Sudden drop in social hierarchy due to disappearance of Common Property Resources

This is an interesting observation. Haven't really thought about these aspects! Hope the policy makers are listening!

Subrat

Urbaninsation takes a toll on villagers
Satyasundar Barik

BHUBANESWAR: Pitambar Nayak, a 54-year-old resident of Gadakana village in Bhubaneswar, which is fast acquiring status of a mini-metro, suddenly feels his sphere has been squeezed and he has turned a slum dweller in his own village.

Though a landless, Maku Nayak, an eighty-year old man, had enough space to lead a dignified life in Gadakana village like his fellow villager Pitambar.

Now ever since land prices have skyrocketed in Bhubaneswar and villages have turned posh urban localities, these villagers, who have very limited source of income, have become second-class residents.

Social hierarchy

The major reason they cited for their sudden drop in social hierarchy is disappearance of vast stretches of government land (common property resources) on which these people have been collectively depending for domestic purposes such as grazing land for cattle, playing ground for their children and graveyards.

According to market estimates, one acre of land in villages such as Gadakana, Chandrasekharpur, Patia, Ghatikia and Chakeisiani costs around Rs. 3 crore to Rs. 6 crore.

Under these circumstances government-housing agencies are also eyeing at government lands to cash in on current booms. Although government gets profit out of the deal, dependant villagers on these pieces of land appeared to be the worst suffers, losing their age-old rights.

“We had about 7,000 square feet of land in 1970. With disintegration of family, I have hardly 1,000 square feet of land left in my possession,” said Pitambar Nayak, a father of six children.

According to estimates, as many as 173 villages are situated within limit of Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA). Of them 91 come in BDA jurisdiction, eight in East Kuakhai city, nine in Khurda, 13 in Jatni and 50 in new areas.

As per conservative estimate, at least 75 families in a village are either landless or marginal farmers.

Now under pressure urbanisation, these villagers are facing exit from their own villages. About 200 such families on Thursday staged demonstration outside BDA office here demanding immediate halt to acquisition of government land around their villages.

Under the banner of Orissa Adivasi Mahasabha, they demanded original villagers of capital city should be given 10 decimal of homestead land and houses under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM).

“Those who are affected by disappearance of common property resources should be adequately rehabilitated. These people have been living for ages. They should be made stakeholder in the development,” said Saal Mandi president of Orissa Adivasi Mahasabha.

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/12/26/stories/2009122650670200.htm

Are Indian policy makers listening?

Popular ideas of development and management of common resources should be revisited in light of this year's Economics Nobel Prize, given to Prof. Elinor Ostrom, writes Prakash Kashwan.

03 November 2009

Prof. Elinor Ostrom, one of the two laureates chosen for this year's Economics Nobel Prize, has devoted her life to dismantling prevailing orthodoxies and disciplinary boundaries. A number of these orthodoxies pertain to ideas of 'development', with which India is now grappling. Therefore, this is an apt moment to pause and reflect upon the development paths we have chosen, in light of Elinor Ostrom's work.

Lin, as the professor is fondly known among her colleagues, built upon and took to new heights the contributions made by her senior colleague and husband Vincent Ostrom. Vincent has pursued the philosophical challenge posed by Alexander Hamilton, i.e. "whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice". Lin has gone further with this question, and has attempted to understand and explain, "How can fallible human beings achieve and sustain self-governing entities and self-governing ways of life?"

At the University of California in 1965, for her doctoral research, Lin Ostrom studied efforts to halt the intrusion of saltwater into a groundwater basin within the Los Angeles metropolitan area. She concluded that the success of these efforts was founded on cooperation among citizens who deliberated, bargained, and made constructive use of a variety of institutional arenas.

Lin's view was - and is - contrary to the conventional wisdom aptly captured in the Tragedy of Commons thesis propounded by biologist Garrett Hardin. Hardin had argued that the resources held in common were doomed to a tragic downward spiral of degradation as each individual within the community would attempt to maximise his or her gains at the cost of the resource, and even the other members of the community. Lin's findings from the Los Angeles study showed otherwise, that the community could evolve institutions to manage its resources successfully.

The metaphor of this Tragedy of Commons has been conveniently exploited by those who advocated either blanket privatisation on the one hand, or unencumbered state control on the other hand over natural resources such as forests, water, and village grazing lands. Thus, Lin's work has provided counter-arguments to both agendas. In the 1990 book Governing the Commons, Lin argued that either privatisation or the leviathan - a strong state - were not the only choices, insisting that under certain conditions, local communities could successfully overcome the challenge of managing their commons by crafting appropriate rules and conventions.

However, Lin cautions that her work should not be taken to mean that communities will succeed no matter what. Successful governance arrangements are often characterised by cooperation at several scales, at times involving institutions such as judiciary, and democratic arrangements for policy formulation and implementation. In her recent work, Lin argues against applying her findings too broadly, for instance, to advocate decentralization as a cure for every ill plaguing a society. Thus policies and programs that romanticise either the state control of resources, a mere hand-over of natural resources to local community groups have little chance of success in the long run.

Lin cautions that her work should not be taken to mean that communities will succeed no matter what. Successful governance arrangements are often characterised by cooperation at several scales.

Similarly, centralized programs of so-called partnership between the government and local leaders not accountable to the larger community, such as the much talked about "Joint Forest Management" in India, are also simplistic. Instead, what is required is a nuanced and deliberative process of arriving at governance arrangements that are informed of local realities and address the interests of different concerned groups.

Lessons for Indians

India has had a long tradition of community-based conservation of land, water, and forest resources. For instance, hundreds of community groups in Orissa, Gujarat, and Uttarakhand have protected the village forests despite lack of incentives and virtually no cooperation from the forest department. A large majority of Indians still rely on Common Pool Resources (which may not always be managed under a Common Property Regime) such as water, forests, and grazing land. Add to this the tradition in several parts of our country where post-harvests, even privately owned agriculture fields turn into commons. Moreover, the reliance on commons is not merely of income, as is often argued inadequately. It is essential for the very survival of sections within rural and tribal communities. For us Indians, the reliance on commons is a question of human development as well as environment conservation.

Indians also have rich intellectual traditions that offer the norms and conventions that should guide the conduct of our societal affairs. Unfortunately, members of what is sometimes referred to as the "call-center generation", which is fast occupying the role of opinion-makers in our society, don't appreciate these nuances. They fall for simplistic but gratifying quick-fix solutions. Protect all remaining forests at any cost; plant large number of trees every June 5th; deal militarily with the dissent in tribal areas; and so forth.

This is precisely where Lin's work, often summed up as an exercise in evolving a craft of association, may come handy. How do the Delhiites think of their 'association' with the tribals in Dediapada? Such reflection is a pre-requisite for dealing with the challenges we face in devising systems of governance that do justice to our social, cultural and geographic diversity. Moreover, the commons are not just about local forests and local association, particularly in this era where the whole environmental discourse is defined by climate change an issue that is about development as much as it is about environment. Local lessons and domestic sensitivities should play a vital role in defining our position at the global negotiating table too.

Finally, it is pertinent to consider the kind of scholarship that Lin and her colleagues from around the world practice. It involves combining theoretical insights from different fields through a variety of research methods, something that is underlined by the awarding of the Economics Nobel Prize to Lin, a Political Scientist, who works in the mould of a Political Economist. Moreover, she has and continues to work with Mathematicians, Computer Scientists, Biologists, Geographers, Foresters, and Anthropologists, to name a few.

Given that building the academic and research institutions should be India's top priorities, we should meticulously work on encouraging interdisciplinary work among scholars from around the country. This may help us nurture not only scholars but citizens who appreciate the nuanced deliberations required for finding humble solutions to challenges that seem daunting.

Prakash Kashwan 03 Nov 2009
Prakash Kashwan author is one of Prof. Ostrom's doctoral students at the School of Public & Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington. He is currently working on his dissertation research on questions of forest rights and forest conservation in India.
http://indiatogether.org/2009/nov/opi-ostrom.htm

Commons sense

G Sampath
Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:00 IST

Elinor Ostrom, winner of this year's Nobel Prize for Economics, awarded for her path-breaking work on governance of common pool resources such as land and forests, believes that part of the solution to many of the world's key problemslies at the local level.

In an exclusive interview with G Sampath, she discusses climate change, India's development dilemmas, and the limitations of orthodox economics.

While awarding the 2009 Nobel Prize for Economics to Elinor Ostrom (which she shared with Oliver Williamson) the Nobel Committee in its citation said, "Elinor Ostrom has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatised. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks... groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories."

Indeed, it should hardly be a surprise that the 76-year-old Ostrom's lifetime of work on economic governance debunks many of the standard shibboleths of mainstream economics, for she is not even an economist in the first place -- she is a professor of political science at Indian University, Bloomington, in the US.

The biggest myth she busts is that of that of the "tragedy of the commons," espoused most convincingly by Garrett Hardin in 1968. The Wikipedia describes Hardin's hypothesis thus: "multiple individuals acting independently and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest will ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long term interest for this to happen."

The consequence of embracing such a theory is to prescribe either government regulation or private ownership of common resources (or commons), such as forests, rivers, lakes, pastures. This is what most governments the world over have done, resulting in, more often than not, the denial of access to such resources to the original community of users, and conflicts thereof.
Ostrom's work demonstrates that Hardin's conclusions were an "overstatement." By making a strong case for user-management of common resources, and ground-up, "polycentric" policy-making, Ostrom's work is a key resource for all who are concerned to strengthen and protect democratic rights at local and community levels, and at the same time, follow a sustainable approach to the management of the commons. In a telephonic interview, Ostrom spoke to The Mag about, among other things, how best India can manage its ongoing conflicts over common pool resources.

Climate, too, is a 'common' resource. How do you visualise 'governing the commons' operating at the international level, in the context of the debates over carbon caps and the summit next month at Copenhagen?

Climate change is a global phenomenon that requires a global response. But by focusing only on the level of global governance, we could miss out on benefits that could result from responding to the issue at individual, local, regional and national levels. Developing effective nested institutions at multiple levels is one of the key challenges of the contemporary era. For example, in Berkeley, California, there are city initiatives to help residents pay for installing solar panels; California has stringent state targets for air pollution; then there is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Consortium, made up of 10 northeastern states. Critics may argue that local and regional actions won't solve the climate change problem, but cumulatively, they're significant.

Right now in India there is a huge conflict over common pool resources, such as land and forests. While existing populations depend on these resources for survival, there are also developmental needs emerging from industrialisation, leading to clashes such as farmers versus industry, or indigenous communities versus mining companies. How do we resolve such conflicts over the commons?

This is a very tricky issue. If Mahatma Gandhi were alive, he would be with the people who have been sustaining the land and the resources and the trees. He would not consider going through big industry and lots of money as necessarily the best way. For example, in Mexico, there is a group of indigenous people that do have pretty good rights to their land, rights they obtained after considerable struggle. They have an NGO working with them, and they've set up a biological lab. They have figured out a way of growing orchids in their forests. And they don't have to cut down their trees as the orchids grow in the trees, and they sell the orchids for a good price. They've also figured out a way of growing beautiful mushrooms, and selling them. So, without destroying the forest, they are getting good income to the local community. And with that money, they have built a better school in their locality. They send kids to college, and those who hold masters degrees come back and serve the community for five years, which is a requirement. But many then stay on. So it is possible to develop with high respect for the indigenous people.

In your work, you make a strong case for ground-up management of resources instead of the currently dominant paradigm of top-down management. But is the ground-up model feasible in a globalised economy?

It is. But to make it feasible, you need a court system that is rapid. I understand that the backlog of cases in the Indian judicial system is enormous, so it's hard to get conflicts resolved. In such a setting, it is hard to make contracts at the local level that are binding. It's important that when there is conflict, there are ways of resolving it rapidly. If you have a local community, and there is conflict, and you can't find arenas in which the conflict can be heard with respect and speed, then you turn to violence. So this is how I would understand some of the conflicts in India that I've read about: if land that people thought they had claims to, are turned over to large corporates, and the people don't get any of the income the corporates would earn from that land, and part of their livelihood is threatened, then such development increases the difficulty for a significant part of the population. My main message is that there is an incredible amount of talent and ingenuity out there. If people have trust that others will be trustworthy, including their government, and each other, and they can develop rules that fit a local ecology, then they can do much better than doing it all top-down.

Today, quantitative factors, such as the GDP and growth rate, matter more than qualitative understanding of lived human realities. In the interests of effective policy-making in a democracy, is there a bias towards the quantitative that economics as a discipline needs to correct?

Not only economists but all social scientists prefer large survey analyses and disdain qualitative work. I think all of us in the social sciences should try to do two things that are difficult to do simultaneously: one, respect humans; listen, understand, see how they see the world, and at the same time, not take political positions. There is a difference between having respect for human ingenuity while trying to understand a problem, and having no respect for the humans involved. It's the latter that I am critical of.

How does one make common ownership of resources work in a market economy, where private ownership is the norm?

There is a brand of oranges in the United States that is very famous: Sunkist Oranges. It's a brand of a cooperative farmers group that's been in existence for at least 50 years. Sunkist oranges are out there in the market, but it's a co-operative. A co-operative model is one way of approaching the idea of the commons, making it work in a market economy through common ownership.

But plenty of co-operatives have failed...

Sure, not all cooperatives succeed. But we need to keep in mind that one-third of private business firms that try to get started fail. Failure rate in the first five years of a private corporation is very high, and yet, because of them, there is innovation, and a variety of other things. Yes, some co-operatives fail. And governments fail, too, and private corporations fail, and recently, some pretty big ones, too!

Yet conventional wisdom still holds that common property is poorly managed and should either be privatised or run by government, the so-called 'tragedy of the commons'...

We have strong empirical evidence from around the world that local people who have common property manage their resources very well. There have been econometric studies done on forests around the world which show that when people have harvesting capabilities, they will also monitor to ensure that the forest is protected. My colleague Arun Agrawal from the University of Michigan has done good statistical analysis that shows the difference it makes when people are able to have a voice. Being a member of a million people who elect an official -- that is important. But to have true democracy in a large country, you need democratic institutions at different levels -- community, small scale, regional, and so on, all the way up.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/interview_commons-sense_1314864-all

The Significance of Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel

Oct 15, 2009 by Ruth Meinzen-Dick

Monday’s news of Elinor Ostrom winning the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences is still reverberating, causing much excitement. In awarding the prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences noted it is “for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons.” It is so encouraging to see the explicit recognition, by the economics profession, of her landmark studies in the factors that encourage cooperation.

Those who have been privileged to work with her know how richly deserved this recognition is. Those who are not familiar with her work, who still believe in the inevitability of Garrett Hardin’s “tragedy of the commons” have a treat in store, discovering her research. She is a brilliant scholar who can still communicate her ideas to a wide audience, an inspiring teacher and generous colleague.

I am fortunate to be in the former group. I have been following her work on cooperation for managing water, forests, and other shared resources (even the internet!) for more than 20 years. She was the founding President of the International Association for Study of the Commons (IASC), instrumental in building an organization that brings together researchers and practitioners to build understanding and improve institutions for the management of resources that are (or could be) held or used collectively by communities in developing or developed countries. I’m privileged to be the current President of IASC, able to build on the foundations of her work and that of hundreds of others who are helping to learn how to craft institutions to govern the commons effectively.

From this vantage point, let me point out two aspects of Prof. Ostrom’s work that are noteworthy, especially for a Nobel Laureate in Economics Sciences. The first is that her work is grounded in empirical observations. She draws on theory, but also questions the underlying assumptions and tests them against the actual behavior of people and institutions. She looks for the commonalities—and differences—in the way people relate to different types of resources, in developing countries as well as the US and other industrialized countries, using case studies, structured comparable data collection across sites, and experimental games, both in the lab and in the field.

The second significant aspect of her work is that she is transcends disciplines. A political scientist who wins the highest prize in economics, she works with the whole range of social scientists, but also with foresters, ecologists, mathematicians, … the list goes on. She learns from each discipline, and offers conceptual frameworks (notably the Institutional Analysis and Development, or IAD framework) that help integrate knowledge and insights. And more importantly, the combination of perspectives helps to address important practical problems of resource management and crafting institutions that are sustainable and equitable.

For those who want to learn more, a list of her key publications that are available free online is at http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/LinPubs.html. Over 100 of her online articles are also available in the Digital Library of the Commons.

This blog entry is also posted on the website of the International Association for Study of the Commons.

See what others thought of her award:

* Elinor Ostrom and the Future of Economics (Umair Haque, Harvard Business)
* Elinor Ostrom breaks the Nobel mould (Kevin Gallagher, Guardian)
* Governing the Commons (Vernon Smith, Forbes)

Learning from Community Forestry: Recognizing Rights and Advancing Democratic Forest Governance Globally

Dear All,

The Declaration from the Community Forestry International Workshop in Pokhara is really interesting. There is a need for a lot more meetings to highlight the issues faced by community forestry group and the contributions they are making in their own way in making this world a better place to live.

Would like your comments on this!

Cheers,
Subrat


Learning from Community Forestry: Recognizing Rights and Advancing Democratic Forest Governance Globally

Declaration from the Community Forestry International Workshop Pokhara - September 18, 2009

Recognizing that local communities and indigenous peoples have demonstrated the capacity to organize and act towards sustainable management, utilization and democratic governance of forests; and their legitimate claims for the recognition of their land and forest rights worldwide.

Recognizing the wide range of institutional, entrepreneurial and governance innovations by communities and their partners;

Recognizing the emergence of grassroots networks, federations and associations influencing governance at different scales, and advocating for the rights of local, indigenous, poor and socially marginalized communities;

Recognizing the positive steps being taken by some governments to support community rights and initiatives through policies and legal frameworks

Admitting that creating equitable and inclusive livelihood outcomes is a long-term and challenging process in the face of prevailing social hierarchies, dominant private interests and state-centric governance legacies;

Recognizing the history of discrimination against women in forest and land laws, programs, policies, markets and institutions, as well as their strong contribution to forest conservation, livelihoods and development;

Acknowledging the positive role and potential of communities in achieving sustainable forest management and contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation processes;

Affirming the importance of legally acknowledging and practically supporting the rights and responsibilities of communities to determine their own destiny in the sustainable development of their socioeconomic condition (livelihoods) and resources;

We, the 200 representatives of diverse stakeholders from communities, governments, civil society and other development partners from over 30 countries working in forestry and development, hereby declare that:

1. Governments and policy makers should guarantee the human, civil, customary and property rights of local people over land and forest resources, including the recognition of the authority of forest communities to identify and pursue their own development objectives, by incorporating these rights into national laws, constitutions and all forest policies and programs.

2. National governments have a responsibility to ensure the transparent and democratic governance of forests with active involvement and representation of communities, including poor, women, indigenous and socially marginalized groups, in policy formulation and regulatory decision-making.

3. Laws and regulatory practices should affirm and encourage local entrepreneurship by affirming full community ownership over forest and land resources, and by removing barriers to community and small-scale forest-based enterprises and the transportation and sale of their products.

4. Governments and the private sector should properly acknowledge, account for and financially reward the contributions of communities in creating environmental public goods; and foster financial mechanisms through which local communities can realize greater value from their forests, such as payments for various environmental services;

5. International and national climate change agreements, policies and mechanisms, including carbon trading, should respect local rights and privilege payment to local communities conserving forests.

6. Governments and community leaders must empower poor, women, indigenous and socially disadvantaged groups to exercise their rights, responsibilities and participate in decision-making at all levels of governance; and to ensure their fair access to markets and an equitable share of all benefits derived from the forest.

7. Government policy should promote the development of community-based forest management institutions and expand the area of forest under community rights and management.

8. Government, civil society, the private sector and donor organizations should work closely together to capitalise on the lessons of democratization and civic participation emerging from the experience of community forestry, to drastically revise institutions and processes for the democratic governance of the entire forest sector, a necessary step to achieve the globally desired outcomes of social, economic and environmentally sustainable development in the forested areas of the world.

Whose forest is it anyway?

by Subrata Singh, Sisir Pradhan & Smriti Das

Community forest management institutions are now faced with the threat posed by State policies on participatory forestry

In Orissa, there are cases of forest protection initiatives by communities dating back to the thirties and forties. Need-based protection, however, began mainly in the late seventies. Now thousands of villages across Orissa have taken the initiative to protect and regenerate their forests, because they fear that if action is not taken immediately the situation will worsen. The goal of these self-initiated groups was protection and regeneration, independent of the forest department, with conservation as their underlying philosophy, and to meet local needs in the present as well as the future. These communities are of the view that conservation is not possible if the needs of the local people are not met. The management strategy too had one common element –- to not completely prohibit access to forests but rather to control and regulate it. Over a period of time these village institutions have developed their own rules and regulations regarding protection and use, corresponding to their social and environmental conditions.

The strong community initiatives in Orissa can be illustrated with the case of Athamallik area in Angul district of central Orissa. It explores the strong inter-relationship of communities with local resources, one eventually lending identity to the other. Athamallik, a princely state until 1st January 1948, covers an area of 1841 square kilometres of which nearly thirty per cent is Reserved Forests. The tract has a diverse physiography with a succession of plains, isolated hills, hill ranges and valleys. In the south, there is the flood plain of Mahanadi, bounding which rises over the extensive and towering Panchadhara hill range. Maximum deforestation in this area took place in the first two decades after Independence as the forest was seen as a source of revenue. In addition, clear felling for agricultural purposes along with felling by rural communities for subsistence worsened the impact, which began to have a negative effect on the livelihoods of the rural communities who depended on the forests for their basic subsistence.

Community initiatives

Owing to such massive degradation of forests, there was a severe scarcity of forest products that had been a source of livelihood to local communities for years. These people depended on the forests not only for fuel, fodder and timber, but also for the basics -– varieties of tubers, roots, fruits, berries and leaves that supplemented their diet. The degradation began to have an effect on their agriculture due to siltation and the drying up of streams. They realised that it was up to them to take the initiative; they could not depend on the forest department. This motivated them to organise themselves to protect and manage their forests. The forest department, during that period, was oriented more towards earning revenue from the forests rather than their protection.

The receding forest and the consequent problems were experienced first-hand by the village communities residing nearby. Their concern was translated into action and the communities took strong initiatives to organise themselves to sustainably protect and manage the forests, without waiting for any supportive policies. They formed some kind of user group regulations to safeguard the interests of the community, which had taken up the job of protection of a patch of forest. In the initial years, the communities started protection of the adjoining Protected Forests and later took up protection of the adjoining Reserved Forests too. Restricted access, regular patrolling, monitoring thinning, etc. were a part of their plan to regenerate the forests. The communities also developed mechanisms for resolution of conflicts and imposing sanctions on those not willing to abide.

Forest department initiatives

In the last decade, the forest department has pioneered radical responses to forest management in India after realising that the forests cannot be protected by "policing" alone, but by involving the village communities in the task of protection. Orissa passed its first resolution in 1988, soliciting the inclusion of local communities in the protection of Reserved Forests in lieu of certain subsistence requirements from these forests. Later, in 1990, this scheme was extended to "protected forests". The Orissa government again brought out another resolution in 1993 to declare the forest department and communities as "equal partners" in the task of forest protection and management. However, the above resolutions failed to appeal to the communities as the proposed institutional and management concepts were unrealistic. The freedom of the communities to decide on the use of forests; items of extraction, period of extraction, etc. and to resolve conflicts independently was curbed as the power to make the final decision was left to the forest department. The sharing of the final harvest in the ratio 50:50, proposed in the 1993 resolution, was unacceptable to the communities already protecting the forests and using the benefits. The concept of final harvests, in many cases, was against the principles of protection by the communities. These policy initiatives by the government failed because it did not consider the existing practices of the communities. The process of modification in resolutions created confusion at the community level.

Village forest protection committees (VFPCs) were formed between 1988 and 1990 on the basis of the first resolution. The communities were under the impression that it marked ownership of forests to them. Villages were provided maps of the forest area by the forest officials. This was the area protected by them irrespective of its legal category. Little work was done through the institution itself. 155 VFPCs were formed in the Athamallik forest division. The introduction of the 1993 resolution marked the establishment of the van samrakshana samiti (forest protection committee -– VSS) and the concept of sharing of resources generated from forests. A plan was drawn up for the conversion of all VFPCs into VSS. The extension of the resolution to include all categories of forests within joint forest management (JFM) prompted the forest department to retain the reserved forests with them and provide only the revenue forests under the scheme to village institutions. Surprisingly, the lands provided under the VFPCs were also reduced.

The villagers continue to protect the forests assigned to them under the earlier resolution unaware of the changes made during the conversion of VFPCs to VSS. Only 15 VFPCs could be converted into VSS so far. The resolution is being used mainly for the co-option of the self-initiated forest protection groups rather than forming VSS in the degraded forest areas which the programme is meant for.

Again in 1996, a resolution was passed which stated that all forests adjoining the villages and being protected by the village communities would be declared as "village forest" irrespective of its legal and administrative categorisation. But this was termed unimplementable by the forest department though section 28 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Section 30 of Orissa Forest Act, 1972 provided space for declaration of village forests. The forest department was happy to continue with the 1993 joint forest management resolution as the final say in matters relating to approval of micro-plan, taking legal action against offenders, deciding the periods of silvicultural operations, etc. rested with the forest department. This kind of approach tends more towards centralisation of power rather than the distribution and decentralisation of power as shown on paper. It is evident from the rejection of the 1996 resolution that the forest department is in no way willing to part with control over forests, nor is it willing to provide an identity to the self-initiated forest protection groups. The management controls over the revenue forests, bestowed upon them through the Supreme Court directives, make their role even more important.

The government of India acknowledged the existence of self-initiated community forest protection groups in its guideline issued to all state governments on 21 February 2000, regarding the implementation of joint forest management programme. The guideline directs that each state make necessary provisions, and expressed the need for identification and recognition of these self-initiated groups and their registration as joint forest management committees after proper verification of records and inquiry. The period of their existence and duties performed for protection and regeneration should also be suitably assessed, and proper weightage given to them for deriving benefits under the programme. Though not an ideal situation, this seems to be a step forward in recognising the existence of self-initiated forest protection groups, but the government of Orissa has still not initiated any steps towards this directive. It is feared that the good intentions laid down in the guidelines may be lost soon.

Conclusion

While rules are framed regarding forests, the need to preserve them as a national resource remains a prime objective. The fact that forests are a local resource is often ignored. Unless the local needs are sustainably met from the forests at the local level, the conservation efforts at the national level are bound to fail. National interests cannot, however, be independent of these indigenous institutions and their stakes. All well-meaning ideas will fail if the traditional communities, who are totally dependent on forests, are bypassed and their historical identities overruled. The identity in the form of legal recognition and tenure rights over the forests will not only encourage the communities but also benefit the ecology and ensure protection of the forests. This would be in the interest of the nation at large.

The declaration of these forests as "village forests" could be the correct platform to start with. This would ensure the much-desired tenurial security over these lands. The van panchayats of Uttaranchal are examples, which have survived over the years since their declaration in the early 20th century. The apprehensions regarding the ability of communities in managing the forests, if provided with complete control, could be dealt with by developing certain mandatory ecological principles for the management of the micro-ecosystems. Facilitating policies and giving an identity to the self-initiated forest protection groups in Athamallik and elsewhere in the state are essential for such institutional systems to survive and continue their efforts to protect the forests for local and national interests.


This is a discussion paper, which has tried to put together some views in a perspective to bring in the aspects of community forest management and the required changes in policy to acknowledge and recognise the role of communities involved in the protection of the forests. The desire is to bring forth the issues to discussion so that the practices of the communities are recognised and proper tenure be worked out. The authors work with the Foundation for Ecological Security and the views expressed in the paper are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Foundation for Ecological Security.

Banks for a Better Future

Prices of essential commodities are on the upward spiral world-wide. Countries producing food grains are starving for the same. Some say its the bio-fuel rush in the West while some in the West think its Indians eating more that caused the crisis. Whatever may be the reasons stated, one undeniable outcome is the enormous burden it placed on the poor everywhere. The food grains shortage followed by price rise has cut into their pockets deeply. In this context exploring local indigenous systems like grain banks that store in times of surplus and distribute in times of need assumes significance. Subrata Singh portrays an interesting case of the grain banks in Orissa and the transformations the system is going through.

The villages are key institutions characterized by a variety of social arrangements designed to insure village members against a subsistence crisis. For these villages, collective action is a very practical matter, a way to get things done and provide for the public good. The villages in Orissa provide us a rich diversity of such collective action in the form of building infrastructures like Community Centers, roads, ponds etc for the protection of their forests through the thengapalli system, voluntary patrolling. Grain Bank in its present form is an indigenous system of banking paddy and other cereals. It has been designed to address the risk of floods and droughts and the scarcity of food grains. This indigenous system has evolved due to the highly frequent natural calamities.

Angul and Dhenkanal districts in Orissa are subject to floods and drought. The riparian tracks on both sides of the rivers Brahmani and Mahanadi have faced repeated occurrence of flood causing harm to the standing crops. But droughts are a more serious calamity in the district owing to its undulating topography and high porosity of surface soil. These districts have faced recurrent calamities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

These districts faced acute food shortages due to flood of 1868, famine of 1889, scarcity of 1897, 1908-09, and famine 1918-19. The famine of 1889 is well recorded-

"In the Angul subdivision there had not been a good harvest of winter rice during the previous four years, while that of 1887-88 was on the average not more than 6 annas and that of 1888-89 not more than 8 annas of a normal crop. Considerable distress was reported in the autumn of 1888, and some measures of relief were adopted, the most important of which was the relaxation of forest rules, but a copious fall of rain in September so improved the condition of things that measure of relief were gradually discontinued, except that the forest rules were not re-imposed. In spite of this rain, however, the rice crop was an indifferent one, and a large portion of higher land was left untilled, for there was great drought from October till the following May. The Mohua, mango and palm crops failed both in Angul and adjoining states, and early in the year the agriculturists found themselves unable to keep the field labourers in their service and discharged them. The later were thus suddenly thrown out of employment, and were unable to find work elsewhere. In ordinary years they might have subsisted for some time on edible roots, fruits etc. of the jungles, but unfortunately in this year jungle produce also failed or became very scarce. The labourers, therefore, being suddenly deprived of all sources of subsistence could only be supported by special measures until demand again arose for their services."

(Source: Orissa District Gazetteer, Dhenkanal).

During these periods too, there have been evidences of the existence of institutions like "Debatara Bhoomi" meaning land meant for deity. These lands were cultivated collectively and the grains produced were used principally for festivals, taking care of visitors as well as distribution to the needy. There were the institutions called DESKOTHS (Village Fund) in almost all the villages of Pallahara Subdivision and adjoining areas, from which people took paddy and paid interests varying from 12% to 25% per year. There were also SARVARAKARS who lent paddy to the people and realized the entire loans after harvest. The origin of Grain Bank is not very distinct but according to the opinion of the experts and older generation people in villages these institutions were started to cope with the scarcity of food grains resulting due to frequent occurrences of floods and droughts. These informal institutions were present in most of the villages. The members used to deposit a fixed amount of grains after harvest and later took back the required amount in the lean season paying an interest fixed by the group itself.

These informal village level grain banks happened to catch the attention of the peeping eyes of the government officials. As a result, these were registered at the panchayat level, grouping several villages together. This was probably with the intention of broadening the working of the institution. Slowly the grain banks got converted into cash cum grain society. With the registration of the society, the government and other agencies also became shareholder of the cooperative society. This has been clearly reflected in the third five-year plan in Orissa:

In Orissa, a special problem has been confronted. 2/3 of the areas (except 5 coastal districts) has been covered by Grain Banks. Of these 1800 banks are cash-cum-grain societies. These societies got RBI participation in share. In Orissa, therefore, steps have been taken to convert these societies into a service pattern by suitably amending the bylaw. In the Action Programme, the banks are recognized for revitalization as recommended by Mehta Committee provided they fulfill the following conditions.

§ Keeping the conformity with the action programme and perform multipurpose activities.

§ Recovery of dues should not be below 60% and possibility of becoming viable within 5 to 8 years.

§ Should not be heavily indebted to cooperatives bank and maintain separate account for cash and grain.

From cash-cum-grain society, these took the shape of credit cum-service society, mainly due to the non-availability of grain and to channelize the supplies of commodities, which are to come through PDS, as it was believed that they would be better substitute to PDS. Another outfit of these credit cum service societies have taken the form of MINI BANKS, which are to encourage savings, and give short-term credits.

Earlier it used to be only agricultural loans, but now loans of other types are also given. At present, most of the societies have only been confined to Service Societies or act as another government body to advance loans. The problems as seen are:

§ Now most of these credit cum-service societies face a problem of non-recovery of loans, resulting in lesser and lesser number of people getting the loans, as less capital is available for circulation.

§ Elections became a formality to meet a few conditions, required by the government. This takes into confidence a few influential people in the village, alienating rest of the members from its functioning.

The objective and direction with which these institutions started, has been lost somewhere in the above process of change. The idea of having a reserve to meet the need of grains and seeds during shortage, have an institution controlled and maintained by the people themselves within the village has been transformed into an attitude of dependency on an institution which is moving further from them in terms of objective, functioning and approachability.

Despite the plethora of intervention systems, we see seeds of the old traditions germinating. Small institutions reappearing, confined to a small group of people, may be at hamlet or a village level, exclusively controlled and maintained by themselves. They are proud of it. For these institutions they do not look for outside help, as outside help has a connotation of interference i.e. negative. Such small scale grain banks are now being formed in many of the villages with the same old principles but far more determined to serve its purpose.

Reproduced from Livelihoods, May 2008

13th Biennial Conference of the

International Association for the Study of Commons (IASC)

(www.iasc2011.fes.org.in)

The conference will be hosted by Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), an organization that has been involved in assisting the management and governance of Common Property Land Resources since 1986. By working with 1500 village institutions spread across diverse ecosystems of six provinces in the country over the last 22 years, FES is recognized for its activities around commons. FES has been an institutional member of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASC) since 1999 and has been a regular participant in the biennial conferences.

Holding the International Conference on Commons in India in January 2011 would provide a unique opportunity to resurface the discussion and debate on commons, bringing international experience and evidence from across the world to show that the commons are not a relic of the past, but can play a strategic role in maintaining ecological health, reducing poverty, and improving collective action. By placing the conference agenda in the ongoing discussions around conservation, local governance, human rights, agrarian distress and rural livelihoods in general, we encourage several networks of practitioner organizations to leverage this opportunity to both integrate their ongoing activities with other streams as well as mainstream commons into their nature of work. By pitching it at the interface of policy and practice; research and action; conservation and development we aim to bring several players to a common meeting ground which would in turn help in sustaining the process beyond the conference. By strategically leveraging the conference, we aim to influence larger policy and programmatic focus in the 12th five year Plan (2012 –2017). The conference is not intended to be a one-time event, but a key piece in a longer process of raising attention on the commons.

Conference Chair: Nitin Desai

Mr. Nitin Desai has served as a Senior Economic Adviser for the World Commission on Environment and Development. He served as Deputy Secretary-General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and later in 2002 he served as the Secretary General of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+10). He is also on the Governing Council of the Stockholm Environment Institute and a member of the Commonwealth Secretariat Expert Group on Climate Change. He is involved in the Helsinki process on globalisation and democracy.

Conference Co Chair: Jagdeesh Puppala

Jagdeesh is presently the Chief Executive of the Foundation for Ecological Security (FES).

About FOUNDATION FOR ECOLOGICAL SECURITY

The Foundation for Ecological Security promotes the conservation and sustainable management of natural resources, forests and water in particular, through local self governance institutions. The crux of our efforts lie in locating forests and other natural resources within the prevailing economic, social and ecological demands at the level of villages and village conglomerates and in intertwining principles of conservation and local self governance for the safeguard of the natural surroundings and improvement in the living conditions of the poor. By working on systemic issues that can bring about a multiplier change we try to bring in a gestalt that establishes inter-linkages between ecological, social and economic realities.

Details: www.fes.org.in

Contact: ed@fes.org.in

About IASC

The International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC) is the leading professional association dedicated to the study of the commons. By bringing researchers from different disciplines together with practitioners and policymakers, the association aims to improve general understanding of shared resources (commons) and provide sustainable solutions for related issues.

IASC’s goals are to

• encourage exchange of knowledge among diverse disciplines, world areas, and resource types

• foster mutual exchange of scholarship and practical experience, and

• promote appropriate institutional design

Details: www.iascp.org

Contact: iasc@iasc-commons.org

Oil, toil and trouble bubbling - India's jatropha tussle

India's 'wastelands' are not necessarily barren, unproductive widernesses
credit: FES

The Indian government has welcomed biofuels with open arms. Faced with a rapidly growing economy, the world's second-largest population and an eye-watering fuel import bill, finding a renewable domestic power source has become a top priority.

The country's recently-revised national biofuel policy, announced in September 2008, sets out the government's intentions in black-and-white: to produce 20 per cent of the country's diesel from crops by 2017, primarily from plantations of jatropha (Jatropha curcas). This means that the oilseed-bearing shrub, already introduced in some states, needs to be planted on an additional 14 million hectares of the country's so-called 'wasteland'. This has ignited fierce debate: supporters see the move as the solution to the fuel-versus-food conundrum, while critics are fearful that millions of peasants, who rely on these lands, will lose out.

Wasteland - a misnomer

A far cry from the post-industrial 'brown field' sites familiar to planners in the developed world, India's wastelands have historical resonance. Classified in colonial times as areas that could not be cultivated and which were, therefore, unable to produce revenue, everything from forests to semi-jungle to wetlands fell into the category of 'wasteland'. But, quite unlike the idea of a barren wilderness, these vast areas - comprising about 25 percent of India's landmass - are more appropriately described as marginal lands, and have supported millions of the country's poorest people for centuries.

'Wastelands' are a vital source of fodder for poor rural livestock keepers
credit: WRENmedia

Traditionally, local communities have looked after these lands as common resources, coming to depend on them for food, fodder, fuel wood and medicine. In terms of their day-to-day importance, the figures speak for themselves: around 20 percent of poor households' income and over 60 percent of their fuel wood come from common property resources. In the mixed farming systems of the country's semi-arid regions, some three-quarters of people depend on the commons for grazing. Nationwide, the India-based NGO Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) estimates that the commons contribute up to US$5 billion to poor rural households. And, with investment and proper management, the organisation believes the commons could supply a quarter of the country's fodder needs. These commons also perform important ecological functions, providing habitats for wildlife, harbouring rainwater and absorbing greenhouse gases.

For whose benefit?

India's common lands have been under threat for at least the past half-century, with between 25-50 per cent already lost due to population pressure and increasing degradation. Little wonder the proposed jatropha plantations are contentious. "By pursuing the energy security of the few - the middle classes and the rich - we are compromising the livelihood security of the poor," laments Subrata Singh of FES.

The government has tried to find a win-win solution. In an attempt to help the poor share the rewards of the country's anticipated biofuel boom, the expansion of jatropha production is taking place through the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). Under proposed plans, local communities will be paid to plant, tend and harvest the crop on common land. But critics argue that once jatropha is in the ground, livelihoods will become irrevocably tied to the productivity of the crop and the stability of its market price.

While jatropha supporters point to the crop's near-magical ability to tolerate harsh, drought-like conditions, others have suggested that official estimates of its productivity on suboptimal land have been exaggerated. If the crop fails to live up to expectations the poor will have traded access to precious land in return for neither food, fodder, fuel, medicine - nor a source of income. "Eventually, planting these areas with biofuels might force people from the land," continues Singh. "We are concerned they might become ecological refugees and migrate to urban areas for their livelihoods."

Jatropha production on common land has already begun in Andhra Pradesh state
credit: WRENmedia

Redefining the commons

FES has been working with state governments to help communities achieve legal recognition for the wasteland commons. It has already assisted communities in six states to establish long-term leases over the areas they depend on and is promoting investment in land restoration through the NREGS. The organisation is also working with the South Asia Pro-Poor Livestock Programme to document the value of the commons to poor livestock keepers, to protect the land and to help other communities diversify into animal husbandry.

Despite progress in these areas, India is simply too large for FES to protect all the affected communities and jatropha plantations have already swallowed-up pockets of common land. Significantly, in the same month that the government unveiled its new biofuels target, state-run refinery Bharat Petroleum announced plans to invest US$480 million in jatropha production. The race for 'wasteland' is well underway.