Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report There was most awareness of AFN, RECOFTC and FTPP. WRM, GFC and IUCN WG-CIFM had been heard of by only two persons. AFN’s identity depended almost entirely on Dr. Mark Poffenberger’s presence. It was described variously as “a personal friendship network with no systematic networking”; a “one-person driven network” and “an organisation rather than a network”. A lack of follow-up (e.g. after the Surajkund workshop) was cited as a problem. There were differing opinions on the quality of its publications and its overall influence. While some people felt that its publications were good and that initiatives such as the Foresters’ Network pushed the MoEF to begin its own network, others felt that the standard of publications was not satisfactory. Two persons spoke very highly of the training offered by RECOFTC and felt that many people depended on this. It was also felt that RECOFTC was well informed about the Indian context. On the other hand two persons felt that RECOFTC’s presence was irrelevant in India. FTPP was known mainly through its newsletter, and there did not seem to be much two-way flow between the network and the members. WRM and GFC were seen as the most active network in campaigning at international forums such as UNFF and CBD, and effective in sensitising international agreements to issues such as biodiversity and perspectives of indigenous peoples. 2.1 Methodology 2. MADHYA PRADESH STATE REPORT The study for Madhya Pradesh was conducted by a 7-day visit to Bhopal, the state capital, to interview people from a range of sectors who are involved in community forestry in the state. These included 8 government officials (mainly FD officials), 8 academics, 4 NGO representatives, 7 grassroots activists and 1 donor representative, i.e. a total of 28 interviewees. Those individuals who could not be met in person, were interviewed over the telephone. An impromptu group discussion was held at the National Centre for Human Settlement and Environment (NCHSE) with staff members. A one-day visit was made to a nearby town, Betul, to conduct a key interview. No visits were made to field sites to speak to local communities, though it was originally planned to visit Harda, an area near Betul that has been proclaimed as a model of JFM in the past, and has recently been the subject of heated debate (details below). However, it was found that international or national networks had little or zero visibility at the level of grassroots activists or workers (including those active in Harda), and therefore it seemed impossible that interviews with local communities would yield any further information on the influence of networks at the grassroots level. Consequently, the researcher felt it would be a more productive use of limited time to avoid visiting a local community, and instead concentrate on meeting individuals who were more likely to have been exposed to network activities of any kind. Referencing work was done in two libraries: IIFM and Samarthan Centre for Development Support, both of which hold publications and reports on issues of CF and decentralisation of natural resource management. In general, interviewees have not been quoted as many (especially FD officials) hesitated to speak on record. 2.2 History and context of community forestry in Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh (M.P.) has a geographical area of 308,252 sq. km. Of this, 30.82% is forest area, which makes up about 12.44% of the total forest area of India. 35 The forests in the state can be broadly classified into three major types – Sal, Teak and miscellaneous (non-Sal and non-Teak) forests. A wide range of NTFPs are found throughout the year, making it one of the largest NTFP producing states in India. NTFPs are a vital source of subsistence and livelihood for rural communities. The state has one of the largest tribal populations in India. Tribals are the main collectors of NTFP, and thus NTFP policy is crucial to forest management in the state. 36 35 Madhya Pradesh Forest Department (JFM Department). 2001-2002. Joint Forest Management in Madhya Pradesh. Unpublished information sheet. 36 Patnaik, S. 1998. Conservation Assessment and Management Planning Workshop for Non-Timber Forest Products in Madhya Pradesh. p2. 18
Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report About 45% of M.P.’s forests are under the JFM programme. 37 JFM is the primary form of community forestry in the state today. Most of the interviewees felt that there was no other kind of community forestry (such as community-initiated CF) in MP. Community-initiated CF does exist more obviously in the neighbouring state of Chhatisgarh, which used to be a part of M.P. till recently. There is very limited documentation on various forms of CF. In the literature surveyed and during interviews, the researcher came across only a few examples of community-initiated CF, though one interviewee felt there were many such examples scattered across the state: • There are usually some sacred trees around the shrine that is normally attached to a village tank. Sacred groves are also prevalent in predominantly tribal areas. 38 • In Belgaon, a women’s association began protecting a forest in co-operation with two other villages. However, this was co-opted under JFM. In this case, the new structure of management decreased the decision-making power that the women had appropriated for themselves. 39 Cooptation of existing CF efforts has been one of the criticisms of JFM. • In Jhabua district in the early 1990s, some self-initiated forest protection groups were organised in a few villages including Roopakheda, Amkut and Koliyari to tackle organised timber smuggling. The DFO supported these efforts that eventually came under JFM, which began on a large scale in this area from 1995. 40 • An activist movement, Maji Sarkar, have self-initiated forest protection groups in some villages, e.g. in Mandla Bala Ghat on the border of M.P, in the forest area which flows into Bastar in neighbouring Chhatisgarh. This activist movement is not considered legal by the government. Also some areas with a radical left-wing presence do not permit any official forestry activity, though different groups have different agendas regarding forests. Some, like Maji Sarkar, advocate protection of forests. Others advocate cutting forests and cultivating the land if needed. 41 • In Pati block, Badhwani district in Western M.P, several villages believe that the forest belongs to, and is protected by, a god who also protects the villages. Therefore the forest cannot be touched, but ‘prasad’ can be brought from there, in the form of dead wood, fallen leaves and fruit. The FD tried to bring this area under JFM, but it is not clear whether this has happened since there was community resistance to this. 42 • In Jhabua there is an organisation that collected 6000 saplings from a forest, to create a plantation to prevent soil erosion. This was after requesting the FD for saplings – the FD agreed to provide 500 free saplings, and the rest for Rs.3 each, which the villagers could not afford. 43 From Social Forestry to JFM During the 1980s, M.P. received funding from USAID for social forestry. Since the switch to JFM in the 1990s, the World Bank has been the major donor supporting the initiative. After the Forest Policy of 1988, M.P. distinguished itself as one of the most progressive states promoting participatory forestry, as far as policy was concerned (though this was not necessarily reflected in implementation). For example, M.P. has included a separate section on ‘Women and Forests’ in a State Policy for Women, aimed at improving women’s status in the forestry sector (though this was mostly not implemented). 44 The problems of implementation of JFM are described below. M.P. was also one of the few states which included good, 37 Madhya Pradesh Forest Department (JFM Department). 2001-2002. Joint Forest Management in Madhya Pradesh. Unpublished information sheet. 38 Pers comm. MN Buch (NCHSE). 39 Sarin, M. 2001. “De-Democratisation in the Name of Devolution? Findings from Three States in India”. Forthcoming paper. p35. 40 Sharma, A. & Ramanathan, B. n.d. Joint Forest Management in Jhabua: A Preliminary Documentation. WWF-India. New Delhi. p20. 41 Pers Comm, Ramanathan B. 42 Pers comm., Rakesh Diwan. 43 Pers comm., Rakesh Diwan. 44 Sarin M, Ray L, Raju MS, Chatterji M, Banerjee N and Hiremath S. 1998. “Who is Gaining? Who is Losing? Gender and Equity Concerns in Joint Forest Management”. SPWD. New Delhi. 19
Page 1 and 2: Learning from International Communi
Page 17: Learning from International Communi
Page 69 and 70:
Learning from International Communi
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
show all

Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?