuribahal RangamatiaRangamatiaRangamatiaRangamatiaRangamatiaandandandandand

BadasiradehiBadasiradehiBadasiradehiBadasiradehiBadasiradehi

Species richness (S) 24.66666667 23.66666667 25.25Density (D) 3043.333333 3356.666667 2500Shannon wiener index(H') 2.142034583 2.038404328 2.187616963Hill's diversity Index (N1) 8.83898527 8.19396355 8.974142038Top height in m 30 25 37.5Crop height in m 10.03468327 9.954520963 9.615413825Total volume in cub. M 613.5617578 469.4115938 475.8570693Canopy cover in % 66.8 68 77Basal area (BA) in m/Ha 62.26313694 43.40522824 49.78763933

Ecological parameters studied in the sampling villages


ROLE MODELS

Yashmita-Ulman andYashmita-Ulman andYashmita-Ulman andYashmita-Ulman andYashmita-Ulman andPrasad Kumar DashPrasad Kumar DashPrasad Kumar DashPrasad Kumar DashPrasad Kumar Dash

Programme OfficersVasundhara

E-mail: [email protected]@gmail.com

Impact of conservation and management on forestsThe existing status/observations on indicators of forest management, as reflected in the following table suggest the extent towhich the positive impact of forest conservation and management has been experienced in the study areas:

VillageVillageVillageVillageVillage ManagementManagementManagementManagementManagementNameNameNameNameName Grazing Grazing Grazing Grazing Grazing Fire Fire Fire Fire Fire Lopping Lopping Lopping Lopping Lopping Logging Logging Logging Logging Logging

ReserveReserveReserveReserveReserve RevenueRevenueRevenueRevenueRevenue ReserveReserveReserveReserveReserve RevenueRevenueRevenueRevenueRevenue ReserveReserveReserveReserveReserve RevenueRevenueRevenueRevenueRevenue ReserveReserveReserveReserveReserve RevenueRevenueRevenueRevenueRevenueforestsforestsforestsforestsforests forestsforestsforestsforestsforests forestsforestsforestsforestsforests forestsforestsforestsforestsforests forestsforestsforestsforestsforests forestsforestsforestsforestsforests forestsforestsforestsforestsforests forestsforestsforestsforestsforests

Khajuribahal +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++Budhabahal & ++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++BadasiradehiRangamatia + ++ + + + + + +

Note: +++: High, ++: Medium, +: Low

straint harvest from the patch has re-sulted in the dispersion of the remnantstems that approaches regular distri-bution.

ConclusionThere is a positive effect of protectionof forests on the forest cover. In all thevillages the forest cover seems to haveincreased. Even streams have come upin various locations. Though there

seems to be some management issuesfor which the community requirestechnical advice, the study findings dosupport a confident conclusion that thecommunities have been able to pro-tect the forest in a good way.

AcknowledgementSpecial thanks to Ford foundation forsupporting this study. I would also liketo thank Giri Rao, Sudhansu Deo,

Madhab Jena, Naro, Hiradhar Sahuand villagers for their support.

References:

Kant, S., N. M. Singh and Kundan K. Singh (1991). Community Based Forest Management Systems: Case Studiesfrom Orissa. New Delhi: IIFM, SIDA and ISO/Swedforest.

Singh, N.M. and K.K. Singh (1993). Forest Protection by Communities in Orissa - A New Green Revolution. ForestTrees and People Newsletter No. 19.

Singh, N.M. (2001). Women and Community Forests in Orissa: Rights and Management. Indian Journal of GenderStudies, 8(2): 257-270.

Singh, N.M. (2002). Federations of community Forest Management Groups in Orissa: Crafting New Institutions toAssert Local Rights. Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, No. 46.

Singh, N.M. and Nayak, P.K. (2003).Adaptive Community Forest Management. A Case of Dhani Paanch MouzaJungle Surakshya Samiti, Orissa. Vasundhara, FORD Foundation and WINROCK International, India.

Photo credits : Prasad Kumar DashMap credits(based on Google Earth) : Vasundhara


IntroductionOdisha has the unique distinction ofhaving a large number of local self-initiated forest protection commit-tees (Siripurapu, 2012). These com-munity initiatives can be perceivedas a response to the rapid degrada-tion of forests and consequent threatsto livelihoods, subsistence and envi-ronment (Siripurapu, 2010). Inter-estingly the regions, which witnessedrapid degradation of forest, markeda strong presence of Community For-est Conservation Groups(Siripurapu, 2010). BudhikhamariCommunity Forest Protection Com-mittee (BCFPC) in Mayurbhanj dis-trict is one such example.Budhikhamari Community ForestProtection Committee is a confed-eration of 122 villages protecting andmanaging a large patch of forest.

History of protectionFrom 1952 to 1972 the reserve for-ests of Budhikhamari were managedunder the coppice circle as per theForest Department's working plan(OJM, 2012). Felling by the ForestDepartment along with the pressurefrom the adjoining villages led theforest into complete degradation.After reaching this alarming situation,the villagers in support of GorachandMohanta, a local leader started pro-tecting the forest first in 1983. In1988, the Budhikhamari Commu-nity Forest Protection Committee

Communities versus Government:Women reject eco-tourism project for livelihood

was formed with the membership of20 Village Forest Protection Commit-tees (VFPC) which later in 1995turned to a total of 95 villages (OJM,2012). Presently there are 122 Vil-lage Forest Protection Committees inBCFPC from 6 blocks of the district(OJM, 2012).

Institutional arrangementfor forest protectionThe executive committee of BCFPChas 22 members (see box 1). EachVFPC has a president and a secre-tary. These positions are elected byvillagers. The BCFPC has chalked outsome rules for forest protection,which if disobeyed, the person islikely to be fined or socially boy-cotted in the village. The role of

BCFPC is to resolve issues of VFPC's.The VFPC's monitor their respectivethengapalli systems and resolve vil-lage and forest level issues.

Role of women in forest pro-tectionThe role of women in forest protec-tion is usually ignored. Women spendmost of their time in forests. It is theywho keep a close watch on forestsand detect any minor change inthem. While the men take on pro-tection responsibilities as duties andseparate tasks, the women integratethese with their daily chores(Vasundhara, 1999). Though womenplay a major role in protection, theydon't form a part of the traditionalvillage governance system.

CONSERVATION

Box 1: The structure of Executive Committee of BCFPC

Chairman

President

Vice President

Secretary Treasurer

17 other members


In 1989, the men watchers facedproblems stopping women headloaders. So, to overcome such sce-nario it was decided to includewomen in the patrolling squad. Be-fore 1992, the patrolling squad hadunpaid volunteers but later it was paidwith the help of funds received froman organization. This squad consistsof 21 members out of which 3 arewomen. Women were not includedin the Executive Committee till1997-1998 (OJM, 2012). When theywere accepted in the Executive Com-mittee, they were looked upon aspaid watchers having an employee-employer relationship with othercommittee members instead ofequals (Sarin et al, 2003).

A majority of the NTFP gatherers arewomen (Singh, 2001). NTFP like salleaves and seed, kendu leaf, mahuaseeds, fuel wood and wild fruits arecollected by women. They also visitthe sacred groves called jahira to of-

fer prayers for the well being of theforest and the village (OJM, 2012).

Eco-tourism project inBudhikhamariThe Forest Department proposed foran eco-tourism project called SriramVatika in Manchabandha Reserveforest - I of the Pithabata Range ofBaripada Forest Division covering anarea of about 118 hectares. This areahas been protected by four villagesnamely Swarupvilla, Mahulia,Goudadiha and Bagdiha since 1985(OJM, 2012). The forest is the sourceof fuel, fodder, food (mushrooms,leafy vegetables, wild edible fruits,tubers) and income (Sal leaf plates).Approximately 600 families of thefour villages depend on this forest forlivelihood. Nearly 200 families arecritically dependent directly or indi-rectly on the forests for their dailyexistence. All the four villages to bedirectly affected by the project havefiled their Community Forest Rights

(CFR) claims over the forest areawhere the eco-tourism project hadbeen planned. All the components ofthe eco-tourism project like enlarg-ing existing ponds, fencing off thewhole forest with only one entrygate, building jogging track, creatingsitting and dining places, building staffquarters, watch towers and over-head tank for water supply, convert-ing parts of the forest into lawns,dustbins, and Panchakarma centreincluding a deer park, etc. will affectthe existing community forest rightsof the villagers which they haveclaimed under the Forest Rights Act(FRA), 2006.

Villagers protest againstthe eco-tourism projectThe Forest Department on 26th Janu-ary, 2012 started constructing a roadby felling approximately 1000 to1500 Sal trees, when the villagerswere busy with Panchayat elections.A pond was renovated using heavyJCB machines and tractors. They alsostarted fencing the entire forest with-out consulting the gram sabha of thefour affected villages thereby violat-ing the law. After the elections were

CONSERVATION

Villagers collect sal leaves for making Sal leaf plates

ECO-TOURISM SITE MAP OFMANCHABANDA RF-II OF BARIPADA

FOREST DIVISION

The eco-tourism plan prepared by the ForestDepartment

(Source: OJM, 2012)


over, on 17th February 2012, all thefour affected villages came togetherfor a discussion which was facilitatedby Bishnu Purthy and Lalit MohanMahanta. The BCFPC, VPFC's andvillage leaders played a major role inbringing the villagers (men andwomen) of all the four villages on acommon platform and discuss the is-sue. During these regular discussionsthey became aware that this eco-tourism project was not only affect-ing their livelihood but also violatingthe Forest Right Act. Since then, theyorganized strong protests against theproject construction work andstarted sending memorandums to theDistrict Collector and other con-

cerned authorities. This all lead tosuccess in stopping the project con-struction in their forest area.

Eco-tourism project versusFRAThe four villages to be affected bythe eco-tourism project namelyBagdiha, Goudadiha, Mahulia and

Swarupvilla have filed their FRAclaims. The villagers have claimed forthe following rights in the area wherethe eco-tourism project is proposed:

Right to protect, conserve andmanage the forest.Right of ownership, collectionand sale of minor forest pro-duceRight to collection of deadplants partsRight to fishing in the pondRight to timber for makinghousehold implements, agri-cultural implements and forcremation with gram sabhaapproval.

Chronology of protest against the Eco-tourism project

DateDateDateDateDate EventsEventsEventsEventsEvents

18/2/2012 All four villages had a common meeting. A memorandum was submitted to the District collector object-ing the felling of trees for road construction and starting eco-tourism project without the consent of thegram sabha.

22/2/2012 Gram sabhas 'managed by forest department were held in all four villages which passed resolution ap-proving the eco-tourism project.

24/2/2012 Forest department restarted the construction work.

25/2/2012 to

1/3/2012 Two youths Sukra singh and Muna Mahanta, played a key role in mobilizing villagers and held villagelevel meetings on provisions of FRA

1/3/2012 Mohulia village passed a resolution in gram sabha to stop the project. Notice served to SDLC, DLC andSLMC.

CONSERVATION

Fencing of the forest by the Forest Department

Sal forests of Budhikhamari area Destruction of forest due to eco-tourism project


So, this eco-tourism project is a clearviolation of FRA. This project willalso deprive the people of their rightsand livelihood source.

The SDLC has now issued an orderto the Forest Department stating thatthe eco-tourism work would behalted till the rights have been settled.

Role of women in protestagainst eco-tourismThe women of village Gaudadihaand Bagdiha were the first ones tonotice the destruction of forests in thename of eco-tourism project and dis-cussed their concerns with the othervillagers. As the women are interact-ing more with the forest as comparedto men, they felt the threat ofmarginalization due to the eco-tour-ism project. In the whole process ofprotest the women had participatedactively. They took the lead in ar-ticulating their concerns to the Dis-trict Collector about the direct threat

3/3/2012 Goudadiha village passed a resolution in gram sabha to stop the project. Notice served to SDLC, DLC andSLMC.

6/3/2012 Bagdiha village passed a resolution in gram sabha to stop the project. Notice served to SDLC, DLC andSLMC.

7/3/2012 500 villagers (dominated by women) demonstrate protest rally in district headquater and submit memo-randum to the District Collector to scrap the eco-tourism project

15/3/2012 Mass meeting mear the forest to stop the project

22/3/2012 Police arrested Lalit Mohanta, grandson of Gorachand Mohanta, who was involved in leading the protest

23/3/2012 Another mass meeting was held to scrap the project. Leaders from CSD,Odisha Jungle Mancha andDistrict Forestry Federation, Nayagarh and Balasore also participated to express their solidarity.

25/3/2012 Women and youth stopped fencing work and gheraoed 18 forest department staff for 4 hours. Con-cerned Tahasildar came with police force and rescued the forest department staff and assured that theproject would be stopped. A meeting was arranged with the District collector

26/3/2012 Collector assured them that the project would be stopped. On the same day, the villagers met the DFOwho told them that the FD would implement the project with only one village (Swarupvilla).

Source: OJM, 2012

the project posed to the villagers' livesand livelihood, to the local environ-ment, to their safety and tranquilitydue to people from the town startingto come to their forest and the re-strictions on women's access to theforests (OJM, 2012). Women weremore active and led the protestagainst the eco-tourism project afterthe arrest of Lalit Mohan Mohanta.On 25th March, 2012, more than300 women along with youthgheraoed 18 forest department stafffor four hours at the eco-tourismproject construction site. This actcreated pressure on the government.The concerned tahsildar came withpolice force and rescued the forestdepartment staff and assured that theproject would be stopped. A meet-ing was arranged with the DistrictCollector on the next day. The Dis-trict collector assured that theproject would be stopped. In thismeeting the women demanded thattheir village community forest rights

should be recognized. They also de-manded compensation for the largenumber of trees felled by the forestdepartment for road constructionand questioned whether such aproject in a reserve was legal underthe Forest Conservation Act (OJM,2012). After the major combat be-tween the villagers and the forest de-partment, the project has beenstalled.

ConclusionWomen play a very important rolein development. If they are madeaware of the rules, regulations andtheir rights they can stand off in themost difficult situations. Here, it istheir love towards the forest and theirdependency on forest that madethem stand in the struggle against theforest department. They foresaw theproblem which eco-tourism couldhave on their livelihood. So theyunited and took appropriate steps toavert them. It is remarkable to see

CONSERVATION


how the women protected and con-served the forest where even menfailed in protecting the forest againstmafias and illegal felling. It is also truethat it was only due to the tireless ef-forts and protests by the women thatthe eco-tourism project stands haltedin the area. But it is very unfortunate

enough that the women still face thebrunt of male dominance and theireffort in conservation is ignored.They still have no legal recognitionof their conservation and protectionefforts. The best part why the womenare successful in their role as protec-tionists and conservationist is because

CONSERVATION

Yashmita-UlmanYashmita-UlmanYashmita-UlmanYashmita-UlmanYashmita-UlmanProgramme Officer, Vasundhara,

E-mail: [email protected]

Sudhansu Sekhar DeoSudhansu Sekhar DeoSudhansu Sekhar DeoSudhansu Sekhar DeoSudhansu Sekhar DeoConsultant in Natural Resource Governanace and Management

E-mail : [email protected]

they don't feel it's a task but feel thatit is part of their daily routine. Thisquality of women must be salutedand must be given due and muchneeded recognition.

References

Down to Earth(1999). Model Development. Down to Earth. Sept 15-30, 1999.

OJM(Odisha Jungle Manch)( 2012). Assertion of Community Forest Rights: A Case Study from Mayurbhanj Districtof Odisha.

Sarin, M., Singh, N., Sundar, N. and Bhogal, R. (2003). 'Devolution as a threat to democratic decision-making inforestry? Findings from three states in India' Overseas Development Institute, 111 Westminster Bridge Road, Lon-don, SE1 7JD, UK.

Singh, N.M. (2001). Women and Community Forests in Orissa: Rights and Management. Indian Journal of GenderStudies, 8 (2): 257-270.

Siripurapu, K.K. (2010). The Semantic of CFM - People's Narration Case Studies from Odisha. Vasundhara,Bhubaneswar.

Siripurapu, K.K. (2012). Gender in Community Forestry: Cases of Role Reversal in Odisha. Community Forestry, 25:21-25.

Vasundhara. (1999). Community Forest Management: a Case study of Baghamunda. Draft unpublished report,Bhubaneswar.

Photo credits (unless otherwise mentioned): Sudhansu Sekhar Deo


Plants of Cycas genus are known fortheir multiple utilities. The commonuse is as an ornamental plant, and theleaves are used with flowers to deco-rate the groom's car for marriage apartfrom being eaten as vegetable whentender(CSIR: NISCIR, 2010) . Somespecies yield edible 'fruits'(actuallyseeds) and the trunk of some varietiesare cut and processed to yield a starchthat can produce a sago substitutethough inferior in quality(Wikipedia,2013).

Odisha was known to have only onewild species of the cycads, i.e. Cycascircinalis L. variety orixensis. Theplanted varieties include C. revoluta andC. rumphii(Saxena & Brahmam, 1996).However, there is now an argumentthat C. circinalis was actually endemicto the Western Ghats and that its wildcounterpart in Eastern Ghats(Odishaand Andhra Pradesh) is a slightly dif-ferent species, Cycas sphaerica(Dash,2011).

Some two years ago the media reportedof a rather unconventional trading ofthe wild species(locally known asaraguna or adunga) in the district ofNayagarh. Local people were not usedto see commercial cutting of this plantfor its trunk, so they were surprised as

The Cycad trade

to what might be the reason behind it.Ecologist Prasad Dash reported, " Nowa days the plant is under threat of ex-tinction as the frond is been smuggledillegally by the local people instru-mented by the traders. It is reportedthat the trunk is sold per Rs.1000/-.Hence the tree is completely up rootedin most parts of Nayagarh district ofOrissa which support maximum popu-lation of this plant"(Dash, 2011).

However, the communities did not domuch. The veteran barefoot botanistand plant lover of the area, SriAntaryami Sahoo, popularly known as'Gachha Sir' was however shocked bythis indiscriminate cutting and tried toapproach various stakeholders for nec-

essary intervention. When he ap-proached RCDC, we followed up thematter with a fax to the concerned Di-visional Forest Officer urging for im-mediate action, but without any re-sponse. As such, the threat to the plantcontinues.

The seed-powder is made into a tastycake(Dash, 2011) as per local tradition,but without sufficient awareness thatthese seeds(and some other parts) havesome neurotoxic elements that areharmful to human body(CSIR:NISCIR, 2010) if the consumption isregular(however, the indigenous prac-tice of treating the seeds with waterbefore consuming helps to removethese toxins to some extent). But in adistrict like Nayagarh where commu-nity forest protection has been well es-tablished in several areas and the vil-lagers have protected forests from thesmugglers, the indiscriminate cutting ofthis poor Cycad probably suggests thatthe community interest to render pro-tection doesn't normally arise unless theresource is supposed to be directly valu-able to them. In fact, Gachha Sir alsoexpresses his anguish and frustrationover the same (personal communica-tion, 15-3-13).

Bikash RathBikash RathBikash RathBikash RathBikash Rath

ECO-COMMERCE

The adunga plant (drawing by Manas Biswal based on Dash, 2011)

ReferencesCSIR: National Institute for Science Communication and Information Resources 2010. The Wealth of India RawMaterials-First Supplement Series, Vol. 2, p.318. New Delhi

Saxena, H. and M. Brahmam 1996. The Flora of Orissa, Vo. IV, pp.2526-2527. Regional Research Laboratory &Orissa Forest Development Corporation, Bhubaneswar

Dash, Prasad 2011. Untitled reporting in Cycas sphaerica 271011PD Flora of Orissa. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/indiantreepix/rjocKuwt5N4

Wikipedia (2013). Sago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sago


There has been some suppositions thatwith the gradual success(whatsoever)of the Mahatma Gandhi National Ru-ral Employment Guarantee Scheme(MGNREGS which was initiallylaunched under the name NREGS) andother such welfare schemes of the gov-ernment like the supply of highly sub-sidized rice(Rs.2/kg now revised asRe.1/kg) provided alternatives in thelivelihood that helped reduce the vul-nerability of the disadvantageous sec-tions which in turn reduced their in-terest as well as involvement in thecollection of non-timber/minor forestproduce. With educational develop-ment the young generation of thesecommunities did not seem to find someof the traditional occupations such asthe MFP collection essential or pref-erable. Such inferences were drawnmostly on the basis of field-level inter-actions with the concerned commu-nities. However, formal studies on thisaspect have hardly been done. As such,RCDC decided to take up a formalstudy on the impact of MGNREGS onNTFP-based livelihood. Because ofcertain limitations this study was de-cided to be done on a pilot basis at fewsites of the state with a community fo-cus, i.e. what has been the impact vis-a-vis the differential community sta-tus and approaches. The reason: dif-ferent communities have been knownto have responded differently to thesame opportunity because of their dis-tinguished traditional approaches andalso because of their differential capac-ity. The Juangs are not the same as theirco-dweller Bhuyans in asserting their

Impact of MGNREGS on NTFP-based livelihood

rights as anthropologically they havebeen a weaker race than the latter. Ifthe universal approach of MGNREGSdid not take care to consider such dif-ferences so as to adopt an adequatestrategy for an effective achievement,then that is a different matter; but ourpilot study focused on the particularlyvulnerable tribal groups and some well-organized and otherwise strong tribalcommunities so as to see if there hasbeen any differential impact.

The study began with the Mayurbhanjdistrict in the north of the state. Thefirst community to be interacted withwas the Lodha, a PVTG infamous fortheir tradition of burglary. The gov-ernment has been running amicroproject for the socioeconomicdevelopment of this community. Ob-viously a more lucrative and viable al-ternative than burglary is supposed to

be effective in helping the Lodhasabandon their age-old profession. Al-though some Lodhas have alreadyadopted other options such as collec-tion of NTFP, MGNREGS could meana lot for this community in furtherstrengthening their interest in dignifiedoccupation.

The Lodha village Nedam that was vis-ited for this purpose has agriculture asits chief occupation, but agriculturalland being meagre the people have todepend on NTFP collection. Lodhamen engage themselves primarily infirewood business whereas the womenprefer NTFP. The menfolk believe ina principle 'earn and spend', i.e. what-ever they would earn in a day is spenton the same day. This makes their live-lihood further vulnerable alongwiththe practice of alcoholism.

LIVELIHOOD

The Lodhas of Nedam with a development contrast in the background.


Although there is not much awarenessabout MGNREGS in the village,people say that so far they have seenNREGS work being implemented onlytwice. However, delayed payment dis-couraged them in the scheme. Theirjob cards and bank passbooks are withthe contractor. Further, they foundthat forest collection was more profit-able than NREGS. In some familiessome members worked under thescheme while others went for forestcollection. In brief it was observed thatthey were least bothered aboutNREGS, and were more concerned fortheir forest-based livelihood particu-larly because the forest resources aredwindling. The sal leaf plate makinghas been started in the village since last6-7 years, and this has proved to bequite promising. NREGS could notprove itself that way.

Another PVTG the Mankdias werestudied in the Damasahi Colony,Kaptipada block. The Mankdias arebasically a nomadic tribe whose chiefoccupation is collection and process-ing of siali fibre. The Forest Depart-ment doesn't allow siali fibre collec-tion. Further, the government has triedto help them adopt a permanent settle-ment here in this colony. But this madethem further vulnerable. While theirforest-based life and livelihood was dis-couraged, no viable alternative wasgiven to them. Either they have to col-lect the siali fibre in the 'illegal'(?) way

or have to work as labourers. Unfor-tunately, plastic ropes have proved tobe a big threat for their siali ropeswhereas wage labour is not alwaysavailable. Under such circumstancesMGNREGS could have proved to be

a saviour for them, but it did not reachthem properly. The subsidized ricethey get with their Annapurna Card isnow their chief source of living. Itmust be understood here that this com-munity had special skills in siali fibrecollection and processing as well as incapturing monkeys. It has not pre-ferred other forest-based occupationsincluding collection of siali leaf. Such acommunity requires a special atten-tion and strategy if their socio-eco-nomic development is to be sincerelypursued. This has hardly been donedespite another micro-project theKhadia-Mankdia DevelopmentAgency being implemented in the dis-trict.

This board mentions construction of the cement concrete road to the Mankdia colony funded chieflyunder the PTG development programme and partly under NREGS.

In an out-of-forest life the Mankdia trap is ofobscure use now.

A traditional Mankdia way of capturing monkey.The skill is still hired in cases of monkey

menace though occasionally.

LIVELIHOOD


Still another highly vulnerable tribalgroup, the Hill Khadias, who were in-teracted with in the Kundabai KhadiaColony(resettlement) of Udala block,clarified that although MGNREGS didseem to be important for them as alivelihood option, but since this oppor-tunity comes only 'occasionally' andthat too with a delayed payment,hence MFP collection still remainstheir preferable option after agricul-ture as it provides them a regular in-come.

In contrast to these thee PVTGs theSantals are a well-organized and socio-culturally strong tribal community. InOlsigoth village NTFP collection is sec-ond to the chief occupation of thiscommunity, agriculture. There is noother viable option for them. The vil-lage women have formed a self-helpgroup, and are making and selling salleaf plates that gives them a promisingincome. MGNREGS doesn't appear tobe promising for the people becauseof a number of reasons. The work thatis meant for them is shared with themachine(JCB) which works at night

and the villagers are deprived of someadditional days' income. The job cardis with the contractor, and the localBank is not comfortable with openingaccounts for them showing reason ofinsufficient staff. Delayed payment fur-ther discourages them. Hence, they donot find this scheme reliable enough.The Ho community of KeshpadaJuaria Sahi, Kaptipada block expresseda little different attitude. They said,NREGS work can't wait whereas thesal leaf collection can wait. Hence,they would prefer to avail the oppor-tunity under MGNREGS though thatwould not affect their regular depen-dency on MFP collection particularlybecause there is hardly any other vi-able alternative to the latter. However,they see the scope in MFP-based live-lihood being reduced day by day be-cause of a number of natural and so-cial reasons. In fact, there have beencases of distress migration from thisvillage because the available livelihoodoptions are not so viable. Hence, theylook for some more viable options,particularly irrigation-based agricul-ture.

The next phase of the study was con-ducted in the Lahunipada block ofSundargarh district. In the Bijaghat vil-lage the PVTG Paudi Bhuyans havethe Mundas as their co-villagers. TheMundas prefer agriculture followed byseasonal migration as they do not findNREGS much reliable practically.Kendu leaf and mahua collection fromthe common property resources is stilla part of the villagers' occupation, butmany of the mahua trees have beenuprooted in a storm two years agohampering mahua collection.MGNREGS work hardly comes to thevillage, and there is no other viable tra-ditional occupation than MFP collec-tion next to agriculture. Such limita-tions affect the Paudis most as they areless smart than the Mundas in theirentrepreneurship and external com-munications.

The third phase was covered in an areatowards extreme west, in the Sunabedaplateau of Nuapada district.Cherechuan and Barkot villages, whichhave the PVTG Choktia-Bhunjias, fallinside the Sunabeda sanctuary area.Agriculture and MFP collection havebeen their traditional occupation, butwhile there is a drought-like situationsince last two years the sanctuary re-strictions alongwith the monkey men-ace have reduced the scope in NTFPharvesting and business. Under suchcircumstances MGNREGS could haveproved to be a boon for them, but theexperience has been otherwise. NREGScomes but occasionally to them. Cor-ruption and delayed payment makesthe situation further critical. Whilethey understand that NREGS work canbe more comfortable for them thankendu leaf collection, the opportunityis hardly available. The naxalite opera-tions have made the scenario furtherdrastic. Regular/normal operations of

A Ho man with sal leaf plates. Inset : commercial transportation of leaf plates.

LIVELIHOOD


the government have been almoststopped in the plateau.

Still worse is the situation of thePaharias who have been waiting for adue recognition from the government,as a Scheduled Tribe, since many de-cades. They are less smart and less or-ganized than the Choktias, and are ac-tually more vulnerable than the latter.In Gadagada village of the plateau mostof the Paharias are almost landless.Making bamboo-ware is their tradi-tional occupation. Other MFPs suchas kendu leaf also serve as sources ofincome. The villagers alleged that theywere yet(as on 23-2-13) to get theirpayment against the NREGS work thatwas done in 2012 for about 25 days.Although finding MGNREGS not a re-liable option because of obvious rea-sons they still look forward to it and atthe same time would not like to doNREGS work at the cost of their tradi-tional occupation, particularly bam-boo work.

Despite its limitations RCDC's pilotstudy makes one thing very clear thatseems to be true in other areas too, thatis: it was but an official failure that thetarget communities' trust in the poten-tial of MGNREGS could not be builtup. All of these communities had in-terest to avail the opportunity underthe scheme, but one or more discour-aging experiences such as delayed pay-ment caused them a loss of interest.NTFP collection is something that is apart of their tradition and culture, andparticularly for women it seems a pref-erable job; but dwindling resourcebase, poor market linkage, and inad-equate price are some of the factorsthat threaten the scope in it. ThatNREGS is not simply a scheme of wagelabour but a package offering severalfacilities could not be experienced bythem, thanks to the concerned au-thorities. The scope of linking NREGSwith NTFP by raising plantations ofMFP species under the scheme hashardly been availed in the state. On

The 'bamboo plantation' under NREGS at Gadagada, with hardly any trace of bamboo however.This is supposed to have been carried out keeping in view the livelihood needs of the bamboo-dependent Paharias.

the other hand, NTFP-based liveli-hood provides scope for diverse cre-ativity and delicacy that is hardly avail-able in MGNREGS. A part of the for-est collection is consumed at home indiverse ways(including nutritious food)whereas MGNREGS would provideonly the wage normally. While it is notlikely that MGNREGS would be ableto completely substitute NTFP-basedoccupation, the guarantee that it standsfor does mean a lot for the disadvan-taged communities, and while the gov-ernment is trying for proper imple-mentation of the scheme an anthro-pological approach should be consid-ered for an effective implementation.

Sabyasachi RathSabyasachi RathSabyasachi RathSabyasachi RathSabyasachi RathProgramme Associate, RCDC

E-mail: [email protected](Transcreation from Odia: Bikash Rath)

LIVELIHOOD


IntroductionParticipatory or community-ownedapproach to natural resource conser-vation is gaining interest among thescholars, policy makers, funding orga-nizations, federal as well as the non-government organizations, around theworld recently. This paradigm shiftfrom the centralized state managedapproach of natural resources gover-nance; to a decentralized participatoryor community-owned approach couldbe the result of many compelling fac-tors. The shift could be in response orout of desire to rectify the human costsassociated with the coercive conserva-tion approaches. (Dressler et al., 2010;Ostrum, 1990; Hecht and Cockburn,1990; Marks, 1984; Blockhus et al.,1992; Poffenberger, 1990; Ascher,1995; Bromley et al, 1992; McCay andAcheson, 1987; UNFAO, 1990). Theexclusionary and coercive state con-trolled approach has not only put thestate and local communities at logger-heads with each other but also turnedforests into an open access system lead-ing to their severe degradation, localextinction of wildlife, and impacted thelivelihoods of millions of resource de-pendent communities around theworld. On the one hand, interest inparticipatory or community-ownedapproach among different stakehold-ers has been growing in the recentyears, partly due to recognition thattraditional knowledge can contributebetter to conservation of forests andbiodiversity (Gadgil et al., 1993), rarespecies (Colding, 1998), protected ar-eas (Johannes, 1998), ecological pro-

From Management to Governance :Implications of the Change in Participatory Forestry

cesses (Alcorn, 1989), and to sustain-able resource use in general (Schminket al., 1992; Berkes, 1999).

On the other hand, mounting pressureson the states from increased fiscal defi-cits, aid from international donors em-phasizing the involvement of local ac-tors, along with pressures from localcommunities and indigenous groups forreclaiming their traditional rights andexercise greater control over their tra-ditional lands, with evidence that localactors have the capacity to protect anduse forest resources more sustainablyand at lower costs than governmentagencies (Agarwal, 2007). Accordingto Gopalakrishnan (2005), until the endof the 19th century, at least 80 percentof India's natural resources were heldunder common property regimes. Theamount of forest area under state con-trol increased progressively since theBritish colonial period. The severe andrapid degradation of forests in the firstthree decades after India's indepen-dence caused great concern and onceagain, since the 1980s, there has been aslow shift towards the concept of com-munity management(Gopalakrishnan,2005), paving theway for participatory or community-owned natural resource governance.

Interestingly, the report of The Inter-national Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED), (2013), mentionsthat forestry is back on the investormap. According to the IIED report, thetightening supply through deforestationand rising demand for conventional

products, emerging ones like biomassfuels, and environmental services suchas carbon storage are boosting finan-cial returns. It was mentioned in theabove report that, over the past 20years, forestland has outperformed thebroader equity markets, for instance,annual returns from United States,Timberland investments have averaged14.9 per cent, and also enjoys betterrisk-adjusted returns because of its rela-tively low volatility. (Campanale,2009). Due to the investment oppor-tunities highly saturated in the North,investors are now turning to South asthere is considerably faster growth inthe tropics, despite of the traditionalrisk-related aversions. (IIED, 2013).However, as per the report, what com-plicates forestry investment, particu-larly in the South, and is considered ei-ther a threat or an opportunity depend-ing on one's viewpoint is people. Schol-ars estimate that globally, forests sup-port 0.5 billion indigenous people and1.3 billion other forest dependentpeople who live in and around the for-ests, depend on, and have pricelessknowledge attuned to forests, whichstill remains largely ignored by the con-ventional scientific world. Indigenousand other forest dependent communi-ties also have customary or formalizedland rights, otherwise referred to as lo-cal forest rights and non-negotiablebasic needs for food, fuel and fiber.(IIED, 2013).

However, in reality these people andtheir customary rights are often ignoredcompletely when forests are diverted

EMERGING TRENDS


either for non-forestry activities or in-dustrial plantations or large scale log-ging operations (Mayers, 2006). On theother hand, the ever expanding largescale industrial forestry never stemmedthe loss of biodiverse natural forests(IIED, 2013). The IIED report (2013),prescribes that the economic gain doesnot intrinsically respect social justice orenvironmental sustainability; however,'Quality' investment in forestry mustgo beyond simple economic returns.The IIED (2013) report accentuatesthat the economic pursuits must rec-ognize that forest landscapes are inhab-ited by people who have rights overforest resources. It is high time that gov-ernments, industries, and policy mak-ers should recognize and accept the factthat the old model of capital seekingforest resources and requiring cheaplocal labour must be replaced immedi-ately by the local rights holders man-aging forest resources arrangement -the starting point for locally controlledforestry (Elson, 2012). Macqueen(2011) found that locally controlledforestry not only address issues of so-cial justice, but also shown to enhanceenvironmental management. Hence,investing in Locally Controlled Forestry(ILCF) is a whole new approach to qual-ity investment in forestry (IIED, 2013).

Although the concept of participatoryor community-owned approach tonatural resource conservation and theissues there within are gaining momen-tum lately, but the existing situationson the ground do not appear promis-ing enough! According to the studiesconducted by, White and Martin(2002) and ITTO (2005) it was esti-mated that for the past 20 years ap-proximately 200 million hectares offorest land has been transferred to thelocal communities by the state govern-ments around the world. The increas-

ing area under community-orientedtenure regimes can be seen as an im-plicit admission by national or provin-cial level decision makers that localcommunity actors can govern theirresources quite effectively when theyhave the opportunity to do so(Agarwal, 2007; Andersson et al., 2006;Brooks et al., 2006). However, thischange in control is less of an increasein pure community ownership; ratherit is more of a spread of a new form ofnatural resource management knownas co-governance arrangements inwhich federal governments are underpressure from a number of sources toextend rights to govern natural re-sources to a larger number of actors(Nygren. 2005; Lemos and Agrawal,2006; Wittman and Geisler, 2005). Thisleaves us with four broad questions: 1)Is involvement of local communitiesby the state under co-managementagreements, without providing themlegal rights and ownership of forestlands is analogous to community-owned natural resource governance?2) What is the success rate of these statepromoted community-based projectsunder the co-management arrange-ments? 3) Are there any alternativearrangements that could be called ascommunity-owned governance sys-tems in existence? And 4) Are those al-ternate systems function better than thestate promoted co-management ar-rangements?

For instance, a close examination of thestate promoted, so called, participatoryor community-based projects such asSocial Forestry (SF) and Joint ForestManagement (JFM) and the self-initi-ated community-based forest manage-ment (CBFM) of Odisha, in India mayprovide answers to the above questions.The following sections present a reviewof two major state promoted projects,

SF and JFM and the self-initiated com-munity-based forest management(CBFM) mechanism, initiated by thelocal communities of Odisha in India.Here, in the following sections, issuesassociated with state sponsored JFMand community initiated CBFM will bediscussed in detail in order to under-stand the impacts of co-managementarrangements as well as challengesfaced by the self-initiated CBFM in In-dia. However, a brief on SF could be agood starting point to discuss later aboutJFM and CBFM.

Social Forestry - a debacle!A report submitted to the Indian Gov-ernment by the National Commissionon Agriculture (NCA) during 1976noted that forests occupied 23% ofIndia's land, but their contribution tothe National Product was less than 1%.It concluded that mixed plantations hadno commercial value. During this phasethere was a shift from conservation for-estry to production forestry. The NCAsuggested the setting up of a corpora-tion to manage forests and to attractmonetary assistance from various gov-ernment and nongovernment sources.As a result, autonomous forest corpo-rations were started and large-scaleplantation activities began. The NCAreport also suggested starting SFprogramme on non-forestry lands suchas village commons, government waste-lands and farmlands to reduce pressureon forests. The consequent degradationof vegetation on village lands led to in-creased pressure on the forests fromthe people affected by these activities.Though the programme was largelyaimed at meeting the needs of the com-munity, however, the involvement oflocal communities was found to bemarginal or absent (Murali et al., 2003).

EMERGING TRENDS


According to Kant (undated), uponrecommendations of the NCA, in 1976during the Sixth Plan (1980-85), SocialForestry and Farm Forestry Projectswere launched in as many as 14 Statesof the Indian Union from 1982-84 to1999. The SF Project brought a signifi-cant attitudinal change in the minds ofthe Indian public to undertaking deg-radation control measures and large-scale plantations in non-conventionalareas. An area of 2.64 million ha wasbrought under plantations under thisproject at a cost of INR 18.4 billion.However, the SF afforestation schemescarried out on public lands were char-acterized by lack of a viable long-terminstitutional framework to sustain theobjective of increased biomass for thepoor, social equity and resourcesustainability. Massive investments inthe SF programmes converted privateagricultural lands, barren public rev-enue lands to productive assets in suc-cessful cases. However, SF schemes inreality took a resource away from thelocal poor, since they no longer hadaccess to the areas now policed by theforest guards. The experience of SFmade it abundantly clear that it wouldbe impossible to prevent degradationof forests unless real and immediatebenefits equitably accrue to the localcommunities who depend mostly onforests for their livelihood needs. Con-sequently, a revised approach that re-quired decentralized and participatorymanagement involving active partici-pation between the forest departmentand local villagers was advocated(Kant, undated).

One of the major criticisms of SFproject was that it did not meet its ob-jectives such as meeting the diverse bio-mass needs and participation of localcommunities and lack of involvementof local communities in the choice of

plantation species. Exclusion of localcommunities by the state has resultedin the plantation of monocultures ofexotic species such as Eucalyptus andAcacia on large stretches of landsclaimed by the government as wastelands and commons. The programmeproved to be helpful to farmers whowere market oriented (such as farmersin Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana) butless helpful to meet the needs of biom-ass for firewood, fodder, non-timberforest products (NTFPs), and subsis-tence of the rural poor and tribal com-munities. This resulted in continueddependence of the rural poor and tribalcommunities on forests resulting in thedegradation of natural forests (Arnoldand Stewart, 1991; Murali et al., 2003).Although SF could be hailed as the in-ception phase of co-management ar-rangement, however, this arrangementdid not meet the success as it was ex-pected to be. The marginalization ofthe marginal sections of the societyalong with the lack of proper institu-tional frame work are blamed, but itleaves us with the question whether theinclusion of marginalized sections alongwith better institutional frame workcould have saved SF from ending as adebacle. A thorough review in the fol-lowing sections of another major inte-grated conservation and developmentprojects (ICDP), famously known asJFM with a robust institutional framework and inclusion of the marginalizedsegments could provide some answers.

Joint Forest Management-a fiasco!According to Murali et al. (2003) thegovernment of India, noticing lapses inthe SF programme, enacted the Na-tional Forest Policy of 1988, whichdeparted significantly from the previ-ous forest policies because it mandatesthat local people must be actively in-

volved in the forest conservation andmanagement projects. For the first time,local people living in and around theforests were officially involved in for-est management activities with a con-siderable stake. They were consideredpartners, not only in the protection andregeneration of forests but also in shar-ing the usufructs and profits. Further-more, even the focus of forest man-agement has shifted from revenue gen-eration to conservation of the soil, en-vironment and safe guarding custom-ary rights of the local communities(Murali et al., 2003). Subsequently, onJune 1, 1990, the government of Indiapassed guidelines launching the JFMprogramme. Those guidelines recom-mended participation of the local com-munities in the regeneration of de-graded forests and notified that villagesthat are effectively protecting the for-est would have exclusive rights to thatforest's products. The 1990 circular ofthe government of India, paved theway for most states (23) to adopt par-ticipatory forest management strategiesby passing the JFM resolutions (Muraliet al., 2003). Currently it is estimatedthat 17.33 million ha of forestland isbeing managed through JFM efforts.There are around 84,672 JFM com-munities spread over 27 states of India(Gopalakrishnan, 2005).

However, even after twenty five yearsof experimenting with JFM in differ-ent states of India, the sustainability ofthe programme is still doubted and itsimplementation hinges on a number ofpreconditions. Various social, economicand cultural factors affected anddented the progress of JFM. The prob-lems identified are as follows: the needto change the attitude and ethos of for-est bureaucracy, lack of understand-ing among the government officials oflocals' socio-economic and cultural

EMERGING TRENDS


value systems, not giving priority to thegender issues, inter and intra-villageconflicts and resolution, lack of statu-tory authority to local institutions, in-adequacy of meaningful involvementof local communities, donor driven,rather than need driven programme,target oriented rather than people ori-ented and failure to address the issuesof sustainability (Reddy et al., 2004).For instance, the State of Forest report,MoEF, GoI (1999), mentions that theattempt to conserve forests throughJFM in Andhra Pradesh has not pro-duced the much hyped positive im-pact. Although large numbers of VanaSamrakshana Samithis(VSSs)/forestprotection committees (FPCs) were es-tablished through JFM, it couldn't con-trol deforestation. In fact, the same re-port further quotes that, before the for-mation of VSS/FPC, the forest area inthe state was 23.02 % and it declinedto 16.08 % since establishing VSS/FPCs.In other words the rate of deforesta-tion was found to have increased atplaces where VSS/FPC were found tobe very active (Ravindar, 2003; Reddyet al., undated).

A major drawback in functioning ofVSS/FPC is that of the involvement offorest department (FD) which super-sedes the local communities. The par-ticipatory role of local communities inthe planning process of JFM has alwaysbeen ignored by the FD officials. Themicro-plan for forest and village de-velopment is mostly framed at the FDoffice; and rarely does it reach the vil-lagers. Local communities are seldomaware of the budgetary allocations andthe budget plan for their village. Ide-ally the VSS/FPC should be in posses-sion of a copy of the budget plan butthat is a very rare case. The secondcopy should be with the Forest Ranger,which is never available for outsiders(Reddy et al., undated).

Datta and Sarkar (2010) mentions thatthe impact of JFM is supposed to befelt in promoting environmentalsustainability, economic bettermentand socio-political empowerment ofthe poor rural masses inhabiting theforest fringe areas. However, this is farfrom real due to hazy legal and policyframe works associated with forest andbiodiversity conservation. Hence, thereis a need for more clarity on the legal

and policy frameworks related to JFMbecause the provisions of ExecutiveOrder governing JFM often comes inconflict with the Forest ConservationAct 1980, leading to set backs in effortsof the poor local communities to seeklivelihoods from forests they tend(Gopal and Upadhyay, 2001). Liveli-hoods of the poor in rural areas largelydepend upon their nearby forests forfood, fuel wood, fodder, small timber,and non-timber extractions. Hence thepolicy makers are expected to considerpaying attention to these five catego-ries as a policy of management ratherthan perceiving it as an obstacle (Gopaland Upadhyay, 2001). It is even moreimperative, especially when tribeswithin the Scheduled Areas are findingit difficult to compensate livelihoodlosses due to restrictions on head load-ing and giving up shifting cultivation asan agreement to participate in JFM(Reddy et al., undated).

Baviskar (1998) stresses the importanceof understanding the vulnerability andinternal dynamics of tribal communi-ties, prior to the framing of policies per-taining to forest and biodiversity con-servation, because, it is they, the re-

EMERGING TRENDS

The departmental wall proclamation for the Royalghati VSS mentions a non-legal category of forest, PRF(Proposed Reserve Forest) without explaining thevillagers the limitations and implications thereof. Had the villagers not raised objection, the area under exotic Eucalyptus plantation in the natural forest area wouldhave been larger than seen here. Photo: RCDC


source dependent poor, who play animportant role in the affairs of forestmanagement. So, more decision-mak-ing powers should be provided forthem as the first step towards greaterdecentralization and devolution of for-est conservation. This is a major issueraised frequently by both supportersas well as the critics of JFM movement(Jodha, 2000). More explicit and equi-table sharing mechanisms should bebrought into place to ensure the ben-efits of JFM percolate down directly tothe tribes, women and landlesslabourers. Such mechanisms are nec-essary because it was found that womenin particular are deprived of their tra-ditional earning options following theintroduction of JFM in many areas(Jodha, 2000). Furthermore, the orga-nizational environment of forest agen-cies should also be reoriented to allowwomen to participate equally alongtheir men counterparts. Many schol-ars recommended for working groups,diagnostic studies, new monitoring sys-tems, and feedback loops that will en-able emerging experiences to be chan-neled into policy-making which willtransform the state and federal institu-tions, making them accountable to theirstaff and the public that they serve(Poffenberger and Mc Gean, 1996;Reddy et al., undated).

Besides the socio-economic and politi-cal issues of JFM, the most commonconflict existing between the VSS/FPCmembers and FD officials is the choiceof species for forest plantations. For in-stance, while the local communities ofVishakapatnam insisted on NTFPs,horticulture, and coffee plantations; thelocal communities of Cuddapaha VSS/FPC stressed on horticulture planta-tions, and the local communities ofAdilabad VSS/FPC inclined towardsboth NTFPs and horticulture species

for plantations. However, the FD offi-cials have shown very little or no inter-est in the species choice of VSS mem-bers (Reddy G. et al., undated). Unfor-tunately, the species selected by the FDas usual was Eucalyptus for afforesta-tion in the river valley catchments andSilver oak for plantations on the higherreaches of hills in Visakhapatnam andEast Godavari districts. Moreover,Andhra Pradesh Forest DevelopmentCorporation has encouraged plantingcoffee and pepper under the Silver oaksin over 5000 ha tribal lands inVisakhapatnam and East Godavari dis-tricts (Kshitija, 2006). All the above is-sues related to the neglect and igno-rance of local communities' livelihoodneeds, interests, by the JFM implemen-tation bodies of the state leaves the ques-tion whether JFM could be consideredparticipatory or community-basedforest management. For that matterwhat is participatory and how is it de-fined?

The unresolved issue of tar-get group participation inJFMDatta and Sarkar (2010) mentions thatas a general definition, Paul (1989)

views participation as an active pro-cess by which beneficiary/client groupsinfluence the direction and executionof a development activity in order toenhance their wellbeing in terms of in-come, personal growth, self-reliance orother values they cherish. In this con-text, the importance of peoples' par-ticipation in the success of JFM wasanalyzed by Naik (1997), by using atheoretical model. The model suggeststhat the extent of participation dependson a host of factors like expected levelsand changes in net earnings to labourfrom JFM and alternative enterprises,their degree of co-variation, expectedshare of profit from JFM activities,prevalent interest rate, the degree ofrisk aversion of the households and to-tal household labour endowment(Datta and Sarkar, 2010).

Datta and Sarkar (2010) argue thatprotection of forest resources presup-poses active participation of the forestdependent communities; therefore,active participation in forest conserva-tion activities requires a sense of com-mitment, attachment and motivationon part of the forest dwellers. Datta andSarkar (2010) employed a dynamic

EMERGING TRENDS

Villagers engaged in departmental thinning & cleaning operations in their village forest under JFM in atribal village of Gajapati district, Odisha. Photo: RCDC


optimization model to focus on thelikely socio-economic determinants ofparticipation, to conduct a case studyin a remote rural region of India andfound that the index of determinantsof people's participation and actualparticipation indices are only moder-ately correlated. Balooni et al., (2010)indicate that JFM has elicited an enor-mous body of literature in the devel-oping world but this literature indicatesthat, despite of changes in the policyand rhetoric, only scattered and mod-est successes of local community par-ticipation in JFM appeared on theground (Campbell et al., 2001; Blaikieet al., 2006; Ribot et al., 2006). Eventhe National Forest Commission Report(Government of India, 2006) provideda very critical review of JFM program,which points out poor participation,especially of women in JFM and thefailure of government authorities toaddress the concerns and rope in theenergies of marginalized sections(Vemuri, 2008).

Few dubious assumptionsabout target group partici-pationA large body of existing literature oncommon-pool resource managementfocuses on developing conditions thatwould enable the self-organized groupsof resource users to collectively man-age common pool resources. Devolu-tion or transfer of rights and responsi-bilities to the local user groups is advo-cated for several reasons. Knox andDick (2001), suggest the following:firstly, it is argued that local communi-ties have an incentive to preserve theresource because they are "critically"dependent on the resource for liveli-hood. They therefore have an "inter-est" in the use and maintenance of theresource over a long period of time.Further, the limited effectiveness of the

state in managing natural resources ef-fectively at the local level, bounds onthe financial capacity of developingcountries to adequately monitor theuse of large natural resources such asforests and the demand for democrati-zation of the decision making processin the management of natural resourcesby increased participation of peoplemost affected by the program and so-cial empowerment of local user groupsare other important factors that haveled to the focus on community partici-pation in resource management (Knoxand Dick, 2001). These were the argu-ments that motivated participatorymanagement programs like the JFM inIndia and many other countries(Gopalakrishnan, 2005).

Similarly, studies of D'Silva andNagnath, (2002) found that many VSSmembers viewed JFM as a programmefor employment generation throughforestry activities. Most of the expen-diture incurred on forestry operationswas used for wages, which provided24 to 87 days of employment permember per annum. However, thesepositive impacts have not reached sev-eral villages in which the JFM programwas introduced. Furthermore, therewas a decline in the performance ofJFM efforts as soon as the external fund-ing was withdrawn (Ravindranath andSudha, 2004).

Factors that could affect theparticipation of target com-munitiesThough it had been argued that localcommunities have an incentive to pre-serve the resource because they arecritically dependent on the resource forlivelihood, there might be some otherfactors existing which could determinethe participation of communities inJFM and other similar projects. For in-

stance, the analytical approach fol-lowed by most works on collective ac-tion is that of methodological individu-alism. Hypotheses based on the ratio-nal-choice model under which the rep-resentative self-interested individual,after a rational benefit-cost calculation,acts in a way that maximizes utility.According to Gopalakrishnan (2005)scholarly works of Ostrom (1990),Wade (1988) and Baland and Platteau(1996) are among the most significantcontributions towards developing in-stitutional conditions for successful col-lective action. These institutional "de-sign principles" have served as theguidelines for many initiatives, like JFMprogrammes in India, and to promotecommunity-based resource manage-ment programs in the developing coun-tries. However, the varying rates ofsuccess of many such initiatives suggestthat these principles cannot be taken asa blueprint for successful collective ac-tion and that there may be other fac-tors that influence people's choices,which need to be considered in ana-lyzing the success or failure of collec-tive action in managing common-poolresources. (Gopalakrishnan, 2005).Berks (2007) points out that the part-nership established between the stateand local communities under co-man-agement arrangements is less of a par-ticipation or community-owned ap-proach and more of a top-down ap-proach of partnership for projectimplementation. Many authors havedocumented that this kind of partici-pation is often used as part of a top-down process of cooption and consul-tation (Berks, 2007). Brown (2002)considers that these top-down pro-cesses as a major reason for the failureof many ICDPs. Now that it becomessomewhat clear why co-managementarrangements like JFM could not beconsidered either as participatory or

EMERGING TRENDS


community-owned, this opens thewindow to segue to discuss in the fol-lowing sections about the self-initiatedCBFM and the issues lying there within.

Community-based forestgovernance in India- a bigquestion?Dressler (2010) suggests that the ori-gins of community-based natural re-source management (CBNRM) are bestunderstood in relation to the history ofthe western conservation model. From18th century and onwards, ideals of apeople-free landscape for the purposesof leisure and consumption played animportant role in defining land use incolonized regions of the world(Neumann 2002; Brockington et al.2008). While many reserves precededYellowstone as America's first nationalpark in 1872 (Cronon 1995;Brockington et al. 2008), the Park'smanagement approach of restrictinglocal access to natural resourcesthrough coercion became the de factomodel for most protected areas (Nash,1967; Stevens, 1997; Igoe, 2005). Inthe post-war period, as the conserva-tion movement began to diversify(through capitalist expansion) in waysthat would later support the rise (andfall) of CBNRM, so-called 'fortress con-servation' strongly influenced the de-velopment of protected areas in formercolonies (Neumann, 1998). Conserva-tion policies upheld the view that thosewho depended on resources near thereserves be criminalized for what theyharvested (Neumann, 1998). In somecases, resource dependent people wereforcibly evacuated and dispossessedfrom their lands, subjecting them tosuffering economic displacement(Brechin et al., 2002; Brockington andIgoe, 2006; Dowie, 2009). The 'legiti-macy' of Anglo-European scientificunderstandings of nature and culture

were reproduced coercively throughprotected areas for decades(Brockington et al., 2008).

For instance, in India, both the colo-nial forest policies and the forest poli-cies of independent India 1864 - 1980were initiated to allow exclusive Statecontrol over forest management. Theforest policies of India until 1988 aimedto increase government control overforest resources and develop forests tomeet timber needs of the industry anddefense. Those forest policies declaredthat village communities should not bepermitted to exercise their traditionalrights over the forests at the expense ofnational interest. The Wildlife Protec-tion Act 1972 was initiated to establishsanctuaries and national parks for pro-tection of wildlife. By 1996, 80 nationalparks and 441 sanctuaries have beenconstituted, accounting for 4.3 % of thegeographical area and 20% of the for-est area in the country. This Act pro-hibited communities to enter forests.Even today, local communities includ-ing tribal people are being evacuatedand relocated from their settlements inthe forests (Murali et al., 2003).

During the 1980s, while the adminis-tration was preoccupied with large-scale plantation oriented social forestryprojects; self-initiated community-based forest protection groups beganto emerge. These initiatives receivedeither little or no support from the stateForest Departments, with the excep-tion of West Bengal, where a few pro-gressive foresters actively supportedand facilitated the initiation of self-ini-tiated forest protection committees(FPCs). The spread of these initiatives isapparent in States such as Bihar, WestBengal, Odisha, Karnataka andHaryana. Over 13,000 systems wereavailable in the country in different

states (Murali et al., 2000). Thoughthese systems are in existence over acentury and throughout India but arepoorly understood and documented,they do appear to be gaining momen-tum and receiving support at the vil-lage, state and national levels. However,it is only recently that the federal andstate governments began to perceiveits significance and acknowledged theneed to recognize and legitimize com-munity efforts (Murali et al., 2000).

In this context the Indian state ofOdisha offers a unique example of tra-ditional forest management practiceswhere self-initiated forest protectiongroups had been protecting forests forgenerations without receiving any sup-port from the State Forest Department(Borgoyary, 2006). Many villages es-pecially of Western Odisha voluntarilyinitiated forest protection during the1960s but the 1970s - 80s saw a hugetrend - which, by now, had taken onthe proportions of a veritable move-ment - spread to other regions of Cen-tral Odisha (Pattanaik, 2002). How-ever, according to the JBIC DiscussionPaper (2006) Community-based For-est Management (CBFM) existed inOdisha as early as the 1940s. As per theestimates of NGOs and federations offorest protecting communities, thereare no less than 8,000 to 12,000 villagegroups protecting some 350,000 to400,000 ha. of forests in the state now(Sarin, 1994; Sarin, 1995;Poffenberger, 1995; Sarin, 1996;Vasundhara, 1996; Khare, 1998; Jefferyand Sundar, 1999; Pattanaik, 2002;Sarap and Sarangi, 2009). The emer-gence of Community-Based ForestManagement in India can be perceivedas a response to the rapid degradationof forests and the consequent threatsto livelihoods, subsistence and environ-mental services and also as a ground

EMERGING TRENDS


level democratic response to a highlycentralized, ineffective and inefficientforest governance system. Accordingto Gopalakrishnan (2005), the expla-nation for the motivation for collec-tive action of local communities is basedon the theory of 'relative deprivation'.Relative deprivation is defined as, "aperceived discrepancy between men'svalue expectations and their value ca-pabilities" (Gurr 1970: 13) and it is ar-gued that social conditions that increaseexpectations without increasing capa-bilities to realize them create discon-tent, which is the basic motivation forparticipants in collective violence(Marx and Wood, 1975). It is interest-ing to see whether the explanation forcollective violence would also be ap-plicable to the collective action such asself-initiated CBFM of Odisha, wherethe local resource user groups, who feltdeprived of opportunities to use theforest resources over a long period dueto lack of legal, political and economicpower, so acted collectively towardsachieving a change in the structure ofproperty rights. (Gopalakrishnan,2005).

Community-based forestmanagement-The Cinderellaof conservation!The case study published on a Com-munity-Based Organization - BrikshyaO' Jeevara Bandhu Parishad (BOJBP),of Odisha by Borgoyary et al., (2005),provides a glimpse of the successachieved by the local communities inOdisha. However, most CBFM groupsof Odisha neither enjoy any legal rec-ognition despite of their amazing suc-cess in forest conservation, nor did theirachievements transform them imme-diately into equal partners in forest con-servation. The root cause for their lackof recognition is deeply embedded inthe biased notions of the government

that local communities do not have theknowledge about forest conservationand do not have legal rights on forests.Dressler (2010) points out that criticalscholars working on participatory ap-proaches and conservation with indig-enous peoples argued that conserva-tion ultimately silenced those peoplewho held the greatest insights into theirown state of affairs in the name of sci-ence (Simpson, 2001; Ryan andRobinson, 1990). Furthermore,Borgoyary (2006) in the report onParticipatory Forest ManagementNetworks of India published by JBICfound that "the case of Odisha, therehad been an increasing conflict be-tween the Forest Department and thecommunity-based forest protectioncommittees. While the Forest Depart-ment was refusing to accept the tradi-tional community-based forest protec-tion communities, and wanted to imple-ment the JFM programme all over thestate, the community-based organiza-tions had been refusing to accept theJFM programme." (p. 18).

Arnold (1999) argues that, one of themain reasons perpetuating these trendshas been expropriation of forests bygovernments as forest reserves or someother form of state property. In India,for instance, governments started to laylegal claim over use of much of the for-est estate, and to exercise these newpowers, during the British colonial pe-riod. In the post-independence period,with the abolishment of the princelystates and the expropriation of theirforests, control by the central govern-ment was greatly extended. Many lo-cal people lost their rights of access tothe forests during the process of forestreservation, and those 'rights' that werelegally recognized at that time havetended to be progressively circum-scribed, downgraded from 'rights' to

'privileges', or extinguished by subse-quent legislation and practices. By1980, nearly 23% of India's total landarea was under state management,while the rights of an estimated 300million resource users had become in-creasingly unclear (Poffenberger andSingh, 1996; Lindsay. 1994). Arnold(1999) also points out that over time,pressures from growing populations,together with the effects of economicand political changes, have frequentlygreatly reduced the availability of for-est resources available for use by localpeople. Many of the systems for con-trolling access and use have at the sametime been severely weakened or havedisappeared altogether. Increasingpressures on the resources that remainhave frequently led to their progres-sive degradation.

The issue of communityownership and rightsAlthough Gibson and Becker (2000)are slightly critical about the efficiencyof local communities to conserve theirsurrounding natural resources, never-theless, they summarized three veryimportant requirements unanimouslyput forward by scholars around theworld. Scholars around the world(Bromley et al., 1992; McCay andAcheson 1987; Ostrum 1990;McKean, 2000) advocate for threeprerequisite conditions for effectivelocal community participation in thenatural resource governance. They are:1) locals must value the resource, 2)they must possess some property rightsto the resource, and 3) they must con-struct local-level institutions that con-trol the use of the resources. Most schol-ars heavily bank on the second condi-tion of local communities having prop-erty-rights as a prerequisite for success-ful local level natural resource man-agement (McKean 2000; Demsetz

EMERGING TRENDS


1967; Libecap 1989; North 1990;Ascher 1995). Furthermore, Schlagerand Ostrom (1993) argues that com-munities having property-rights andstake in the resources would allow lo-cal communities to control the benefitsand costs of a resource and thus pro-vides a reason for local communities tomanage the natural resources for thelonger term.

Brogoyary et al., (2005) argues thattenure and access issues have to be mostcritical elements of any forest-centeredstrategy since often these very elementshave been responsible for creating andperpetuating poverty. It is necessary tonotice here that it is imperative to rec-ognize the fact that the lack of recog-nition of local resource user's rights andtenure security ultimately constrainsthe livelihood choices of the resourcedependent poor which in turn have adirect affect on social security, envi-ronmental stability and sustainability.The lack of, or deprivation of, rightsover land and forests leads to impov-erishment, compelling the resource-dependent to resort to unsustainableextraction which, in turn, leads to fur-ther environmental degradation, im-poverishment and conflicts. In India,the issue of creation of a state forestestate is a hotly debated issue. It hasbeen argued that many areas currentlyincluded in the state forest estate arecustomary uncultivated commonlands as well as communal lands underrotational cultivation, which were ap-propriated by the state through notifi-cations. Thus, the process of creationof a state forest estate adversely im-pacted on the livelihoods and resourcerights of its pre-existing, often ancestralusers (Sarin, 2003).

According to Chhatrapati Singh:"The basic reason for rural poverty…is

the privatization of common propertyresources in a non-equitable man-ner.… It is argued that state monopolyover common property does not con-stitute privatization. This would be trueif state ownership made the resourcescommonly available to many people,including of course to those who werealready utilizing the resources. But thisis not how things are. The state mo-nopolizes resources so that it can makethese available to specific private in-dustries. The state, therefore, becomesa medium through which the processof privatization is facilitated" (Singh,1986).

Brogoyary et al., (2005) points out thatthe issue of 'access' or 'rights' over for-ests is a hotly debated issue in India.While on one hand, policymakers baskin the glory of setting in a successfultrend towards a reformist and people-oriented policy regime, with increas-ing devolution of authority; on theother, increasing concern is being raisedby critics over the fact that the forestpolicy regime is gradually moving to-wards becoming more 'centralized' and

'state-centric'. The critics also arguethat the so called 'devolution policies'as propagated by the government areincreasingly 'decreasing space for ex-ercising democratic local control overforest management decisions, affectingadversely livelihoods' (Sarin et al,2003). The fact that 'access to assets' isa critical factor in strengthening poorpeople's livelihoods is also being in-creasingly recognized. (Brogoyary etal., 2005)

Forest Rights Act 2006- thepotential game changerThe Scheduled Tribes and other ForestDwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)Act, 2006, has been implemented inIndia since 2008. This Act provides forthe legal recognition of rights of thetribes and other forest dwellers on for-est land which has been under theircultivation as well as provides statutoryspace for community management offorest resources through communitybased forest rights (CFR). The Sched-uled Tribes and other Forest Dwellers(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,2006, (from hereon FRA 2006), be-

EMERGING TRENDS

A community notice board in a remote village of Kalahandi district, Odisha. It dares the Forest Depart-ment as the villagers have submitted their claim on the forest under FRA which protects their rights.Photo: RCDC


lieves that redistribution of forest ten-ure is indispensable to redress the his-torical dispossession of forest/land own-ership and rights of the people by theState. The transfer of tenure to forest-land and connected resources is the keystrategy to overcome people's exclu-sion from forest management. Supportfor tenure transfer has long originatedfrom grassroots organizations, civil so-ciety organizations, and researchers,whose demands have only recentlybeen heeded by national governments.Nevertheless, the transfer of tenure toforest people has now gained signifi-cant momentum in many parts of theworld, particularly in Eastern Europe,East Asia, Latin America, and most re-cently in India (Sunderlin et al., 2008).

But non-uniformity in implementationof the Act and lack of awareness amongthe local communities has left manycommunity-based forest groups unableto utilize the opportunities provided bythe Act. According to the report (Nov.2010) of the Schedule Caste and Sched-ule Tribes (SC & ST) Development De-partment, of Odisha the number ofcommunity-based forest protectiongroups that received legal communityforest resources (CFR) rights on the for-est patches protected by them was 585,which is just 4.9% of the total estimatednumber (8000 - 12000) of the com-munity-based groups protecting theforests in Odisha. Such poor turn-outof the communities to claim their CFRrights on forest resources they havebeen protecting for ages would under-mine the very objective of the Act!

Revisiting SF, JFM and self-initiated CBFMAfter a review of the SF, JFM and self-initiated CBFM, it is good to revisit thequestion: Is co-management analogousto participatory or community-owned

forest governance? For that matter, isparticipatory and community-basedforest management the same as com-munity-owned forest governance?What differentiates community-owned forest governance from the restof forest management and governancesystems? To figure out the answers forthese questions, we may have to con-sider the following terminology. So,before proceeding to revisit SF, JFMand self-initiated CBFM, it would behelpful to present here the differencebetween the terms 'management' and'governance'.

Although these two terms 'manage-ment' and 'governance', are used in-terchangeably, however, they are notanalogous to each other. Hence, it isargued that addition of these terms tothe word community could make a lotof difference. For instance, applicationof the above argument may indicatethat community-based forest manage-ment (eg: SF, and JFM) and commu-nity-based forest governance (eg:CBFM) are not analogous. Accordingto, Crona, et. al., (2011) managementmeans specific actions that are carriedout to accomplish the goals of any re-source management scheme, such ascarrying out agricultural experimentsor trial fishing to assess stocks. But gov-ernance means the broader system offormal or informal institutions in whichthe management actions are embed-ded and which provide the essentialdirection, resources, and structureneeded to meet the overarching re-source governance goals. Probably thisdifference would provide us a clue whySF and JFM had been such failures andwhy self-initiated CBNRM is sufferingfrom lack of legal recognition. How-ever, the question still remains. Whatdifferentiates community-owned for-est governance from the rest of the for-

est management and governance sys-tems? How to change local communi-ties from mere participants to equalpartners in the decision making pro-cess and how would that affect thesocio-economic and ecological out-comes of participatory programmes?

The one issue that resurfaces in the lit-erature on SF and JFM is the issue ofcommunities' lack of power to maketheir own decisions about the manage-ment of the forest resources and theiremployment/use as a work force towork on the land owned by the forestdepartment for departmental objec-tives. It is important here to ask thequestion, why communities are unableto make their own decisions? Whatcould be the reason for the failure ofcommunities to make their own deci-sions? Although generic, but it is notwrong to assume that local communi-ties lack something very crucial whichcould give them the authority andpower to make their own decisions.May be it the lack of legal ownershipof the forest land that is depriving themof the authority and power to maketheir own decisions? However, furtherdetail research studies are necessary tosubstantiate this assumption.

ConclusionThe failure of ICDPs like JFM and thestruggles faced by the self-initiatedcommunity-based forest managementsystems like CBFM in Odisha, brings usto this conclusion that participatory orcommunity-based forest managementarrangements work better only whenthey are backed by legal ownership ofthe forest land, have the freedom andpower of making decisions on theirown. However, the power and free-dom of making their own decisions di-rectly depends on the status of com-munity legal ownership of forest

EMERGING TRENDS


patches they had been protecting andmanaging for generations. Besides thisit also clear that there is a huge differ-ence between the terms community-based management and community-based governance. It was found that

EMERGING TRENDS

most ICDPs projects like JFM werebased on the community-based man-agement approach but not commu-nity-based governance approach.Hence, there should be a shift fromcommunity-based management to

community-based governance forachieving the goals of local commu-nity participation, uplifting rural liveli-hoods and conservation of our valu-able forest resources.

Kanna K. SiripurapuKanna K. SiripurapuKanna K. SiripurapuKanna K. SiripurapuKanna K. SiripurapuGraduate Student, Department of Geographical Sciences,

University of Maryland, at College park, USAE-mail: [email protected]

References

Agarwal, A., 2007. Forests, Governance, and Sustainability: Common Property Theory and its Contributions. Inter-national Journal of the Commons. Vol 1, no 1 October 2007, pp. 111-136.Alcorn, J. B., 1989. Process as resource. Advances in Economic Botany. 7:63-77Andersson, K. P., Gibson, C.C., and Lehoucq, F., 2006. Municipal politics and forest governance: Comparativeanalysis of decentralization in Bolivia and Guatemala. World Development 34(3): 576-95.

Arnold, J.E.M. and Stewart, W.C. 1991. Common property resource management in India. Tropical ForestryPapers 24, Oxford Forestry Institute, University of Oxford, EnglandArnold, J.E. M., 1999. Trends in community forestry in review. Accessed online: http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0001732-environment-trends-in-community-forestry-in-review.pdf

Ascher, W., 1995. Communities and sustainable forestry in developing countries. San Francisco. ICS Press.Baland, J. M., and Platteau, J. P., 1996. Halting degradation of natural resources: Is there a role of rural communities?Oxford, UK: Food and Agriculture Organization and Clarendon Press.

Balooni K, Lund J F, Kumar C, Inoue M, 2010: Curse or blessing? Local Elites in Joint Forest Management in India'sShiwaliks. International Journal of the Commons. Vol 2. Accessed online on 12/12/2011 at http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/article/view/217/160Baviskar, A., 1998. Tribal Communities and Conservation in India. in (Kothari, A et al) 'Communities and Conserva-tion', Sage Publications India Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi.Berkes, F., 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. PNAS, 15188-15193, vol. 104, no. 39.

Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology. Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor and Francis,Philadelphia and London, UK.

Editorial comment

Some of the observations made/quoted in this article would assume greater relevance with their corresponding updates.For instance, while the Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 recognized for the first time a clear stake of thecommunities in wildlife management through the creation of two new Protected Area tenures (Community Reserve andConservation Reserve), the Government of Odisha revised its JFM resolution in 2011 in the light of PESA Act and ForestRights Act; and the Forest Rights (Amendment) Rules, 2012 has created new scope for recognizing community forestry. Infact, a number of CFR titles has been granted recently though the overall progress in that respect is still not very encour-aging. The Government of India has also put in public domain the draft protocols for voluntary relocation in criticalwildlife habitats, that tried to incorporate the forest rights. All said and done however, the basic problem still remains; i.e.the Forest Department is still not comfortable in transferring the power to the communities. A good example of this is thatthe Department did not show interest to promptly reconstitute the old VSS committees as per the revised JFM resolution.The trend is definitely from management to governance, but the practice is lagging behind.


Blaikie, P. 2006. Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana.World Development 34(11):1942-1957.

Blockhus, J. M., Dilenback, M., Sayer, J. A., and Wegee, P., 1992. Conserving biological diversity in managedtropical forests. Gland, Switz. International Union for the conservation of nature.

Borgoyary, M., Saigal, S., and Peters, N., (2005). Participatory Forest Management implementation in India: Areview of policies and implementation. Springate-Baginski, O., (eds) Winrock International India.

Borgoyary, M., 2006. Understanding the Role of Networks as Connecters in Bridging the Research Policy Gap inParticipatory Forest Policy Development in India. (In) JBIC Institute, Discussion paper, no.12.

Brechin, S., Wilshusen, P., Fortwangler, C. and West, P., 2002. Beyond the square wheel: toward a more compre-hensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as a social and political process. Society and Natural Resources15: 41-64

Brockington, D., Duffy, D., and Igoe, J., 2008. Nature Unbound.Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Pro-tected Areas.London, UK: Earthscan.

Brockington, D. & Igoe, J. (2006) Eviction for conservation. Conservation and Society 4: 424-70.

Bromley, D., Feeny, D, McKean, M., Peters, P., Giles, J., Oakerson, R., Runge, C. F., and Thomson, J., eds. 1992.Making the commons work. Theory, practice, and policy. San Francisco. ICS Press.

Brooks, J.S., M.A. Franzen, C.M. Holmes, M.N. Grote, and M. Borgerhoff Mulder. 2006. Testing hypotheses for thesuccess of different conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 20(5): 1528-38.

Brown, K., 2002. Geogr J. 168:6-17.

Campbell, B., Mandodo, A., Nemarundwe, N., Sithole, B., Dejong, W., Luckert, M., and Matose. F., 2001. Chal-lenges to proponents of common property resource systems: Despairing voices from the social forests of Zimbabwe.World Development 29(4):589-600.

Campanale, M. 2009. Exploring characteristics of existing forestry investment vehicles. In: Forum for the Future(ed.) Forest investment review. Accessed online at: www.forumforthefuture.org/sites/default/files/project/down-loads/forestinvestmentreviewfull.pdf

Colding, J., 1998. Analysis of hunting options by the use of general food taboos. Ecological Modeling. 110:5-17.

Crona, B., Ernstson, H., Prell, C., Reed, M., and Hubacek, K., 2011. Combining social network approaches withsocial theories to improve understanding of natural resource governance. In Social Networks and Natural ResourceManagement: Uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance, ed. Bodin, O., and Prell, C., CambridgeUniversity Press. Pp. 44-71.

Cronon, W., 1995. The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the wrong nature. In: Uncommon Ground:Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, ed. W. Cronon, pp. 69-90. New York, NY, USA: W. W. Norton & Co.

Datta, S. K., and Sarkar, K., 2010. Status of Joint Forest Management in India: Socio-economic determinants offorest participation in a dynamic optimization setting. International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF, 2010, 3(2):81-100.

Demsetz, H., 1967. Toward a theory of property rights. American Economic Review 57 (May): 347-59

Dowie, M., 2009. Conservation Refugees. The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and NativePeoples. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

Dressler, W., BU¨ Scher, B., Schoon, M., Brockington, D., Hayes, T., Kull, C. A., McCarthy, J., and Shrestha, K..,2010. From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. EnvironmentalConservation 37 (1): 5-15

D'Silva, Emmanuel and B. Nagnath (2002): 'Behroonguda: 'A rare success story in Joint Forest Management',February 9, EPW.

Elson, D., 2012. A guide to investing in locally controlled forestry. Growing Forest Partnerships in association withFAO, IIED, IUCN, PROFOR and The Forest Dialogue, London, UK.

EMERGING TRENDS


Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., and Folke, C., 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio. 22: 151-56.

Gibson, C. C., and Becker, C. D., 2000. A lack of institutional demand: Why a strong local community in westernEcuador fails to protect its forest. In: Gibson, C. C., McKean, M. A., and Ostrom, E., (eds) People and Forests:Communities, Institutions, and Governance. MIT Press. Pp. 135-161.

Gopal, K. S., and Upadhyay, S., 2001. 'A Report on - Livelihoods and Forest Management In Andhra Pradesh',September, Prepared for the Natural Resources Management Programme, Andhra Pradesh.

Gopalakrishnan S, 2005. Collective action in the management of commonpool resources: Is there an alternative tothe Rational Choice Model? A Plan B Paper Submitted to the Department of Agricultural Economics, MichiganState University.

Government of Odisha 2012. Government of Odisha Official Portal. Online at: http://www.odisha.gov.in/portal/ViewDetails.asp?vchglinkid=GL012&vchplinkid=PL049

Gurr, T. R., 1970. Why Men Rebel, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

Hecht, S., and Cockburn, A., 1990. The fate of the forest. Developers, destroyers and defenders of the Amazon. NewYork. Harper.

Igoe, J., 2005. Global indigenism and Spaceship Earth. Globalization 2(3): 377-390.

IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development), 2013. Ringing the changes with a new approachto forest investment. Briefing Quality Investment, Accessed online at: http://pubs.iied.org/17144IIED

International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). 2005. Status of Tropical Forest Management. ITTO TechnicalSeries N. 24, Yokohama, Japan: ITTO

Japan bank for international cooperation (JBIC), 2006. Understanding the Role of Networks as Connecters inBridging the Research Policy Gap in Participatory Forest Policy Development in India. JBIC Institute, Discussionpaper, no.12.

Jeffery, R. and N. Sundar (eds.). 1999. A New Moral Economy for India's Forests? New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Jodha, N S., 2000. 'Joint Forest Management of Forests: Small Gains', Economic and Political Weekly, December 9,Pp.4396-4399.

Johannes, R. E., 1998. The case for data-less marine resource management: examples from tropical near shorefisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 13:243-46

Kant, P., Singh, P. P., Shahabuddin, G., and Jasrotia, R. S., (undated). India: Bringing a third of the land under forestcover. Accessed online on 11/15/2011 at www.iufro.org/download/file/7400/5122/India_pdf/

Khare, A., 1998: Community based conservation in India. In: Kothari A. et al. (eds.) Communities and Conservation.Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia. Sage Publications. New Delhi. ISBN: 81-7036-739-5.

Knox, A. and Meinzen-Dick, R., 2001. Collective Action, Property Rights and Devolution of Natural ResourceManagement, CAPRi Working Paper, No. 11.

Kshitija, N., 2006. Forestry situation in Eastern Ghats of Andhra Pradesh. EPTRI - ENVIS Newsletter. Vol. 12, No.1,2006. http://envis-eptri.ap.nic.in/images/Vol.12,No.1,2006.pdf

Lemos, M.C. and A. Agrawal. 2006. Environmental governance. Annual Reviewof Environment and Resources 31:297-325.

Libecap, G. D., 1989. Contracting for property rights. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lindsay, J.M., 1994. Law and community in the management of India's state forests. Working Papers. Cambridge,Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Macqueen, D.J. 2011. Investing inLocally Controlled Forestry. Growing forest partnerships briefing. IIED, London,UK. Accessed online at: www.growingforestpartnerships.org/sites/growingforestpartnerships.org/files/gfp_GFP_locallycontrolledforestry.pdf

Marks, S., 1984. The imperial lion. Human dimensions of wildlife management in central Africa. Boulder, CO.Westview Press.

EMERGING TRENDS


Mayers J. 2006. Poverty reduction through commercial forestry - What evidence? What prospects? The ForestDialogue, New Haven, USA. Accessed online at: http://pubs.iied.org/G02227

McCay, B. J., and Acheson, M., 1987. The question of the commons. The culture and ecology of communalresources. Tucson. University of Arizona Press.

McKean, M. A., 2000. Common Property: What is it, what is it good for, and what makes it work? In: Gibson, C. C.,McKean, M. A., and Ostrom, E., (eds) People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance. MIT Press.Pp. 27-55.

Murali, K.S., Rao R. J, and Ravindranath N.H., 2003. Tropical Ecology. 44(1): 73-84.

Murali, K.S., Sharma, M., Rao, R.J., Murthy, I.K., and Ravindranath, N.H., 2000. Status of participatory forestmanagement in India: an analysis. In: N. H. Ravindranath, K. S. Murali & K.C. Malhotra (eds.) Joint Forest Manage-ment and Community Forestry in India: An Ecological and Institutional Assessment. Oxford & IBH Co., New Delhi.pp 25-58.

Naik, G., 1997. "Joint Forest Management, Factors Influencing Household Participation,." Economic and PoliticalWeekly, Nov 29.

Nash, R., 1967. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.

Neumann, R., 1998. Imposing Wilderness. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.

Neumann, R., 2002. The postwar conservation boom in British Colonial Africa. Environmental History 7(1): 22-47.

North, D. C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: University Press.

Nygren, A. 2005. Community-based forest management within the context of institutional decentralization inHonduras. World Development 33(4): 639-55.

Ostrum, E., 1990. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York. Cam-bridge University Press.

Pattanaik, M. 2002: Community Forest Management in Orissa. RCDC, Community Forestry / Volume1 / Issue 1&2/ January 2002.

Paul, S., 1989. "Poverty Alleviation and Participation. The Case of Government- Grassroots Agency Collaboration."Economic and Political Weekly, January 14, pp 100-106.

Poffenberger, M., 1990. Keepers of the forest. Land management alternatives in southeast Asia. West Hartford, CT.Kumarian Press.

Poffenberger, M., and McGean B., eds. (1996). Village Voices, Forest Choices: Joint Forest Management in India.Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Poffenberger, M. 1995: India's Forest Keepers. Wasteland News XI (1) Aug - Oct. New Delhi.

Poffenberger, M., and Singh., 1996. Grassroots forest protection: eastern Indian experiences. Research NetworkReport No. 7. Asia Forest Network.

Reddy R. V., Reddy M. G, Saravanan, V, Bandhii M., and Baginski, O. S., 2004. Center for Economic and SocialStudies, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016.

Ravinder, D., 2003. Forest and Grazing Policies in Andhra Pradesh - Contestations from Civil Society, UnpublishedSeminar Paper, CESS, Hyderabad.

Ravindranath N H, and Sudha P. (Eds) (2004): Joint Forest Management in India: Spread, Performance and impact.Universities Press (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad.

Reddy G. M., and Bandhii M., (undated) Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation - A Case of AndhraPradesh Forestry Project (JFM).

Ribot, J. C., A. Agrawal, and A. M. Larson. 2006. Recentralizing while decentralizing: How national governmentsreappropriate forest resources. World Development 34(11):1864-1886.

Ryan, J., and Robinson, M., 1990. Implementing participatory action research in the Canadian north: a case study ofthe Gwich'n in language and cultural project. Culture 10: 57-71.

EMERGING TRENDS


Sarap, K. and Sarangi, T.K., 2009: Malfunctioning of Forest Institutions in Orissa. Economic & Political Weekly,september 12, 2009 vol xliv no 37.

Sarin, M. 2003. Bad in law. Down to Earth. July 15, 2003.

Sarin, M., Singh, N.M., Sundar, N. and R.K. Bhogal. 2003. Devolution as a threat to democratic decision making inforestry? Findings from three states in India. In: Edmunds, D. and E. Wollenberg (eds.) Local Forest Management:The Impacts of Devolution Policies. London, Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Sarin, M., 1994: Regenerating India's Forests: Reconciling Gender Equity with JFM. Paper presented at the Interna-tional Workshop on India's Forest Management and Ecological Revival organized by the University of Florida andTERI, New Delhi 10-12 February.

Sarin, M., 1995: Joint Forest Management in India: Achievements and Unaddressed Challenges. Unasylva 46: 30-36.

Sarin, M., 1996: Joint Forest Management: The Haryana Experience. Environment and Development Series, Centrefor Environment and Education, Ahmedabad.

Schlager, E., and Ostrom, E., 1993. Property rights regimes and coastal fisheries: An empirical analysis. In Thepolitical economy of customs and culture: Informal solutions to the commons problem, ed. Terry, A. L., andSimmons, R. T., 13-41. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Schweik, C. M., 2011. Optimal foraging, institutions, and forest change: A case from Nepal. In: Gibson, C. C.,McKean, M. A., and Ostrom, E., (eds) People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance. MIT Press.Pp. 99-134.

Schmink, M., Redford K. H., and Padoch, C., 1992. Traditional peoples and the biosphere: framing the issues anddefining the terms. Pages 3-13 in Redford, K. H., and Padoch, C., ed. Conservation of neotropical forests: workingfrom traditional resource use. Columbia University Press. New York. USA

Simpson, L., 2001. Aboriginal peoples and knowledge: decolonizing our processes. TheCanadian Journal of NativeStudies 21: 137-148.

Singh, C. 1986. Common Property and Common Poverty: India's Forests, Forest Dwellers and the Law. Delhi:Oxford University Press.

Stevens, S., 1997. Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. Washington,DC, USA: Island Press.

Sunderlin, W.D., Hatcher, J., Liddle, M. 2008. From exclusion to ownership? Challenges and opportunities in ad-vancing forest tenure reform, rights and resources initiative, Washington, DC.

The Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (SCST) Development Department, 2010. Report of the Schedule Caste andSchedule Tribes Development Department, Government of Odisha, Nov' 2010, on the status of implementation ofForest Rights Act, 2006 in Odisha.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO). 1990. The community's toolbox. The idea, methodsand tools for participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation in community forestry. Rome. FAO.

Vasundhara, 1996: Community Forest Management in Transition: Role of the Forest Department and Need forOrganizational Change. Mimeo. Bhubaneswar.

Vemuri, A., 2008. Joint Forest Management in India: An Unavoidable and Conflicting Common Property Regimein Natural Resource Management. Journal of Development and Social Transformation. Vol 5, Nov.

Wade, R., 1988. Village Republics: Economic Conditions for Collective Action in South India. Cambridge UniversityPress.

White, A. and A. Martin. 2002. Who Owns the World's Forests? Forest Tenure and Public Forests in Transition.Washington DC: Forest Trends and Center for International Environmental Law.

Wittman, H., and C. Geisler. 2005. Negotiating locality: Decentralization and communal forest management in theGuatemalan highlands. Human Organization 64(1): 62-74.

EMERGING TRENDS


NEWS & EVENTS

A REQUEST TO OUR ESTEEMED READERS & CONTRIBUTORSCommunity Forestry is an in-house quarterly journal of RCDC primarily focusing on various dimensions of community-basedforest management but broadly looking into the aspects of community-based ecosystem management. Although it awaits severalexternal measures to validate itself as a journal useful for all relevant stakeholders (particularly the academicians although we don’tintend to make it an academic journal and prefer rather to follow a standardization that matches with the attitude of social activism),the uniqueness and distinction attributed to this periodical has remained intact over the years since it was first published in January2002. In the recent past we have made an attempt to make its message more systematic and streamlined through the followingcolumns:1. Cover story: This can cover some pertinent issue that did not receive much attention.2. Current issue: This is about something that has been highlighted recently.3. Law & policy: This makes an analysis of some legal or policy matter.4. Role models: This is a case study of communities successful in forest/biodiversity/ecosystem management5. Conservation: This attempts to touch upon one or more dimensions of conservation practices chiefly by the communities,

implying the contribution in conservation. This a more critical study than the case study under 'Role models'.6. Eco-commerce: This discusses some dimensions of commerce related to one or more ecosystem elements like NTFP.7. Livelihood: This is about the NRM-based (with forest and biodiversity in focus) livelihood of communities: how that works,

threats thereto, issues, etc.8. Emerging trends: This is about new trends noticed in community-based NRM.

9. News & events: This is about the media coverage or proceedings of some relevant event, related to communities andNRM.

We therefore invite original articles suitable for these columns, with full details of the author(s), designation, organization address,e-mail, etc.. References, wherever applicable, need to follow the following standard sequence:

For books : Author (year of publication). Name of the book (bold). Name of the publisher. Place of publication. [Example : Bag,Hemant et al (2011). NTFP Policy Regime after FRA: A Study in Select States of India. RCDC, Bhubaneswar]For articles: Author(year of publication). Name of the article (bold). In Author/Editor (year of publication).Name of the book/compilation/report in which it was published. Volume No., page No.. Name of the publisher, place of publication.For internet citations: Author(year of publication). Name of the article (bold). Internet source (address). Date of access.

Please send your photographs/pictures/maps, etc. in jpg format. In case that is not possible please contact us with details of theproblem. Your constructive feedback is very much welcome.

Protection of Forest Rights versus Conservation of Wildlife

Regional Centre for Development Cooperation

www.rcdcindia.org

Community - RCDC India · Nilambar Patra by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest(PCCF) of...

Documents

Transcript of Community - RCDC India · Nilambar Patra by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest(PCCF) of...