ODISHA JANGAL MANCH

Laxmidhar Balia Convenor, Odisha Jangal Manch, (State Level Forestry Federation)

Odisha, India

STRUCTURE OF THE PRESENTATION

 FORESTRY IN ORISSA & ORISSA JUNGLE MANCH AT A GLANCE

 GENESIS

 STRUCTURE OF OJM

 FUNCTION

 PRESENT STATUS

 ACHIEVEMENTS

  ISSUES & CHALLENGES

 FUTURE ACTION

ORISSAFORESTRYATAGLANCE  The State of Odisha with a

geographical area of 15.57 million ha. has a population of nearly 36.71 million (2001 census)

  The recorded forest area in the state stands at 58136.87 Sq.Km, which accounts for 37.34% of the geographical area

  The forests are concentrated mostly in central, Southern and Western parts of the State

  Out of total 51000 villages ,29302 are forest fringe

  12000 Commun i t y f o res t management groups are protecting about 8,50,000 ha since last 20 years

  Total forest protection by the CFM groups are 40% of the total forest coverage

GENISISOFCOMMUNITYFORESTRY•  The first recorded instance of voluntary forest

protection by communities goes as far back as 1936. Lapanga in Sambalpur district is where it all started

•  By the 60's, many villages in western Odisha, took to forest protection on their own

•  The 70's saw the trend - which, by now, had taken on the proportions of a veritable movement - spread to newer areas in Central Odisha

•  Community forestry involve larger landscape and heterogeneous communities

•  OJM was shaped in 1993 with the participation of 5 District forest forums with 2500 CFM groups

•  Up to 2000 OJM structure expanded to 13 districts with 5000 CFM groups

•  Up to March2010 –OJM is working with 24DFF and with 12000 villages.

STRUCTURE OF OJM

Village level forest protection committee

Cluster level committee

Zonal level committee

District level forum

Odisha Jangal Manch

FUNCTION •  OJMistheStatelevelfederationof

theVillageforestprotectioncommittees.(12000CFMat‐groundlevel,24Districtsforestforums(DFF)

•  CoreindicatoroftheCFMgroupsare,ActivatingChulichanda(membershipfees),Thengapalli(stick‐rotation),Conflictresolution&benefitsharing

•  Focusingonnaturalregenerationratherthanplantation

•  Actingasstatelevelpressuregroup&playingvigilantroletomonitorvariousforestrydevelopmentactivities.

PRESENT STATUS

•  About 25000 people are watching forest everyday in rotation basis.

•  About 10 crore rupees generated as village fund by managing forest. (main source of fund generation is Thengapali, Chulichanda by introducing village pass and imposing fine)

•  About 10 million people are directly depending upon forest •  About1500leadersarecreatedthoughCFMinitiatives,(PRI,

Legislativeassembly,MP)•  300traditionalAyurvadicpractitionersinitiatedconservationof

herbalplantspecies

•  About7000Bambooartisansaredirectlydependinguponforest

ACHIEVEMENTS

•  Managingforestwithoutanyexternalsupport

•  Controllingforestfireandprotectingwildlife•  Conservingmedicinalplants(KUTUMB‐PEDI)andconservingbiodiversity

•  Playingvigilantroleofvariousforestrydevelopmentactivities

•  Actingasapressuregroupatstatelevel•  Byconservingforestthefertilecapacityoflandisalsoincreasing

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES   Massive implementation of overseas projects (mining and

industry, plantation)is demotivating the CFM initiatives   Research studies have found out that forestry development

programs like NAP/FDA/JFM/JBIC-OFSDP/CAMPA has negatively affected community forestry initiatives, has disrupted traditional institutions and equity.

  It is observed that fund based intervention, instead of increasing forests, has led to degradation

  Marginal and vulnerable groups, women, traditional leadership, institutions have lost political space in the institutions created under the forestry programs.

  All the developmental activities are implementing in JFM mode.

  NGO involvement with overseas project is increasing rather than promoting CFM initiatives

Issuesofforestrights   Claims on community forest rights filed by CFM groups are not

recognized yet   Claim and recognition of rights to CFM is constrained by other

government laws/policies like Indian Forest Act 1927, Wildlife Protection Act 1972, Joint Forest Management

  In community forest rights context there is no cooperation and coordination among government departments like Revenue, Forest, Tribal Development, Panchayati Raj department.

  CFR are mostly recognized in JFM villages on the allotted forest (100-200acres) neglecting the CFM villages and traditional access.

  After implementation of FRA existing institutions like JFM should have been dissolved, but no step has been taken by the govt as a result of which conflict and confusion on forest tenure persist.

  In this situation it is apprehended that implementation of REDD could negatively impact community forest rights and empowered institutions which are taking shape under Forest Rights Act.

FUTURE ACTION

THANK YOU Laxmidhar Balia

Email: odishajunglemanch

@yahoo.in