Lack of Participation in Joint Forest Management and Income Generation

Abstract:

Present paper is illustrating the social analysis of Joint Forest Management (JFM). How, the lack in participation in JFM activities adversely affects the income generation of the people and which leads to failure of the project in several states. Social acceptability is the major criteria for the success of any community project and social acceptability depends upon needs and income generated by the project activities.

The study has been conducted with a combination of secondary as well as primary research. It has been normative but conclusive in nature. The complex nature of the study required a comprehensive secondary research followed by a multi stage primary research. In several states it is observed that income generation and basic needs are the basic yardstick to participate in the JFM. Lack of monitory benefits, forced the community to less participate in most states in India. The assets creation plays as catalyst in income generation and participation in over all.


Introduction

The increasing depletion of India's forest resources has brought into sharp focus the inherent inadequacy of traditional state owned and run systems of forest management in sustaining the forest resource base against the growing human and livestock population pressures, industrialization, urbanization, and overall economic development. Apart from developmental pressures, the dependence of forest user groups is a crucial factor in the state of India’s forests. Forest conservation priorities cannot be determined in isolation from local people and broader patterns of natural resource use, and this must be complimented by policies promoting sustainable and equitable development of the natural resource base as a whole. In acknowledging this factor, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India issued policy guidelines for the involvement of village communities and voluntary agencies in the regeneration of degraded forest lands on 1 June 1990 under the JFM (Joint Forest Management) programme.

Participation in Historical Prospect

The concept of participation originated from the family systems and community living. Its history goes back to the period when the mother earth emerged with life. Since, time immemorial even the animals have been participating for their food, protection and normal living. The human being since its development started living together in community and probably this is why the proverb “Man is a social animal”. People participation is not a new concept and has its base in caring and sharing. In Indian context also participation has been a socio-political factor since time immemorial.

In Indian forestry context, participation had been talked and written about since 1950s. It is interesting to note that it was government which started organized participation in its development programmes and at a later stage civic societies caught up the idea and adopted it as an indispensable tool for programme implementation. The government through the initiative for the Panchayati Raj and other micro political systems has been encouraging and motivating community participation in its activity.

Participation the Conceptual Framework

Participation is conceived to be the most important tool for success of any community project. In forestry particularly JFMCs this is the core tool instrumental in guiding success of JFM. The concept of participation can be explained in a better way if talked into two parts (1) a psychological part (2) a physical part that is motivation and action being two critical parts of authentic participation. Action without motivation is not effective. Similarly, one may be highly motivated but does not do anything both these conditions can be termed as passive and active form of participation. Active participation can be said to be authentic when the participation has strong motivation as well.

Participation can only take place when the outsiders do not have a say in the ultimate power and decision making and actions, and the actual power and control is in the hands of those who will be actually affected by the decision. Therefore it can be said that minimum of these elements make participation authentic.

1)Motivation
2)Action
3)Control and power

Local community gets motivated to take part in action only when they have taken active part in goal setting and in decision making. But when outsiders set the goals and make decisions there is no development of motivation. They might resist as the decision taken by the outsiders may not be agreeable to them, therefore they do not own the project. In others words, ownership comes naturally when the local communities have taken active part in goal setting, decision making and in the action to implement the decisions made.

At the community level, a participation programmed takes the following course.

Motivation in the community to resolve an issue, achieve something useful.
Goal, objective setting by the entire community.
Taking part in decision making.
Taking part in action to implement the decision made.
Developing a feeling of ownership of the project.
Taking action to maintain the project output.

Participation in JFM

The forests management in India has traditionally been protection oriented. However, with increasing population the demand for forest based products started increasing and hence heavy biotic pressure on the forests. Resultantly, the Indian forests cover started declining and the traditional management system started getting questioned. Joint Forest Management emerged as both as alternative and supplement to the forest management systems in India and in organized way it found its beginning in Arabari in West Bengal during the mid 70s. Slowly it spread its wing and in many other places JFM came in existence on experimental basis. Gradually, it got attention of the policy makers and managers of forests and became watchword for sustainable development of forests. In 1990 the Government of India brought in a resolution on JFM and since then it got an organized shape with planning back up on national level. The different state governments went on adopting the JFM system for sustainable development of forests and the people independent on it.

JFM is a concept of developing partnerships between fringe forest user groups and the FD (forest department) on the basis of mutual trust and jointly defined roles and responsibilities with regard to forest protection and development. Under the JFM programme, the user and the owner (government) manage the resource and share the cost equally. The effective and meaningful involvement of local communities in evolving sustainable forest management systems is now being looked upon as a significant approach to address the longstanding problems of deforestation and land degradation in India. The linking of socio-economic incentives and forest development has been singularly instrumental in eliciting community participation. The institutional involvement in various forest protection and developmental activities has made promising impacts on the biophysical and socio-economic environment of the JFM areas. Currently, it is estimated that 10.24 million ha of forest lands are being managed under the JFM programme through 36,075 committees in 22 states. As a follow up, the Government of India issued guidelines on 21 February 2000 for strengthening of the JFM programme (Annexure A).

People's participation is now thought by many to be a prerequisite for sustainable development. There are, however, a variety of different interpretations of what "people's participation" and "participatory development" should and do mean in practice, ranging from "we want them to participate in what we do" to "we want to support them in the achievement of their goals".

Broadly speaking, depending on project objectives and strategies, two approaches can be distinguished. The first type is the "blueprint" or "target-oriented" approach, in which projects are defined in terms of mechanisms for the delivery of pre-defined packages of goods and services to specific target groups. Participation in this context is understood in terms of the willingness of people to undertake the required activities.

The second type can be called the "process-oriented" approach. In this approach, specific categories of activities are defined by the people themselves. This definition is made on the basis of local resources and needs, with support "facilitation" from the project. The technical message is not a uniform, pre-defined recipe but a "menu" with various options. Participation in this context is understood to mean that the people themselves assume ownership and accountability for activities, which they have identified and developed with the support of the project.

Approaches to Participation

(a)Participation takes place when most decisions about a project or an activity have already been made by administrators/technical people and the local community is induced to co-operate with them either by providing them incentives and subsidies or by using the threats to implement the project designed by the outsiders. Here, participation is used as a means to achieve goals and objectives already decided or set by project authorities. The control and decision making power remains with the project authorities as their resources are mainly involved. This approach is adopted by both the government and NGOs.

(b)Participation development takes place when people are given non directed education and they are mobilized and organized over a longer period of time to form their own organizations, realize their own potential and power and be self reliant– identify issues/ problems, set goals, make decisions and undertake activities on their own. In participatory development local resources are used and the local communities undertake activities which are within their capacity. They look to the state to provide resources from it to undertake activities which are beyond their capabilities. Even the resources provided by outsiders its use and management are controlled by the local community.

(c)The third approach could be that the project in which participation is initiated as a means could be made to become a participatory development project. Here the participation process is one in which decisions and actions to implement the decision are made jointly both by outsiders and local community.

Community Participation

Participation by community depends in multiple factors major being benefits, livelihood, culture, tradition, faith, process, institution building etc. Process of JFM does offer multiple opportunities to communities ranging from livelihood to socio-economic empowerments. However, it is livelihood framework which affects the participation most. People living in and around forest areas do not have adequate, educational facilities, and assets to reap the opportunities provided by JFM. Human development index is at its lowest in these areas. People still practice primitive subsistence, agriculture with very low productivity to meet their growing food grain requirements and they go in for more extensive cultivation inducting shifting cultivation, or encroachment of forest areas. Generally, homogeneity of group is considered as a pre-requisite to JFM initiation. However even in a small group homogeneity is hard to be found. People differ in their needs and assets and hence the differing motives. Developing belonging with forests is a self actualization type of need as described by Maslow. It is a need of highest order and there is no reason barring religious and cultural, why the people can feel attachment with forest in the absence of money factor.

Chambers RNG Conbey in 1992 in their work “Sustainable Rural Livelihood, practical concept for the 21st century” has defined livelihood framework. In his view, the livelihood approach is a way of thinking about the objectives, scope and priorities for development. In other words, it is a way putting people at the centre of development thereby increasing the effectiveness of development assistance. The full diversity and richness of livelihoods can be understood only by qualitative and participatory analysis. People have access to certain assets of poverty reducing factors. These gain their meaning and value through the prevailing social institution and organization environment. This environment also influences the livelihood strategy by ways of combining and using assets that are open to people in pursuit of beneficial livelihoods outcomes that meet their own livelihood objective. The major livelihood assets are:

•Human Capital
•Natural Capital
•Financial Capital
•Social Capital
•Physical Capital

Social Acceptability for Participation

The issue of social acceptability, in one form or another, has long been of interest to social scientists to evaluate the participation in any program. It has gained particular attention in the area of natural resource management as a result of growing incidences of political protest and intervention. For central forest management, the debate and uncertainty over adaptive and ecosystem based management approaches, and the conditions resulting from such practices, have raised to new prominence concerns about public acceptance. To meet the objectives of ecosystem management, however problematic the definition, forestry professionals need to understand how natural systems function and are sustained; however, they also need to understand how people interpret and respond to changes in forest settings, policy decisions, and management institutions.
The concept of social acceptability of natural resource management can be traced to the work of rural sociologist Firey (1960), who was interested in understanding why certain resource practices and prescriptions in different societies persisted, whereas others did not. He concluded that the adoption and retention of any particular resource program or action depends on the extent to which that activity satisfies three key requisites:

• Physically possible: practices are consistent with ecological processes.
• Economically feasible: practices generate revenue in excess of costs.
• Culturally adoptable: practices are consistent with prevailing social customs and norms.

Clawson (1975) introduced a similar premise focused more directly on forest environments but provided a more detailed set of criteria than Firey by arguing that successful policies must meet five conditions:

(1) Biological and physical feasibility,
(2) Economic efficiency,
(3) Economic welfare or equity,
(4) Social or cultural acceptability, and
(5) Operational or administrative practicality.

Forest Policy Process Gap and Participation

From a mechanistic standpoint, agency staff also have mastered the traditional scoping process by which the public can provide input on a plan or project, but these sessions frequently are sterile, rule bound, one way exchanges (Cortner et al. 1996); they represent what has become known in some western communities as the “three is” of federal public involvement: i.e., inform the public, solicit their input, and then ignore it (Shindler and Neburka 1997).

Alternatively, mistrust is the dark heart of wicked problems (King 1993). Research from forest and range communities confirms the importance of a genuine participation process in building trustworthy relations. Effective, trustworthy relations could be organized around six common factors:

(1) Inclusiveness,
(2) Sincere leadership,
(3) Innovative and flexible methods,
(4) Early commitment and continuity,
(5) Sound organizational and planning skills, and
(6) Efforts that result in action.

National Scenario

The Seventy Third Amendments is not applicable in the Scheduled Areas. Scheduled Areas were excluded to preserve the social customs and traditions of the tribals. These areas lay in nine states- Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. In 1996, the Panchayats Extension to the Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act extended the provisions of the Seventy Third Amendment to Scheduled areas and provided extensive powers to Gram Sabhas (general body of the village Panchayat) for management of natural resources on areas under their jurisdiction. PESA mandated the states to enact their Panchayat legislation's in consonance with the customary laws and traditional management practices of community resources. In retrospect, if one tries to understand the factors that contributed to the change by each of the stakeholder groups, they can be summarizing as under:

•Regular discussion and debate on all matters concerned, despite the differences
•Space for different viewpoints/ approaches and each respecting the other
•Ability and maturity of groups having different viewpoints to see that even the most serious differences do not adversely affect the overall process
• Focusing only on the JFM related matters while interacting with the FD

Form what one can observe from a distance, it is evident that the leadership provided by the FD has contributed a lot to the change of attitude towards NGOs among FD officials at different levels. The Following factors have contributed to relationship building:

• Initiative and the ability of leadership to bring in and take forward the 'change'
• Active participation with open minds in all joint/multi-stakeholder meetings, organized by NGOs and FD
• Explaining FD's intentions, as ,many times as required, to dispel the fears expressed
• Offering clarifications in both formal and informal settings on issues of controversial nature
• Willingness to accept suggestions and issue appropriate circulars to improve implementation at field level, especially in applying the JFMGC to all VSSs in the state irrespective of source of funding
• Ability to appreciate and respect views of NGOs even when there is disagreement with the same, from the FD's point of view
• The World Bank project catalyst, stimulating the process
• The monitoring mechanism of the Bank has built in provisions to look into all relevant aspects
• The willingness of the task manager and the team members, especially during the formulation of the second phase project, to take cognizance of the issues flagged and to try and ensure that the same get addressed in the subsequent planning/ monitoring

Status of JFM Committees

The legal status of JFM committees, the powers they posses to carry out their daily patrolling activities for sharing benefits and, for taking recourse to legal action to protect their own interests, are crucial issues. Field visits have indicated that when the members of protection committees sought to fine offenders, found illicitly felling wood in contravention of rules, they were often challenged and threatened with legal action. In practice, however, it was found that many successful VFCs function by imposing such fines which act as a deterrent to forest violators while the Indian Forest Act does not recognise these functions of the VFCs.

National Legal and Policy Framework

Under the Indian Constitution, national and state governments share jurisdiction for forestry. The centre generally sets the broad national policy and legal framework and supporting statutes. Three major national laws governing forestry have been promulgated over the past 127 years: the Indian Forest Act of 1878, the Indian Forest Act of 1927, and the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. Three key forest policy pronouncements have been made in independent India: the Forest Policy of 1952, the National Commission on Agriculture of 1976, and the 1988 Forest Policy. Another law, the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, is also important, since there is interaction and various contradictions between this act and the more traditional forestry acts for communities located in and adjacent to protected areas. A proposed Scheduled Tribes Bill (2005) would recognize historic land rights held by tribal people in scheduled areas to an upper limit of 2.5 hectares per family.

Analysis of Participation

The past decade has witnessed a fundamental shift in many areas of forestry and biodiversity conservation from centralized planning by government agencies to more participatory approaches that take into account the varying needs and interests of forest users. One reason for this shift is growing recognition by policymakers and planners of the multiple environmental, economic, and social values of forest resources. While national policymakers remain interested in generating economic benefits from forests, they also realize the important role that forests play in preserving biodiversity, protecting critical watersheds, and providing livelihoods. Thus, policymakers are becoming increasingly aware that forests are important public commodities that meet the demands of multiple, and often competing, users. Participation in forestry and conservation management refers to the active involvement of various stakeholders in defining forest sector and conservation objectives, determining beneficiaries, managing forest resources, resolving conflicts over forest uses, and monitoring and evaluating the performance of forestry and biodiversity conservation projects. Stakeholders are those who have an interest in or are potentially affected by forest and conservation policies and projects.

Limitations of Participation

Participation is not a panacea for the many problems facing the forest sector, and like all approaches, has its limits. Participatory approaches have not worked in some areas because of conflicts over forest resources, dispersed population structure, or the history of forest ownership patterns and use. At the national level, there may be powerful interests or prejudices against reforming forest and environmental policies and devolving authority to a broader range of forest users. Policy reform, in forestry as well as in other sectors, is a slow, difficult, and costly process that may not be consistent with the urgent need to slow forest loss and degradation. Government agencies, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) also have different capacities and different incentives for promoting broad stakeholder and local participation. For example, governments and NGOs often need assistance in developing appropriate technologies and improving organizational skills, while forest industries may have the expertise, but perhaps limited interest in addressing environmental and social objectives.

Reference:

Chambers, R., 1992.Rural Appraisal: Rapid Relaud and Participatory. Institute of Development Studies Discussion Paper 311, University of Sussex, England,
Clawson, M. 1975. Forest for whom and for what? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cortner, H.J.; Shannon, M.;Wallace, M. [et al.]. 1996. Institutional barriers and incentives for ecosystem management: a problem analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR- 354. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 35 p.
Firey, W. 1960. Man, mind, and land. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. 256 p.
King, J. 1993. Learning to solve the right problems: the case of nuclear power in America. Journal of Business Ethics. 13: 105-116.
Shindler, B. 1997. Public perspectives on prescribed fire and mechanical thinning. Tech. Note BMNRI-TN-9. La Grande, Or: Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute. 4 p.