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.
