Behind agriculture, forestry represents the second largest use of land in India, covering about 22 percent of the India’s total land area, but only accounting for about 1 percent of the countries GDP. 275 million of the countries poorest citizens depended upon forest resources for their livelihood, 75 percent of the rural population depends on the forests for fuel wood, and about half of India’s 471 million livestock are fed by forest grazing or fodder collected from forests.
Recognizing the importance of ecological services provided by forests, the Indian government, in 1990, decided to shift its policies to allow for involvement of local/indigenous people that depend on the forest for sustenance, and know the forest best. By involving the local people in the management of the forests, the Indian government was able to keep the forest protected while providing local people with a revenue source from timber profits, and protection their livelihoods. Because of the high levels of autonomy amongst Indian states, varying styles of joint forest management (JFM) are employed. In some states the government owns the forest and land, and oversees the management of the forests, while in other states, communities own the land and forests, and oversee the management. Currently JFM is practiced in 27 states and cover 17.3 million hectares.
One problem that has been encountered with the joint forest management process is that as legislation has changed, historic forest resources rights have been pushed to the wayside. Depending upon the state, there have been historic rights connected to the indigenous forest dwellers that were recognized prior to legislation and are now included in the legislation, but in some cases such as in the state of Jharkhand, many of these rights have been ignored.
With increased productivity, increased output, and easier access to markets, forest based revenue is expected to increase by at least 200,000 rupees annually in Jharkhand. For the country as a whole, forest based revenue is expected to increase from $222 million to $2 billion in 2020.
The appearance of the private sector in JFM has also played a helpful role with the creation of fuel wood plantations. The implementation of fuelwood plantations has increased the abundance of fuelwood, which as help with welfare improvements, especially for women and children, who are usually tasked to gather fuel wood, and has drastically decreased the pressure put on natural forests. These fuelwood plantations also have decreased intervillage conflicts, by making a once limited resource plentiful, at least in some areas.
For JFM land, forest boundaries are generally ambiguous, and communities can easily generate informal agreements for forest boundaries while forest resources are degraded, but once valuable resources are discovered or generated, conflict arises between communities in dispute over the new resources. Also, historically, land boundaries differ for different uses, such as grazing, hunting, or fuel wood collecting. In present times, this causes severe difficulty in assigning set boundaries for neighboring communities.
For the practice of JFM to more effectively address the improve the livelihoods of forest dwelling people, while ensuring the protection of the forests, it is critical that the agencies in charge understand the community and tribal institutions, livelihoods and how current policies address the needs of the communities. Because of the vast differences in customs, and reliance on certain forest resources across the county, indigenous communities must be viewed microscopically so as to ensure the implementation of effective policies. For example, in Jharkhand, small scale farming dominates, with forest resources serve as a backup, while in Assam, small scale farming and shifting cultivation are dominant, and in Madhya Pradesh, dependence on forest resources are low across all income groups. So for each of these states, it is necessary that varying designs of JFM be applied if the policies are to succeed.
Although there have been many positive outcomes in both state and national forests, from the implementation of JFM in 1990, JFM is unlikely to bring poor forest dependent people out of poverty. It is necessary that many other reforms take place alongside JFM, so as to provided forest depended peoples with a variety of employment opportunities. These might include improving agriculture performance, strengthen community forest rights, and opening up direct and lucrative access to market channels.
Citation:
-http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INDIAEXTN/Resources/Reports-Publications/366387-1143196617295/Forestry_Report_volume_I.pdf
-lecture at world bank
No comments:
Post a Comment