Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report
State control over forests, and types of CF, have differed over time. A model of natural resource
management that excluded local inhabitants became widespread with the endorsement of the colonial rulers
in the 19 th century. At that point of time the focus was on the commercial benefits to be gained by the state,
by exploiting forest resources. Thus, under the Forest Act 1927, most of India’s forests were converted into
Reserved Forests and Protected Forests, both controlled by the state. Centralised bureaucracies began
administering natural forest resources, coupled with a distrust of the locals who were seen as encroachers or
destroyers of government forests, which were to be protected for state use and commercial exploitation.
These two trends – (a) the take-over of forests by the state for commercial use, and (b) an exclusionary
model of natural resource management – were reflected in the legislation of the time, and a similar mindset
was carried on after Indian independence. The first, and much quoted, national forest policy of 1952
revealed what was to be the government’s stance on the rights of forest-dependent communities over the
next three decades, stating that “The accident of a village being situated close to a forest does not prejudice
the right of a country as a whole to receive benefits of a national asset.” In 1976 the National Commission
on Agriculture stated that, “Production of industrial wood would have to be the raison d’etre for the
existence of forests.”
From the 1950s to the 1970s India’s industrial expansion relied heavily on commercial timber exploitation.
This was a period of large-scale deforestation due to government policy favouring subsidised forest access
to industry. Natural forests were replaced with commercial plantations, and forest land was also diverted to
development projects and agriculture. By the 1970s deforestation was occurring at a rate of 1.3 million ha
per annum. According to government statistics, this rate has slowed down since then. However, the quality
of natural forest ecosystems continues to deteriorate. It is estimated that 45% of India’s land is
‘wasteland’ 3 , half of which includes degraded state forest lands. This amounts to about 61 million ha of
degraded forests. Meanwhile, plantations have expanded at a rapid pace, rising from 3 million ha in 1980 to
13 million ha in 1990. 4 Wood-based industries such as packaging, paper mills, agricultural implements and
railway construction expanded rapidly, and by the 1970s and 1980s there was a perceptible shortage of raw
material.
The 1970s was the decade of ‘social forestry’, when the FD took measures to address the shortage of raw
material for wood-based industries. There was a drive to create large-scale monoculture plantations. Social
forestry was meant to promote the use of public and common lands to meet the fodder and fuel subsistence
needs of village communities and thereby lighten the load on government forests which were being used
for industry. It also encouraged tree planting on private land as a source of timber for industry. Social
forestry attracted a large amount of foreign funding in various states from donors like the World Bank,
SIDA, CIDA, USAID, DANIDA and ODA. During the 1980s there were 14 social forestry projects across
14 states, costing Rs.994 million. Social forestry was particularly successful in achieving the target number
of trees planted and meeting industrial demand. However, it did not satisfy local requirements of fuel and
fodder, since it concentrated only on quick growing timber for commercial purposes. 5 Eventually the social
forestry approach collapsed when donors withdrew support amid criticisms that it subsidised industry and
led to a fall in wood prices due to increased supply and poorly planned marketing. However, social forestry
had begun the process of a change of perspective in terms of community involvement in forest
management.
The colonial approach to managing forests, carried on by the Indian state, resulted in two things – firstly, it
severely restricted the access of locals to resources on which their livelihoods were based; and secondly, it
effectively removed all responsibility of communities to look after their natural surrounds. Thus, local
people have often become hostile to official management and protection of forests because the law has
excluded them from their own surroundings. While communities have never stopped using forests
unofficially, since their livelihoods depend on this, they have suffered much hardship, for example having
3 This is a problematic and often deceptive term, originating from the colonial regime terming non-private
lands that did not yield any revenue as the ‘wastes’.
4 ibid. p.47.
5 Sundar N, Jeffrey R & Thin N. 2001. Branching Out: Joint Forest Management in India. OUP. New
Delhi. p26-27.
7