Community - rcdcindia.org · 4 Community Forestry Combined issue-28, May - December 2013 COVER STORY Introduction India, with its diverse habitat and cli-matic conditions, is home

CommunityCommunityCommunityCommunityCommunityForestryForestryForestryForestryForestry

Combined issue-28May-December 2013

Editorial Address

REGIONAL CENTRE FORDEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

HIG-26, K-6, Phase-IIKalinga Vihar, Bhubaneswar -19

Odisha, India.Tel: 91-674-2475410Fax: 91-674-2475652

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, IndiaE-mail: [email protected]

2 Community ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity Forestry Combined issue-28, May - December 2013

RCDC has shifted to its new address at HIG-26, K-6 Housing Scheme, Phase-II, Kalinga Vihar,Bhubaneswar-751019, Odisha. Our office telephone numbers have also been changedaccordingly. Readers are therefore requested to contact us at this new address and phone number,though e-mail address remains the same.

C O N T E N T S

COVER STORYCommunity-based wildlife conservation initiatives under JFM:A case of Sloth Bear protection in Terebeda 04

CURRENT ISSUEPolicy versus practice in JFM 07

LAW & POLICYThe legal sanctity of JFM 09

ROLE MODELSGoramba : Where forest unites the village 11

CONSERVATIONDhani South forest protection committee :A united effort for forest management 14

ECO-COMMERCEEconomic returns from forests under JFM 16

LIVELIHOODLivelihood promotion under JFM 17

EMERGING TRENDSIs JFM taking over CFM ? 18

NEWS & EVENTS 23VSSs beyond their conventional role

FDA or Forest Development Agency has been a major channel of support to VSS areas. Understanding theissue of JFMization would be incomplete without understanding the role of FDAs.

Front cover photo :Development projects implemented by the Forest Department normally prioritize VSS areas, as these two boards depict.

Back cover photo :A good rapport with the Forest Department, alongwith some good work at ground level can help the VSS get many kinds ofrecognition and support, like the Naranpur VSS which received two awards alongwith a cash prize of Rs.1 lakh. .

EDITORIAL NOTE

Editorial

Joint Forest Management (JFM) has been a contentious issue since its inception. Interestingly, many NGOstook part in the initial phase of the JFMization process as they thought JFM was the first step on the part ofthe government to recognize community forestry. It was then a crucial juncture of time when opposingJFM blindly was not supposed to be the right approach. That however did not mean that JFM was acceptedwholeheartedly. The NGOs did maintain a cautious approach as they knew the points of apprehension.And this is why it was very spontaneous for them to question this programme even while helping the government in trainingand other purposes for the implementation of JFM. Very soon their apprehensions assumed practical importance and theyreiterated their preference to CFM over JFM. At the same time also they started advocating for necessary revisions in theJFM policy. It is because of their continuous efforts that the Odisha government decided to review the JFM policy in 2010-11, and thanks to the pro-people approach of the then Secretary of the Forest & Environment Department a progressiveamendment was made in the resolution in 2011 in the light of Forest Rights Act and PESA Act. Although this new resolutionstill remained conservative in certain aspects than its draft version it opened a scope for greater say of the community in JFM.

While RCDC has been a part of this process, it has also believed in a principle that be it JFM or CFM, community forestryshould be the key to our focus; and hence it would not be fair to ignore or disregard any community forestry initiative justbecause it is under the JFM mode. It is for this reason that RCDC has preferred rather to advocate for a JFM policy that canput JFM at par with CFM, i.e. where the forest-protecting communities do not face an undesired interference of theDepartment, and comfortably exercise their rights over the forest resources. For, be it JFM or CFM; after all it is the questionof the community and the forest.

However, what is strange about JFM is that this programme has been running in the country, that too with huge investments,without any legal basis. Still stranger is the fact that instead of rectifying this basic error, the authorities have been trying toadjust legal provisions (such as FRA) with JFM. We hope that the blow received by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Departmentfrom the Ministry of Tribal Affairs will be an eye opener for such bureaucrats.

Last but not the list, the sanctity (if any) of JFM has also been questionable due to a lack of sincerity and honesty in theprogramme implementation. A number of VSSs are actually running virtually on CFM mode with hardly any active rela-tionship with the Forest Department, because the latter formed a VSS(most probably to meet the target) and then ignored thevillage. Can the Department declare the number of such VSSs? In fact, an RTI application filed in the office of the PrincipalChief Conservator of Forest, Odisha asking for information on the number of VSS committees that have been reconstitutedas per the JFM resolution of 2011, and also on the total amount of financial support granted to VSSs by 31st March, 2013could not be complied with even after 40 days of filing the same.

We hope that the concerned authorities would make a critical review of the JFM programme and take measures for the bestpossible contribution of the same for ecological, socio-economic, and tenurial security of the forest protecting communities.

Bikash RathBikash RathBikash RathBikash RathBikash RathSr. Programme Manager

Regional Centre for Development Cooperation

3Combined issue-28, May - December 2013 Community ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity Forestry

Community ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity Forestry Combined issue-28, May - December 20134

COVER STORY

IntroductionIndia, with its diverse habitat and cli-matic conditions, is home to four ofthe eight known species of bears in theworld. These are the Asiatic (Hima-layan) black bear (Ursus thibetanus),the sloth bear (Melursus ursinus), thebrown bear (Ursus arctos) and theMalayan sun bear (Helarctosmalayanus).

The sloth bear, found only in the In-dian subcontinent (India, Sri Lanka,Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh), is listedunder Schedule -I of the Indian Wild-life (Protection) Act, 1972. The spe-cies is threatened by various factors.Poaching for gall bladders is one of the

Community-based wildlife conservation initiatives under JFM:A case of Sloth Bear protection in Terebeda

main threats, but almost all parts (meat,fat, bone, genitals, and skin) of the slothbear are used either for medicinal pur-poses or religious rituals; and are tradedin different regions of the country andabroad. Live bear cubs are trapped byKalandars, a community which makesa living by performing bears for enter-tainment. Habitat shrinkage and frag-mentation outside Protected Areas arecreating small and non-viable bearpopulations inside these areas. Addedto this, over harvesting of forest re-sources, expansion of agricultural ar-eas, encroachment and expansion ofsettlements into forests have reducedquality food for the bears forcing theanimals to seek food in croplands on

the fringes of forests. This has resultedin increased conflict with humans andretaliatory killings.

The Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) hadtaken this issue seriously and acted on itsoon with its field project where it canwork directly with the people to savethe sloth bears and their habitat. Objec-tive of the project is to end the dancingbear tradition through policy advocacy,public awareness campaigns and lob-bying with the government, to stop slothbear trade and to provide alternativelivelihoods to Kalandars traditionallydependent on dancing bears for liveli-hoods and to ensure they do not divertback to their traditional livelihoods.

Terebeda VSS members monitoring the area with WTI staff

Combined issue-28, May - December 2013 Community ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity ForestryCommunity Forestry 5

Activities in OdishaA national-wide survey conducted byWTI and WSPA(World Society for theProtection of Animals) found noKalandar (traditionally dependent ondancing bears for livelihoods) settle-ment in Odisha. However, the threatfor sloth bears in Odisha arises due topoaching and trade in live bear cubsand bear parts. Thus, the main thrustof WTI-WSPA's work in Odisha hasbeen to stop trade in bears by workingwith enforcement agencies, develop-ing a network of informers (mostly ex-poachers) and creating public aware-ness in the Sambalpur district, identi-fied as one of the main source areas ofsloth bear cubs for the illegal marketin India.

WTI focused on source from wherethese bear cubs are being poached andtraded out to Nepal and eastern statesnamely Bihar, Jharkhand, MadhyaPradesh and Chhattisgarh in India. Itis a fact that Sambalpur and surround-ing areas (Baripada, Angul) in Odishaare one of the key forest areas fromwhere bear cubs are sourced for thisbear trade. These areas of Odisha arenow being targeted by WTI to stopillegal poaching and trading of bearcubs. Towards this effort, a campaignhas been conceived by WTI. The ma-jor achievement of the project in 2009was that there was no sloth bear cubseizure across the country by any en-forcement agency.

Conservation by TerebedavillagersTerebeda village falls under theDaincha Gram Panchayat ofRedhakhol block of Sambalpur districtof Odisha. This village is close toRedhakhol market. Once upon a timeit was called as poacher's village, and

whenever the villagers saw the forestand police they used to run to the for-est to save themselves from an arrest.This village was famous for trading ofwildlife such as bear cub, bear meat,skin, leopard skin, elephant tusk andother bird & wildlife meat. However,a focused awareness campaign whichbegan in January 2009 in the Terebeda

village, had changed the mindset of thevillagers and converted themselvesfrom poachers to protectors. For thefirst time the Terebeda villagersformed a village protection commit-tee to protect the bear dens aroundthe village from poachers. From theprimary surveys and field visits poten-tial bear den sites were selected but it

Seizures from a poacher

COVER STORY

Burning a poacher's shed


was still a challenge to protect them asthis is a Naxal prone area and the For-est Department's enforcement teamcan hardly operate in it. So it was de-cided to form a village protectioncommittee in each village that wouldbe responsible for protection of thebear dens around the village.

Dens with cubs were found with thehelp of cattle grazers of the village andother jungle dwellers by the sound ofthe new born cubs. When a positiveden was found, a team started guard-ing the den for 24 hrs by building amachan (platform on a tree) at a safedistance and people going to forestwere made aware about the presenceof them to avoid encounters. Morethan nine dens were identified, and be-ing protected by the villagers them-selves there is no news of poaching ofbear cubs from this area. Apart fromthe cubing season now the VSS mem-bers are patrolling the jungle duringsummer to prevent hunting of otheranimals and work as regular informersfor Forest Department.

The campaign aimed at sensitizing lo-cal people to the cruelty and dangersof bear cub poaching while also alert-ing them to the illegalities of wildlifetrade, and was expected to influencethe attitude of the local people againstcapture of sloth bear cubs and wildlifetrade in general. As part of the cam-paign, local street play artists dressedin bear costumes enacted the story of'bear cubs being separated from theirfamily for entertainment of humans'.The campaign also incorporated localelements including folk songs anddances on environment subjects to ef-fectively reach out to the people of thearea and help spread awareness. Theperformances were advertised throughposters, personal invitation and word-of-mouth. Movement of artists in bearcostumes through the respective vil-lages and song/dance performancesalso helped attract the viewers. Per-formances held on weekly bazaar daysdrew crowds of over a hundredpeople. Apart from street plays, groupmeetings and workshops were con-ducted both for the villagers and the

school children in villages. This is tobring about an inclusive and partici-patory approach to the campaign.

The Terebeda VSS got very good suc-cess after involving itself in forest andbear conservation. On 13th May 2011in a joint patrolling with Forest Depart-ment the Terebeda VSS memberscaught three poachers with 3 guns (1licensed and 2 without license), andburnt several hides made by poachersnear water holes. On 16th May 2 per-sons with bear meat were arrested inCharmal range under the Redhakholdivision. This was the first ever docu-mentary evidence of poaching of bearsfor meat consumption in Odisha.

Now with the protection of the VSSthe forest has become more green anddense, with wildlife protection. Evi-dence and sighting of the presence ofelephant and hundreds of spotted deerand other carnivores in the forest, hasincreased. They are enjoying the bearwith her cubs playing near their vil-lage and eating Jambul (Syzygiumcumini) fruits, mahua flower and jack-fruit. However, no conflicts have beenreported. Neither the villagers droveaway the bear nor the bear attackedthe villagers. This way, a poachers' vil-lage has transformed itself into a pro-tectors' village, and the Terebeda vil-lagers have set a remarkable exampleof working in harmony with the gov-ernment as well as non-governmentagencies for the cause of wildlife .

Rudra Prassana Mahapatra,Wildlife Trust of India

with Sabyasachi Rath,Programme Officer, RCDC

A bear protector of Terebeda

COVER STORY

Photo credits: Rudra Prassana Mahapatra


The Government of India, in itsMinistry of Environment & Forest,issued a letter dated 1st June 1990 toall Forest Secretaries of the states/Union Territories with a subject line'Involvement of village communitiesand voluntary agencies for regene-ration of degraded forest lands'. Thisletter, which prompted the states for acommunity involvement in forestmanagement(without using the termJoint Forest Management) started withthe following reference to the NationalForest Policy, 1988:

"The National Forest Policy, 1988envisages people's involvement in thedevelopment and protection of forests.The requirements of fuelwood, fodderand small timber such as house-building material, of the tribals andother villagers living in and near theforests, are to be treated as first chargeon forest produce. The Policydocument envisages it as one of theessentials of forest management thatthe forest communities should bemotivated to identify themselves withthe development and protection offorests from which they drivebenefits."

This statement suggests an orthodoxapproach that recognizes the commu-nity rights to some extent, but as if witha pity. It reads as if community in-volvement in forest management isneither essential nor inevitable thoughbecause of a policy decision the ForestDepartment has to do something in thisdirection. Such an orthodoxy in ap-proach prevailed in the JFM policiesthat followed this letter, and the com-munities, although officially treated as

Policy versus practice in JFM

partners in forest management, wereactually recognized as somebody whocan't protect & manage the forestsproperly unless the Forest Departmentguides them technically, supports themfinancially, and protects them legally.That means to say, the local commu-nities were assumed to be a kind ofunskilled but consolidated labour forcethat could be used in forest protectionin lieu of certain benefits.

The 1988 circular of Odisha ForestDepartment however was a bit honestthan its Central counterpart. TheOdisha circular clearly said that "thetask of protecting forests is so urgentand so enormous that the rural com-munity should be fully and activelyinvolved in it." In other words, it ad-mitted the fact that the Forest Depart-ment was in urgent need of the sup-port from local communities for for-est conservation. So it was not a caseof policy-level compliance or mercyfor the villagers though it is anothermatter that it retained orthodoxy inrespect of sharing the benefits with thecommunities.

So, when the JFM resolution of 1993was implemented the orthodoxy inapproach was reflected in the practice.The Forester was made the Secretaryof VSS, through which the Departmentcontrolled the VSS activities. The areaover which the VSS's jurisdiction wasrecognized was mandated to be a stan-dard one(maximum 200 hectares)even if the local community protecteda still larger area. The choice of thespecies to be planted was often decidedby the Department. For communitieswho were innocent and immature such

impositions did not matter much as forthem it was a beginning in communityforest management though under thecontrol of the Department. However,for those who were mature enoughthese norms did not feel comfortablefor obvious reasons. As such there arecases where the local communities ig-nored the VSS part of the forest andput sincere efforts in that part whichthey considered to be theirs. On theother hand, inter- and intra-villageconflicts have led to weakening of in-stitutional strength in some cases likethat of Aonlapal in Baleswar districtwhere a stronger VSS of 9 villages waslater split into 3 groups(Vasundhara,2000 quoted in Singh, 2000).

It was a common practice in many VSSareas that the registers and other docu-ments were often kept under the cus-tody of the forest officials. This resultedin a lack of transparency, particularlyin financial matters. The emergingwomen's forest protection inBaghamunda(Deogarh Forest Divi-sion) lost its strength when the villag-ers detected financial irregularities bythe forest officials. The VSS was keptin dark in the matter of financial trans-actions which led to a breach of faithbetween the villagers and the Depart-ment. In Lanjijhari VSS under the sameforest division the financial irregular-ity was quite open to the villagers whofound high misappropriation in theexpenditure for developmentactivities(per. comm. Hiradhar Sahu).

Benefit sharing has been another con-tentious issue under JFM. Maturecommunities find it difficult to acceptthe Department's orthodox view to see

CURRENT ISSUE


the forest as a commercial crop, andhence are not comfortable with thenorm of 50% share in the major har-vest of timber. They do not see them-selves as share-croppers.

Some of these limitations were over-come in the latest policy resolution of2011 which recognized a greater roleof the village communities in the lightof PESA Act and Forest Rights Act, andhence provided for an elected personfrom among the community for theposition of the Secretary. Thus, deci-sion making now became almost fullyunder community control, atleast inprinciple. Further,a scope was providedto record the area of forest customar-ily protected, and to modify the VSSarea.

However, some of the basic issues stillremain unresolved. 50% sharing in themajor harvest is among these. Like theold provision, the 2011 resolution alsomaintains 50% share of VSS in the fi-nal harvest of timber and if the treesare uprooted in any natural calamitythen also this principle is to be followed.This has left the community of a fa-mous VSS(Dhani Panchmouza) in ut-ter disappointment as a lot of the ma-ture trees in their protection area,which they have been protecting sincemany decades, were uprooted in therecent cyclone Phailin; and they can'ttake it easily that they would be en-titled for only 50% share over this tim-ber.

The notification of May 2006, thatclarified that VSS would have 100%share in the final harvest of bamboo,has not been uniformly or sincerelyfollowed in the state. There are caseslike Siarimalia where this provision hasbeen intentionally ignored by the au-thorities.

Choice of species for plantation hasbeen more or less under the control ofthe Forest Department. In Royalghati(Rayagada Forest Division), for ex-ample, the Department wanted to plantexotic species like Eucalyptus in theforest area; but the villagers opposedthe plan and emphasised on useful in-digenous species. Finally, the Eucalyp-tus plantation was carried out, but to avery small extent whereas useful spe-cies were planted as per the villagers'requirement.

What is however most important is thatmany VSSs are yet to be reconstitutedas per the 2011 resolution. This is ob-viously because the Departmental au-thorities have not cared to honor themandate of this new resolution. Ourfield experience shows that the VSSshave even not been informed aboutthe new provision. Why is this so? Isthe Department apprehensive of los-ing its control if the new resolution isimplemented ?

Despite many such negative experi-ences, JFM has played a constructiverole in community forestry in somecases too. For immature communitiesit has come as an inspiration andhonour, alongwith some special ben-efits. For some like the villagers ofBhuska, it has come as a legal security.Conflict resolution has been possible ina few cases with the intervention ofthe Forest Department, and incomegeneration activities have been pro-moted.

The most important contribution ofJFM in community forestry is makingforest management systematic and sci-entific. What is known as CFM is morea protection activity than manage-ment, not to speak of forest develop-ment. JFM has introduced the concept

CURRENT ISSUE

Reference:

• Singh, N.M.(2000). Community Forest Management Vs. Joint Forest Management in Orissa: Need to Look Beyond JFM. http://vasundharaodisha.org/down-load22/CFMVsjfm.pdf

of silviculture in community forestry,and has also paid attention to develop-ment of the forests under protectionof the VSS. Economic plantations andother plantation activities have beencarried out for this purpose in the VSSareas.

For the forest protecting communities,entitlement for community forestresources(CFR) rights under the For-est Rights Act has been quite difficultto get chiefly because of the apathy ofthe Forest Department. However,some VSS villages have been fortunateto get it being under JFM as the De-partment did not object to the claimof the community so far the size of theclaimed area was within the limitspecified for the VSS.

Unlike CFM which evolved itself witha focus basically on protection of for-ests for timber and fuelwood, JFM ex-pects the VSS to not violate the wild-life protection regime. While it is notunlikely that some of the JFM villagesmay not actually be keen and/or ac-tive in wildlife protection, they atleastdo not dare to cause any harm to wild-life except but minor exceptions ordeviations.

It however unfortunately appears thatunder the influence of globalization,which attracts people to externalmoney than self-reliance, JFM assumesmore relevance for many communi-ties. Such relevance is of course not avery sustainable one because of obvi-ous reasons. Time has come howeverto sincerely make JFM a powerful toolin sustaining community forestry ini-tiatives for the benefit of ecosystem andhumanity.

Bikash Rath


Against the fact the Forest Departmenthas remained assertive to recognizecommunity forestry only under theJFM mode, a basic question that hasbeen often asked is: what is the legalbasis of such assertion? Which law givesthe Department the power and rightto promote JFM ?

And the answer has been quite em-barrassing for the Forest Department,as in fact no law in the country hasactually recognized JFM. What hasactually been done is the issue of ad-ministrative orders to effect thisscheme or mode of operation in thecountry.

Under this primary flaw flourish somesecondary ones, pointed out by Ahujaas under:

MOU questionable legal sanc-tityInequality of duties and respon-sibilities between State andCommunity No legal recourses available tocommunities JFMCs registration by DFOIncremental benefits Institutional overlapping be-tween PRIs and JFMCsPotential valid claims fromoutside JFM area (latent con-flicts). (Ahuja, N. undated )

Various government schemes andprogrammes have promoted variousvillage-level organizations, each beingindependent. VSS is one of them. So-cial scientists are concerned about thecontinuous diversification of the vil-

The legal sanctity of JFM

lage institution as that leads to powerpolitics, weakening of the village unity,and other implications. It has there-fore been thought that the forest pro-tection committee(like VSS) should bebut a standing committee of the Gramsabha, i.e. while the Gram sabha up-holds the village unity, the specializedvillage institutions work under it withfull accountability to the same. This isparticularly important in view of thespirit of PESA Act and Forest RightsAct.

The Planning Commission's WorkingGroup on Forestry and SustainableNatural Resource Management for the12th 5-year Plan(2012-17) has paidattention to these issues in the Reportof Sub- Group - I on Forestry, in thefollowing lines:

JFM approach of "Care &Share" draws its strength fromNational Forest Policy 1988and subsequent guidelines ofMoEF in 1990, 2000 and 2002,which lay emphasis on the in-volvement of local communi-ties in protection, afforestationand sharing of benefits with thecommunities, making theirgradual empowerment possi-ble. While JFM committees inthe existing system are consti-tuted from the Gram Sabhamembers for management offorest resources, an emphasis onmaking them as permanenttechnical committees under theguidance and supervision ofGram Sabha during 12th fiveyear plan period.1 (Section 2.3)

Local level institutions like JFMin various styles and forms indifferent parts of the countryshould be promoted for forestmanagement in the countryand JFM Committees should beformed as standing committeesof the Gram Sabha.(Section 9)

The Joint Forest ManagementCommittees should be formal-ized and given legal status un-der the Indian Forest Act andthe Panchayat / PESA Act. Thestate implementing agenciesshould be strengthened by pro-viding funds for staff/ officialsrequired for implementation ofactivities.(Section J-32)

The JFM resolution of 2011 in Odishaalso mentions VSS as the standing com-mittee of Gram sabha. However, thisseems to be a mere superficial compli-ance under compulsion because whatis practised still sticks to a mindset thatreflects the orthodoxy and dominanceof the Forest Department. When sucha mindset was revealed before theMinistry of Tribal Affairs whileanalysing a government order inAndhra Pradesh to give CFR titles toJFM committees(VSS), the Ministrywrote to the PCCF of that state withthe following clarification:

“I am x x x to say that the JFM (VSS)committees formed in the state ofAndhra Pradesh pursuant to the JointForest Management (JFM)programme of the Ministry of Envi-ronment & Forests and the Govern-ment of Andhra Pradesh are not cov-

LAW & POLICY

1 This incomplete sentence has been quoted as it was, in the original document-Ed.


ered by the definition of the terms "for-est dwelling Scheduled Tribes" and"other traditional forest dweller", asgiven in Sections 2(c) and 2(o) of theForest Rights Act, 2006. Hence, theseCommittees can also not be consideredas "claimant" given in Rule 2(c) of theForest Rights Rules, 2008. These Com-mittees are, therefore, not eligible forrecognition and vesting of forest rightsunder the said Act x x x.

x x x x x x x x

In view of the above, the CFR titlesgiven to JFM(VSS) Committees maybe withdrawn. The rejection of the in-dividual claims on the ground that suchclaims were filed within the JFM areaswas also, therefore, incorrect."(Letterof Mr. Gopal Sadhwani, Deputy Sec-retary; dated 6th August 2013).

Down to EarthDown to EarthDown to EarthDown to EarthDown to Earth has quoted SagariRamdas, Director of the Hyderabad-based NGO Anthra, explaining whymaking JFMCs eligible for CFR title isin fact an injustice to the traditionalforest dwellers:

"x x x many of forest communities hadpainstakingly mapped the traditionalboundaries of the common areas theyhave been enjoying for grazing cattleor collecting forest produces or forother purposes. This area is much big-ger in size compared to the area man-aged by the JFMCs. Many forest vil-lages had submitted claims for theircommon land but the claims were re-jected.

For instance, in Adilabad, there were1,132 claims from the community foran extent of 8,238 acres (one acreequals 0.4 hectare) of land. The VanaSamrakshana Samithies submitted 341claims for 266,689.63 acres. Interest-ingly, as per the records, gram sabhashave recommended only 67 claims ofthe community for 3,628 acres whileaccepting all the claims by VSS.

Besides, in the name of joint forestmanagement, the forest departmenthad taken away many stretches of tra-ditional tribal land, points out Sagari.When FRA came into existence, manyindividuals had submitted their claimsto get back their land. All these claimswere rejected in the wake of the stategovernment's decision not to acceptindividual claims for land managed byJFMCs”.(Suchitra M. 2013)

The Campaign for Survival and Dig-nity (CSD) has analysed, in context ofFRA, how JFM is illegal. Their conclu-sion is obvious because JFM norms andapproaches are against or not consis-tent with the letter & spirit of FRA inmany respects. For instance, JFM con-siders the VSS to be the authorised vil-lage organization for collection of mi-nor forest produce, and doesn't vestthe ownership right over such producewith the VSS; whereas FRA considersthe Gram sabha to be the owner ofsuch produce if collected traditionally.It is not surprising if the Forest Depart-ment is comfortable with the VSS andnot the Gram sabha because the VSS

LAW & POLICY

in fact serves as the community face ofthe Department and works under itscontrol, unlike the Gram sabha. Andthis is the reason why many forest de-velopment projects, such as the OdishaForestry Sector Development Project,have been essentially linked with JFM.

In an interesting development, theForest Rights Amendment Rules, 2012has provided for a clear scope that rec-ognizes, without any reference to JFMor the Forest Department, communityforestry practices. Communities pro-tecting village forests can now maketheir claim with a form exclusivelymeant for them, i.e. Form 'C'. It istherefore very clear that FRA does notpromote JFM.

However, given the fact that the CFRtitle doesn't give full ownership overthe forest land and resource(it onlygives the right to manage and use theresources under certain obligations),there seems a hidden or unspokenscope for a collaboration between theForest Department and the commu-nities which may assume a form simi-lar to that of JFM(but modified as perthe mandate of FRA) particularly incase of Reserved Forests and ProtectedAreas. This aspect is yet to be analyseddeeply by both sides though activistsmust understand the strategic impor-tance of this silent scope.

Bikash Rath

References :

• Ahuja, N. (undated). Joint Forest Management regime in India.

• Suchitra M.( 2013). ‘Grant of community forest rights to JFMCs in Andhra illegal’. Down to Earth, October 7, 2013.

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/grant-community-forest-rights-jfmcs-andhra-illegal

• CSD (undated). Problems with Joint Forest Management: Need to Replace Scheme by an Approach Compatible With the Law. www.forestrightsact.com/forest-conservation/item/download/59


Goramba is a heterogeneous village inthe Ekamba Gram Panchayat(Jharigaon block) of Nabarangpur dis-trict. It comes under the jurisdictionof Nabarangpur Forest Division.

The village has a population of 1204with the Kolars(OBC) as the dominat-ing community. There are few sched-uled caste and scheduled tribe house-holds too.

There is a sal forest in the village overabout 48 acres which in fact is a rem-nant of the original one. Part of it hasmature standing trees without any un-dergrowth whereas the central part isa forest that is not so dense. This cen-tral part has the regenerating youngstuff, alongwith various undergrowths

Goramba : Where forest unites the village

that include medicinal plants. Speciesnext to sal include sahada, char, amla,harida, bahada, mahul, and gambhari,etc..

When the forest suffered from degra-dation under anthropogenic pressure,the villagers initiated protection activ-ity several decades ago. Gradually theeffort became consolidated, and theforest became a means of unity amongthe villagers. This is because whenevera conflict arises among different com-munities of this village, the accusedparty is threatened of no access to theforest. Since no community can affordthis because of a regular dependencyon the forest, hence it has to negotiateor comply with the justice.

A part of the forest with old trees

A part of the regenerated forest

ROLE MODELS


Enclosing with barbed wire Fencing around a plantation site in Goramba

Under the initiative of the ForestDepartment the village forestprotection has been converted into aVSS known as Maa Mangala VSS, butthere is hardly any active relationshipbetween the villagers and theDepartment. In fact, they claim not tohave received any financial supportunlike the neighbouring VSS ofDhanpur. As such, the VSS has almostno existence practically; and thevillagers manage things on their own.

A watcher has been appointed with anannual honorarium of Rs.14,000/-.The villagers send a palia (patrollingperson) every day to keep further vigilon the forest.

They carry out cleaning operations anddistribute the harvest equally amongthemselves. For special occasions likemarriage timber cutting is allowed onapplication.

Their management is self-financed, i.e.each household contributes Rs.300 toRs.400 annually to the communityfund. Penalty on forest violations var-ies according to the produce har-vested, like Rs.150 in case of collectingbrushing sticks and Rs.120 onwards ontimber felling.

RCDC, while implementing an ecosys-tem restoration project in the EkambaGP, observed that the whole area, thatwas once well-forested, has now beendeforested to the maximum possibleextent so as to pursue maize cultiva-tion. Floral biodiversity and forestbiodiversity has therefore been almosttotally lost in the region. As such, RCDCplanned for an intervention underwhich capable village communitieswould be provided with saplings ofvarious indigenous but RET species ofimportance. RCDC called it 'GreenAid', and supplied a considerable num-ber of diverse forest species for plan-tation in the area. Goramba was foundto be the most competent village tosuccessfully implement this proposedintervention as the community in thisvillage was found to be most commit-ted and keen in the area.

An open area chosen for plantation

ROLE MODELS


ROLE MODELS

Jagannath Vana PrakalpaTwo religious car festivals are famous inOdisha: the Sri Gundicha Yatra of LordJagannath of Puri, which is the foremosthaving even international appeal; and thenext is the Rukuna Ratha Yatra of LordLingaraj at Bhubaneswar. The first onerequires 1162 poles of timber annuallywhereas the second one only 34. Thespecies required are according to theiruse in making specific parts of the woodenchariots, which in fact reflects a soundindigenous knowledge system on the tim-ber quality of various tree species. Thetemples of Lord Jagannath and LordLingaraj are under the management of

the state government, and the state For-est Department is supposed to provide thenecessary logs each year. However, dueto deforestation and overexploitation theDepartment has not been able to do itsmoothly in the recent decades. During2008 to 2010, for instance, it could meetonly about 73% of the requirement dueto insufficient availability of the specifiedtimber in the potential and neighbouringforest divisions of Nayagarh, Khurdha, andBoudh. As the future of the supply is go-ing to be more gloomy, hence the De-partment launched in 2000 an intensiveplantation programme known as JagannathVana Prakalpa or JVP (Jagannath Vana

Prakalpa, Odisha Reference Annual,2011, http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/orissaannualreference/ORA-2011/pdf/62-63.pdf) .

This programme has been implementedin 10 forest divisions of the state in about2500 acre land with a plantation of about42.62 lakh seedlings belonging to morethan 10 different species. Phasi(Anogeissus acuminata) was one of them.This timber forms a vital part(wheels) ofthe chariot, but was scarcely available inwild which is why it was sought even fromprivate lands. Although in 2007 the ad-ministrator of Sri Jagannath temple re-ported the discovery of large phasi for-ests in some parts of the Nayagarh ForestDivision alongside the Mahanadi river(asavailable at http://news.oneindia.in/2007/02/25/dense-natural-phasi-forest-traced-in-orissa.html), sustainability wasstill a concern. Hence, the plantation hadits own relevance. Unfortunately, infor-mation provided by the governmentagainst an application filed under theRight to Information Act revealed in2012 that most of the local projects un-der JVP are in a precarious state withonly about 30% of the planted stock inthem(vide the media report published inthe Samaj, dated 8 December 2013,Bhubaneswar edition). And this happeneddespite the Departmental claim of en-gaging local communities through VSSfor the protection of such plantations.

The villagers planted the saplings freeof cost in the open areas. They also gotthe credit of raising the first commu-nity-based phasi plantation in the statefor the purpose of supplying thescarcely available phasi timber for thechariot of Lord Jaganath of Puri.

However, the most remarkable partof the story was the villagers' keenness

to make the plantation a success. Asthe site was an open access area, andregular trespassing was a threat, theydecided quickly to go for barbed wirefencing. Within few days of the plan-tation work they purchased the fenc-ing materials at their own cost(fromcommunity fund) and immediatelyimplemented it. And they spent a goodsum for that.

That the people of Goramba did notsee RCDC's intervention merely as asupply-driven programme, was inspir-ing. They were affiliated to JFM, but byspirit and practice they operated almostindependent of JFM. They also success-fully used the forest for maintaining vil-lage unity. This is how they serve as arole model in community forestry.

Bikash Rathwith Sai Prasad Pattnaik,

Programme Officer, RCDC

The author hereby acknowledges the information provided by the villagers of Goramba.


Background:Dhani South Forest Protection Com-mittee is one of the brightest examplesof community forest protection initia-tive in Odisha working under the JFMmode. The word 'panch' means fiveand 'mouza' means village. The five vil-lages are Barapalli, Arjunpur, Kiyapalla,Balarampur and Panasdihi. Villagers ofthese five villages have come forwardto jointly protect the nearby Dhani Re-serve Forest. This forest is located in theRanpur block of Nayagarh district inOdisha. It is accessible from TangiChowk of Khurdha district on theBhubaneswar-Vishakhapatanam na-tional highway. The forest is about 2200hectares in size, but the five villages havebeen protecting about 839 hectaressince 1987.

Dhani South forest protection committee :A united effort for forest management

How it all startedPeople say that the Forest Departmenthad given timber leases to many pri-vate parties to harvest the timber fromthe Dhani reserve forest in late 1950s.During this period the local people in-cluding the villagers were also involvedin the tree felling process. After theharvesting of timber of sal and otherindigenous tree species, the Forest De-partment carried out a teak plantationin the same harvested area. During1978-81 the state Forest DevelopmentCorporation had taken initiative to cutmore trees from the same forest. A leasefor bamboo was also permitted. That'swhy the whole Dhani forest was de-graded. However, the slash and burncultivation, locally known as toila, alsowas a factor degrading the forest. The

augmenting factors included rapid ur-banization in the nearby areas, andsmuggling of timber. What was re-markable was that the Forest Depart-ment did not show any effective inter-est to protect the forest.

When the entire Dhani forest wasdegraded, the local villagers facedextreme scarcity of fuel wood, timberand other forest products causingthem to travel long distance to collectthe fuel and to purchase bamboo forrepairing their houses. The situationwas so worse that people even lookedfor the roots underground in absenceof fuelwood. More affected were theKiyapalla and Panashadihi villagerswho are tribal communities (Kondhand Saura or Sabar) who depend on

The Dhani community forest area as depicted on GoogleEarth

CONSERVATION


forest collection more intimately thantheir non-tribal counterparts. Fewvarieties of fruits and tubers, etc. alsodisappeared gradually. Further, thevillagers felt the scarcity of groundwater leading to the crop failure anddrought. Soil erosion was acceleratedwhich is why many agricultural landslost their fertility due to land slidingfrom the hill.

People now realized that there was acritical need of a forest. Two respectedcommunity leaders Sri KanduriPradhan and Sri Brahmachari Dasplayed the important role to mobilizethe villagers to protect the degradedDhani forest. However, this was notpossible if the other 4 villages did notagree to it. So they talked with other 4villages after which a consensus was de-veloped for joint protection effort. Acommittee called Dhani South ForestProtection Committee was constitutedwhich started protecting the degradedDhani forest. Their first duty was tostop the uprooting of the sal stump. In1995 the panchmaouza decided to joinhands with the Forest Department andmerged their committee with VanaSamrakshana Samiti (VSS) under theJFM resolution.

Methods of forest protectionA set of rules and regulations wereformulated to ensure an effectiveforest protection. The entire Dhaniforest area was declared as a restrictedarea and nothing was allowed forcollection from the forest. Initially lotsof hurdle came while implementingthese rules but the villagers faced itwith patience and bravery. When thesal stumps regenerated, their happinessknew no bounds. Rules were the sameto protect the forest. During the initialperiod 10 villagers from 5 villages (2

people from each village) startedthengapali(barefoot patrolling withsticks). Later on they recruited fewforest watchers. To pay their wagesthey collected 'muthi chaula'(a handfulof rice) from each villager. Theystopped all slash and burn cultivation,and restricted grazing of cattle andother livestock in the forest. Thecommittee also caught offenders andimposed fines as per the loss assessed.In the initial days of protection,conflicts were more frequent.Sometimes the offenders wereidentified to be their co-villagers whowanted to collect bamboo and leavesfrom the forest. By this time somegreenery had been restored in theforest and there were signs of furtherimprovement. So few revisions in theprevious rules were made and peoplewere allowed to collect the bambooand the leaves, though to a limitedextent. The concession was particularlyin view of the vulnerability of thescheduled caste and scheduled tribepeople. Other villagers were alsoallowed to collect the fallen leaf, andtwigs for fuel wood. Live trees werenot allowed to cut. Till now, greenfelling is restricted in the forest.

Relationship with the ForestDepartmentThe panch mouza villagers maintain agood relationship with the Forest De-partment. They acknowledge to havereceived from the Department 10 sew-ing machines in 2002-03, and 210smokeless chullahs in 2000. A forestroad was constructed to Dhani forestin 2011-12, and two watcher resthouses were constructed in 2004-05.The Department also helped them inmany legal issues related to forest pro-tection (such as checking forest of-fences).

However, the 50% share norm for thefinal harvest in timber has been a con-tentious issue between the two sidesparticularly after the Phailin cycloneseverely affected their forest and up-rooted/damaged many of the maturetrees which had grown under their sin-cere protection. The population pres-sure in the panch mouza has increasedduring the last 26 years, and 50% shareno more looks comfortable.

Impact of forest protectionThe impact of forest protection inDhani can be seen even from a dis-tance. Greenery is well-establishedwith big/mature trees every where.Due to strong forest protection, evenwildlife started returning to the forest.In November 2013 there were 22 el-ephants inside the forest. Bison, spot-ted dear, barking dear and hundredsof bird species are now living there andfeeling safe. Villagers are howeverworried about the elephants becausethey are destroying the crops duringwinter. The other example of the im-pact of forest protection is the naturalrecharge of ground water as a result ofwhich one can see few streams on thehill itself.

AwardsDue to efficient and jointly managedforest protection, the name of DhaniSouth Forest Protection Committee isinternationally recognized. Many for-est conservationists and activists includ-ing research institutions have visitedthe area to have an exposure to theinitiative. The committee also receivedthe Prakruti Mitra award twice (in2002-03 and 2007-08). However, thevillagers say that the good forest itselfis the best prize for them.

Sabyasachi Rath

CONSERVATION

The author hereby acknowledges the information kindly provided by the Dhani Panchmouza forest protection committee.The author hereby acknowledges the information kindly provided by the Dhani Panchmouza forest protection committee.The author hereby acknowledges the information kindly provided by the Dhani Panchmouza forest protection committee.The author hereby acknowledges the information kindly provided by the Dhani Panchmouza forest protection committee.The author hereby acknowledges the information kindly provided by the Dhani Panchmouza forest protection committee.


JFM committees have been con-fronted with the dilemma of theirrights and share when it comes to com-mercial use of the forest resources un-der their protection. This is because thestate JFM policy upholds certain limi-tations in the sharing mechanism be-tween the Forest Department and theVSS. The foremost of these limitationsis the 50% share in the major harvestof timber. However, the problemstarted with bamboo about which theJFM resolution of 1993 was com-pletely silent vis-a-vis the sharingmechanism. Taking advantage thereof,local forest authorities often concludedthat bamboo being considered at parwith timber in the Indian ForestAct,1927 the principle adopted fortimber should also be applicable forbamboo; i.e. the VSS should have only50% share in the major harvest ofbamboo.

This led to uncomfortable situation inmany JFM areas of the state. The diffi-culty increased with thornybamboo(Bambusa bambos) as that ismore inconvenient to harvest. TheVSSs are required to follow the har-vesting rules prescribed by the Depart-ment, and going by that meant bam-boo harvesting more costlier ulti-mately making the bamboo businessnot so feasible or profitable commer-cially, if the Department shares 50%.In 2006, a strategic application wasfiled by this author under the RTI Actasking the Forest Department to clear

Economic returns from forests under JFM

its stand on sharing mechanism onbamboo in the JFM policy. Fewmonths later, the Department issued anotification clarifying that VSS mem-bers would be entitled for 100% sharein the bamboo. While this was a wel-come move, effective sensitization onthe same at field level was lackingwhich is why even the Departmentalstaff remained ignorant about the samein some areas.

In Siarimalia of Deogarh district thelocal communities felt that the Depart-ment did not take them into confidencewhile deciding for opening bamboocoupe there for the paper mill. Lasttime, when the Department opened acoupe there the villagers got to knowfrom RCDC that they were entitled for100% right over their bamboo, andhence asked the concerned authori-ties for their dues. This was howeverignored initially, and at last Rs.4000/-was given to them as if as a consola-tion. This year they want a formal andproper negotiation of the Department/OFDC/paper mill with their VSS so thatthey can clearly know the actual costof the bamboo and also the dues againstthe same.

The issue of 50% share in the final har-vest of timber still remains to be con-tentious:

"To the local communities this appearsto be a 'share cropping system', whichis unreasonable since forest is not a

ECO-COMMERCE

crop. This system of benefit sharingreflects the 'timber/revenue oriented'attitude of forest department.”(Sarangi, 2007)

The Odisha Forest DevelopmentCorporation(OFDC) is usually the au-thorized agent to harvest bamboo andtimber from government forests, so theVSS share is often routed through it.RCDC received information from theCorporation that during 2008-11, itpaid total Rs. 385016/- towards VSSshare in 3 forest divisions of the state .Maa Andhara Bauti VSS, Banthapurwas one of the recipients of thisshare(from bamboo working) in 2008-09 in the Nayagarh division. A fieldstudy by RCDC revealed that the VSSwas duly informed about its share bythe authorities though the money wasyet to be fully accessible to the com-mittee due to some technical reasons(and this in fact has created some mis-understanding and internal conflictsamong the members apprehendingmisappropriation). Interestingly, thevillage people reportedly have low de-pendency on the nearby reserved for-est as they have their needs satisfiedfrom the village forest. Moreover, theyhave raised guava and lemon orchardsin the village forest area which theyauction each year and receive a goodincome therefrom. The forests are wellprotected, and they have also plantedteak in the village forest.

Bikash Rathwith Sabyasachi Rath

References :

• Rath, Bikash(2006). The identity crisis of bamboo in Indian Forest Act, 1927 and its implication in the Joint Forest Management in Orissa. Mimeo.

• Sarangi, T.K.(2007). Participatory Forest Management - its impact on livelihood of forest dwellers in Orissa. ininininin Financing Agriculture, May-June 2007.....www.researchgate.net/...Forest...Forest.../46a1d29d934df1fbb24aada4f2.

The author hereby acknowledges the information kindly provided by the villagers of Banthapur.The author hereby acknowledges the information kindly provided by the villagers of Banthapur.The author hereby acknowledges the information kindly provided by the villagers of Banthapur.The author hereby acknowledges the information kindly provided by the villagers of Banthapur.The author hereby acknowledges the information kindly provided by the villagers of Banthapur.


The JFM and its linked programmeshave been focusing on the livelihoodsecurity of the concerned communi-ties, though the approach thereof maybe controversial in some cases. TheJFM policy is formulated on the basisof a clear understanding that ignoringthe livelihood needs of the peoplewould not make community involve-ment in forest management feasible.However, the policy has evolvedthrough many stages so far honouringthis need is concerned. For instance,initially minor forest produce was notincluded in the concessions allowed tothe forest protecting committees, butin a later stage this was allowed thoughon certain terms & conditions.

A major step in linking livelihood withJFM/VSS was taken while formulatingthe policy for sal leaf collection, inOdisha. The NTFP policy of March2000 had put sal leaf under the re-stricted category, but practically thou-sands of poor in the districts ofMayurbhanj, Baleswar, and Keonjhar,who have been critically dependent onsal leaf collection and processing, werenot ready to accept this restriction. Thisled to some unpleasant situations fol-lowing which the Government ofOdisha decided in October 2000 thatthe primary collectors could collectand sell sal leaves, but only to theauthorised state agency and alsothrough the local VSS. The VSS wasassigned an important role here to en-sure the sustainable harvesting of theseleaves as per the quantity and timespecified by the Forest Department.

Livelihood promotion under JFM

LIVELIHOOD

The concerned DFOs assess the groundpotential and on the basis of that rec-ommend the PCCF's office for thequantity to be allowed for collection.The PCCF's office then takes a deci-sion on this. However, practically it isvery difficult to ensure the strict imple-mentation of this provision even afterinvolving VSS because after all it is aquestion of the livelihood of the wholevillage !

A contentious issue under JFM hasbeen the livelihood security in the Pro-tected Areas. In these areas, the EDCsare formed as counterparts of VSS, butbecause of PA regulations are not en-titled for many of the concessions al-lowed to the VSS. For instance, the2008 JFM policy in Odisha clearly dis-tinguishes between the EDC and theVSS as per the following norm:

"The Micro plan shall prescribe vari-ous, soil and moisture conservationmeasures, silvicultural operations, af-forestation measures and steps to betaken for livelihood support of the for-est dependent communities. It shallalso incorporate formation of SHGsand micro-enterprise that may be fea-sibly undertaken based on locallyavailable resources by them. In case ofEDC, the Eco- development Plan mayinclude activities such as:- ecotourism,farm forestry, Agro forestry, Silvi-pas-ture development, promotion of fuel-efficient device, veterinary care to thevillage cattle population, developmentof pisciculture, poultry etc., mushroomcultivation, tassar cultivation, micro-

credit facility and mobile health carefacility etc."(Section 10-iii).

There was no provision for EDC forusufruct benefits. This created adiscontent among the EDC villages forobvious reasons. Although theDepartment tried to support them withsome alternative arrangements such asfuel-efficient stoves, but the supportwas not adequate enough to gain trustof the affected villages. The 2011policy thankfully discarded thiscornering of EDCs, and placed themat par with VSS thereby making thementitled for usufruct sharing in thesame way as the VSS.

Plantation of NTFP species, andpromotion of microenterprises, etc.have also been a part of the JFM-linkedactivities. For instance, more than 7000SHGs have been claimed to have beenlinked with loan linkages from VSSrevolving fund, and 273 villageeducated youth received training towork as 'para teachers' in non-formaleducation centres run in the VSS areas,under OFSDP, vide their project statusreport for December 2013(http://w w w . o f s d p . o r g / P u b l i c a t i o n /PSR%20%20DECEMBER-13.PDF).It is however felt that the potential ofJFM-linked programmes in livelihood-promotion should be better andsincerely harnessed for more concreteresults.

Bikash Rath


The concept of involving local com-munities in forest management goesback to the pre-independence periodwhen the British administrators inOdisha made an understanding withsome local tribal communities that inlieu of certain services (like, helping inextinguishing forest fire) they (commu-nities) would be entitled for certainconcessions such as free collection ofminor forest products. The feudal rul-ers made a similar arrangement withthe local communities in many areas.In this case however the Forest De-partment clearly posed as the 'owner'while the communities were regardedas mere subjects. There were few ex-ceptional attempts to place the com-munities in a more dignified role, butthese had mixed results which is whythe Forest Enquiry Committee madea cautious stand, in their report of1959, on community role in forestmanagement.

Almost parallel to this process howeverwas a slowly building community re-gime in forest management under vari-ous circumstances. The Koraput Gaz-etteer (1939) as well as the report ofthe Partially Excluded Areas Commit-tee (1940) officially acknowledged thesuccess of community initiatives in for-est management in the undividedKoraput district. These initiatives werebased on one key thing: ownership ofthe communities over their forest or astrong sense of belongingness of thelocal forest to the concerned commu-nities. It was this particular feeling that

Is JFM taking over CFM ?

helped sustain and strengthen the ef-fort though there were cases of failureor abandoned attempt also. Gradually,this sense of belongingness or owner-ship, even if not legalized, took overthe forest protection and managementin other parts of the state and by 1980scommunity forest management(CFM) was well established in Odisha.Needless to say, the key to CFM wasthe sense of ownership by the localcommunities over the forests of theirtraditional access which they startedprotecting to check further degrada-tion, and this sense did not recognizeany stake of the Forest Department asthe people felt that the Department hadactually failed in protecting and con-serving the forest.

Towards the end of 1980s, the ForestDepartment officially changed its strat-egy and expressed interest to involvethe local communities for protectionof the forests. In lieu of this protectionit offered certain though limited con-cessions. Although appearing similar tothe arrangement during the Britishperiod, this new initiative actually hada significant difference, i.e. communityinvolvement was not compulsory. Thearrangement during the British periodwas in fact a form of bethi andbegari,i.e. forced labour and forcedrendering of services. This was moretrue for the feudal regimes. Theprincely rulers allowed certain conces-sions in forests in lieu of certain freeservices to be rendered by the localcommunities. In fact, the services were

often mandatory. After independencethe system of bethi & begari was abol-ished by the government followingwhich the concessions allowed werealso withdrawn. The resolution dated1st August 1988 however clearlystated that "the Government is of theview that the task of protecting forestsis so urgent and so enormous that therural community should be fully andactively involved in it." This sense ofrelying upon and respecting the com-munity potential was normally absentin the feudal regime with but few ex-ceptions. Further, it did not think of acommunity involvement by force orcompulsion. The resolution allowed aconcession for removal of small tim-ber and firewood for household con-sumption only, and confined itself tothe Reserved Forests adjoining the vil-lage areas. A modified version of thisresolution was published on 11 Decem-ber 1990 which extended the scope ofcommunity involvement to ProtectedForests too. However, both these reso-lutions never recognized the commu-nities as equal partners in forest man-agement. There was no mention of anycommunity stake in timber as well asnon-timber forest products. Such flawsin the approach were overcome tosome extent through the 1st formalJoint Forest Management resolution of3rd July 1993 which regarded thecommunities as equal partners in for-est management by using the term'joint forest management' and also rec-ognizing 50% stake of the forest pro-tecting communities in the final har-

EMERGING TRENDS


vest of timber. To quote the relevantstatements of the resolution:

"xxx Forest management has to be re-oriented to forge an effective partner-ship between the government depart-ment and the concerned village com-munities.

In Orissa the tradition of communityinitiative to protect degraded forestsgoes back to the early 1950s. In Au-gust 1988 the state government haspassed a resolution to formally intro-duce a scheme of protection of periph-eral reserved forest areas with partici-pation of the adjoining villages. Thescope of this resolution was enlargedin December 1990 to include the pro-tected forests, and it was also laid downthat village level forest protection com-mittee should be constituted by con-vening a meeting of the concerned vil-lages. In return for helping the forestdepartment in protection of the ear-marked forest areas the villagers wouldbe entitled to get small timber and fire-

wood as may be available from theseforests for meeting their bona fide re-quirement, free of royalty. For a vari-ety of reasons, however, this schemehas not made the desired impact ingenerating people's participation inprotection of forests. After careful con-sideration, government have decidedto implement the following scheme ofJoint Forest Management in the statein which the forest department and thevillagers of the adjacent village(s) willbe equal partners in the task of regen-eration and restoration of the degradedforests."

The progressive version of this resolu-tion was notified in 1996 which gave ascope for treating Reserved Forest ar-eas under JFM as village forests with100% stake of the local communities.However, this was never imple-mented. Instead, the 1993 version wasfollowed in practice till the resolutionof 2008 which extended the scope ofJFM to the Protected Areas(NationalParks and sanctuaries) by recognizing

the PA counterpart of VSS, i.e. theEco-development Committee(EDC).Unfortunately, the EDCs were not putat par with the VSS so far the benefitsharing was concerned. In fact, theEDCs were to be the losers than theVSSs primarily because of the restrictedregime of PAs. Moreover, the Foresterstill being the Secretary of the JFMcommittee at village level, decisionmaking was still under the Departmen-tal control. Hence, when the resolu-tion of 2011 replaced the Forester withan elected representative of the villag-ers themselves it became a praisewor-thy decision. In fact, the 2011 resolu-tion maximized the authority of thelocal communities in decision making.

This trend of evolution of a pro-peopleJFM policy may suggest that it wouldattract the local communities to workwith the Forest Department on a col-laborative mode with better scope cre-ated, like in the 2011 resolution. How-ever, it is the understanding of thepresent author that the process hasbeen quite otherwise actually.

For, JFMization of community for-estry had started even in 1990s. TheDepartment had certain targets to pro-mote JFM, and hence found it conve-nient to convert CFM groups intoVSSs. This was particularly possiblewhere the CFM networks(local fed-erations) were not strong enough orthe concerned CFM village had someinternal issues and/or vulnerabilitiesthat made it accept the offer of theDepartment. Koduanpalli is a goodexample of this. Bhuska(Athagarh For-est Division) offers a more interestingstory. Although the local communitieshere had been protecting the forestsince many years, they decided to ap-proach the Forest Department to be

EMERGING TRENDS

Supporting activities of community interest such as the construction of this community hall havehelped the Forest Department win the trust of JFM villages to some extent.


under JFM as they felt that withoutthe support of the Department itwould not be possible for them anymore to properly protect the forestagainst the increasing threat from thetimber smugglers. They also wanted akind of legal document that would helpthem assert their claim over the localforest. And this is how the process ofJFMization got accelerated:

“Even though the Joint Forest Man-agement (JFM) scheme started in 1993,the progress made under it was veryslow up to 1998. There were about1,105 VSS covering 104,454 ha of for-est area. The average area protectedper VSS was 95 hectares. The realgrowth of VSS numbers started duringthe years 1998-99 and 1999-2000.The number of VSSs increased from1105 to 6685 in between the period1998 to 1999. Further, it has increasedto 6912 by December 2002. By theend of 2003 there were 7002 VSSs inthe State. However, in order to achievethe target of formation of VSSs, theForest Department has simply per-suaded the already existing self-initi-ated groups to convert into VSS. Forinstance, in Balangir Forest Division outof 526 VSSs formed by the end of2003, 182 of these (34.6 per cent) wereconverted VSSs. Clearly the numberof VSSs has increased during the last

four years, and an average 800 VSSshave been formed per year during theperiod April 1999 to December 2002,but about one third of these have beenformed by converting the indigenousgroups existing in the forest fringevillages.”(Sarangi, 2007)

The Forest Department claims to havemore than 12000 VSSs in the state bythe end of 2011. Some relevant detailspertaining to this have been furnishedin Table-1.

A major strength of JFM has been thefinancial support it can provide to thecommunities. Particularly constitutionof the Forest Development Agenciesaccelerated the pumping of money toJFM areas. Plantation and other ac-tivities under different schemes suchas NREGS provided some wage em-ployment to the villagers, which in-creased their trust on the Department.One more factor, though not so offi-cial, was the personal rapport of thelocal forest authority(ies) with the lo-cal communities. There areexamples(such as in the Bonai ForestDivision) where this rapport workedlike a magic as people understood lessfrom the resolution or the documentthan from the reliability of the con-cerned authorities. These authoritiestook care to respect the genuine rights

EMERGING TRENDS

and feelings of the communities in thepossible ways(some of which werelikely to be unofficial). The Bonal VSSMandal is a good example of the rap-port between the communities and theForest Department.

During the last few years, with theweakening of community forestryfederations in many areas and thegrowing interest of the village commu-nities in external aid, JFM seems tohave become more appealing to manyof the CFM groups, particularly wherethey are less mature. Failure of theNGOs, who used to promote CFMactivities, to successfully address theissues of changing times should not beignored as a factor in this context. Thismay seem to be an irony of fate, but ifJFM makes community forestrystronger, effective, and systematic inspecific cases then that potential hasalso to be respected. However, thispotential seems to be more an artifi-cial one as money looks like the cen-tral power behind it. Once this poweris gone, the appeal of JFM is likely tolose itself drastically though a massunderstanding of the same is yet tocome, unfortunately.

Bikash Rath

• Govt. of Orissa(1959). Report of the Forest Enquiry Committee.

• Rath, Bikash(2002). People - Forest - State: A statistical review of the triangular relationship in Orissa. Vasundhara. Mimeo.

• Sarangi, T.K.(2007). Participatory Forest Management - its impact on livelihood of forest dwellers in Orissa. in in in in in Financing Agriculture, May-June 2007.www.researchgate.net/...Forest...Forest.../46a1d29d934df1fbb24aada4f2.


Ta

ble

-1

VSS

sta

tist

ics

in O

dis

ha

(Qua

rter

end

ing

Dec

emeb

er -

2011

)Sl

Nam

e of

the

Nam

e of

N

o of

VSS

Tota

lR

even

ueFo

rest

are

a br

ough

tTo

tal

Bre

ak u

p ol

d cu

mul

ativ

e fo

rest

No

of fa

mili

es c

over

ved

No

of E

DC

No.

Div

isio

nth

e D

istr

ict

Form

edVi

llage

unde

r JF

M t

hrou

gh V

SSin

Ha.

area

und

er J

FM a

s sh

own

in C

ol.1

0

und

er J

FMfo

rmed

in

Till

Dur

ing

Till

Prev

ious

Dur

ing

RF

(in H

a.)

PRF/

DPF

Oth

erSC

STG

en.

Sanc

tuar

y/Pr

evio

usth

eQ

uart

erth

e(in

Ha.

)Fo

rest

lan

d(in

no.

)(in

no.

)(in

no.

)N

atio

nal P

ark

quar

ter

Qua

rter

Qua

rter

(in H

a.)

area

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

17

1An

gul

Angu

l34

00

340

340

4740

5.16

60

4740

5.16

630

132.

6611

310.

8959

61.6

1699

8271

4432

550

0

2A

tham

allik

Angu

l17

00

170

168

1408

6.1

014

086.

100

3654

.68

407.

8210

023.

611

6528

1680

150

3D

henk

anal

Dhe

nkan

al30

20

302

237

3721

2.08

80

3721

2.08

832

487.

7428

044

44.3

4891

3375

8926

341

0

4At

haga

rhC

utta

ck14

70

147

158

1457

1.92

014

571.

920

1072

1.95

997

2852

.97

2129

2021

1018

30

5C

utta

ckC

utta

ck12

012

1286

50

865.

000

150

715

010

114

1636

30

Jajp

ur57

057

5756

470

5647

.000

410

4873

.05

363.

9123

8044

3543

790

Jaga

tsin

ghpu

r3

03

310

00

100.

000

010

00

280

1081

00

Kend

rapa

ra0

00

00

00.

000

00

00

00

0

6S

atko

shia

WL

Angu

l23

023

2065

30

653.

000

00

653

1584

1398

1156

27

Cut

tack

-ED

C0

00

00

00.

000

00

00

00

10

7Kh

urda

Khur

da48

048

7176

180

7618

.000

3098

.48

4071

.09

448.

4340

7237

1041

773

0

Nay

agar

h36

036

7062

950

6295

.000

5875

042

027

0224

8319

005

0

Puri

40

44

217

021

7.00

00

216.

511

070

90

4443

0

Cut

tack

50

55

405

040

5.00

00

405

012

810

1718

120

8N

ayag

arh

Nay

agar

h31

90

319

327

3233

2.28

032

332.

280

2730

9.47

2360

.06

2662

.75

7379

9784

4540

40

9C

hand

aka

WL

Khur

da10

010

930

80

308.

000

00

308

175

270

304

28

Cut

tack

200

2010

1180

011

80.0

000

1180

037

374

642

90

10C

hilik

a W

LKh

urdh

a19

019

1912

38.3

90

1238

.390

012

38.3

90

2511

1520

0

11P

uri W

LPu

ri38

038

3840

85.0

340

4085

.034

038

48.2

6423

6.77

3026

027

092

28

12R

ajna

gar W

LKe

ndra

para

230

2317

657

065

7.00

00

1364

410

0917

219

5434

13M

ahan

adi W

LN

ayag

arh

00

00

00

0.00

00

00

00

05

14C

ity F

ores

tkh

urda

20

22

800

80.0

0080

00

1012

30

0

Cut

tack

70

77

138

013

8.00

00

8256

449

3510

890

15B

hadr

ak W

LBh

adra

k46

046

4651

62.2

90

5162

.290

00

5612

.29

1731

627

1457

366

18

16G

hum

sur N

orth

Gan

jam

216

021

621

330

468.

280

3046

8.28

030

131.

280

337

6585

4316

2100

50

17G

hum

sur S

outh

Gan

jam

170

017

017

020

300

020

300.

000

8500

6770

5030

2334

1603

1217

30

18Ph

ulba

niKa

ndha

mal

599

260

160

148

953.

3564

.72

4901

8.07

024

750.

0255

94.0

218

674.

0325

5655

1882

50

19Bo

udh

Boud

h13

00

130

134

1161

2.16

011

612.

160

6971

3025

1616

.16

1118

1879

5927

0

20Ba

ligud

aKa

ndha

mal

442

044

244

237

488.

170

3748

8.17

012

417.

5815

779.

2992

91.2

9874

7912

642

6861

77

21Pa

rala

khem

undi

Gaj

apat

i41

80

418

418

2915

6.3

029

156.

300

9630

1833

6.3

1190

1040

9452

900

4

EMERGING TRENDS


SlN

ame

of th

eN

ame

of

No

of V

SSTo

tal

Rev

enue

Fore

st a

rea

brou

ght

Tota

lB

reak

up

old

cum

ulat

ive

fore

stN

o of

fam

ilies

cov

erve

dN

o of

ED

CN

o.D

ivis

ion

the

Dis

tric

tFo

rmed

Villa

geun

der

JFM

thr

ough

VSS

in H

a.ar

ea u

nder

JFM

as

show

n in

Col

.10

u

nder

JFM

form

ed i

nTi

llD

urin

gTi

ll Pr

evio

usD

urin

gR

F (in

Ha.

)PR

F/D

PFO

ther

SCST

Gen

.Sa

nctu

ary/

Prev

ious

the

Qua

rter

the

(in H

a.)

Fore

st l

and

(in n

o.)

(in n

o.)

(in n

o.)

Nat

iona

l Par

kqu

arte

rQ

uart

erQ

uart

er(in

Ha.

)ar

ea1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

22Be

rham

pur

Gan

jam

149

014

914

912

585

012

585.

000

3190

6937

2458

1256

961

6920

895

0

23Ka

laha

ndi N

orth

Kala

hand

i51

70

517

481

3899

0.52

038

990.

520

2743

2.16

7262

.59

4295

.77

1256

425

695

2351

10

24Ka

laha

ndi S

outh

Kala

hand

i37

70

377

377

2522

60

2522

6.00

012

548

9244

3434

1419

232

131

2117

412

25Kh

aria

rN

uapa

da45

80

458

346

3432

0.85

034

320.

850

99.8

829

817.

9544

03.0

228

4410

095

8804

0

26Su

nabe

da W

LN

uapa

da0

00

00

00.

000

00

00

00

4

27Su

barn

apur

Suba

rnap

ur22

70

227

227

2717

10

2717

1.00

014

944

8518

.02

3708

.48

1148

788

1127

230

0

28Bo

lang

irBo

lang

ir52

40

524

524

5259

2.5

052

592.

500

5023

80

2354

.566

6182

9319

875

0

29R

ayag

ada

Ray

agad

a78

00

780

780

5540

90

5540

9.00

020

527.

982

2219

7.2

1268

3.56

451

4120

515

9105

0

30Ko

rapu

tKo

rapu

t69

93

702

702

5163

5.68

270.

003

5190

5.68

315

028.

0302

2186

9.3

1500

8.35

6767

3127

007

9553

0

31Je

ypor

eKo

rapu

t49

13

494

494

3200

1.67

140

3214

1.67

010

280.

4811

828.

7110

032.

4891

9551

692

1233

50

32M

alka

ngiri

Mal

kang

iri26

70

267

267

2147

2.6

021

472.

600

5199

.883

00.8

7972

3164

1937

825

730

33N

awar

anga

pur

Naw

aran

gapu

r32

10

321

321

4186

1.63

041

861.

630

2130

7.3

2026

6.33

288

7437

3954

711

401

0

34Sa

mba

lpur

(N)

Jhar

sugu

da10

70

107

107

9907

.67

099

07.6

7045

8.42

413.

9684

9035

.281

615

320

3283

026

845

0

35Sa

mba

lpur

(S)

Sam

balp

ur21

00

210

199

2461

30

2461

3.00

012

774

2007

9832

3802

8926

6626

0

36R

aira

khol

Sam

balp

ur13

50

135

136

1211

6.29

012

116.

290

2919

1688

.96

7508

.33

5330

7770

2054

00

37Ba

raga

rhBa

raga

rh24

80

248

245

3267

40

3267

4.00

012

195.

0817

553.

1529

25.5

910

033

1519

424

561

0

38B

amra

Wl

Sam

balp

ur21

00

210

224

2363

50

2363

5.00

021

84.1

513

470.

4179

80.2

124

9386

0954

2824

39H

iraku

d W

LBa

raga

rh0

00

00

0.00

00

00

00

023

40Su

ndar

garh

Sund

arga

rh33

00

330

296

3822

80

3822

8.00

024

660

4390

9178

4599

2890

310

751

0

41Bo

nai

Sund

arga

rh22

20

222

227

1644

6.7

016

446.

700

5891

.48

3640

.659

6914

.565

3396

1515

439

430

42D

eoga

rhD

eoga

rh31

40

314

314

3379

0.82

490

3379

0.82

524

636.

4352

5482

.581

3671

.808

729

7384

4813

230

0

Angu

l13

30

133

133

2557

9.83

60

2557

9.83

622

505.

996

703

2370

.84

2123

4234

5657

0

43R

ourk

ela

Sund

arga

rh34

90

349

336

3226

90

3226

9.00

025

298.

4811

6458

06.5

229

3813

937

2477

0

44Ke

onjh

arKe

onjh

ar40

20

402

405

4183

1.69

80

4183

1.69

825

371.

491

6774

.175

9686

.032

9838

2941

620

731

0

45Ke

onjh

ar W

LKe

onjh

ar95

095

9513

837.

40

1383

7.40

010

403.

481

326

2171

3943

341

2481

45

46Ba

ripad

aM

ayur

bhan

j VSS

349

034

934

933

661.

850

3366

1.85

029

686.

8515

60.7

2414

.356

8927

757

2082

543

VFP

C63

063

6374

840

7484

.000

6702

.53

781

00

00

0

47Ka

ranj

iaM

.BH

.VSS

193

019

319

315

923

015

923.

000

1315

327

700

1192

152

248

2085

155

48R

aira

ngpu

rM

.BH

.VSS

184

018

421

522

348.

280

2234

8.28

014

722.

2856

7219

5481

269

3025

7957

VFP

C53

053

7469

330

6933

.000

4676

985.

9912

7135

222

2128

70

49B

alas

ore

WL

Bala

sore

145

014

524

611

013.

620

1101

3.62

047

30.9

617

1045

72.6

655

3972

1616

428

9

1215

88

1216

612

123

1153

794.

1547

4.72

311

5426

8.87

6300

85.0

444

2994

25.2

2252

06.4

827

1521

6457

7172

6708

463

Cour

tesy

: O

ffice

of t

he P

CCF,

Odi

sha

EMERGING TRENDS


KOZHIKODE :KOZHIKODE :KOZHIKODE :KOZHIKODE :KOZHIKODE :In a move to boost tourism prospectsin Kakkad near Puthupady here, VanaSamrakshana Samithi (VSS) will sub-mit a project report on Kakkad eco-tourism to Forest Minister BenoyViswom.

The project report will be submittedwithin 15 days, said VSS president MGopalakrishnan. At present, the tour-ists coming to Kakkad forest are man-aged by the VSS members who areresiding near the forest. On an aver-age, about 200 persons are coming tothe forest per week for trekking andenjoying the scenic beauty. “The'Kumban Mala' in the forest could be

VSSs beyond their conventional roleVana Samrakshana Samithi to submit report (on Eco-tourism)

By Express News ServicePublished: 15th December 2010 01:30 AM

Last Updated: 16th May 2012 02:36 PM

BERHAMPUR: BERHAMPUR: BERHAMPUR: BERHAMPUR: BERHAMPUR: The forest depart-ment will seek help from the VanaSamrakshana Samiti (VSS)to protectwildlife in Ganjam, in the wake of aspurt in poaching in the district. On anumber of occasions, the wild animalshave been electrocuted by layinglivewires in the forest.

"We will sensitize the members of theVSS in the district and seek their coop-eration to detect the livewires laid bypoachers," said chief conservator offorest (wildlife) S S Srivastav. He vis-ited Buduli village in Muzagada forestrange on Tuesday, where two tuskershad died coming in contact withlivewires on March 23.

The livewires were hooked from theKV line. The forest officials had ar-rested two persons of the village on

charge of killing the elephants.Srivastav has spoke to the villagers andadvised not to indulge in such activi-ties. Senior engineers of Southco, theprivate distribution company were alsopresent during the discussion.

It's not an isolated incident in the dis-trict where poachers killed the wildanimals by electrocuting them. Severalsuch incidents were reported fromKabisurya Nagar, Buguda, Polasara,Jagannath Prasad forest ranges in thepast, where animals like wild boars,bears and even pet animals were killed.

"Since poaching has been rampant inGanjam, we have to engage the mem-bers of the VSS to ensure safety of theanimals," chief conservator of forest(wildlife) said. "We will ask the divi-sional forest officers in the district to

engage the members of the VSS to pro-tect the wildlife," he added.

He, however, ruled out the possibilitythat the elephants were killed for ivory."I don't think so," he said, adding, "Dur-ing my discussion with the villagerssome of them said the livewires werelaid in the field to protect crops fromwild boars." Population of the wildboar has increased many folds in thedistrict. The ivory recovered from theelephants which died recently, hasbeen kept in the custody of forest de-partment, sources said.

(Source:http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-06/bhubaneswar/

29393087_1_boars-forest-officials-vss)

Vana Samrakshana Samiti to protect wildlife in Ganjam

TNN Apr 6, 2011,11.31pm IST

NEWS & EVENTS

made a good trekking spot. Besides,there are several streams flowingthrough the forest, which could alsobe made a tourist hot spot,” he pointedout.

“The main problem we face is the lackof awareness about the place amongpeople. The place lacks basic infra-structure for tourism. The Forest Min-ister had asked us to prepare a projectreport in his last visit,” he said.The re-port envisages the chances of puttingup huts, tree houses and other facilitiesinside the forest. The forest path willbe stone paved. Apart from these, therewill be scope for adventure tourism,he said. The construction will be eco-

friendly and without hampering theeco-system of the forest, he explained.“About ‘1 crore is the project cost. Theproject, if approved, will be imple-mented jointly with the Forest Depart-ment. The tourists coming to the placewill be accompanied by a guide andallowed to visit the forest with an ad-mission charge of ̀ 10. Food will alsobe arranged as per the request,” hesaid.The project, he says, would behelpful for about 700 families, includ-ing three tribal people colonies, nearthe 300-hectares forest.

(Source: http://www. newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/article170627.ece)

www.rcdcindia.org

Documents

Community - rcdcindia.org · 4 Community Forestry Combined issue-28, May - December 2013 COVER STORY Introduction India, with its diverse habitat and cli-matic conditions, is home