jfpm

8/7/2019 jfpm

1/77

JOINT FOREST PLANNING AND

MANAGEMENT IN THE EASTERN

PLAINS REGION OF KARNATAKA:

A Rapid Assessment

Sharac hc hand ra Lele

A. K. Kiran Kuma r

Pravin Shivashankar

CISEDCentre for Int erdisciplinary Studies in Environment & Development

Technica l

Report

September 2005

8/7/2019 jfpm

2/77

Joint Forest Pla

JOINT FOREST PLANNING AN

MANAGEMENT IN THE EASTERN PREGION OF KARNATAKA:

A Rapid Assessment

Sharachc handra Lele

A. K. Kiran Kumar

Pravin Shivashankar

Cent re for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment & DCent re for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment & DeCent re for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment & DCent re for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment & DeCent re for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment & D

8/7/2019 jfpm

3/77

CISED Technical Report

8/7/2019 jfpm

4/77

Joint Forest Pla

JOINT FOREST PLANNING AND MANAGEMEN

THE EASTERN PLAINS REGION OF KARNATA

A Rapid Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background and study objectives

Over the past decade or so, joint forestmanagement has emerged as the key concept

through which afforestation and forestregeneration activities are being implementedin most parts of India. In Karnataka, JointForest Planning and Management (JFPM) waslaunched in 1993 and has been implementedwith major financial support (grants or loans)from bilateral agencies. During 1997-2002, theKarnataka Forest Department (KFD) took upthe implementation of JFPM in the non-Western

Ghats region of Karnataka under the EasternPlains Forestry and Environment Project (EPFEP)with a budget of Rs.598 crores. The bulk of thisbudget was a loan from the Japanese Bank forInternational Cooperation (JBIC). We conductedan independent rapid assessment of the JFPMactivities carried out under this project in thenorthern and southern maidan region, which

comprises the major portion of the projectimplementation area, during 2002. Theobjectives of the assessment were:

1. To rapidly assess the quality of JFPMactivities in the northern and southernmaidan (plains)region that contains about70% of the JFPM villages covered byEPFEP;

2. To understand the factors determining theobserved quality, including policy-levelfactors, implementational factors and thesocio-ecological context;

3. To suggest ways in which JFPM policy andimplementation could be modified to

the EPFEP activities means tare crucial to any assessmen

Conceptual framework

The basic objectives of thePolicy of 1988 includeenvironmental stability and rebalance and meeting the reqrural and tribal populations. have been adopted by theKarnataka as well. They are EPFEP proposal as ensuring

of biomass to the local coreducing poverty while manother common lands in an sustainable manner. Participais officially seen as theinstrument through which management will occur in arecommunities. JFPM is the pparticipatory managementofficially adopted in Karnatakaelements are spelt out in varOrders and official guidelines

Most studies of participatoprogrammes use a mixtureoutcome indicators. In ohowever, since JFPM is a prthe quality of JFPM primarily the extent to which the parthas occurred in the manner iAssessing outcomes, i.e., progobjectives of JFPM, is meanithe process has been reasonatherefore adopt three levels

8/7/2019 jfpm

5/77


! Protection of forests must be joint andeffective, with adequate support fromthe KFD;

! VFC functioning must berepresentative, transparent, anddemocratic, with adequate voice formarginal communities;

! VFC-KFD relationship must besomewhat equal.

c) Likely future outcome: Where a reasonableJFPM process is under way, the silviculturalmodels and economic arrangements mustbe people-oriented, particularly benefitingthe marginal communities, and must beecologically sustainable.

Theoretically, the potential factors responsiblefor variations or shortcomings in the qualityof JFPM could be broadly categorised intoimplementational, policy-level, and contextualfactors. Implementational factors are thedecisions taken and methods adopted by theimplementing agency, including the mannerof initiation and operation on the ground, thestrategic decisions regarding choice of villages,choice of implementation partners, training ofstaff, and flexible interpretation of rules, aswell as overall support to the JFPM process.

Policy-level factors are the decisions regardingthe framework for JFPM, including the extentand nature of produce sharing, the kinds oflands permitted to be brought under JFPM, theunit for identifying the local community, theclarity in the assignment of rights andresponsibilities, the level of autonomy for thevillage-level committee, and the mechanismsused to monitor and enforce the jointly agreed

upon activities. The socio-ecological context,such as the extent of dependence on theresource, the level of heterogeneity in thecommunity and the presence of leadership, andthe ecological conditions in the region wouldalso affect the quality of JFPM, as they wouldinfluence the villagers interest and capacity

policies currently in place cripple the JFPM process atfound that there definitely arein the JFPM policy that couldthe quality of JFPM processesfrom villagers to JFPM. But oviz., the restriction of JFPM toareas does not matter in thwhere virtually all forest lanthis criterion. And the other absence of mechanisms foaccountability, village-le

transparency or clarity on NTFsided. That is, they do nimplementing agency from aproblems if it so wishes. Wthe contextual factors wouldonly where serious efforts athave been made. In those situon the effect of changing socvarying economic dependencewithin the local community.

Study region and JFPM

The study region consists onorthern maidan region comRaichur, Gulbarga, Bidar and(pre-reorganisation), and thmaidan region comprising Baurban districts, Mandya, Chitradurga, and the easterndistrict. Within these regions theterogeneity of rainfall, topextent of forest and other cothe whole, villages in the sregion have significantly higheforest and other common lan

those in the northern maidanare primarily agrarian, with being the traditional mode in (where most of the common laBut the spread of canal-basednorthern maidan and groundwthe southern maidan has cr

8/7/2019 jfpm

6/77

Joint Forest Pla

the EPFEP region, of which 1139 were in themaidan region. As we write this report, thisnumber has further increased to 3068, with2123 of these being in the northern andsouthern maidan region. There is a higherconcentration of VFCs in the southern maidanregion, although the absolute number of VFCsin the northern maidan is also quite high.

Methodology

Given limited resources and time, we firstconducted a rapid assessment to get a pictureof the overall trend in JFPM quality in theregion. We then chose a few villages wherethe JFPM process appeared to have progressedsignificantly and we conducted detailed casestudies for understanding the interactionbetween implementational, policy-level andcontextual factors. The sources of data we usedwere:

a) A macro-level dataset provided by the KFDcovering 1036 VFCs located in the maidanregion. This contained information on thelocation of each VFC, date of itsregistration, name of VFC President, andso on. Of these, 659 VFCs could beidentified and linked to revenue villageslisted in the Census 1991 population and

land-use database.b) Anecdotal information gathered from 10

regional and one state-level convention ofVFC representatives, NGOs and KFDofficials organised by some NGOs duringlate 2001, and also from unstructuredinterviews conducted by us with KFDofficials at various levels.

c) Data from mail-in questionnaires sent toNGOs working in the region. These resultedin responses covering 60 villages,including 27 from the maidan region.

d) Information gathered from rapid field visitsto 28 villages consisting of 17 in the

Quality of JFPM in the m

Overall, the quality of the JFPmuch to be desired.

1) The basic criterion that activities in the JFPM zone by the setting up of a Vguided by the JFPM prviolated in a large numbeoften the VFCs have beplantation activities have In Kolar forest division, for

for 37 out of 47 VFCs shoMemorandum of Understathe date of VFC registratiothan the date of plantationmaidan, there villages wiplantations but no VFCs aterritorial division, of the 9some plantation activitiesout under the EPFEP, only

VFCs as of March 2002.

2) The majority of the VFregion are either dyfunctioning only nomimeeting most of the critefunctioning VFC. In parti

a) The quality of micro-pof villager participatiogenerally very poor. Vinvolved in the planningaware of contents of thdo not have copies of thMemorandum of Undthem. (Of 54 villagesmail-in questionnaire 21 had not signed MoU

more than a year oldremaining 33 did not hmicro-plan or MoU. In covered in rapid visitsnot being involved in mall.) There were many in Gulbarga forest divis

8/7/2019 jfpm

7/77


under the Social Forestry project)to the VFC.

b) Joint protection generally occurs only

for parts of the resource use area, if atall, with passive support (not activeinvolvement) of the villagers. KFDsupport oscillates between total subsidyfor protection of plantations for theinitial three years to very little supportfor villages that are actively protectingnatural forests.

! Secondary data indicate that in morethan half of the villages, JFPM areaamounts to less than half of the totalavailable forest and other commonlands. In practice, the areas actuallyunder the control of the VFC are evenless. In a large number of cases,even when Reserve Forest (RF) areais available in the village, it has not

been assigned to the VFC.

! In terms of peoples involvement, of54 villages covered by either themail-in questionnaire or a field visit,26 villages reported no JFPM activity,six reported active conflict betweenthe VFC and the KFD, 19 reportedpassive support to KFDs protection

efforts, and only three reportedactive villager involvement in day-to-day protection efforts.

c) While VFCs cover a significant fraction ofthe village population on paper, their actualfunctioning is hardly democratic ortransparent. Member enrollment is oftenreported to be contrived (with the village

elite paying the fees on behalf of the rest)and is tied to the undemocratic method ofconstituting Managing Committees (MCs)through an understanding rather than awell-publicised, well-prepared, openelection process. MC meetings either do notoccur regularly or in villages where JFPM

fact that the JFPM structuapproach to micro-plannithe autonomy of the

generally made no effortbasic notions of partnersaccounts are entirely contRegistration and MoU sigthe KFDs own pace, andeven in registered microlands to be assigned arekept. Ambiguities about thexisting plantations have

ground even after beingpolicy-level. There is litrequests for help in foresarresting outsiders engagfrom JFPM areas. Where sobeen supportive, the supafter the official is transfe

This overall trend is fully c

several VFC representatives,frontline KFD staff.

3) In the four case study viJFPM process has proceethe outcomes observed oare quite mixed, and relaJFPM process has evolved

a) In Thondala, althougharea is being strictlyhence the VFC is consuccess story by thevillage elite (particPresident) are actively functioning of the Vdemocratic. The maininvolved seems to be

from the eucalyptus covers most of the foresult, there has asignificant decline in acfor fuelwood and foddeall households and a forest based income

8/7/2019 jfpm

8/77

Joint Forest Pla

the households have become members,and the functioning of the MC isdominated by upper caste farmers.There is no active villager involvementin forest protection. A 100 ha mixedplantation has been raised, protectedby a KFD-paid watchman. Fuelwood andgrazing in the larger forest areacontinue in the same unsustainablemanner as before. The VFCs mainachievement is that it has managed toget a share in the royalties from

auctioning of rights to NTFP collection.But this is in fact a regressive outcome,because the poor NTFP collectinghouseholds within the village get nopreferential treatment in the auctionsand see almost no increase in theirincomes. On the other hand, the non-collecting members get a share in theroyalties without putting in any effort.

c) In Kanvihalli, in spite of a promisingstart and an enthusiastic response fromthe local community, channelled byNGOs already working in the village,JFPM has made little impact. The KFDhas in practice only assigned a tiny 22ha tamarind plantation to the VFC,leaving the vast (and degraded) forestarea in the village out of the purview ofJFPM. Thus, there has been noenhancement in the availability offuelwood and fodder/grazing, orimprovement in resource sustainability.In terms of income, as in Kakkuppi,rights for harvest of tamarind wereauctioned by the KFD rather than being

given free to the VFC. Due to communitymobilisation by the NGO, however, theauction was won by a womens Self-HelpGroup within the village. This generatedsome income for a few households. Buthere again, the VFCs share in theroyalty has remained in the control of

up due to a combinaaccess to VFC memberthe communitys barg

-vis the wholesale tradthe NTFP collection proformal records of thvillagers have had to cost in terms of neighbouring villages aare extracting wood livestock in the VFCUnfortunately, the K

penalised the offendeVFC nor attempted to village conflict that eru

In short, where subsistence aare being met while enssustainability, KFD support hThe KFD appears to see succin which the (non-forest de

elite are co-opted into coopagenda of protecting pre-plantations by giving or promiin profits, royalties or recognin regressive impacts on slivelihood needs, especiallydependent poor, and sustainacommercially valuable reso

rather than the forest as a whresource management acquirform, viz., planting and protlarge subsidies from KFD inrather than ensuring overalltrees, grass and soils in wayslocal needs and with capacitieffort in the long run.

Causes of overall poor JFPM process

The overall trend of poor quprocess is directly reimplementational choices anthe KFD At the operational lev

8/7/2019 jfpm

9/77


hoop to be jumped in order to implement theirbasic work of creating plantations.

At the strategic level, the choice of villages

was rather haphazard, and not focused onvillages more likely to be forest-dependent andsocially homogeneous. There was no systematiceffort to implement JFPM in clusters so as toresolve the problem of overlapping rights ofand hence conflicts with neighbouring villages(some efforts on these lines were reported inparts of Tumkur district). And the process ofimplementation was clearly driven by the

unrealistic target set in the proposal to JBIC.

Organisationally, the KFDs delay in initiatingJFPM in the initial years of the EPFEP increasedthe difficulty in meeting the promisednumerical targets, resulting in further pressureto give core participatory processes the go-by. Internal policies and procedures forratifying MoUs and micro-plans were also not

streamlined. More importantly, the KFD failedto integrate JFPM into its regular mode offunctioning, i.e., the operations of the territorialwing. Although the territorial wingimplemented JFPM in forest lands while theSocial Forestry wing did so in revenue lands,the concept of JFPM as a core process did notpenetrate the mindset and functioning of theterritorial wing or even, for that matter, of the

Social Forestry wing.

Finally, the very act of taking a loan from abank at 12% interest in order to implement theEPFEP has imposed very serious constraints andburdens on the JFPM process. The shift fromconventional management to participatorymanagement requires a sea change in theattitudes of local communities as well as KFD

staff towards rights and responsibilities inmanaging forest and other common lands. Thisprocess of change is inherently slow and difficultand does not actually require large funds. Takingfunds, and that too as a loan, imposed targetsand narrowed down the silvicultural options atthe outset Senior KFD officials worried that if

KFD. Officially, JFPM is the funthrough which sustainmanagement is to be achieveconventional approach of planThis includes allowing the coforest management goals sustainability norms and withof larger ecological balanchowever, KFD officials either know what is good for the comcan plant first and involve peor that JFPM is simply a tool

the KFDs forest managemeffectively, or that JFPM is notat all. There is absolutelycommitment to internalisingparticipatory forest manageshifts in attitudes and procesthe course of the earlier WesteProject do not appear to havnor the learning incorporated

Interplay between implepolicy-level and context

In cases where the JFPMprogressed to some extent, contextual and policy-level mediated by implementationvisible. First, the inter-villag

to the existence of overlappinfacto rights in forest areas. are common on the ground buand addressed in JFPM policy

Second, the non-assignmentto the VFC, the lack of KFD supof assigned lands and the cothe KFD over VFC function

highly lop-sided distributioresponsibilities between the KWhile VFCs are entirely at tKFD, there is no mechanism tVFCs to hold the KFD accountathe notion of joint managem

8/7/2019 jfpm

10/77

Joint Forest Pla

all villagers are forest-dependent. An attemptis made to provide a voice to the marginalisedcommunities by specifying the composition ofthe MC. But this attempt is inadequate. Amechanism for separating forest-dependentcommunities from others, and for ensuring thatthe benefits from JFPM flow to only those whoput in efforts in protection and harvest and/orbear the opportunity costs of protection isurgently required. Simultaneously, the pressureon the KFD to generate revenues from JFPMand other forest lands, whether in the form of

royalties for NTFP collection or from harvest oftimber and softwood, must be removed.

Finally, the relative success of JFPM in villageswith more homogeneous and ST-dominatedcommunities, large forest areas and unirrigatedagriculture suggests that JFPM implementationwould have to be more carefully targeted.

Recommendat ions fo r po l i cy andimplementation

Our findings call into serious question thecurrent approach towards participatory forestmanagement being adopted not just inKarnataka but in many other states in India.This approach is based upon narrow notionsof participation, little re-thinking of basic

premises within the forest bureaucracy, largeflows of bilateral and multi-lateral funds(usually loans) resulting in target rather thanprocess orientation. Our findings also highlightthe need to significantly restructure institutionsof community management so as to avoid theimposition of elite preferences in the name offorest regeneration, given the differentiated

and changing relationship between localcommunities and common lands.

Our specific recommendations for changes inJFPM policy are as follows.

a) There must be clear, statutory provisionsfor ensuring that all lands used by the

c) There must be clear, stafor ensuring that the partenforceable both ways. Vable to demand JFPM ademonstrate willingness forests, and VFCs must the KFD to meet its commjoint protection, sharing oon.

d) VFC membership and/or restricted to only thosewilling to put their own phplanting, protection, reharvesting of forest prodnot have the right to extotherwise make profidistributed to all villagers jhappen to live in that villa

e) While giving all communitake up the JFPM arrange

be clear assessment at tthe areas that are conarrangements and a time-shift to JFPM in such areaat the hamlet-level by defainterested communities witup JFPM.

f) The state governmen

recognise that JFPM lasources of revenue to themust let go of all shares igenerated from these lantime, the subsidies to be of free seedlings and plantbe limited and targettedthe practice of taking largbased activities must be

g) Funding agencies must recis a process of social achange that does not in itfunds, and that setting nfor VFCs and physical pfor such a process is co

8/7/2019 jfpm

11/77


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACF : Assistant Conservator of Forests

CPR : Common Property Resources

DfID : Department of International Development, Govt. of U

DCF : Deputy Conservator of Forests

EPFEP : Eastern Plains Forestry Project

FEVORD-K : Federation of Voluntary Organizations for Rural Develop

GO : Government Order

JBIC : Japanese Bank for International Cooperation

JFM : Joint Forest Management (acronym used in most other

JFPM : Joint Forest Planning and Management (acronym used

KFD : Karnataka Forest Department

LAMPS : Large-scale Adivasi Multi-Purpose Societies

MC : Managing Committee

MoU : Memorandum of Understanding (to be signed between

NGO : Non-governmental organization

NTFP : Non-timber forest products

PRA : Participatory Rural Appraisal (supposed to be carri

generating the micro-plan)

RF : Reserve Forest

RFO : Range Forest Officer

SC : Scheduled Caste

8/7/2019 jfpm

12/77

Joint Forest Pla

CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................

1.1 BACKGROUND ..........................................................................1.2 RATIONALE FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF JFPM IN THE EASTERN PLAINS R1.3 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY......................................

CHAPTER 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ..............................................

2.1 ASSESSING JFPM: THE NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK ...........................2.1.1 Goals of forest management in non-Protected Areas ..............2.1.2 Participatory management as the means ..............................2.1.3 The concept of JFPM: content and procedures .......................2.1.4 Criteria and Indicators for assessing quality of JFPM...............

2.2 UNDERSTANDING JFPM SUCCESS AND FAILURE: THE THEORETICAL FRAM2.2.1 Potential factors ...............................................................2.2.2 Limiting the enquiry ............................................................

CHAPTER 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY REGION AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 THE MAIDAN REGION .................................................................3.2 JFPM SPREAD ..........................................................................3.3 METHODOLOGY........................................................................

3.3.1 Data sources for overall assessment ....................................3.3.2 Detailed case studies ..........................................................

CHAPTER 4. QUALITY OF JFPM IN THE MAIDAN REGION .......................

4.1 JFPM AS THE MEANS FOR ALL FORESTRY ACTIVITIES .....................4.1.1 Plantation activities but no VFCs at all ..................................4.1.2 VFCs only after plantation activities .....................................

4.2 FUNCTIONING OF JFPM .............................................................4.2.1 Joint planning: non-existent .................................................4.2.2 Joint protectionlimited extent and form .............................4.2.3 VFC democracylargely notional.........................................4.2.4 VFC-KFD relationshiplop-sided............................................

4.3 LIKELY OUTCOMES OF PROPER JFPM PROCESS..............................

4.3.1 Brief description of case study villages and their JFPM process 4.3.2 Variable and skewed outcomes ...........................................

4.4 SUMMARY OF JFPM QUALITY: OVERALL TRENDS AND SUCCESS STOR

CHAPTER 5. EXPLAINING JFPM QUALITY .............................................

5.1 EXPLAINING OVERALL TREND: IMPLEMENTATIONAL ERRORS OR FUNDAMDIVERGENCES?.......................................................................

l l d d bl

8/7/2019 jfpm

13/77


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study emerged from discussions that tookplace in the first state-level convention onparticipatory forest management organised bythe Jana Aranya Vedike (Peoples Forest Forum)

in Bangalore in December 2001. We areindebted to all participants and organisers ofthis convention and also those of the regionalconventions preceding the state-level one forcontributing their observations and insights.We are particularly grateful to Naveen Thomasand Gowri who generously shared their notesof the proceedings of these various meetingsand to Gowri for also helping us obtain andcompile secondary data from the forestdepartment.

We are grateful to the Karnataka ForestDepartment (KFD) for facilitating this study bygiving us access to the records of JFPMimplementation. Various KFD officers at all levelsin the field helped us during our visits, especially

those in Harpanahalli, Shorapur, Gulbarga andKolar. Senior officials in Bangalore shared theirviews and, in spite of our critical views, gave usa patient hearing and their candid feedback. Wethank all of them.

We are grateful to the villagers of the villageswe visited, particularly of Kanvihalli,Benkanahalli, Thondala and Kakkuppi for their

cooperation and hospitality. Special mentionmust be made of our friends in REACH

(Harpanahalli) and Abhiyan helped us extensively durinSeveral other NGO friends hvisits to other villages, particu

for Ecological Security in KolHospet, SARDS and GPSS iSEEDA in Bagalkot. We are athe NGOs who respondedquestionnaire regarding the oin the villages in their area o

A large number of other indithis study in various oth

mentioning all of them by impossible, we would likeacknowledge the help we reSimha, M K Bhat, Naveen ThoYerdoor, Sadashiva Reddy, B Shyla, Thomas Abraham, andwriting of this report benefitedcomments received during a s

at ISEC, as well as specific cmanuscript given by Ajit MeSundar. We also gratefullKanchan Kaurs copy editingby Girish Bhadri.

Financial support for this studfrom a grant provided by WinrIndia under its Small Gran

Additional core support camFoundation.

8/7/2019 jfpm

14/77

Joint Forest Pla

1.1 Background

The debate on whether and how to involve localcommunities in the day-to-day management

of the forests they use has a long ancestry inthe South Asian region. The debate firstemerged in an intense and public form followingthe British takeover of the bulk of the sub-continents forests.1 Although it had little impacton the overall thrust of colonial forest policy,the debate did result in community forestrybeing permitted in several small pockets acrossthe region. These include the well-known Van

Panchayats of Kumaon and the lesser-knownPanchayat Forests of Madras Province and ForestPanchayats of Mysore princely state.2 Thedebate virtually died out during first two decadesin the post-independence period as state forestpolicy took an aggressively nationalist andwelfare statist stance.3

The post-1970s period saw the emergence of

the concept of social forestry, primarily inresponse to perceptions of a rural biomassenergy crisis. Bilateral and multi-lateral donoragencies pumped in large quantities of fundingfor implementing Social Forestry projects,including a major one in Karnataka during1983-1991. But this forestry was social onlyin its stated purpose, not in its form or actualoutcome. In spite of substantial achievementof the physical targets (i.e., area brought underplantations), the community woodlots createdunder social forestry failed to achieve theirstated goal of meeting local biomass needssustainably. This was mainly because of thelack of involvement of local communities in

resource created (see ODA, 1Nadkarni and Pasha, 1993).

The failure of social forestry a revival in the debate on forpolicy and the role for locaSimultaneously, evidence bfrom different parts of thesuccessful experiments ocommunity involvementgovernment support (as in without (Orissa and Kumaonthe Government of Indias 198

Policy document marked a cleof local participation. Subsequgovernment issued a circugovernments asking them communities in the regeneraforest lands (GoI, 1990). Thisforest management (JFimplemented under various Jby many state governments. Bprogrammes had been initiatstates. According to one escovered under such joint foreprogrammes in India by 2000km, involving 36,000-odprotection committees and amof the estimated open fores(Murali et al., 2000).

In Karnataka, the Governmeenabling Joint Forest Management or JFPM (as JFM was issued in 1993 (Governm1993). This coincided with thWestern Ghats Forestry Proje

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

8/7/2019 jfpm

15/77


funds with JFPM implementation also meantthat JFPM activities during the period 1993-2000 remained almost entirely confined to theWGFP target area, viz., the heavily forestedUttara Kannada, Shimoga, and parts ofChickmagalur district. Subsequently, in 1997,the Karnataka Forest Department (KFD)launched the 5-year Eastern Plains Forestryand Environment Project (EPFEP). Of the totalbudget of Rs.598 crores for this project, Rs.508crores came in the form of a loan from theJapanese Bank for International Cooperation

(JBIC).5

The EPFEP covered 17 districts6

of thenon-Western Ghats region of Karnataka. As perofficial figures, 3068 Village Forest Committees(VFCs) had been set up and 250,000 ha of landhad been brought under JFPM through theEPFEP by March 2003.

1.2 Rationale for an assessment ofJFPM in the eastern plains region

In January 2002, we decided to carry out anindependent assessment of the quality of theJFPM process in the eastern plains region ofKarnataka, specifically the northern andsouthern maidan regions. The need for suchan assessment was felt for several reasons,most of them from the immediate debates onprogress of JFPM in Karnataka, but also related

to the larger debates on participatorymanagement in the country.

The earlier phase of JFPM implementation inKarnataka, carried out under the WGFP, wasthe focus of much public debate (see Ll, 2000)and came under critical scrutiny from a numberof agencies, including non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), researchers, and an

Independent Review Committee set up by thedonor agency itself (Correa, 1996; Mitra andCorrea, 1997a; Saxena et al., 1997; Mitra andCorrea, 1997b; CAG, 2000). The overallassessment was that the performance of JFPMunder the WGFP was quite mixed. Theprogrammeengenderedsignificant interest from

reduced the distance betwdepartment, NGOs and local cextent. But if JFPM was to main forest degradation or deforebenefit local communities sigmore needed to be done.

Meanwhile, the Government already launched the EPFcontrast to the Western GhEPFEP proposal underwent debate or scrutiny. And in Janwe launched this study,

assessments were available was necessary to carry out sucfor several reasons:

a) Any public project or progbe assessed objectively. Tha much larger public investprojects (Rs.598 crores Rs.83 crores in the WGF

mostly in the form of a loaof which will burden futur

b) There is a debate on abouJFPM in the state as a wholis inconclusive because osystematic and independeJFPM in the EPFEP region

c) Policy discussions regKarnataka have been baan understanding of realities and JFPM experieand heavily forested regioGhats. If participatory forested and other commencouraged everywhediscussion must inunderstanding of the drealities in the drier, regions of the eastern pl

d) This region of Karnatakafrom any other region in Itype programmes are bei

8/7/2019 jfpm

16/77

Joint Forest Pla

Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa,Jharkhand and parts of West Bengal,Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan.This entire belt is characterised by amajority tribal population, high poverty,large tracts of forests rich in timber andcommercially valuable non-timber products(such as tendu leaves and sal seeds) andsignificant levels of dependence of the localpopulation on forests for income. Incontrast, the northern and southern maidanregion of Karnataka has a very small

percentage of tribals, poverty levels varyingfrom high in the north to low in the south,large areas of highly developed agriculture,and scattered forests not very rich in non-timber products. Understanding how JFPMfunctions under these prima facieunfavourable conditions would thereforecontribute to the larger debate on

participatory management of forest andother common lands.

1.3 Objectives and scope of the study

The objectives of this study were:

1. To rapidly assess the quality of JFPMactivities in the drier portion of the EPFEPimplementation area, i.e., the northern and

southern maidan regions;8

2. To understand the factors determining theobserved quality, including policy-levelfactors, implementational factors and thesocio-ecological context;

3. To suggest ways in which JFPM policy andimplementation could be modified toimprove the quality of JFPM process andhence the outcomes.

The conceptual framework underpinningnotions of quality of JFPM and factorsinfluencing the quality is outlined in the nextchapter. The study region and the methodologyadopted are described in Chapter 3 Our

unfavourable circumstances, wto cover the entire 17 distriEPFEP was implemented. We the northern and southern maiis in fact conventionally uneastern plains or maidan reto consist of 12 districts (preA priori, it is possible to argue for JFPM success is higher in ththan in the maidan regiotransition zone has higher foreforests. Thus, our findings c

extrapolated to the entireNevertheless, given that neatotal number of VFCs set up are in the northern and soregions, our assessment clearportion of JFPM activities und

Second, we do not exameffectiveness of the achievem

perspective, JFPM is essentiinstitutional change, i.e.assignment of rights and between the KFD and the loand changing mindsets in bfrom mutual distrust to mutAs such, it is not at all clear are required to bring about suis it clear how one would ev

effectiveness of any such chawhen JFPM activities are lessold. No doubt, when a large loato support a project, thetemptation to ask whether generated adequate streams least a capacity for future rerepay the loan. However,

question would be to miss thIndeed, in the end, we are fothe wisdom of the very strateloans to support institutional

Third, this study is not massessment of the EPFEP pro

8/7/2019 jfpm

17/77


are related to capacity-building of the KFD andare not directly connected with JFPM. Thesefeatures are not covered by our study.

At the same time, to the extent that JFPM wasconsidered to be an integral part of the projectimplementation strategy and objectives,separating the project from the programmebecomes difficult. The EPFEP was supposed touse joint planning and management as itsfundamental instrument (Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests, 1996the proposal document orientation of [its] approachforest management practices process of planning and manof the four project objectives assessment of the quality ocarried out under the projecthave major implications for

of the project itself.

8/7/2019 jfpm

18/77

Joint Forest Pla

Underpinning our enquiry into the success andfailure of JFPM is a conceptual framework thatcontains both a normative and a theoreticalcomponent. The former pertains to our notion

of what is good or successful JFPM. The latterpertains to what we think are the major factorslikely to influence success. In this chapter, wepresent the details of both these componentsof our conceptual framework. It is particularlyimportant to clearly delineate the normativeframework and the rationale behind it, so as toavoid a situation where success and failureare judged on the basis of a completely differentset of norms from those assumed by theimplementing agency itself.

2.1 Assessing JFPM: the normativeframework

If one is to assess the performance or qualityof JFPM, one needs to first identify the goalsof forest management and the objectives ofthe JFPM process, and then develop criteriaand indicators for assessing the extent to whichthe (process) objectives have been achieved.Instead of imposing an external set ofobjectives and process criteria, we trace theevolution in official thinking on forestmanagement goals and strategies, and deducethe objectives, criteria and indicators for

evaluating the quality of JFPM from them.2.1.1 Goals of forest management in non-Protected Areas

9

As stated in the introduction, the colonial andpost-colonial Indian government consideredrevenue generation and production of industrial

tribal populations. Indeed, that the local needs should bon forest produce (emphaneeds primarily mean the fu

small timber and minor forest for self-consumption, but emphasises the need to protlivelihoods. And ecological refer to the local, regioecosystem services providincluding soil and water consemicro- and macro-climate wildlife habitat. It would bsuggest that in, non-Proteobjective of meeting local needas much or more importaensuring ecological balance.

All recent documents of theKarnataka and the KFD echpriorities. For instance, the Government Order on JFPM smanagement programmereoriented in such a manner tto the rural communitys needof Karnataka, 2002). The document is even more explobjectives of the EPFEP as:

! Ecology: To preserve ecologically sensitive a

plains, including ancienthistorical, archaeologicimportance, and to understanding of their vcommon masses.

! Environment: To attempt

CHAPTER 2

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

8/7/2019 jfpm

19/77


standard of the people and assuringsustained supplies of bamboo and otherforest produces to support ruraloccupations;

b) To reduce poverty and augment income-earning capacity of poor people, byproviding sustained employmentthrough land reclamation, afforestationand other allied activities (PrincipalChief Conservator of Forests, 1996,p.4).

2.1.2 Participatory management as themeans

There could, of course, be different ways oforganising forest management to achieve thetwin goals of meeting local peoples needs andmaintaining ecological balance. Even in areaswhere human presence and dependence onforests is very high, it is theoretically possible

to do so in a top-down manner, i.e., whereforests are planted, protected and harvestedentirely by a professional forest department,which then supplies the local communities withthe products they need. This was initiallyattempted several times by the British but theywere never successful. Ultimately, the Britishgovernment simply de-reserved (or left un-reserved) some forest patches and gave all

local communities free access to them or, in afew cases, assigned specific patches to specificindividuals or groups. After independence, theIndian government continued with this policy.As mentioned earlier, even the Social Forestryprogrammes of the 1980s were social only intheir stated goals, not in their means.

However, the absence of any appropriate

institution for managing these forest and othercommon lands10 and the inadequate areaassigned for such open-access use in manycases resulted in these forests declining veryrapidly. The problem then spread, especiallyin the post-independence era, even to the

It has been the experiencdecades that damage to thvarious forms of biotic interfecutting, grazing, fire and enincreased over the years. Inmeasures like increase in stafnetwork and increased inteetc., the desired results achieved. Further, the planC & D lands, gomaal lands, tahave been disappearing reasons. (Government of Ka

It has been argued by many tamongst these various readisappearance or degradatiotop-down approach that communitiesnot from the umanagement of the forests 1989). This argument has noby the government, at leas

process of acceptance startedForest Policy statement of 1that peoples participation sIt gained momentum after tfrom the Government of Indiaenable peoples participation ilands.

A reading of the GOs on JF

clearly indicates that the stjoint management as thmanaging degraded forest ladocument authored by the Kfurther. In addition to the mentioned above, it includes one:

! Reorientation: To ensure

of land and other natursetting up participatory planning and managemere-orientation of approachforest management pract

The document goes on to adth f d t l i t

8/7/2019 jfpm

20/77

Joint Forest Pla

may not really be an appropriate instrumentto meet the first objective of preserving ancientmonuments of historical, archaeological andcultural importance, and that JFPM might reallybe irrelevant in remote areas with large forestsand very sparse population,11 it is clear that,in the EPFEP, JFPM is the stated means throughwhich the twin goals of meeting local needsand maintaining the ecological balance are tobe achieved in all areas where people useforest lands to a significant extent.

Note that this immediately yields a zero-th

level criterion for evaluating the quality of JFPMin the EPFEP, viz., all activities in such villagesmust be implemented through the JFPMprocess, i.e., after joint planning with thevillagers. In other words, any progress madetowards (say) increasing the availability ofbiomass products for meeting local needs thatbypasses the JFPM process would be

tantamount to violating the very concept ofJFPM.12

2.1.3 The concept of JFPM: content andprocedures

What then is the nature of participatorymanagement of forests in general and JFPM inparticular? Broadly speaking, participatorymanagement means bringing local

communities into the process of forestmanagement by linking their rights ofextraction to responsibilities of protection andsustainable use. More specifically, it meansthe forest and other public lands being usedby rural communities would cease to be anopen-access or purely state-controlledresource and become clearly defined patches

to which specific village communities wouldhave exclusive and assured access within theframework of sustainable forest management.These patches would then be governed ormanaged by local-level institutions that willdemocratically decide how to use these lands,regulate the behaviour of their own members

the new situation, the departmbe to ensure that norms for maintaining ecological balanby the villagers, to help in pviolators from outside, to pinput and critical financial supMost of these broad featuresforest management are emboposition on peoples particimanagement in Karnataka.

The concept of joint (management is, however,

version of participatory managthis concept, as the Governmand most other state goverhave done, means taking theensure sustainable use of forcommunity, it is necessarydepartment be involved in bof forest use and (through on

in the day-to-day operation oinstitution. This is embodiedfor JFPM prescribed in thstipulations that all villamanagement plans must beforest official in consultcommunity and that the loofficial (usually Forester) willsecretary of the Village Fo

(VFC), i.e., the village-level isame time, as the official JFKarnataka state, the villageis not an extension of the governing body and tinvolvement is at the centre with the FD playing a supportal., 1996, p.11).

The general criteria for a projoint management system arviz.,

a) Whether joint planning ofthe villagers with KFD splace,

8/7/2019 jfpm

21/77


functioning in a representative, democratic,and transparent manner, with relativeautonomy from but also support from KFD.

Of course, the devil lies in the details. Whatexactly constitutes joint planninga plan madeby a forest official and presented to thevillagers for ratification or a plan made byvillagers that is ratified by KFD? And what doesa plan made by villagers mean anywayshouldit reflect the interests of the majority or of themarginal sections, of all village residents oronly of those who are forest-dependent? What

does joint protection meanvillagers doingprotection by turns, villagers appointing a paidwatchman amongst themselves, or the forestdepartment paying for the watchman? Whatdoes democratic functioning meanparticipation by all villagers in all decision-making or decision-making by a set of electedrepresentatives? What does playing a

supportive role exactly meanproviding helpwhen requested or making large fundsavailable from lending agencies for particularkinds of activities (identified a priori)?

The various JFPM GOs (Government ofKarnataka, 1993; 1996; 2002) and officialguidelines (KFD et al., 1996; KFD and FEVORD-K, 2001) spell out the answers to some of these

questions. For instance, they specify that thedemocracy will be essentially a representativeonean elected Managing Committee (MC),headed by a separately elected President, willtake most decisions. Indeed, the orders gobeyond the notion of a simple democratic setupand specify a particular composition for theMC that would give more voice to themarginalised sections of society.13 This is

clearly to ensure that the needs of themarginalised sections are given prominencein defining local needs and managing the forestfor them.

Regarding joint planning, the official guidelinessay that the management plan will be jointly

series of meetings involving the VFC members, and techniques and other participRegarding joint protection, guidelines are not entirely chand, the MC members arpowers (and responsibilitiesforest offenders and to encroachment, illicit felling, pthe other hand, the GOs say tassist the Forest Departmprotection, conservation and

as per the approved manageleaving the specific role unresponsibilities of the KFprotection arrangement are nexcept to say that it shall meraising plantations and costthem for the initial 3 years.

The GOs and guidelines also s

several other aspects of JFPM,initiation and operational procprocedures include who shoulhow, how the villagers shouKFD for the registration of a KFD is supposed to respond, MC should be constituteprocedures include how VFC be operated and maintaine

should be maintained and elections should be held. Wheprocedures are followed considered a supplementary quality, although they shouldto the essential features of joiprotection, or democratic funabove. The initiation procedu

hand, are more in the form those implementing JFPM; tagency has significant latitudeprocess to adopt. It would be to consider the initiation padopted by the implementicomponent of the overall

8/7/2019 jfpm

22/77

Joint Forest Pla

Finally, the GOs also spell out the scope ofand limits to JFPM activities. For instance, JFPMcan be taken up in legally defined forest landsas well as in other public lands (such asgomaals). JFPM can only be taken up on landswith canopy cover less than 25%. Till June2002, JFPM did not give rights to communitiesover old natural growth, only over the timberproduced from trees planted and protected bythem (leaving rights over old eucalyptus oracacia plantations unclear), and that too at50% of final profits. These and many other

features of JFPM constitute factors that willsignificantly influence JFPM functioningbecause they will influence the willingness ofpeople to form or participate in VFCs, the abilityof the VFCs to function smoothly and to restraininsiders and outsiders from misusing theforests, and so on. But as such they are notthe norms that define the functioning of JFPM.15

They may explain the quality of JFPM

functioning and are hence pertinent to ourtheoretical framework.

In conclusion, two points need to be kept inmind. First, participatory forest managementin general is a process through which theultimate goals of forest management aresought to be attained. The question of qualityor success can therefore be posed at two

different levels: (a) is JFPM actually occurringin the form it is supposed to in the target areas,and (b) is this form of JFPM actually resultingin progress towards the ultimate goals of forestmanagement, i.e., meeting local needs whileensuring ecological balance? The latterquestion amounts to testing the coreassumption on which JFPM rests, something

that should certainly be done. But one cannotanswer this question until it has beenascertained that JFPM is in fact occurring inthe way it is supposed to. Moreover, the processof shifting from conventional management toJFPM and generating the desired benefits is aslow oneregenerating a degraded forest takes

of products, benefits, or ecfrom the JFPM areas. One casome indications as to whepractices and processes are make the achievement of ultiThus, the primary focus of oon the first question, viz., asthe manner in which the Joccurring the way it is supposlook at intermediate outcomthrow some light on what tthe process might be.

Second, as pointed out aKarnataka (and even JFM in very specific version of parmanagement. There are questparticular interpretation of pamanagement is actually correthe notions of democracy anJFPM embodies are meaningf

in and of themselves.16

Therargue that participatory foreshould not be seen as a mearather as an end in itself. Acwhat is actually neededdemocracy in resource govern1997; Sarin et al., 2003). Wargued that the current forKarnataka does not co

participatory forest managem2001b) and that a fairer balanbetween the needs of local cthe concerns of offsite stakehradically different institution(Ll, 1999; 2002). Similarcritical of the fact that ecoloareas (what the KFD calls Zo

Sanctuaries and National Pafrom participatory managemthese external notions of pamanagement to an assessmenof JFPM in the field woumisleading. We have therefoscrupulously with the int

8/7/2019 jfpm

23/77


current definition of JFPM in Karnatakawhichdoes not have devolution of control overresources as its goal, which does notincorporate broader institutional linkages orinnovative financing mechanisms forecosystem services and which is not applicableto Zone I forestsstill has the potential to beparticipatory, economically viable andecologically sound to make this assessmentmeaningful.

2.1.4 Criteria and Indicators for assessingquality of JFPM

In light of the above, we formulated criteriafor assessing the quality of JFPM at threelevels:

a) Zero-th level: All activities in a potentialJFPM area must be initiated through theJFPM process.

b) Regular functioning: Planning of forest

management must be joint, i.e., involveall forest-dependent villagers and the KFDand cover all needs; protection of forestsmust be joint, with adequate support fromthe KFD and cover all resource use areas;VFC functioning must be internallydemocratic and transparent with adequatevoice for marginal communities; VFC must

have a semblance of self-governance andthe KFD must be supportive.

c) Likely future outcome: Where a reasonableJFPM process is underway, the silviculturalmodels and economic arrangements mustbe people-oriented, particularly benefitingthe marginal communities, and must beecologically sustainable.

The term likely future outcome is usedbecause the actual outcome is not easy toassess in when the assessment is carried outonly two-three years after implementation, asin this case.

For each criterion, we attempted to identify

methodology, and some of thnot yield much insight if mcriteria (such as the zero-th met. Thus, several key indicatthe indicators on likely futureonly be assessed through casare given in the chapter on me

We should note that we haincluded one indicator of JFPcommonly included in most awhether returns from the fellihave been shared with the

process is so young that nprotected patches could not bat the time of our assessmehand, where VFCs have beeexisting (usually 10-20 year whether the returns from thplantations have been sharedhardly be seen as an indica

process. The share, if givenfrom seed money in thapremature inducement to cooperate, not the fruits of titself. The same is true generated through plantationcannot be a sustained soanyway. So we discuss thpremature inducements in

implementation strategies an

It is important to note the difour assessment approach andmany other assessments management programmes. assessments use a mixtureoutcome indicators, where eassumed to be independent of

Ravindranath et al., 2000; SuIn such a framework, if a prlow on process indicators participation) but high on ou(e.g., shows substantial stantrees in protected patches), it

8/7/2019 jfpm

24/77

Joint Forest Pla

INDICATORS

Do VFCs exist at all in villages wherehas taken place?

Were VFCs formed and MoUs signeplantation activities?

How many villagers participated in mpreparation?

Do villagers know the contents of mic

Does the micro-plan cater to all the ncommunity?

Are villagers directly protecting/reguof their common lands?

Is the KFD providing support for prot

Is the entire resource-use area beingregulated?

What fraction of village households h

members?

Are women and members of SC/ST members of the general body?

Are representatives of the marginaliselected to the MC?

Was a democratic election held for sPresident and MC members?

Are MC & GB meetings held frequen Does the President have inordinate s

Do marginal communities have a voidecisions?

Do villagers know the contents of the

Where are the passbook, minute boo

Does the KFD member attend MC m

Is the choice of species and silvicultulikely to alleviate fuelwood and fodde

Are silvicultural practices conducive NTFP production?

Have NTFP prices obtained by collecsubstantially?

LEVEL

Zero-th oroutset

RegularFunctioning

CRITERIA

JFPM process must be thechannel for all forestryactivities

Planning must beparticipatory and thorough

Protection must be jointand effective

VFC functioning must berepresentative, democraticand transparent

VFC-KFD relationshipmust be somewhat equal

Silvicultural models mustreflect peoples needs

Economic returns must

Table 1. Criteria and Indicators for assessing the quality of JFPM

8/7/2019 jfpm

25/77


assessing outcomes is pointless if the processhas been a non-participatory one, because thenone is not assessing the outcome of JFPM atall but of a conventional afforestation

programme.

2.2 Understanding JFPM success andfailure: the theoretical framew ork

Along with an assessment of the quality of theJFPM process in the study region, we hoped toget some insights into the reasons behind thequality achieved (or not achieved). Of course,this study was not planned on the lines of large-scale econometric analyses, where hypothesesare framed a priori and then tested statisticallywith data from a large sample. Nevertheless,even to think of the likely reasons, to organisethem and their inter-relationships and toprioritise amongst the reasons, one needs atheoretical framework. In our theoretical

framework, we divide the factors influencingquality of JFPM into three broad categories:implementational, contextual, and policy-level.We outline below the possible range of factorsin each category and then indicate how wehave chosen the factors that seem morerelevant for this study.

2.2.1 Potential factors

By implementational factors, we mean thoseaspects of the JFPM process where theimplementing agency has to take the initiativeand implement certain steps or procedures,not just as laid down in the GO, but includingall the supporting activities that may be neededto implement the GO properly. To distinguishthese from policy-level factors, we include here

only those processes where the implementingagency has some room or discretion to chalkout its own course or make its own decisions.Similarly, we exclude those that are consideredsacrosanct and hence are part of the indicatorsof JFPM quality.

the design of the implementaas choice of villages, sequencthe efforts in training the staand process of participato

attention shown to social issueand to variation in ecologicaflexibility shown in the interrules, the quantum and mfinancial support is providedon. How important these fachow they can influence the outcome of JFPM has b

extensively in the literature resource management in Agarwal, 2001; Sundar et al.highlighted in the analysis of in the WGFP (FEVORD-K, 1Correa, 1997b; Saxena et al.

It could be argued, however, implementation process i

determined by the rules anddown by the Government in thpolicy-level decisions can crthe local communitys willingnand can help sustain their idetermine the conditions or bwhich communities and the KThese conditions include thepermitted to be brought und

for identifying the local cmagnitude of economic incengiving shares in the forest pfrom these lands), the clarityrights and responsibilitiesautonomy given to local cosecurity of tenure for the ncreated, the mechanisms cre

implementation of the agreemresolution, and so on. Thereliterature on collectivemanagement and decentresource management in genand Stewart, 1989; Bromley aOstrom 1990;1998; Ll

8/7/2019 jfpm

26/77

Joint Forest Pla

up community-level natural resourcemanagement institutions is significantlyinfluenced by the extent of dependence of thecommunity on the resource, the capacity of

the community to act collectively (which is inturn influenced by their level of economic andsocial homogeneity), the presence ofleadership (either internal or through an NGO)and other forms of social capital, the rate ofregrowth of the resource and the economicvalue of the species occurring in the forestsand so on (e.g., Arnold and Stewart, 1989; Deb

and Malhotra, 1993; Lise, 2000).2.2.2 Limiting the enquiry

Several points need to be noted about thisframework and how we operationalise it. First,although we have presented these factors asdistinct categories and variables, their effectsare not independent (and hence additive) butrather inter-dependent. Implementational

strategies can be so chosen or policy-levelchoices so made as to suit a particular socio-ecological context, thereby overcoming certainsocio-ecological constraints. For instance, thekinds of structure that would be necessary forVFCs to function democratically in regions with(say) socially and economically homogeneouscommunities would be different from the

structure needed to ensure democraticfunctioning of VFCs in regions with a high degreeof social inequities. Moreover, the factors actsequentially. As we mentioned in the sectionon assessment criteria, process leads tooutcome. If implementation quality is notadequate, it will simply not be possible tounderstand the influence of contextual factorsand policy-level choices. Methodologically, this

means that even if we had a large sample, usinga simple multi-variate analysis approach wouldhave been inappropriate.

Second, the list of potential factors identifiedabove is obviously too large to be used in anempirical assessment particularly a rapid one

implementing agency is. Oulacunae in JFPM policy drawearlier work and that of oth(Ll, 1995;1998;2001b; Sax

and is presented in detail in key points emerging from trelevant to this assessment,

a) one important lacuna in Jthe restricting of JFPM toless than 25% canopy constrain JFPM in the eastbecause the forests in

naturally sparse and mcanopy cover limit, and

b) most other lacunae areerrors of omission that affect communities attemJFPM if the KFD was not subut would not come in thseriously wished to initi

JFPM. For instance, GO any mechanism for maccountable to or its actto the VFC. But the KFD implement internal policito ensure such accotransparency. Similarly,sufficiently vague on the q

to NTFPs that the KFD callocate them to the VFCs

Hence we limited our enquidentify any additional lacunathat can be directly related JFPM process. We had to dofrom field observations rather partly because policy-leveuniformly across the regiocomparison of two different po

In trying to prune the liimplementational and socio-ewe tried both to limit the context and to use prior kn

t t W li it d i

8/7/2019 jfpm

27/77


Third, it should be noted that causalexplanations are always hierarchicallyorganisedthere are proximate causes anddeeper or ultimate causes. For instance, in

the above framework, we seem to present thesocio-ecological context as a given. But thereare deeper or higher-level factors that shapethe context, including policies on agriculture,irrigation, and land reform, as well asstructures and processes in society. Similarly,the policy-level decisions on JFPM are theproduct of the political system, and one could

ask why particular decisions with particularlimitations and implications have beenadopted. Implementational decisions arelikely to be influenced not just by how well-trained forest officers are, but also morefundamentally by the extent to which theagency as a whole and the individual staffhave understood and accepted the JFPMparadigm and committed themselves to such

a participatory process (e.g., Jeffery et al.,2001). This, in turn, could be related to thesocio-political context in which the staff

operate (e.g., Joshi, 1999) they originate.

Any study perforce stops at s

causal chain, both due to praand theoretical assumptiosignificant room for intervenlies. In this study, we looked shortfalls in JFPM functioninof implementation, the JFPMsocio-ecological context. Bassumed that the aimplementation and policy have some freedom to act, evis circumscribed by deepefactors. Similarly, althofundamental questions aboutthe current model of JFPM itsoutside the purview of this assumed that the current moscope to bring about si

participation in forest managof these larger issues have beat the end of the assessment

8/7/2019 jfpm

28/77

Joint Forest Pla

3.1The m aid an region

The 17 districts covered by the EPFEP areconventionally classified into three eco-climatic zones (see Figure 1).

18The eastern

parts of Shimoga, Chickmagalur, Belgaum,Mysore, and Hassan districts and most ofDharwad district are considered to be thetransition zone (between the moist hilly regionof the Western Ghats and the dry flat plains).Bangalore rural and urban districts, Mandya,Tumkur, Kolar, Chitradurga, and the easternpart of Mysore district are considered to be

the dry Southern Maidan or southern plainszone, and Bellary, Raichur, Gulbarga, Bidar, andBijapur districts are said to constitute the semi-arid Northern Maidan or northern plains.Conventionally, only the northern and southernplains are together called the eastern plains.The use of this term for all three zones by KFDcreates some confusion. We have sought toobviate this by referring to our study area as

the maidan region.

Some of the main features of the maidan regionmay be summarised as follows:

! The maidan region as a whole is much drierthan Western Ghats (see Figure 1), andmuch less hilly. The southern and northernmaidan zones broadly correspond tosomewhat higher and lower rainfallrespectively. There is, however, significantclimatic diversity and also variation in soilswithin each of these zones.

! Although the overall forest cover is farbelow that in the Western Ghats region,there are many pockets with significant

CHAPTER 3

DESCRIPTION OF THESTUDY REGION AND METHODOLO

factors, the extent of forlands is generally mucsouthern maidan (rangingof the geographical area

in the northern maidan (from 0% to 15% at mindicates the taluka-wise

! Not all of this forest or uis legally classified as forea significant fraction omaidan region is classifiepublic lands, whereas th

northern maidan villagexist) are largely classifielands.

! The economies are primacropping pattern dependwhether there is irrigairrigated areas, the main along with crops of chillyvegetables, sunflower, turtobacco. In rainfed areasare ragi, maize, jowar, groundnut), and cotton.

! Although the climate is dmany talukas within this redegree of irrigationsee the figures indicated in underestimate because thas increased significantlcensus.

! The level of socio-economwithin the village commin the maidan region as W t Gh t ( lth

8/7/2019 jfpm

29/77


3.2 JFPM spread

The KFDs operations are divided into threewings: the territorial wing (the main one)manages all legally defined forest lands, thesocial forestry wing is a legacy of the SocialForestry projects of the 1980s and it operatesin non-forest public lands, and the wildlife wingmanages the Wildlife sanctuaries and National

JFPM in the EPFEP started slowof the VFCs initially beingtransition zone rather thanregion. From 1999 onwards, h

of formation of VFCs picked2001, the KFD records showthe EPFEP region, of which 1maidan region. By March 20had further increased to 306these being in the northermaidan region. The distributiothe region is indicated in Figthe absolute numbers are orelative distribution does nochanged dramatically.) The maconcentration of VFCs in the s

Figure 1. Eco-climaticzones of Karnataka

Figure 2. Distribution of ViCommittees (VFCs) across talukas covered under EPF

8/7/2019 jfpm

30/77

Joint Forest Pla

Figure 3. Variation in extent of totalcommon land across different talukas

Figure 4. Variation in extent

land across different talukas

3.3 M et hodo l ogy

be noted. First, the size of theto assess the overall trend depends critically on the extethe populationlesser the v

the sample required.20 Seconor supplement to large randsmall, purposively chosen saunderstand a particular aspethe causal variables can be astatistical analysis anyway. Fpolicy-level conditions are t

8/7/2019 jfpm

31/77


Karnataka, and so it is not possible todemonstrate through statistical comparisonthat a particular constraint (say insecurity oftenure) leads to reduction in JFPM success.

One can only say this inductively fromobservations in the field or deductively fromwell-established findings in the literature oncommunity management of natural resources.Similarly, if implementation effort is obviouslylacking, one cannot really test the role ofvarious socio-ecological factors, since thesewill come into play only after a serious effortis made in implementing JFPM across a largenumber of villages.

Keeping the above possibilities in mind, we firstput together information from various sourcesto establish the overall trend in JFPMimplementation in the region. We found that asystematic study of all potential factorsinfluencing JFPM success was not reallypossible, because the overall trend was that of

very lackadaisical implementation. We thereforechose a small subset for detailed case studiesin a few villages where the JFPM processappeared to have gone significantly ahead tounderstand the interaction betweenimplementational, contextual, and policy-levelfactors. The details of data sources, samples,and methods used for assessing the broad trendand the micro-level case studies are given below.

3.3.1 Data sources for overall assessment

The macro-level dataset consists of thefollowing components, hierarchically organisedin terms of breadth of coverage:

! Macro-level dataset on JFPMimplementation in the EPFEP provided bythe KFD (Bangalore office), combined with

Census 1991 village-wise dataset: Thiscomprises a list of VFCs with informationon their location, date of registration bythe DCF, name of the VFC president, dateof approval of management plan, date ofMOU signing, and the extent of plantations( ld/ ) d t l f t t t d W

computerised dataset co1722 VFCs in all, of whichthe maidan region. We linto the computerised villag

of Census 1991, which inpopulation, village area anSince the VFCs are not alrevenue village level, wmatch only 659 of the 10villages in the Census danamed after hamlets).

! Division-level datasets on

activities: For some of thewe were able to obtain reto the plantation activities EPFEP. The data includedsilvicultural model, sizevillage or VFC.

! Anecdotal information fregional conventions ainterviews: An Oxfainvestigating the quesustainability in Karnataregional (i.e., district-levand a state-level consultaSeveral NGOs, VFC membcases some KFD persoparticular region particconsultations. The proce

consultations were availaused them to cull out spemade by NGO represrepresentatives, and KFD othe status of JFPM in their In addition, unstructuredheld with senior KFD officwho are dealing directly

component in the EPFEP,several frontline staff.

! Mail-in questionnaire dataof a simple two-page qumailed to 50 NGOs workregion. We received resNGO d i

8/7/2019 jfpm

32/77

Joint Forest Pla

by the KFD. This factor is kept in mind whendrawing conclusions from this dataset.

! Rapid field visits: Rapid (one-day) visits

were conducted in a randomly chosensample of 28 villages which, according toKFD records, had a VFC that was at least ayear old. Of these, 17 were in the northernmaidan and 11 in the southern maidan. Thelatter were all taken from Kolar district, asthis district has the highest number of VFCsin the entire maidan region. In these visits,basic information on the JFPM activity in that

village (on lines similar to the informationsought in the mail-in questionnaire) wascollected from the VFC President or membersof the Managing Committee.

The distribution of the total set of VFCs (asper the KFD computerised dataset) and thesamples obtained from the mail-inquestionnaire and the rapid field visits is given

in Table 2. The list of villagerapid field visits is given in T

The main data that were reliabeach source were as follows.dataset provided informationvillages brought under JFPM, under JFPM in each village, key JFPM milestones (regiplanning, signing of MoU). Tplantation data gave informatof silvicultural models and, with the macro-level dataset o

indicated the sequencing orecords of regional consultdiscussions with various indboth anecdotal informatioimpressionistic picture of thJFPM. The mail-in questioncross-checks on all the parafrom the macro-level dataseinformation on the composit

Bellary 617 99 187 2Bidar 609 39 103 0

Bijapur 1253 49 137 0

Gulbarga 1378 78 92 0

Raichur 1506 102 101 5+8

Bangalore Urban 728 16 40 0

Bangalore Rural 1883 84 211 0

Chitradurga 1478 131 292 1Kolar 3321 253 407 7

Mandya 1478 57 153 0

Mysore 1563 85 162 0

Tumkur 2718 146 238 3

B l ( t ) 945 135 312 2

Table 2. Distribution of the VFC population and VFC sample in the study

District TotalNumber of

Villages

Number ofVFCs in Dec

2001

Numberof VFCs

by March2003

No. of VFCcovered

mail-inquestion

naireEco-climatic

region

Northern

Maidan

SouthernM

aidan

8/7/2019 jfpm

33/77


community, number of general body membersvis--vis village population, number of womenmembers in general body and in theManagement Committee, number of meetings

held, some aspects of VFC-KFD relationship,villager participation in micro-planning, andlevel of peoples participation in forestprotection. The data from rapid field visits(which generally did not overlap with thevillages for which mail-in questionnaire datawere available) provided information on allthese indicators and a few more details on thequality of the process as compared to the mail-

in questionnaire.

3.3.2 Detailed case studies

To complement the rapid assessment, whichis expected to reveal the main trend in theway JFPM has been implemented, weconducted case studies in villages, both tounderstand more details of the process of JFPMoperation and the reasons for its operating in

certain ways. Ideally, these would be villagesof differing socio-economic characteristicswhere the JFPM process had proceededsignificantly. Since the overall trend was oneof poor implementation, however, it becamevery difficult to identify such villages. Forinstance, we had originally hoped to study theinfluence of the changing degree of dependenceon common lands on the communitys incentiveto participate in JFPM. Since there are nosecondary data that indicate dependence oncommon lands, we hypothesized that theintroduction of canal irrigation woulddrastically reduce this dependence. We triedto identify villages with contrasting levels ofcanal irrigation and having JFPM committeesand significant areas of common lands. Whilefinding JFPM villages with no canal irrigation

and high common land area wthose with high levels of sucvery difficult. Those we idennot to have a functioning VFC

a study of the influence of cadependence on common landwhich are given in Annexure Iof this differing dependence at a speculative level.

We therefore abandoned anyvillages with specific variaecological conditions, and atte

study the process in some deemed to be successful Jthe KFD or that have at leashaving some significant JFPasked the KFD staff in onenorthern maidan and one maidan to indicate villages JFPM had been successful. ThKakkuppi village in Kudligi t

district and Thondala village Kolar district respectively. To Adavimallapura VFC and KanHarapanahalli taluka of DavBellary) district, wherinvolvement was also seen and where JFPM had been three years or more with seriousness due to the efforts

(Kanvihalli was also one of chose for our study of dependence.) In all these vin-depth discussions with vathe community regarding theithe JFPM process. We also intefrontline staff associated witA list of all villages covered inor detailed studies is given in

Table 3. List of villages visited in field visits

District (new district) Taluka Village

Bellary Hospet PapinayakanahalliBellary (Davanagere) Harapanahalli Kanvihalli, Komaranahalli, Adavimallapura

Raichur Raichur Arsigera

8/7/2019 jfpm

34/77

Joint Forest Pla

We describe in this chapter both the overalltrends observed in quality of JFPM in themaidan region as well as the specificobservations from the case studies. For the

first two sets of criteria identified in Table 1,viz., the zero-th level criterion and the regularfunctioning of JFPM, we draw primarily uponthe larger dataset described in section 3.3.1,using some data from the case studies toillustrate our findings. We then present anassessment of likely outcomes when JFPMprocesses have proceeded significantly, whichis based upon the case studies.

4.1 JFPM as the means for all forestryactivities

Given that the EPFEP project document statesthat JFPM [is] a fundamental instrument bywhich sustainable management of resourcesand benefits are to be achieved, one wouldexpect that the JFPM process would necessarily

precede all afforestation activities under theEPFEPwhat we call the zero-th criterion forparticipatory management. Indeed, the projectdocument goes so far as to say that as thewhole project is fundamentally based oninvolving the local people in the creation,management and protection of forests, theplanning process begins at the grassroots level

(Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, 1996,p.11). However, allowing for the fact that theEPFEP activities included those areas that areearmarked for wildlife conservation orarchaeological protection (which by and largehave a low human population density and fallunder plantation models 1 2) 21 one would

CHAPTER 4

QUALITY OF JFPM IN THE MAIDAN R

the northern maidan (Gulbarsouthern maidan (Kolar diTerritorial and Social Forefindings are not heartening.

4.1.1 Plantation activities al l

The JFPM process seemscompletely bypassed in a numin the northern maidan. In Gudivision, of the 93 villagplantation activities have bunder the EPFEP, only 37 villa

of March 2002. The situation iForestry division was even w42 villages had VFCs. The situRange, which we verifieexemplifies this problem: owhich plantations had been raonly five have registered VFCof these had signed MoUs. An

with the RFO in Shorapur sudepartment had no plans to remaining 17 villages tplantations.

The situation in the southernbetter in the sense that VFCs(whether formed before or aall the villages where plantati

been carried out.4.1.2 VFCs only after plan

The situation in terms ofactivities is, however, disregions. Across Gulbarga divithat the dates of plantation a

8/7/2019 jfpm

35/77


formation in three of them. The same patternis observed in other ranges of this division.

The same problem occurs in Kolar division

also, which represents the highest density ofVFCs in the southern maidan. In Kolarterritorial forest division, we were able tomatch the plantation register data with theofficial VFC data for 47 villages. Of these, in37 villages (i.e., more than 78%) the date ofthe MoU (and often date of VFC registrationalso) is later than the date of plantation.Overall, in about half the VFCs in Kolar division,

VFC registration and MoU signing occurred afterthe plantation activity had already beeninitiated. Although it may be argued that VFCformation and micro-planning could actuallyhave taken place much before the registrationand MoU signing date (the latter being dictatedby bureaucratic procedures), our rapid visitsshowed that this could not be the main

explanationwe found many examples of VFCformation itself having started after theplantation activity had already begun.

Box 1. Non-existent VFCs

In Raichur district, we came across thephenomenon of non-existent VFCs, i.e.,villages listed in the KFD database as

having a registered Village ForestCommittee, but where the villagers are notaware of any such committee being formed.Three out of four villages visited by us inGangavati taluka and two out of sevenvisited in Manvi taluka had this problem.Even though this may not be a generalphenomenon, its existence is part of theoverall pattern of a lackadaisical approachtowards JFPM implementation.

In short, although the VFC formation processhas been carried out at least in the southernmaidan, overall there is strong evidence tos ggest that the e o th c ite ion has been

4.2 Functioning of JFPM

Even if one ignores the factactivities preceded VFC form

planning in many cases, we fof the VFCs in the maidan rdysfunctional or function onlyis to say, they either do nomeet very infrequently, and do not take or implement decisions regarding the management of their commfinding is substantiated by

information.

Box 2. Comments representatives on JFPM

! We do not understandbeen formed, because nhave been held, nor has contact with KFD, while t

has been planting trewithout any involvevillagers [VFC membearea in regional coGulbarga]

! VFCs exist only on theerected outside the plarepresentative in region

in Belgaum]

At the very outset, there are seem to exist only in the KFD rdeclare that they are unawexistence of such a committe(see Box 1). Furthermorepresentatives who attendeconventions organised by NGOindicated that their VFCs exis(see Box 2). Most important, sethemselves who participated consultations admitted that othe VFCs officially set upfunctioning VFCs in any sense

8/7/2019 jfpm

36/77

Joint Forest Pla

This is the activity in which the localcommunity is supposed to identify theirresource use areas and come up with a planfor managing them in ways that lead to

resource regeneration and meet their ownpriorities (short and long-term) while alsomeeting sustainability norms. It is also thestage at which villagers can indicate the extentto which they can take up managerialresponsibilities for the resource, and identifythe areas in which they wish to do so. Themicro-plan forms the basis for the

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) betweenthe KFD and the VFC, and is supposed to beattached to the MoU document. Conducting ofa PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) exerciseis not a requirement as per the GO, but it is astep introduced by the KFD in the guidelinesspecifically to facilitate the planning process.

Box 3. Comments by KFD frontline

staff on level of JFPM functioning

! ACF Hassan: Of about 150-170 VFCsformed in Hassan Circle, less than 50are active.

! ACF Kolar: Of the 106 VFCs in thedistrict, only about 20-22 are workingwell.

! ACF Gulbarga: 54 VFCs have beenregistered in Gulbarga, but the micro-planning and MoU process is yet to becompleted for many of them.

(Statements made in regional consultations

with NGOs.)

Unfortunately, the quality of micro-planning

and MoU signing process left a lot to be desiredin most VFCs. First, one has to recognise thatwhen plantations take place first and micro-plans are made afterwards, the micro-planshave little value. Second, in our sample of 54villages from mail-in questionnaires and rapidvisits 21 villages (39%) reported not having

plan or the MoU. Furthermore(i.e., 79%) cases villagers didof the micro-plan and MoU22 wdoes not suggest a very partic

planning process.

Moreover, of the 28 villages in rapid visits, villagers in 13 vwere not involved in the plannmajority of these being the division) whereas eight villageinvolved in the process to sremaining either did not hav

not clearly answer this questvery encouraging proportiothose who reported being process did not know the contplans nor did they have copie

Similarly, the PRA exercise bechoop to be jumped through, rof generating a common und

resource management issuesthe village. Indeed, in GulbaPRA and MoU work for all contracted by the KFD to an N(TARDO). In several Gulbargatold that representatives fromup for one day in that villagePRA exercise with the help

villagers, with or without theKFD personnel. Across many vthe micro-plans to be idedifference being in the names,statistics (none in the activiti

In terms of content, the lackthe micro-plan with the vidifficult to ascertain the qua

plan in the rapid assessmentthe micro-plans, ascertaining caters to all the needs of a pi.e., fuel, fodder, and NTFPs forand livelihood would not bNevertheless, on the basis oabout the region (and also

8/7/2019 jfpm

37/77


Acacia auriculiformis. Given the importance oflivestock in the region, it is virtually impossiblethat if villagers had been involved and hadbeen given some autonomy in the planning

process, they would not have opted for bringingat least some of the common land underrotational grazing or under some form of fodderdevelopment.

In fact, the EPFEP proposal not only identifiesa set of seven silvicultural models23 to befollowed in JFPM areas but even estimates thetotal areas under each, which suggests that

silvicultural models for a particular area hadbeen decided a priori rather than being allowedto emerge from the micro-planning process.This was corroborated repeatedly by frontlinestaff. As an RFO put it:

Silvicultural models are being prescribedfrom top, with little reference to theground conditions. We ourselves [the

frontline staff] dont have any say in thematter. So how do you expect the VFCto have any say?

KFD has gone a step further in pre-emptingthe micro-planning process. In a largenumber of villages, especially in the in thesouthern maidan, the KFD has used theeucalyptus plantations that were raised under

the Social Forestry scheme back in the 1980sas the starting point for JFPM activities.Ostensibly, the motivation for this is toincrease the incentive for villagers toparticipate in JFPM by generating quickreturns for the VFC from these plantations,which are ready for fel l ing. But thiseffectively pre-empts most of the discussionabout how to manage the forest and othercommon lands to meet the villagers needs,or at least strengthens the notion that JFPMis about planting of exotics for earning cashincome.24 How this has a very skewed impacton the village community is seen from ourcase study of Thondala village, which is

as open access resources fromharvest products but towardsno responsibility. In orderapproach, JFPM attempts

incentive for protection, problem of free-riders by gcontrol to particular commuto put the primary responsibon the VFC. The idea is thatand will be willing to protethat they draw benefits fromhere means that the VFC w

the KFD where necessaryvillagers are to have a senover the resource and if thinternalise some of the costs extraction, then they must ball, of the cost of protectiocosts are heavily subsidisewould revert back to one perceive forest resources as

point has been made repliterature on participatory forin general and even in the in the Western Ghats (Saxep.80). Note also that a hearrangement cannot work across the boardKFD caprotection only in those vil

under some heavily funded for the project duration.experience under Social ForWGFP.

Thus, the question of whetheof all resource use areas is tabe assessed using three indthe entire resource-use area iswhether villagers are activprotection, and whether the adequate support. In our rathe situation on all these copoor. JFPM usually covers othe resource-use area. In thecases villagers are not act

8/7/2019 jfpm

38/77

Joint Forest Pla

Extent of resource use area that is protectedand managed

We find that JFPM activities (where they exist)are largely in the form of small plantations.Thebulk of the common landwhether legallyforest land or revenue landusually remainsunprotected. This can be seen even from theKFDs own dataset. Excluding the villages thatreport zero JFPM area on the assumption thatthose data are incomplete, we found that in

105 out of 219 villages for which we were ableto match Census data, JFPM area was less than50% of the total available forest and othercommon lands as given in the Censusdataset.25 The histogram in Figure 5 indicatesthe overall situation. And this situation prevails

Furthermore, there seems to handing over forest lands for

they exist in the village and athe villagers. Secondary datinstance, in Kolar division, othat had VFCs and also hadareas and non-zero RF areas,had not been assigned the RFthese figures probably overesextent of forest areas handed

the ground. In our field visitfor six villages the KFD datasubstantial RF areas have bthe VFC. But in three of thesesituation on the ground was In one village (Kanvihalli)completely unaware of havin

Figure 5. Distribution of villages in terms of fraction of common land giv

8/7/2019 jfpm

39/77


Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sharad-lele
View:	303 times
Download:	0 times

jfpm

Documents