JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT - ALL IS NOT WELL - A CRITIQUE

Compared to the earlier policy of absolute State control, JFM as a strategy of forest management was a revelation. It viewed people in terms of having a role in protecting forests. This itself was a marked departure from earlier policy. However, it would be myopic to end one's analysis here with respect to the policy of JFM, especially when one visualizes a broader democratic agenda - an agenda that promises democratization in decision making and control of local populace over the natural resources.

It is precisely in this framework that JFM has to be questioned. Is it really 'joint' in terms of planning and management ? Is there a problem of implementation of this "decentralized" set up ? Have the inequities inherent in local communities been considered in the context of JFM ? Are gender related issues a concern in this strategy of management? Is the scope of JFM wide enough to address all types of forests? These related questions from the basis of the critique of JFM as existing . The critique is divided into three categories:

A.   CRITIQUE OF POLICY
B.   CRITIQUE OF SCOPE

C.   CRITIQUE OF WORKING

While undertaking a critique, it is well recognized that this model of management is the right step in the right direction. Whether it is sufficient and truly participatory is the next query.

A. POLICY CRITIQUE

Decision-making to be really democratic, the local communities have to involve in the "planning' process itself, instead of being merely ' implementing' agencies. Though the JFM circular envisages local participation and approval of plans, it is the forest department that is really creating it. It finally has the power to override the will of the local communities, if the plan is not approved. This rises the question of the joint nature of planning and management

Further, the Management Committees formed as a result of the scheme have no power of formulating the policy - they act as merely implementing bodies.

As far as the share is concerned, of the forest produce, the local community gels a smaller share composed to the State, though the state only undertakes supervision of the working of the scheme. A "joint" effort with people - centred policy would not envisage such a lopsided sharing of benefits.

These issues raise questions on the key genuineness of the intention behind the policy - a policy that is hailed as a positive step towards involving people in forest management Whether it really involves people in decision-making is debatable and the reasons for the doubt are expressed. A truly democratic structure and people's approach goes for beyond allowing people to subsist demands handing over the authority 10 decide to the very people that are affected by the decision.

B.  CRITIQUE OF SCOPE

It is amply clear that JFM as envisaged by the policy circular applies only to degraded forestlands.[1] In areas where there are no degraded forests, good forests are not given due to pressures from the contractor lobby.[2] The genuineness of the project in involving people in the planning and management of the forests therefore becomes questionable.

Good reserve Forests arc out of the purview of JFM. Local populations living in the fringes depend heavily on minor forest produce for their subsistence. The restriction of JFM to degraded forestlands. in a way. epitomizes the hollow-ness of the whole approach. Perhaps people - centered policies are yet to take shape as desired.

Another area wherein JFM is inapplicable is the "Protected Areas" - the hub of what little is left of the country's natural habitats and wildlife.[3] They are also home to some of India's most traditional commodities. Finally, they are also the repositories of some of the country's most valuable forest products, minerals, and other resources, which are rapidly expanding, industrial-urban economy needs.

The state continues to exercise absolute control over these areas - the JFM scheme is never envisaged.

C.  CRITIQUE OF WORKING

Over the years the implementation of the JFM scheme has faced a number of difficulties. The need to highlight these defects is net to shun the management strategy outright. Doing so would be hardly the solution. The only reason is to take steps to minimize the distortionary influence certain factors have had.

It has to be fundamentally recognized that JFM doesn't operate in a vacuum. It is influenced by local socio-economic, political, cultural and ecological variables in the areas concerned. [4]Some of these variables are generally applicable to all JFM schemes, while some arise in the particularised socio-cultural contexts. These forces are not reckoned with them a 'blueprint' for participatory management of natural resources remains naive and becomes unsustainable in the long run. The cross-currents of such variables can make or more community participation and it is important to recognize the major force so as to take steps to integrate them into JFM.

The major shortcomings in the working of the JFM in different parts of the country can be summarized below:

1.   INEQUITIES WITHIN LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Providing collective rights without ensuring equitable access is a dangerous proposition.'' [5]Class/ caste issues are hardly addressed by the Forest Department and Village Forest Committees.[6]

The hegemony of the dominant castes and /or classes over access will only lead to a greater disparity resulting in marginalization of the resource-poor, especially in a market economy

The notion of "community" which may ideally be viewed as the cornerstone of sustainability and efficiency can be far from democratic or equitable. [7] The all-male. predominantly upper-caste constitution of the committee makes it unrepresentative of the needs of the village as a whole. Considering that villages arc not purely homogeneous communities but have glaring caste and class differences within themselves, intra - village conflicts are somewhat inevitable.[8] In certain cases, it threatened the breakdown of protection system, because of the perception of unequal and favourable distribution of benefits to certain castes. In another case. the Forest Department did not attempt to solicit opinions of people of different communities whose needs substantially vary.

In places where forests are being protected by groups not representing all the sections, open dissensions or repressed resentments are found to be present. due to perception of inequitable distribution of forest produce.

2.  PARAMETERS OF "COMMUNITY" IDEALISED

The role of the local "community" in JFM has been emphasized as being the central point in the entire scheme.

Super-imposition of tins unit, being one of survival, over management of forests is problematic. Forest management, inter alia. will mean two things: one, investment of funds for the regeneration of degraded forests and two, handling of marketable surplus. A "community" is inherently incapable of handling these two tasks, due to inter-linkages with class and caste.

Further, there has been an idealisation and idealisation of the "community" in the discourse on collective action. This tends to confuse the concept with real situation of these committees. Modernisation, accompanied by ever increasing market penetration, followed logically by ecological degradation, has wrought havoc on precisely those aspects of these communities, which are oriented towards sustainable utilisation, and collective management of resources.

Whether these "communities'' will reconcile the dichotomy between ecological destruction and sustainable livelihoods, operating in the same market system on decidedly adverse terms at the local, national and global level is a controversial question.

3.  GENDER BIAS IN VILLAGE PROTECTION COMMITTEES.

A study[9] of joint Forest Management programme of some States reveals the lack of women's participation in the JFM process itself. Women are hardly consulted, with the dominant male member of the family representing the family in the programme Women's needs of forest resources are not taken into consideration oilier by the Forest Department or the men. In the majority of villages the opinions of women are not only unsolicited when making JFM - related decisions, but even after the decisions are made the women are not properly informed about these decisions. What is amazing is that in several places women are not only unaware of the decisions but also of the very existence of the Village Committees.

4.   CONTROL OF FOREST DEPARTMENT

Even though the JFM was envisaged as a Joint' effort between partners. the overriding control of the department over the community looms large in the working of the system. The traditional hierarchy between the Forest Department and the people does not seem to have diminished[10]. Rarely do the villages feel motivated or capable enough to hold meetings on their own. The agenda for the meetings also have to be decided by the Department staff. The committees were still under the control of the Forest Department, and its decision-making power was found to be minimal. In some cases[11] the meetings between the committees and forest department have become mere rituals.

5.  LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

In certain cases, since the decisions taken were divided of peoples participation, JFM did not address the basic biomass needs of the people. The plantation raised tended to be of commercially valuable species. Committees were not allowed to take autonomous, responsible decisions for themselves. Further, the villages were never told about the financial expenditure in raising plantations.

The bureaucratic hangover still persists, evoking mutual distrust and lack of transparency- botli financial and programmatic. Sometimes, divergent interests between the department and people led to the alienation of the community from the JFM scheme itself[12]

6.  PRE-JFM PATTERNS DISTURBED

This viewpoint is rather surprising since JFM is seen as a shift from the earlier policy of state, centralized control to a more decentralized set up. However, in certain cases, the adoption of JFM in attempting to replace earlier mechanisms of community control (Van panchayats in U.P). resulted in resentment of the local people. In some cases, it was a result of the conflict of interests between the revenue and forest department.[13] Villages who had evolved parallel systems are reluctant to adhere to the JFM scheme as they view it more as a scheme to "sell' the forests rather than" use' it.[14]

7.  ROLE OF NGO'S IGNORED

Through the JFM scheme envisions a role for NGO's, practice hasn't quite indicated it since the Forest Department is slow to recognize its role.[15] The relationship between most NGO's and the Karnataka Forest Department is either non-existent or one of mutual suspicion.

8.   JFM AND AID

Certain JFM schemes are running on foreign aid. It is no longer a secret that the grants made available by the UK controlled overseas Development Agency to a large extent was responsible for initiation of JFM in certain areas. When die demand for launching of the scheme was made in certain other places, it is reported that the concerned forest officials showed little enthusiasm. This raises the question of sustainability of the JFM process when ODA finally withdraws its support. It also raises doubt about the decentralization process itself.

 9.  MARKET AS EXTENAL PRESSURE

As timber and fuel wood become more and more scarce, their market price increase. This has two effects. Firstly, the increasing temptation to sell the timber and fuel Need and Relevance of Environmental Law Education in Orissa wood within the village introduces instability to the grass roots organisations. Secondly, due to the increase in the value of these resources, external threats from timber smugglers increase.

10. INTER-COMMUNITY CONFLICTS

The very notion of community-based protection of forest implies that the community establishes its control over the forest and refrains others from using it. This often results in social conflicts and tension. Such situations lead to easy inter-village conflicts and raise the issue of equity access.

11. INFLEXIBILITY OF RULES

JFM has its basis in the Memorandum of understanding intended in to between the community and forest department. The rigid adherence to the rules enshrined there under can come inconvenience in certain situations. In a certain case[16], inflexible rules came in the way of jointly managed natural resources whose timber harvest could have been immediately marketed with profit to the community and the department. However, the rule prohibited it resulting in illegal cutting.

The above reasons indicate the lapses on the part of policy-makers as well as policy-implementers. This in no way diminishes the significance of JFM. JFM is a clear recognition of peoples role in forest management. It seeks to restore the lost link between people and environment, with out side linking the legitimate role of the state. Deficiencies do exist and its acknowledgement ought to facilitate further devolution rather than authoritarian state control. This brings us to the issue of JFM as a model conservation strategy. In what form would JFM be a model? How different does this model have to be from the original JFM scheme ?

JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT AS A MODEL CONSERVATION STRATEGY- A POSSIBLE SOLUTION :

The critique brought out earlier attempts to address the lapses in the policy frame work as well as implementation, which requires to be redressed if local community participation in forest management is to become a reality. The National forest policy, 1988 was a welcome change in terms of a shift from the exclusionary, centralized state control to local participation. But if the general frame work of legislation was geared to balancing interests rather than distributing responsibilities in a democratic and just way, the claim of the policy had to be diluted and washed down and digested with a great deal of cynical acid. Nevertheless, the state acknowledged that involvement of local communities was a sine qua non for saving die forests from further disaster.

It can not be denied for a moment that decision-making has to be democratized and people ought to have control over the management of natural resources.

However, what is debatable is the extent and method of this decentralization, and the role of the state in this paradigm. By peoples management, total community control with out checks is not advocated. The very- idea of 'Joint' management signifies collaboration. Those who tread the path of joint or participatory management are likely to face the scorn of advocates of either total state control or total community control. What the nature of state intervention would be in a participatory model needs to be explored. Joint forest management as emissioned is to be viewed in this  context.

The important challenge is to visualize a people oriented system of institutions for managing the country's natural resources. This community approach must be a 'joint' effort with the slate/ 'Joint' Management must truly envisage a collaborative effort where people with be independent to decide without pressure from the Forest Department. Planning and actual management ought not to be the exclusive preserve of die state. Clear rights and duties of the actors involved must be laid down. and recognition of people's participation must translate into concrete policy prescriptions.

Success in Joint' management depends upon factors internal and external to the institution governing the resource. On the one hand. the institution must be able to exclude external (unregulated) influences on the resource, to regulate internal free riding, and must be transparent, accountable, participator,', and fair. The state's role needs to be that of a facilitator- a catalyst for people's participation. It ought to provide technical and financial assistance without imposing its authority over the institution. It can act as the ultimate check if the "local community" is acting in an iniquitous manner or against larger public interest. The respective roles of the state and local community can be seen in terms of the right to harvest, rights to exclude others from such use, rights to sell or transfer the resource, and rights to change the fundamental nature of the resource.[17] These 'strands' of property rights are to be allocated amongst the individual, community and state

Tine present JFM scheme restricts its applicability to degraded forests. This is a serious hindrance to people's control over the country's resources. There is no reason why Revenue Forests and Protected Areas ought not to come into the scheme. Rather, their absence casts a doubt on the genuineness on the JFM effort itself. The extension of the JFM to protected areas can be envisaged with the following basic tenets.[18] The rights of both wildlife and local traditional communities are to be upheld, they not being antithetical to each other; urgent need to unite all forces interested in conservation to combat external market pressures. The local communities would need to recognize their potential sense of control and the respective sharing of ownership, powers, rights- responsibilities, and functions of each partner in a joint management system requires to be emphasized. This system will have to enhance the stake of local communities in the PAs (Protected Areas), chief ways being to guarantee rights to sustainable extraction of biomass, a share in the decision- making about revenue from tourism returns for the use of traditional knowledge on the basis of community intellectual rights etc. The present eco-development  schemes have no scope for people’s participation in management[19]  The JFM scheme applied to Protected Areas carries a covet: that protected Areas are essentially conservation units while other forests are extraction units.

Apart from truly expanding the scope of JFM to cover all kinds of forests. certain issues inherent to the working of JFM must be addressed and tackled.

In equity within the community must be categorically addressed to avoid concentration of benefits of the scheme to certain groups. Class/caste issues should be taken up by the forest Department and NGO's. Various resolutions and mechanisms must be employed to tackle intra-community conflict. Coalition of different factions can be attempted. Elective communication, dialoging and sensitizing of both forest department and people are important. A great emphasis to participation in execution is essential.[20] If it is coupled with a system of distribution of benefits in proportion to such participation, this could promote equity, since the better off could not simply contribute monetarily and get the benefits.

More generally, the issue of inequity within local communities must not stall the process of decentralization, by being a pro-condition for it.' but must accompany the process of democratization is redistribution with democratization.

Another aspect of the JFM debacle is that of gender-insensitivity. Institutions do not run in a vacuum-hence prejudices subsist- Given the socio- cultural situation of women and the danger of their marginalization in JFM. the Forest Department and NGO's should actively encourage women to participate. The forests themselves must be given training sessions on the need for involving women in JFM and how they should go about it. During the micro-planning process whenever possible. groups comprising only women could be formed. Also, separate meetings of the women should be held periodically to address their issues and priorities. Apart from social structures and attitudes of people being a hindrance to the participation of women, basic policy changes are required if women are to participate more meaningfully in the JFM process.

The hierarchy and command of the Forest Department must be reversed if the success of this 'joint' effort is to be realized. Mutual distrust and animosity must give way to understanding and co-operation. Mutual rights and obligations of all actors must be clearly laid down. Transparency of all decisions and steps at all stages must be ensured. Foreign funding must not determine the operational zing the scheme. The village committees must be given the autonomy to arrive at localized decisions. Survival needs of the people must be addressed to evoke interest for participation. The state should act more as a facilitator than the planner, making participatory management a reality. It ought to show genuine interest and concern, to boost the morale of the community.

It is clear that for the restoration of ecology and sustainability of the forest resources, involvement of the adjacent beneficiary communities in prime and inevitable. The limit of decentralization is to be decided by the state. However, this in no way undermines the need for it.

CONCLISION

The proposition of people's active involvement in planning and management of forests, though discounted in official circles, has to be accepted as the ultimate goal. more so with the constitutional requirement of village panchayats formation. Exclusionary state control is not only undemocratic but also antithetical to the survival needs of 35 of the country's population, apart from causing irreparable environmental degradation due to industrial exploitation.

However, extremities are potential destructors-so is the case of total community control. Decentralization has its limits and has to be conditioned by regional, state and national considerations. An ideal JFM system recognizes this factor. The role of the state is as important as that of the local community. It ultimately lunges on the trust and confidence reposed by both the actors in each others to conserve the forests.

JFM as began by the central Government needs, undoubtedly, to be strengthened to serve as a Model Conservation Strategy. It would be a model since both the state and people, with their respective roles, act in tandem for a common cause. Conservation would not only mean protection of the resource from market onslaught but also the provision for subsistence for forest-dependant communities.

The disruption of the relationship between local communities and natural resources has to be redressed. This requires an enormous effort from the state to overhaul the existing rules and laws with respect to forest management. At the same time. realities cannot be ignored. Special effort to initiate people's participation must be made. The mistrust and hatred experienced vis a vis the Forest Department ought to be replaced by co-operation. Inequities within the community cannot be allowed to sabotage the benefits of JFM. It requires urgent redressal.

Hurdles to JFM as a strategy for Forest Management are myriad. Nevertheless, a beginning has been made. Only sustained effort can see it through. It is a part of the greater discourse on political decentralization, and hence naturally faces the complexities of governance itself. However, it is a step towards a more coherent, comprehensive and sustainable region for environmental management. Ultimately, the role played by both the people and the state will count to make it a model conservation strategy.

REFERENCES:

ARTICLES

1.       Akerkar, Supriya. "Illegal Eagles ", Down to Earth, Jan 15. 1997. p.38.

2.       Chcnal. Koshy. et.al, "Van Panchayats- How green were the forests.... ".
          Down to Earth. June 30, 1994, p.5.

3.       Chhatre. Ashwmi. " A socio- Ecological Basis for natural Resource Management"'
          Economic and Political Weekly. Vol XXXI. Iss. No.33. Aug. 19, 1995.p.205g.

4.       Correa, Mariette. " No role for Women- Karnataka's Joint Forest Management

          programme," Economic and Political Weekly. Vol XXXI.Iss. No.23.June 8. 1996. p. 1382

5.       Das, Victor. "Forests and Tribals of.Iharkhanda. " Economic and Political Weekly. Vol

          xxvi. Iss. No.6. Feb.9. 1991, p.275.

6.       Gadgil, Madhav and Rao. Seshagiri, P.R., "The Problem", Seminar, 438, February, 1996, p.2.

7.       Hegde, Pandurang, "Global Commons, local concerns, " Deccan Herald, March 21, 1997, p. 17

8.       Kothari, Ashish. et..al., "Conservation in .India : A new Dcrcclion, " Economic and

          Political Weekly, VoI.XXX, Iss . No.43, Oct.28. 1995. p. 2755

9.       Lele'. Shasachchandra, "Environmental Governance ", Seminar. 438., Feb, 1996, p.17

10.     Lise, Wetze, "A Village Betrayed," Down to Earth, March 31. p 38.

11      Moench, Marcus, "Politics of Deforestation," Economic and Political weekly, Vol xxvi, Iss. No.4, Jan 26, 1991, p. PE-47.  

12.     Mukhia, Sudeep, "Saving to Survive ", Down to Earth, No. l5. 1994, p.22

13.     Mukhia, Sudeep. "The Pitjalis of Protection," Down to Earth, Nov.3o. 1994, p.

14.     Mukhia, Sudeep, " The Roots of Property," Down to Earth'', Nov 30, Dec 15,1994, p.22

15.     Pattanaik. Binary Kumar. et.al., " Community - based Forest Management Practices-
Field observation from Orissa." Economic and Political weekly, Vol.xxxi. Iss. No. 15, Apl. 13. 1996,p.968

16.     Peuchepadass. Jacques, " Colonialism and Environment in India."" Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXX, Iss. No.33.Aug 19. 1995,p.2059

17.     Ramesh, M.K. " Legal Back Up for the target group in protection and management f     forests. '' Workshop on Participatory Forest Management, Sept.5. 1996.

18.     Rov. Chowdhuarv Anumita. " Where have all the people gone? ", Down to Earth.
March 15. 1994, p. 14.

19.     Roy, S.B., " Forest protection Committees in West Bengal. "Economic and

Political Weekly, Vol xvii. Iss. No.29, July 18, 1992. p. 1528

20      Singh, Neena, " Serving less, reaping bare, " dawn to Earth, July 15, 1996, p.4.

21.    Singh. Neena, " Struggling to Survive," Dawn to Earth, Feb.28. 1997,p.39. 22.  Srudharan, K.. -@ Back and Bite," Dawn to Earth. .May 31, 1994. p.23.

22.    Sundas.  Nandini. et.al.. "Dejending the Dalki forest - "Joint' Forest Management in hapanga," Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.xxxi. Iss. No.45.Nov9. 1996.p.3021.

BOOKS

1.  Gadgil. Madhav and Guha. Ramaclundra. Ecology' and Equity. (Penguin .Books, N.Delhi. 1995).

2.  Gadgil. Madhav and Guha. Ramachandra. Tills Fissured land. (Oxford University Press. N. Delhi. 1995).

3.  Hirmath. S.R.. et.al. (Ed.), All about Draft Forest Bill and Forest Hands: Towards Policies and Practices as if People Mattered, 3rd ed., (Samaj Parivartan Samudava, Dharwad, 1996).