RD ASSIGNMENT 1 JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT CASE

1) What is Joint Forest management?

It is a participatory approach of forest management which was adopted by the government in
1990. It has been revised in 2000 and 2002 to fill gaps such as lack of legal support provided to
the FPCs. It has been applauded and criticized on several fronts. The positives are: community
based approach, forest protection and afforestation, easier collection access of members to non-
timber forest products, fodder and fuel, employment generation for the under-privileged
community, among others. The positives are not being denied but the failures have to be
addressed in order to move towards a more secure future by enhancing the productivity of our
Forests.

2) Systemic Level Analysis:

Joint Forest Management seems to have started with a positive intent, but the systemic failures
are paramount. To understand the scenario further, the nature of the economy and the three-tier
structure’s lacunae is elaborated. The figure shows a vertical approach has seeped in which is
harmful. If communities were treated horizontally as equals, the intervention could have been a
proactive one rather than having a reactive tendency.

• STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SFDA)

STATE

• FOREST DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (FDA)

DIVISION

• FOREST PROTECTION COMMITTEES (FPC)/

GRASS-
• JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES (JFMC)
ROOTS

Figure 2.1: The three-tier vertical approach

There are two main problems associated with the three-tier structure. The first is Inclusiveness.
The capitalist economy perpetuates the need to continue producing to cater to the increasing
demands. For this, the forests have to be utilized. However, this is not done in a sustainable
manner. The tribal communities are exploited by the donor groups. Tribal community and
women are marginalized and thus the political and economic issues are paving way for failure on
social front as well. Further, the membership is only exclusive to users whereas a more inclusive
approach could be positive as a user-only approach is against the concept of sustainability being
everyone’s concern.

SUBMITTED BY: AKSHATA KAR P39180 SECTION D

 RD ASSIGNMENT 1 JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT CASE

The Stakeholder v/s Shareholder issue is the second problem. The Elite’s needs are preferred
over the commons. The empowerment of the people has not taken place. They are not the
decision makers or the planners. The Micro-plan initiative is supposed to be the led by the local
communities. It is noticed that the forest departments at divisional and state level either plan by
itself or do not heed importance to these plans at all. The top also preserves the knowledge of the
elite (the scientific community) and sidelines the knowledge of the oppressed (the locals).

The reason why the intervention is dominated by donors owes to the macro level issue of
adequate fund allocation. The forestry sector receives less than 0.5% percent of fund plans
whereas the industry and allied sectors enjoy an important portion of the budget. India ranks
highly on ‘Ease of doing Business’ but at the cost of exploitation of the ones who should be
shouldering the leadership on forest management and regeneration. The outcome is
unsatisfactory as Total forest cover has only increased by 1.71% in span of 25 years (1987-
2013).

The major systemic issues have been summarized in the table below:

I. JFM is a RDI that is locally driven, in terms of approach. However, a donor-driven project
model seems to have taken over.

II. State’s centrist nature has failed to ensure inclusion of local communities. Centralization
and flexibility pose a trade off.

III. Capitalist economy tends to perpetuate the interest of capital accumulation rather than
holistic human development.

IV. The framework believes that radical and welfare-seeking approaches may aid RDIs better
especially to reduce poverty and inequality. However, JFM has a reformist tone which is
the reason for its slow progress.

V. Management committees are dominated by the elite. This further leads to preference
extended to the Elite as far as nominations are concerned. A top-down approach is not
helpful for a RDI.

Table 2.1: Systemic Issues

SUBMITTED BY: AKSHATA KAR P39180 SECTION D

 RD ASSIGNMENT 1 JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT CASE
Programme Level Analysis of a RDI:
3) Programme Level Analysis

1. Policy 2.
goals Strategies

7. Lessons / 3. Design
Feedback Features
RDI

4.
6. Outcomes &
Implementation&
Impact
Monitoring

5.
Operations &
Maintenance
Figure: 3.1
I. Goals:

The goals for the forest department for which they developed the JFM are the increase in revenue
and productivity while sustainably protecting and regenerating forests and empowering the
community, especially women. The program has multiple goals, of which an important one is to
improve income generation for the community that derives resources from these forests for their
livelihoods.

II. Strategies:

The approach used here is reformative and participative. Participatory approach is believed to
strengthen efficiency, sustainable motivation due to self-reliance rather than on organization for
the improvement in their condition. The state is responsible for facilitating the participation.
However, we can observe in the case that due to the systemic failures, the strategy has turned
into a top-down approach in which participation has transformed into a dormant formality. The
strategy was not implemented effectively as the FPCs were not given legal status to
autonomously take decisions. Even when the revised guidelines provided a Memorandum of
Understanding between the government and the FPCs, not many have managed to sign this
MoU. Participatory approach, itself is noble and can be effective as elucidated by the Liberal
Interventionist and Radical populist approach, but the inequalities persisting within the poor have
to be eliminated first. If certain sections are favored due to vested political interests or social
discrimination, the strategy fails at the program level.

III. Design features:

SUBMITTED BY: AKSHATA KAR P39180 SECTION D

 RD ASSIGNMENT 1 JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT CASE

It was designed in a way that FPCs would now have a legal status involving members. The state
would play an important role as regional needs differ and a homogenous plan may not cater to
the diverse needs of the society. The role of the FPCs is protection and regeneration in exchange
for certain perks enjoyed by the members. The Forest department ought to join hands with the
FPCs in facilitating this. The funding would be carried out by GoI and donors. The donations
would be project specific according to state government’s decisions. The role of the community
was rewarded by enabling to access to forest produce, prevention of unregulated grazing which
led to a ‘tragedy of commons’, empowerment of women by making structural conditions( 50% in
general body and up to 1/3 seats in the executive committee), access to employment
opportunities, etc..Further, the FPCs/JFMCs are working through a user-group model design.

IV. Implementation and Monitoring:

The implementation has been effective in certain states such as Gujarat’s forest and soil, water
conservation has enhanced. The community based organizations have used patrolling and social
fencing in order to protect forests. Targets have been set which are measured by the decreased
felling, diminished grazing, wildlife protection. The forest cover increment target to 25% set by
the 10th plan has not been achieved. The source of funding may not be sufficient and may require
strategic alliance with NGOs, Panchayats and other bodies. Funding has faced both reduction
and stagnancy. The implementation of JFM has been in a manner to perpetuate the equity in
sharing the benefits derived from the forests which has taken place in some villages in West
Bengal, Gujarat, etc. The difference between communities has led to conflict which is a
downside of participatory approach. Also, the challenges in terms of remaining confined to
degraded forests limits the scope of the program. The technical, legal and inclusion challenges
for implementation can be overcome by corroborating links with gram sabhas as has been
formulated after monitoring the program. Mobilization problem will be elucidated in O & M as it
is a problem of both implementation and operation.

V. Effectiveness of O & M:

An aspect that is noticed is the reluctance of the State to hand over more power to the FPC
members. If participatory approach is to be sustained then correct expectation setting has to be
done. Decentralization of power to the community would make them responsible, driven and
vested. The JFM’s working thus has to be analyzed on two fronts: Autonomy and Inclusiveness.
For providing the legal status there has been a lot of reluctance. There have been frequent
changes in various provisions, rights granted, which have created chaos and perplexity in the
scenario. This causes problems in mobilization of people and takes away the incentive for people
to participate. This hurts efficiency. Also, in inclusion aspect, the FPCs are supposed to maintain
a specified number of women in the committees. Perhaps, it is the backward thinking of state
governments that many have not made efforts to follow the prescribed number. The biggest issue
in the sustainability of the program is the differences in interest of the community and the forest
departments. The effectiveness can be increased by providing the community with capacity

SUBMITTED BY: AKSHATA KAR P39180 SECTION D

 RD ASSIGNMENT 1 JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT CASE

building and ensuring autonomy. A middle agreement has to be reached to further the interests of
all the stakeholders. Micro-plans have to be given importance and not by-passed, as has been the
case in many states.

VI. Outcomes and Impact:

The positive and negative outcomes have been summarized in the following table:

POSITIVES NEGATIVES
 Increased green cover, reduced soil  The increase has only been achieved in
erosion and improved water certain states whereas in most it has
conservation in assistance by NGOs. only been marginal.

 Diminished illegal fencing, reduced  Limited resource allocation and donor

grazing, and lessened forest related dependence remain a major woe.
crimes, and improved access.

 Promotion of alternative energy sources  Absence of autonomy, legal back-up,

have led to livelihood diversification lack of inclusion of women and tribal
and reduced dependence on fuel-wood. community.

 Economic incentives have increased  Top-down approach and anti-poor

participation in many states. policies leading to reduction in positive
Procurement and Marketing linkages impact on livelihood.
are helpful.
 Differences in interests of the FD and
the community. The FD tries to
implement scientific methods and
undermines the local community’s
methods. Further, the plantations
wanted by the community are denied.

 The realization of limited benefits from

the final harvest, restriction or ban on
head loaders and grazers, deterioration
in the condition of marginalized
sections including shifting cultivators
and declining NTFP production
attributable to increased tree cover.
Table 3.1: Outcome Analysis

SUBMITTED BY: AKSHATA KAR P39180 SECTION D

 RD ASSIGNMENT 1 JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT CASE

Except for the above broad points, the livelihood impact brought out some specific events. The
JFM regime promotes meeting long-term timber needs (like Sal in Jharkhand forests) and eco-
services valuable to the elite vis-à-vis the immediate livelihood needs of the poor. The adoption
of Assisted Natural Regeneration is attributed as an anti-poor policy. ANR is labor-intensive and
requires nearly constant maintenance of selected forest areas. Also, lack of funds, job or will to
conduct forestation on a land which might be ideal for other purposes to the community, can be
viewed as against the poor.

The right of the community has been impacted as they have not been allowed to say what rights
they seek. In states such as Orissa, employment, income had a positive connotation. An increase
of 15% overall was achieved. However, this needs to be achieved nation-wide. State-Wise
disparity in outcomes further emphasizes the role of the State instrument in this RDI. The forest
cover has not regenerated significantly and the participation is also slow-paced. This can be
analyzed through the table given in the appendix of the case. The number of JFMs has increased
significantly in one decade. But, the percentage of JFM area to Total area has only increased
from 28.30% to 34.24%. The quantity of JFMCs is taking over the quality of the JFMCs.

VII. Lessons and Feedback:

The case itself is a multi-dimensional review of the entire framework. Several academicians
have presented their views based on the situations noticed in various states. On the basis of these
feedbacks has been provided in the conclusion in the form of possible future directions:

 Legal back-up and room for enforcement of rights.

 Autonomy and inclusion is a must. Micro planning must be integrated.
 JFMCs formed must be linked to Panchayats and other institutions for capacity-building
and value addition.
 Greater resources have to be allocated to the cause.
 Convergence with other programs such as MGNREGA and Watershed programs.

SUBMITTED BY: AKSHATA KAR P39180 SECTION D