Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report Today JFM appears to be the most widespread form of CF in the state. The World Bank funding, constant dialogues between the World Bank, FD and NGOs and the push from the Chief Minister himself (who sees JFM as one of the ways of attaining local empowerment and equity) has ensured that JFM receives greatest acceptability and attention officially. So far more than 6000 VSSs have been formed in the state. Important features and criticisms of JFM in the state Important features of JFM in the state include: • 100% benefit from the protected forests to the protecting communities 106 (though the benefit is only of incremental value, i.e. only the additional biomass generated after community protection); • NGOs have been formally included in an advisory and facilitation capacity. • NGOs are also a part of the JFM Monitoring Committee along with the FD; • The most visible achievement has been remarkable regeneration of otherwise degraded landscape where now bamboos and grasses have started coming up for harvest and wild animals have returned to the forests. 107 • For FD officials, overcoming problems with naxalites and resolving conflicts with encroachers have been the greatest achievements of JFM. 108 Major criticisms of JFM include: • A lack of transparency in the management of funds in most cases by the lower rung of the FD; • In many instances conserving communities are waiting for the promised benefits even after a decade of protecting the forests; • Most decision-making powers remain with the FD and often participation in wage labour is considered participation in the programme. Thus JFM has yet to achieve true devolution of power; • Intra-community equity or empowerment of under-privileged sections achieved by the programme is not clear; • JFM has in many instances co-opted the areas where forests were being managed independently by communities. In some instances such co-optation has led to the break down of the traditional system while JFM has not been able to fill the gap effectively 109 ; • There are serious problems such as boundary disputes between the conserving and non-conserving communities; • In many instances the already strained relationship between tribals and non-tribals has further deteriorated as under the scheme both tribals and non-tribals get equal benefits and power, or tribal rights are transferred to non-tribals. Tribals consider this as an unfair deal as they have already been marginalised by non-tribal communities; • As more and more areas are receiving protection under JFM, migratory pastoralists often end up in conflict and fights with the conserving communities. JFM has so far ignored the migratory communities as well as settled graziers 110 . JFM committees comprising of better-off villagers often bypass panchayats and disenfranchise poor graziers of their rights; • JFM still remains a scheme for the FD and has not yet been accepted as a forest management practice which will continue with or without external funds 111 ; 106 Pers comm. with V.R. Sowmitri, Co-convenor of APNGOs Committee for JFM in Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad; Pers comm. with Sagri Ramdas, Anthra, Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad. Anon. 2001. Joint Forest Management: A Critique Based on People’s Perceptions. Samata, Hyderabad. 107 Pers comm. with Surendra Pandey, Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh. 2002; Anon. 2001. Joint Forest Management: A Critique Based on People’s Perceptions. Samata, Hyderabad; Pers comm. with Bharati, Independent Researcher on JFM issues. 2002. Hyderabad; 108 Sundar, N., R. Jeffery and N. Thin. 2001. Branching Out: Joint Forest Management in India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 109 Anon. 2001. Joint Forest Management: A Critique Based on People’s Perceptions. Samata, Hyderabad. Pers comm. with Surendra Pandey, Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad. 110 Pers comm. with Sagri Ramdas, Anthra, Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad. 111 Pers comm. with Vinod Goud, Programme Officer, Swiss Development Agency/Inter-Cooeration NGO Programme Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad. 58
Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report • Despite provisions in the existing law the government has resisted legally recognizing the JFM Village Forest Committees. From JFM to CFM The government passed the Community Forest Management Resolution (G.O. Ms. No. 13, EFES&T (for III) Dept.) on 12 th February 2002. The new resolution appears very much the same as the earlier JFM resolution in spirit and content, although it claims to achieve greater empowerment of local institutions. The local NGOs do not feel that the new resolution will substantially change the ground realities. At grassroots level, villagers are largely unaware of the new resolution or its operational impacts. 112 Local People’s Initiative Documentation of forests being conserved and managed by the communities on their own initiative is extremely scant in AP. There are occasional references to such examples in conversation with people working on the issue of natural resource management. It is believed that the tribal and forest dominated Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Vizakhapatnam, Nizamambad, Khammam, Adilabad, and East and West Godavari Districts have a rich tradition of systems and practices of forest resource management. The villages bordering Orissa are believed to have been influenced by the community forestry initiatives in Orissa and have started protection of their surrounding forests. 113 In other examples, villagers appear to have started forest protection as a response to resource scarcity or are continuing a traditional practice. Some examples of traditional forest management include villages like Oblapuram and Velidelkala in Kareemnagar District; Yanampalli and Sikendarapur in Nizamabad; and some sacred groves in Warangal District, among others. 114 Forest protection by Behroonguda village, a JFM “show case” in the state and the first FPC to be recognized by the government, was an initiative started by the villagers on their own to overcome the natural resource crunch. 115 There were other fine examples of traditional forest management in Srikakulam District which collapsed after being included in JFM 116 . On the other hand a few villages in Adilabad district, which continue to manage forests on their own, have rejected JFM outright. 117 Some efforts are offshoots of rebellions against government policies such as village Mantoor in Medak district where villagers’ efforts started as an opposition to clear felling of adjoining degraded forests by APFDC. 118 Subsequently, an order has been passed which makes the consent of adjoining FPCs mandatory for APFDC to clear fell any forest. 119 The drier parts of AP have a long history and tradition of management of irrigation tanks. In 1955-56, local communities were managing about 58,527 tanks. This system has rapidly deteriorated in past few decades for a host of reasons, including government take over of these tanks. In 1997, the government enacted the AP Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 120 making AP the first state to have a participatory 112 Pers comm. with villagers of village Eliminadu in Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh. 2002. 113 Pers comm. with Madhoo, Anthra Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad. Pers comm. with Bhanumathi, Samata, Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad. 114 Pers comm. with Surendra Pandey, Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad. 115 D’Silva, E. and B. Nagnath. 2002. Behroonguda: A Rare Success Story in Joint Forest Management. Economic and Political Weekly. February 9, 2002. 116 Anon. 2001. Joint Forest Management: A Critique Based on People’s Perceptions. Samata, Hyderabad. 117 Pers comm. with Madhoo, Anthra Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad. 118 Pers comm. with Satya Srinivas, Co-convenor of APNGOs Committee for JFM in Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad 119 Pers comm. with V.R. Sowmitri, Co-convenor of APNGOs Committee for JFM in Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad 120 Venkateshwarlu, D. and K. Srinivas. 2001. Troubled Wasters: Status of Tank Management Institutions in Rainfed Areas of Andhra Pradesh. SDC/IC NGO Programme, Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad. 59
Page 1 and 2:
Learning from International Communi
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8: Learning from International Communi
Page 57: Learning from International Communi
show all

Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?