Campaign to save forests

The only way to stop degradation of forests is to involve local people in its protection and regeneration. On the eve of World Environment Day (June 5), M.S.S. VARADAN looks at decentralisation efforts in the forestry sector.

DECENTRALISATION, community participation, support of non- governmental organisations and sustainable rural livelihoods are the key words in development discourse today. The forestry sector in India has not been left untouched. Decentralised community forest management or Joint Forest Management (JFM) is the current paradigm in forestry in India. In view of this, how have forestry institutions (both community-based organisations and State forest departments) geared up to meet the challenge?

Expanding human and livestock populations in India and large- scale poverty exert unrelenting pressure on forests. The severe degradation of forest resources led the government to increase tree cover through a series of programmes: industrial forestry, social forestry and, most recently, JFM.

About 90 per cent of India's 64 million hectare forests is State owned; the rest is community and private forests. This was not always the case. Until the end of the 19th Century, at least 80 per cent of India's natural resources were common property. The forest area under State control has increased progressively since British rule.

Now, with its support for JFM, India is returning to the idea of community management of forests, though the State retains ownership. Thus, Indian forest management has now entered a state of transition, moving from "conventional State controlled forest management" to "decentralised community forest management".

This is a complex, challenging and long-term task that involves developing partnerships between communities and forest departments, facilitated by NGOs when helpful; giving access and benefits only to organised communities undertaking regeneration, with equal opportunity based on willing participation; rights to usufruct all non-wood forest products and a percentage share of final tree harvest to communities, subject to successful protection and conditions approved by the State; a 10-year working scheme and microplans detailing forest management institutional and technical operations should be developed by community management organisations with local foresters; funding from forest default social forestry programme for nursery- raising, with encouragement to communities to seek additional funds from other agencies; strict adherence to rules like no grazing, nor cultivation or cutting trees before maturity, except as outlined.

Like many political and social movements, this concern for forest loss has emerged out of a two-fold crisis. First, that of eroding resources and its larger socio-ecological implications. The second is that of confidence, and the ever-widening gap between the professional forester and the people.

It is now widely recognised that participatory approaches contribute significantly to managing and conserving natural resources; fostering sustainable rural livelihoods and thereby helping alleviate poverty; achieving good governance by promoting transparency, accountability and the representation of a diversity of interests; and sustainable rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation.

There is an intricate relationship between sustainable forest management and poverty alleviation. Income can be generated for the poor only if there is good value addition through intelligent development and use of resources.

Many government officials, researchers, policy makers and implementors now realise that without local Village Forest Institutions (VFIs) there will be inadequate control on forest smuggling, illicit felling, encroachment, forest fire ... Environmentalists also point out that the remaining forests can be brought under forest cover only if the people are actively involved. With large scale urbanisation, the greening of urban towns is another area calling for efforts involving people. Local institutions like the Rotary Club and Lions Club should be more actively involved in this effort. Aspects like landscaping buildings and eco-parks have to become a way of life.

Joint Forest Planning and Management (JFPM) is a comprehensive scheme for the conservation and sustainable management of forests, in which the Forest Department and local village communities are partners. A joint forest management plan is worked out to implement various protection, utilisation and development programmes. Degraded forests, government lands and village commons are placed under the care of the VFC for the implementation of JFPM activities. The Village Forest Committee is the basic unit of all planning and management.

Each forest committee is an elected, self-governing and financially viable village body, which plans and implements projects that meet the local community's forest-based needs (fodder, grasses, leaves, fuelwood and minor forest produce) in an ecologically sustainable manner.

Joint Forest Management was born at Arabari (Midnapur District) in West Bengal. Since then has evolved considerably, and several States, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh in particular, have come a long way in involving communities in forest protection and management. To date, 22 States have issued enabling resolutions to permit partnerships with the local people.

Participation has been a central theme of the Government of India's forest management strategy. The basic strategy has been to reorient the State forest department to provide for greater community participation in the protection and management of forest resources. One of the prerequisites for successful participation is attitudinal change in forest department from one of "command and control" to that of "recognising communities as equal partners". Strong commitment on the part of forest department staff is thus required.

There is a growing awareness that institutional change is a necessary component of forestry projects being implemented in various States. There is a crying need to assess the cause for the failure of forestry institutions and attempt to change them for the better. Also an aspect that calls for concurrent attention is weeding out corruption in the sector.

The noted International Forest Expert, Ian Hill has recently made a study of corruption in the forestry sector in India. He classifies the types of corruption at three levels. (1) Political levies, wherein payments to politicians are made in return for postings; (2) within the forest department, wherein payments of transfers are made and misuse of programme funds; (3) from public to forest department officials, through payments for preferential contracts, permits, illegal felling and use of forest products, avoiding prosecution an din labour recruitment. He argues that opportunities for corruption can be reduced with improved decentralised planning involving beneficiaries. The fact that communities rather than individuals are involved in management and benefit sharing and the procedures to ensure all households benefit, tend to minimise corrupt practices. These factors, linked to measures to ensure all households benefit, tend to minimise corrupt practices. These steps, linked to measures to ensure that information is readily available to all community members and the involvement of NGOs, serve to increase transparency and empower communities, and introduce a system of checks and balances on the use or misuse of funds.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : A learning worker
Next     : When germ becomes supreme