Community Forest Management in Odisha

Community Forest Management in Odisha: Macro and Micro Views

Banikanta Mishra, Birendra Kumar Nayak

Draft: Please do not quote without the permission of one of the authors.

*Professor of Finance, XIMB (Xavier Institute of Management – Bhubaneswar), Bhubaneswar 751013, Orissa, India ([email protected]) and Retired Professor of Mathematics, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar 751004, Orissa, India ([email protected]), respectively. Banikanta Mishra happens to be also a member of the Executive Committee of Vasundhara, a Bhubaneswar-based NGO engaged in research and field study on community-forest-management, joint-forest-management, and forest-rights act. Research funding from XIMB is appreciatively acknowledged. The authors are grateful to the officials of the PCCF (Principal Chief Conservator of Forests), Odisha, especially Mr Pitambara Jena, and staff of Vasundhara, especially Prasant Mohanty and Y Giri Rao, for providing data on joint-forest-management and forest-rights-act. The authors thank XIMB Research Associate Sagarika Mishra for help in preparation of the questionnaire and in statistical analysis of the data, Sagarika Mishra, Sudhir Pattnaik, and Anita Mishra for accompanying the authors for the village-level surveys, Brajabihari Mishra, Jitendra Patro, and Rajendra Patro for conducting household surveys, Brajabihari Mishra for village-level surveys, and Nadiya Chand Kanungo, Sagarika Mishra, and participants at the13th IASC (International Association for Study of the Commons) International Conference at Hyderabad, India on 10-14 January 2011 for helpful comments. Opinions expressed here are strictly personal and do not in any reflect the views of the organizations the authors are associated with. Community Forest Management in Odisha: Macro and Micro Views

This paper analyzes the effect of the government’s JFM (Joint Forest Management) program on community- forest-management (CFM) in three districts of Odisha: Dhenkanal and Anugul (industrial districts) and Nayagarh (non-industrial district). JFM is an initiative whereby both the state government and the local communities are supposed to jointly work towards protecting the forest in the community. This movement is said to be quite strong in Odisha, an agriculture-dependent-state with a huge tribal population. The process of and the attitude towards forest management in Odisha perhaps has undergone a significant change due to the industrialization in the recent two decades, which has, among other things, led to diversion of forest land towards mining and other industrial activities.

Key words: Community Forest Management, Joint Forest Management, industrialization

In this article, we first look at the district-wise progress of JFM (Joint Forest Management) in Odisha over the years and then compare JFM and CFM (Community Forest Management) programs in three selected districts of Odisha: industrial districts of Dhenkanal and Anugul and non-industrial district of Nayagarh. The classification of Odisha’s districts into industrial and non-industrial is as per Mishra (2010a). We would have liked to break down the CFM villages further into V-CFM (Village-initiated Community Forest Management) and N-CFM (NGO- initiated Community Forest Management), as has been done by Ghate (2003), but the concern about the difficulty of getting exact data prevented us from going for that.

INTRODUCTION

It is reported that, of all the people in India that live below poverty-line, almost 40% depend on forests partially or fully (Ojha 2006). As Chakrabarti and Datta (2009) highlight using the language of Wyatt (2008), we can say that JFM in India started with Vision 1 (forestry by communities), which was converted, by later modifications, to Vision 2 (forestry for communities). Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 perhaps moved the objective towards Vision 3 (forestry with communities: based on significant modifications to existing forestry regimes to allow responsibilities of forest management to be shared on an equal footing between the communities and the department to ensure that the communities can manage their own interest and development goals) and gave a possible inkling of its intent to move towards Vision 4 (community forestry in which not only the interests of the communities are dominant but also they are able to ensure that those interests are respected).

The first instance of JFM in Odisha dates back to 1936, the state’s formation-year, in Sambalpur district (Ojha 2006). It also points out that Keonjhar, Angul, Dhenkanal, Mayurbhanj, Sambalpur, Nayagarh, Deogarh, Phulbani, and Bolangir have been the districts where JFM has made a good headway (ibid); as per classification by Mishra (2010a), the first three are mining districts, next two industrial, next three non-industrial, and the last one KBK (erstwhile undivided Kalahandi-Balangir-Koraput). Research suggests that, in Odiha, “strong community

2 based forest management system testify that communities can effectively manage local resources” (Singh 1995). “Though there is hardly any doubt about the strengths of indigenous wisdom in effectively managing local natural resources, its acceptance and recognition in the public law framework still leaves a lot to be desired” (Ojha 2006). “A simple demystified forest management plan where the locus of decision making remains in the local communities has to be evolved. The principles of conservation and benefit sharing should be well defined in order to meet the criteria of sustainability and equity. Resource-raising is a key element of operationalising the forest management plan. The options and availability of internal resources as well as the dependence on external funds need to be carefully decided by CFM groups” (Ibid). “The identity and focus of CFM has been natural regeneration and assisted natural regeneration whereas the spur in JFM is plantation” (ibid). Gokhale (2004) also discovered similar goal- conflicts during his filed-study in Karnataka. “The joint forest management scheme of the state forest department has totally neglected the dependence of local people on kans in both the districts. The major emphasis of the scheme is more on converting degraded lands under plantations. For the Western Ghats region the emphasis also could have been to jointly manage the existing stands of forest as the region is bestowed with evergreen forest tracts known for the its rich flora and fauna. Local people historically enjoyed limited rights over these kans. The government also earned reasonable revenue from the kans” (ibid). JFM’s failure to also bring farm-forestry into its ambit properly also has drawn flak. “The government also must not dilute its focus on farm forestry projects on private lands, …as JFM and farm forestry programmes are complementary to each other (Balooni 2002). ‘Non-commercial’ farm-forestry or agro-forestry encourages farmers to plant trees on their farmland to meet their personal needs without any other economic or commercial motive; it also provides environmental advantages in that it gives shed to the crops and leads to reduction in salinity and water-table.

JFM IN ODISHA

Traditionally, forests in Odisha have been classified into four categories. Reserved Class-A forests are considered absolute properties of the government and are controlled by strict regulations and penalties for violations. Reserved Class B forests are, however, partly “right burdened”, which may be used to occasionally satisfy the emergency requirements of people. Protected (or Khesra) Forests are pretty much right-burdened that are allowed to satisfy annual bona fide needs of people, especially obtaining firewood, as well as small timbers for constructing and maintaining habitats and making agricultural implements. The fourth type, Village Forests, are to be maintained with the administrative and financial support of the government, but are to be deemed as absolute properties of villagers; these are, however, to be treated like reserved forests in the sense that they cannot be used regularly to satisfy needs of the villagers.

The state-level policies on forest management, which followed the National Forest Policy, 1988 and the subsequent 1990 JFM resolution, recognized the need to give the rights to local communities to protect forests in their areas (Extension Digest 1999). But, it also brought in the intervening role of the forest department (FD) of the government, supposedly to work towards a sustainable forest management. Under JFM, villagers form a VSS (Vana Suraksha/Samrakshana

3 Samitee), the sine qua non of the concept. Usually, the local forester is appointed as the member-secretary of the VSS. In some villages, no VSS is formed; the Gaon Committee (village committee) looks after forest protection, with the help of a forest sub-committee having common members but a separate president and secretary (Singh, Roy, Panigrahi, and Mohanty 2001).

Odisha government has been quite irresponsible towards its responsibility of preserving its natural resources, including forests. As is reported, “(I)f we look at forest area diverted for non- forest use, it went up from 789 hectares at the end of 1993-94 to 28,769 hectares as at the end of 2003-04, an average annual increase at the rate of 43%!” (Mishra 2010a). In fact, “according to figures released in early 2010 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Odisha has one of the highest rates of diversion of forest land” (ibid). “Besides, out of the total land of 79,339 hectares allotted for mining leases as on 31 December 2005, more than 50% is forest area” (ibid).

That, as one can imagine, is a dangerous trend. “In mineral rich states like Orissa, the forest and mineral maps coincide. A development strategy according highest priority to mineral based industries coupled with a renewed international demand for minerals and mineral based products puts forests and forest based livelihoods on the backburner. This is being cited as the biggest threat to CFM” (Ojha 2006). An NGO fighting for the rights of tribals and OTFDs (other traditional forest dwellers) alleges that “authority and power of gram sabhas have been hijacked by the bureaucracy in determining and rejecting the forest right claims” and demands that all VSSs be dissolved, since they have become redundant under the FRA (New Indian Express 2010). It points out that the government is playing with the forest rights of tribals in Niyamgiri, the site for the proposed Vedanta Alumina plant, and Jagatsinghpur, the site for the proposed Posco Steel plant (ibid). In fact, a recent news item (Patnaik 2010) quotes environmentalist Biswajit Mohanty, a member of the National Board of Wildlife, as claiming – referring to information obtained through RTI (Right to Information) Act - that “there has been willful suppression of vital information by the office of the principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF), Orissa”, who failed to report to MOEF that JSPL (Jindal Steel and Power Limited) had been issued a show-cause for violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (the FC Act).

But, that should not be surprising, given the strong “interest” Odisha’s bureaucracy has in the state’s forests. A report in Dharitri, edited by a prominent MP from the ruling-party, points out that more than 15% of the state’s forests (which amounts to 9000 square kilometers) is under the illegal possession of the mafia and timber merchants, perhaps with the knowledge of the FD bigwigs (Dharitri 2010). Shockingly, the government neither has account of the forest land under forced possession nor any plans to free those of the illegal possession (ibid).

JFM is also replete with other shortcomings. “The powers vested in the forest department like the ability to resolve disputes, disband a badly functioning committee, cancel membership, nominate NGOs for membership, provide for an unequal relationship between the FD and the VFC which further strengthens the need for a legal backing for the VFCs. Legal recognition is also becoming essential for the many self initiated committees which are increasingly getting replaced or pushed aside by State evolved and recognized VFCs. However, this issue needs in- depth examination” (TERI 2001).

4 JFM may also be ushering in more inequality. “The kind of tree species that are grown under the JFM areas will have a bearing on the unequal distribution of benefits among the participants, between poorer and richer sections of the community” (Behera 2003). A study on JFM (Kumar, 2002) shows that “due to silviculture practices for timber by the Forest Department in JFM areas with strong influence of large farmers in the communities, the poor, who are mostly dependent on NTFP, are deprived from their subsistence needs” (Behera 2003). NTFP (Non-Timber Forest Products) or NWFP (Non-Wood Forest Products) is defined by the Orissa Forest Development Corporation as “all biological materials other than timber extracted from natural forests for human and animal use” and includes, among other things, “edible leaves, roots, flower, fruit, seed, nuts, honey” (Orissa Forest Development Corporation 2011).

Financial issues pertaining to JFM are not insignificant either. “Substantial village/community funds have been generated by VFCs from voluntary contributions, money obtained in lieu of protection, membership fees, voluntary labour contributions, the sale of surplus forest produce and of timber harvests, fines generated through social fencing activities, revenue generated against the use of the committee’s forests, etc. However, norms for their creation, structure and utilisation need to be evolved to ensure transparency, accountability and efficiency of use in both village development and forest regeneration activities” (TERI 2001). Without such norms, villages do not become the beneficiaries of the JFM, as they should have been. In this context, Sarap (2004) points out some specific drawbacks of the JFM implemented in Odisha. The state government’s 1993 JFM resolution provides for a 100% share in intermediate produce to go to the VSS, but only 50% in the final harvest, which bothers many villages. Even there, there are problems. As per this rule, VSS should get 100% of NTFPs, but VSS members and NTFP gathers get only wages for collecting some of these products. “Thus, even on supposedly jointly managed forest land, the co-managers are treated as mere labourers, who are to gather NTFPs and handover to state appointed agents at the state fixed prices”, which themselves are questionable, since they are based on minimum wages principles and are not on the value of the produce (ibid). Similarly, though the policy says that gram-panchayats are the owners of the NTFP, their actual role is minimal. Prasad (1999) echoes similar concerns. “It appears that the objectives of bringing NWFPs under state monopoly - to reduce exploitation of tribal people and other forest-dependent communities and to promote sustainable management of NWFPs - are not being realized. State control over the trade of NWFPs has often resulted in compounded problems of restricted access to resources and non-remunerative returns to the collectors. NWFPs are one of the keys to successful joint forest management, but if local people who are engaged in the arduous task of collecting NWFPs are not able to get fair wages even when the trade is handled by government-appointed agencies, JFM may not be a viable tool in the achievement of sustainable forest management” (ibid).

Overall, “in practice these cause a variety of adverse effects on the livelihood options of indigenous communities” (ibid). In fact “the present JFM programme across the country neither grants de jure security rights to the forest fringe communities participating in the programmes, nor does it provide them de facto livelihood opportunities so that the tribal communities and the other poor living within and near the forests, whose lives are revolving around forests, might be

5 fully protected” according to the declaration of National Forest Policy of 1988 (Sarker 2009). “To make forest committees subservient to the panchayats and the dominant village polity would not be an effective solution for forest management. Instead, the forest department should provide support to the community-based forest protection groups upon which it draws for membership and ensure that the panchayats complement their needs and roles in Joint Forest Management” (Tiwary 2005).

In that backdrop, one of the drawbacks of many policies pertaining to commons-management is perhaps their failure to take into account some serious truths about the livelihood preferences of people. “Users of common property resources – just like academics and NGO activists – do not easily enter into completely new areas of enterprise or activity; but find it easier to expand and modify their existing livelihood strategies to diversify and increase their income, build resilience and explore new opportunities” (McIntosh and Renard 2010). Odisha government, obsessed with industrialization of the wrong kind, is a glaring example of the above-cited ignominious failure. Ignoring the wisdom of the local people and their age-honored practices is also another mistake. “Traditional systems of forest management have often been ignored or summarily dismissed as forest departments in most states are keen to implement more recent Joint Forest Management (JFM) schemes” (Gokhale 2004). “What needs to be emphasised is that the forest sector is just one realm among many in which the state and local people interact. In a social context that continues to be characterised by inequality and hierarchy, and in which state actors remain relatively inaccessible and unaccountable to the rural poor, it would be surprising if participatory forest management programmes were able to achieve real decentralised and democratic decision-making through their efforts in a single sector” (Vira 2005).

“The forest institutions, whether JFM or FDA, are characterised by inefficiency, inequality in access and exclusion of certain groups in the state. There is a lack of participation of the poor and women. There is a need to revitalise these institutions through their democratisation by effective participation of different groups in the decision-making. This will empower them in their access to forest resources, and enhance their livelihood options. This would also help in the management of various types of conflicts prevailing in forest-dependent villages. Provision of tenure security through proper implementation of the Forest Rights Act 2006 to forest-dependent communities will go a long way in motivating the members for a long-term interest in their involvement in the protection and growth of natural resources” (Sarap and Sarangi 2009). But, one size does not fit all. “A uniform imposition of the JFM program that does not take into consideration geographical variations, social and economic inequalities, and differing cultural perceptions amongst communities is not feasible and would be ineffective and even resisted. … For the sake of convenience in implementing JFM uniformly all over the country, the FD tries to ignore such variations not realizing the fact that it is fruitless to attempt to establish uniformity when each local community and forestry situation differs and when such differences need to be appreciated and taken account of” (Ghate 2003). This has happened in many places. “Local communities find the VSS institution uncomfortable since it tends to erode the decision-making authority at the community level. It also disregards the traditional knowledge system of the community and instead has introduced a situation where the Forest Department plays an important role in decision-making relating to forest” (Sarap 2004).

6 State control of forests commenced in nineteenth century. “However, after 150 years, it was found by the people that there was little hope for the conservation of forests if the State continued to assert its conventional control” (Rath 2002). “(T)here is some lacuna in the formulation as well as implementation of the JFM scheme because of which the advocates of CFM demand for a critical review of the whole scheme as well as for some more pro-people amendments” (ibid). For instance, “the village institutions need greater autonomy - (thus, least intervention of the FD), so that various managerial issues could be administered better at the local level” (Mallik 2006). “Much of the success depends upon the activities, attitudes, mindset etc. of the FD”; but, it seems that the FD “does not play a pro-active role to involve people in JFM and to provide security of rights and greater autonomy to village level institutions” (Mallik 2006). In some extreme cases, FD asks people to protect their villages without asking without too many questions. A case study quotes a forester telling villagers the following during VSS formation. “Your duty is to protect the forest and rest of the work would be done by the firest department. You people would not understand the whole thing and so you remain within your limits.” (Singh, Panigrahi, Roy, Behera, and Dash 2001) It seems, surprisingly, that villagers initially obliged, thinking that they were just complying with the FD rules (ibid).

Chomsky (1991) expresses a concern that organizations that claim to be working towards betterment of agriculture in the world are following approaches that are hurting farmers quite badly: “the U.S. Aid program, the Ford Foundation, and others have sought to deal with the plight of the rural population by ‘refining the largely discredited trickle-down technology and knowledge transfer process’ … and trusting in ‘competition, private property, and the mechanism of the free market’ - a system in which ‘the big fish eats the small one’, as one poor farmer observes”. Therefore, Mishra (2010b) argues that, given the discredit won by IMF and World Bank, “one does get alarmed at such apprehensions”. Since Ford Foundation has also been supporting organizations that are working on CFM in Odisha, this apprehension naturally extends to that arena too.

We employed field-investigators to collect household data based on a questionnaire provided by us (Appendix – I). We chose two different districts, Dhenkanal and Nayagarh. As per the classification of Odisha’s districts by Mishra (2010a), Dhenkanal is an industrial district and Nayagarh non-industrial. In each district, blocks, villages, and households were randomly chosen; data was collected from 260 households. We also went for village-level discussions to selected villages and spoke to villagers. That apart, village-level surveys were conducted in Anugul, which is an industrial district as per the classification by Mishra (ibid). Profile of some villages is given in Appendix – II.

ANALYSIS

Table-1 presents some summary statistics or the household surveys done in Dhenkanal and Nayagarh. As we see, wherever villages are far away from the forest, they have no CFM or

7 JFM. Moreover, as seen from the mean monthly income, JFM villages have higher income. But, we cannot categorically say whether high-income villages are more prone to go for JFM or JFM leads to high income. That apart, so far as the average quantity of firewood used is concerned, there is not much difference between the two districts, except that villages where there is no CFM or JFM use a bit less. But, the data on the amount spend on firewood throws some interesting light. Villages with CFM that have not embraced JFM spend far less on obtaining firewood than the JFM villages. The data for “no CFM, no JFM” villages is still more interesting. For such villages, in industrial Dhenkanal, people spend a lot of money on obtaining firewood, but, in Nayagarh, it is less than even what the CFM villages spend.

Table-2 gives some very fascinating information about the extent of aforestation and deforestation (measured by growth of forest density) in the two districts. In non-industrial Nayagarh, JFM villages do far better than CFM villages. But, in Dhenkanal, CFM villagers do much better than the JFM villages. Could it be that, then, in this industrial district, JFM is some kind of façade for passing on forest resources to the local industries? Village-level surveys in Anugul district would throw some light on that.

Table-3 gives some summary statistic for the Anugul survey. It shows that CFM villages are much closer to the forest than JFM villages are; this may be because, unlike that found in Dhenkanal and Nayagarh, villagers in this heavily-industrialized district are far more conscious of the need to protect forest and are “willing to walk those extra miles”. But, CFM villagers – who are much more dependent on forest than the JFM villages - use less firewood, but spend more on it; whether price drives the demand is hard to say. The data on aforestation and deforestation presented in Table-4 corroborates what we had seen in Dhenkanal. CFM villages have seen a 15% increase in the forest density, but JFM villages have seen almost no change. Not surprisingly, CFM villages have seen an increase of around Rs.200 in their average income per month due to aforestation, while JFM villages have overall lost around Rs.50 per month due to deforestation. So, as we have wondered above, is JFM indeed a façade?

OBSERVATIONS

In one village in Dhenkanal, villagers said that a forest-officer pushed them to create the VSS. The local forester was appointed as the Member Secretary of the VSS. It started functioning according to JFM principles. VSS-members (villagers) took turn in guarding the forest round the clock. But, after a while, the VSS members realized that their personal safety was at a threat from the jungle mafia. In fact, often when they would catch a person stealing timber from the forest and hand him over to the authorities, the thief would get away within hours by bribing the officials. They also found that, in some occasions, people outside the village were given the work that should have been assigned to the villagers; but the job-card of the villagers was taken away by the officials and returned after recording a certain amount as payment to the job-card holders. Despite the fact that VSS constrained villagers’ access to forest produce, they all preferred the participatory forest management, as they recognized its long-term value towards sustainability. But, after weighing the costs and benefits and suspecting that the forest they protect may one day be handed over or sold to a private company, they felt that JFM was no

8 more worth it. This is consistent with what other researchers have also found. “In JFM, local communities are motivated to protect and conserve forests. Some years later, the same community realizes that the resource they toiled hard to regenerate is not going to be with them for sustenance and livelihood. The same piece of land is handed over for mineral extraction” (Ojha 2006). Thus, the JFM in that village got dismantled. Thereafter, there has been huge degradation of the forest, and forest-theft has increased.

The case study of Paikasahi village in Nayagarh (Panigrahi and Rao 1998) gives another instance to corroborate diversion of village-nurtured forest for industry. The villagers here, who had been protecting their 800-hectare forest for quite a while, felt more secured about their right over it when the local forester formed a VSS in December 1996. But, they were shocked when a private paper company, that had been given a contract by the FD for bamboo harvesting in that forest, arrived in the village the next year for the purpose. Feeling betrayed that the FD had put that forest under Bamboo Working Circle without their knowledge, villagers protested against it and also gathered support for their movement from outside to stop the private firm from exploiting what they had so painstakingly looked after for years.

When we then visited another nearby village, they story was almost the opposite. There, despite continuous coaxing by the villagers, the forest department had not taken any initiative to start JFM. The villagers asserted that there has been no major theft or tree-felling during the preceding five to seven years. Villagers are not allowed to cut trees even for their own use. Yet, they lamented that many varieties of jungle food are no more available for the last ten years due to improper maintenance of forest as a whole in that region. When we asked them why they are so keen on JFM when a nearby village has given up JFM due to its frustration with it, especially theft, they told that theft depends upon the type of trees in the jungle. They said that there would be thefts at night if there are teak trees, not for all types of trees. Moreover, they added that, even though they are guarding the forest, they feel very insecure about their rights on it, since they do not have official right or titles in the name of the village. They hoped that once JFM starts there, they would be given a clearly-demarcated part of the forest in the village’s name. This subjugation to JFM due the perceived power of the state is not a healthy sign. As some researchers, who look upon JFM as an “instrumentalist intervention for obtaining local cooperation in improving forest condition according to traditional Forest Department criteria” - , apprehend, “Instead of facilitating holistic forest-lands use and planning, which integrates sustainable livelihoods of forest-based communities, they are extending and consolidating state appropriation of limited remaining common lands” (Sarin, Singh, Sundar, and Bhogal 2003). In this light, one way to strengthen CFM – as some studies on Odisha have found - is perhaps to encourage federation of CFM groups that, besides solving inter-village conflicts pertaining to adjacent forests, increase the bargaining power of villagers vis-à-vis the FD.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

In a welcome move, the Government of Odisha has recently instructed the forest and revenue officials to drop encroachment cases against tribals to whom land titles have been already given under the FRA. The state, which distributed 2,97,409 titles till September 2011, is claimed to be

9 at the top in settling individual claims; it also settled 657 cases of community rights covering around 53,942 acres (Orissa Post 2011a).

Almost 12,000 VSS have already been formed in the state and 500 more are planned over the next five years “for assisting natural regeneration, planting of the species as per the choice of community, and protection of forest through micro-planning” (Orissa Post 2011b). It is planned to initially have 2500 VCKs - Vana Chetana Kendras or Forest Awareness Centres – in areas having VSS, each VCK being assigned to protect 1000 hectares (ibid). But, one wonders whether such schemes are planned to be funded by organizations like World Bank or UK’s DFID (Department for International Development). That would put these programmes under the mercy of such institutions, as this finding would suggest. “At this point in time, it is difficult to predict the sustainability of JFM in Andhra Pradesh beyond the year 2000. Funds from the World Bank, which sustained JFM, have ceased to flow as the project has ended” (D’Silva and Nagnath 2002).

CONCLUSION

Overall, we found that results, through “appear” to be mixed, point in a clear direction. Villages not exposed to JFM are excited about getting into it, as they expect a clearly-demarcated forests that the village owns; funds to be received from the government is also an attraction. Those who have been with JFM for a while are frustrated with JFM, as they have seen the true characters of it (like thieves still getting away). They also apprehend that “joint” in JFM may later mean “government and corporations” or, perhaps, forcibly, “villages and corporations” (possibly under the guise of PPP).

While we wonder whether joint-forest-management is an attempt to take attention away from forests-rights-act, we surely feel that JFM is a strategic move by the government. Wherever community management of forest or any other natural resource is there, it speaks of community leadership; this is also corroborated by Ghate (2003). Such leadership, whether or not anti- establishment, often has the potential to stand up to the establishment. Any such potential, to the establishment, possibly could pose a threat. Could it be that the establishment – the government – in order to blunt this potential future opposition, particularly when forest is under the predatory eyes of the corporations, is using JFM to co-opt such forces and soften the bitterness of the opposition? The participation by the government creates a lure for funds and “official” forest- ownership that the JFM promises. Isn’t this strategy also a way of what Chomsky (Herman and Chomsky 1988) would have called “manufacturing consent”?

LITERATURE CITED

Balooni, Kulbhushan (2002): “Participatory Forest Management in India - An Analysis of Policy Trends amid ‘Management Change’ “, Policy Trend Report 2002: 88-113, http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/371/attach/07_India.pdf, Accessed 28 November 2010.

10 Behera, Bhagirath (2003): “Determinants of Sustainable Management of Natural Resources: The Case of Joint Forest Management (JFM) in India: A Research Proposal”, Working paper, Center for Development Research (ZEF): University of Bonn, Germany, May.

Chakrabarti, Milindo, and Samar K. Datta (2009): “Evolving an Effective Management Information System to Monitor Co-Management of Forests”, Economic and Political Weekly, 2 May: 53-60.

Chomsky, Noam (1991): “The Victor: Part II”, Z Magazine, January, (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199011--.htm, Accessed 30 November 2010.)

Dharitri (2010): In Odia: “Mafianka Dakahalare 9000 Barga ki.mi. Jungala” (“9000 Sq.km. Forest under Mafia’s Possession”), Bhubaneswar Edition, 8 December: 1

D’Silva, Emmanuel, and B Nagnath. (2002) “Behroonguda: A Rare Success Story in Joint Forest Management”, Economic and Political Weekly, 9 February: 551-557.

Extension Digest (1999): “Forest Management”, (http://www.manage.gov.in/managelib/extdig/Untitled- 1.pdf, Accessed 28 November 2010).

Ghate, Rucha (2003): “Ensuring ‘Collective Action’ in ‘Participatory’ Forest Management”, Working Paper No: 3-03, South Asian Network for Developmental and Environmental Economics (SANDEE), Kathamandu, Nepal.

Gokhale, Yogesh. (2004): “Reviving Traditional Forest Management in Western Ghats: Study in Karnataka”, Economic and Political Weekly, 31 July: 3556-3559.

Herman, Edward and Noam Chomsky (1988): Manufacturing Consent, Pantheon Books.

Kumar, S (2002), “Does Participation in Common Pool Resource Management Help Poor? A Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Joint Forest Management in Jharkhand, India”, World Development, Vol. 30, No. 5.

Mallik, RM (2006): “Making JFM Work towards Forest Conservation in Orissa: Some Conceptual, Institutional and Participatory Issues”, India Planning Commission Study Report (http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/sereport/index.php?repts=mstudy; Accessed 2 November 2011)

McIntosh, Sarah and Yves Renard (2010): “Placing the Commons at the Heart of Community Development: Three Case Studies of Community Enterprise in Caribbean Islands”, International Journal of the Commons, Vol. 4, No-1, pp 160-182.

Mishra, Banikanta (2010a): “Agriculture, Industry and Mining in Orissa in the Post-Liberalisation Era: An Inter-District and Inter-State Panel Analysis”, Economic & Political Weekly, 15 May.

Mishra, Banikanta (2010b): “Some Rural and Agrarian Issues in Odisha”, Paper presented at the National Seminar on Agrarian and Rural Studies: Trends, Texts, Pedagogies and Collaborations, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, 19-20 October 2010.

11 New Indian Express (2010): “Campaign to Implement Forest Laws Properly”, Bhubaneswar Edition, 1 November: 2.

Ojha, Nabaghan (2006): “Report on Difficulties in JFM/CFM Affecting Forest Dependent Communities in Orissa”, Working Paper, Bhubaneswar, February.

Orissa Post (2011a): “Land Deeds to FRA Beneficiaries Soon”, Bhubaneswar Edition, 29 October, 3.

Orissa Post (2011b): “500 More VSS for Forest Protection”, Bhubaneswar Edition, 20 October, 3.

Orissa Forest Development Corporation (2011): “Non Timber Forest Products”, (http://www.orissafdc.com/products_ntfp_ofdc.php, Accessed 8 November 2011).

Panigrahi, R. and Y. Giri Rao (1998): “Effective Local Management of Forests: Learning from Self- Initiated Management Organization in India: A Case of Community Forest Protection, Paiksahi Village, Nayagarh District of Orissa”, Working Paper, Natural Resources Institute, UK and Vasundhara, Bhubaneswar, India

Patnaik, Nageshwar (2010): “Orissa Babus Hid Facts in JSPL Case?”, Economic Times – Kolkata Edition, 29 November, Front Page.

Prasad, R (1999): “Joint Forest Management in India and the Impact of State Control over Non-Wood Forest Products”, Unasylva, Vol: 50, No: 3 (Non-Wood Forest Products and Income Generation), (http://www.fao.org/docrep/x2450e/x2450e0c.htm#TopOfPage, Accessed 8 November 2011)

Rath, Bikash (2002): “People⎯Forest⎯State: A Statistical Review of the Triangular Relationship in

Orissa”, Report, Vasundhara, Bhubaneswar

Sarap, Kailas (2004): “Participatory Forest Management in Orissa: A Review of Policies and Implementation”, Working Paper No. 2, Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia, UK and Sambalpur University, Orissa, India, May.

Sarap, Kailas, and Tapas Kumar Sarangi. (2009): “Malfunctioning of Forest Institutions in Orissa”, Economic and Political Weekly, 12 September: 18-22.

Sarin, Madhu, Neera Singh, Nandini Sundar, and Ranu K Bhogal (2003): “Devolution as a Threat to Democratic Decision-Making in Forestry: Findings from Three States in India”, Working Paper, Overseas Development Institute, London, UK

Sarker, Debnaryan. (2009): "Joint Forest Management: Critical Issues", Economic and Political Weekly, 24 January: 15-17.

12 Singh, Neera M. (1995): “Collective Action for Forest Protection and Management by Rural Communities in Orissa”, Paper Presented at the Fifth Annual Common Property Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Norway, 24-28 May

Singh, Neera M., Rekha Panigrahi, Rana Roy, Chita Behera, and Rajib Dash (2001): “Devolution of Forest Management: Creating Spaces for Community Action for Forest Management: A Case Study of Jhargaon Village, Jharsuguda District, Orissa”, Working Paper, Vasundhara, Bhubaneswar, India.

Singh, Neera M., Rana Roy, Rekha Panigrahi, and Prashant Mohanty (2001): “A Case of Community Initiated Forest Management Brought Under JFM Arrangement: Berham Village, Angul District”, Working Paper, Vasundhara, Bhubaneswar, India.

TERI (2001), “Study on Joint Forest Management”, Report Submitted to Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/forprt/terijfm.html, Accessed 28 November 2010.

Tiwary, Manish. (2005): “Panchayats versus Forest Protection Committees: Equity and Institutional Compliance in Rural Development Forestry”, Economic and Political Weekly, 7 May: 1999-2005.

Vira, Bhaskar. (2005): “Deconstructing the Harda Experience: Limits of Bureaucratic Participation”, Economic and Political Weekly, 26 November: 5068-5075.

Wyatt, S (2008): “First Nations, Forest Lands, and ‘Aboriginal Forestry’ in Canada: From Exclusion to Co-management and Beyond”, Canadian Journal of Forestry Resource, Vol. 38: 171-80.

Appendix – I Questionnaire Joint Forest Management and Community Forest Management Name of Village/Block: Panchayat: ______District: ______

13 Gender: Male/Female_ Age:______Profession:______Monthly Income:_____

1. Since when are you living here?

2. Which of the following do you use for cooking (and other purposes: pl specify what):  L P G  Kerosene  Firewood  Biogas  Cow Dung

If answer is Firewood, Biogas, or Cow dung

I) Which place(s) do you get it from?

II) How much quantity do you get/obtain per month?

III) How much money do you spend per month on obtaining/acquiring it?

IV) How much time (in hours) do you spend per month on obtaining/acquiring it?

V) Do you at all rely on forest for the above? Did you rely on forest in the past?

3. How far is the community-forest from your house? (If more than one, please talk about the one with which you are involved.)

4. Since the time you are living here, has the forest area and the total number of trees changed? Y/N

If Y (yes), then has it increased or decreased and by what proportion (one half, one third, ¼ , … 1/10)? Increased/decreased (strikeout whichever is not applicable)by ______

a) If increased, then

i) Which types have been added now?

ii) Who is planting the new varieties (villagers or government)?

b) If decreased, then

i) Which types are missing now?

14 ii) Who is taking them away?

iii) Are thieves/mafia stealing or cutting away trees?

iv) Are rare varieties just getting lost because of climatic change?

v) Are you cutting trees for firewood?

vi) Are you cutting trees for making furniture?

vii) Is mining or industrial activity the cause for this?

viii) If answer to the above question (vii) is yes, then: Do you expect to get employment or any other (please specify) benefit from the mining/industrial activity?

5. What has been your major source of income till now?

A) Depend only on Forest B) Depend only on Agriculture C) Depend only on Fishing, Livestock, etc. D) Depend on both Forest & Agriculture E) Depend on both Forest & Fishing/Livestock F) Depend on both Agriculture & Fishing/Livestock G) Depend on Other (e.g Small Business etc.)

If Answer is A i. What are the things that you get from the forest?

ii. To whom (middleman, customers?) and where (hat?) do you sell them?

iii. Do you know what the fair price is for these things?

iv. Do you feel that you get a fair price when you sell the things?

v. Have you recently moved from agriculture to collection of minor-forest-produce (or NTFP)?

vi. What was your income a few years back?

15 vii. Because of deforestation (afforestation) how much income have you lost (gained) per year?

viii. Has an increase/decrease in rainfall decreased/increased your dependence on NTFP?

ix. Has an increase/decrease in irrigation reduced/increased your dependence on NTFP?

x. Has any other factor led to your increased/reduced dependence on NTFP?

If Answer is B or C

i. Since when are you depending on this sector?

ii. If you were depending on forest earlier, why did you move to agriculture?

iii. Is the land you currently use for agriculture used to be forest land? What fraction?

iv. Have you ever diverted any agricultural land of yours towards community forest land?

v. Is there a rule in your locality that a specific proportion of total land area should be kept for forests?

If Answer is D, E, or F

i. Which of the sectors is your main source of income? ii. What percent of your income comes from this main source?

iii. Does this percent change much over time? (If yes, a little or a lot?)

6. Was there a firewood shortage in your locality during the last few years?

If yes, then

a. Was the crisis due to degradation of forest land?

b. How did you cope with the crisis?

c. Were you spending more time collecting firewood from commons?

If yes, then

How much time do you spend per week on this?

16 How much firewood do you collect?

d. Did you then move towards firewood collected from your own land or towards alternatives like dung and crop residue?

If yes, then, how much firewood did you get from

i. Your own land?

ii. From animal dung?

iii. From agricultural residue?

e. Are you planting more firewood trees instead of fruit trees in your land to cope with the crisis? How much of land have you diverted from fruit-trees to firewood-trees?

f. How has JFM affected the onset of the crisis?

g. How has JFM affected your ability to cope with the crisis?

7. How long has been Community Forest Management, if any, there in your area?

8. Was any Joint Forest Management program proposed in your area?

A) If yes, when and by whom (your villagers, neighboring villagers, or the government)?

B) Did the villagers accept the JFM idea?

a) If yes,

i. What benefits did they expect out of JFM?

ii. What threats, if any, had they perceived from JFM?

iii. Who actually manages the forests now, the village or the government?

iv. Since government has the right to decide about utilization of forest areas, what power does the JFM or CFM has in this regard?

v. If joint, how are the responsibilities shared evenly between the villagers and the government officials?

vi. Are decisions regarding forest use and management taken in the CFM meetings attended by villagers OR does the CFM committee merely ratify

17 decisions taken elsewhere (inside or outside the village, but not involving all the villagers)?

vii. Who has the final say in JFM: villagers, local government, state government, or some other agency?

viii. Has JFM made CFM weaker (that is, do you feel that the villagers now have less autonomy in managing the forest than they had before JFM came in)?

ix. Has industrialization in your area made CFM or JFM weak?

If yes, how?

If no, how has CFM or JFM coped with (or plans to cope with) industrialization, if any?

b) If no,

i. What threats did they perceive from JFM?

ii. What benefits, if any, did they expect from JFM?

Appendix – II

Profiles of Some Selected Blocks in Dhenkanal District (Industrial)

Block: Parajang

1) Muktaposi village is situated under Parajang block in the district of Dhenkanal. It is 45 kilometers away from the district headquarters. This village is itself a panchayat headquarters village consisting of seven wards. There are 529 households living together and around 4000 population resides eleven sahis, which are scattered in nature. It is a mixed village consisting of various castes such as OBC (other backward castes), SEBC (), SC (scheduled castes), and general. Male represent 55% of adults. Mostly, the villagers depend on agriculture and allied activities. SC persons do agricultural and non-agricultural labor work. There is no wide-canal irrigation system in this village. All the farmers depend on rain water. Due to climatic change, it creates drought-like situation.

Before 1999, the RFA (reserve forest area) was managed through CFM norms. At that time, the forest decreased due to lack of proper guidance and protection as well as illegal tree cutting by mafias. So, the villagers got united under the village-leader, Shri Pranabanhu Dehury, and decided to form VSS (Vana Suraksha Samiti or Forest Protection Committee). With the help and cooperation of the departmental authorities, one committee consisting 30 members was formed. The authorities appointed the local forester as the member-secretary in that committee.

This VSS was approved by the government in 2001. The forest department has allocated 500 hectares of forest to the VSS. After that, the villagers and the VSS members have properly guided and protected the

18 forest, providing ‘PALI’ system (whereby, households take turn in guarding the forest). The VSS has also decided to allow households to obtain firewood from the forest once in a month paying Rs.5-6 per cart-load or head-load (approximately five to six quintals). In 2006-07, the VSS received four lakh rupees, and the same amount was spent for soil conservation, plantation, and cleaning.

2) Rahabereni village is four kilometers away from Muktaposi village. There are 95 households consisting of 500 people; OBCs account for 95%. There is no irrigation facility except rain-water and ground-lift. So the villagers depend on agriculture and labour work.

Before formation of VSS, the villagers depended on the forest for their livelihood. They collected firewood, NTFP, and timber for their domestic use. Gradually, the forest decreased due to massive tree- cutting by the mafia. So, the villagers decided to form VSS. In 2004, the VSS consisting of 15 members was officially formed. The forest department has allocated 158 hectares of forest to the VSS. Now, the villagers guard the forest, as a result of which the forest is growing. Villagers get only firewood as their fuel. The VSS has received 2.5 lakhs rupees for forest cleaning grant by the department. Through this the villagers are getting employment.

3) Basoi village is itself a gram-panchayat. It is six kilometers away from Kamakhya Nagar. Around 3000 people reside in this village. It is a village of mixed classes and tribes. The people depend mostly on agriculture and allied activities. One-fifth of the people do labor work in agricultural and non- agriculture sector.

There are 850 hectares of forest, protected by two groups of people. The villagers are want to form two VSS, but the forest department has not agreed to this proposal, as it insists on only one VSS per village. So, the VSS has not yet been formed. But the villagers are protecting the forest very well.

4) Badajhara has no forest now. The land which belongs to Revenue Department is empty and barren. So the government has leased out the land for Cashew cultivation.

Block: Kamakhya Nagar

1) Jantribol is situated under Kamakhya Nagar Block. It is two kilometers away from Kamakhya Nagar NAC (Notified Area Council). There are 108 households bearing 1250 persons. The villagers depend on cultivation, livestock, and labour work. They use firewood, cow-dung, and agri-residue as their fuel. There is no adequate canal irrigation facility. Farmers cultivate their land by using rain-water and water from ponds.

The VSS was formed in 1997 and protected the reserve-forest till 2004. After that, the villagers were divided into several groups due to purely social and political reasons. So, opportunistic groups joined hands with the mafia for stealing valuable trees from this forest. The forest is now ruined and the evil relation between the mafia and the department officials has made formation of any VSS meaningless.

2) Sibulposi is eight kilometers away from Kalinganagar, the proposed steel hub of Odisha. The main source of income is agriculture. Though this village has been declared as an irrigated-village (by canal irrigation), the minor and sub-minor canals are in defunct condition. So, farmers do not get proper irrigation.

19 There are 160 households with 750 persons in them. Most people depend on labour work. For their fuel needs, they collect dry branches and leaves from the forest once a month, paying to the village-committee twenty rupees for a cart-load of timber and ten for a cart-load of dry branches.

The villagers claim that Chandragiri, Gunjargodi, Kadabania forests have been forcibly occupied by the villagers of Banspal, who do not want to form any VSS. Thay also added that, if the forest department demarcates the forest area, then the formation of VSS may be possible. Now the villagers have occupied 150 acres of land out of 500 acres.

Block: Bhuban

Mathakaragolar is a united village of people having good social relation with each other. There are 1075 household having 3600 people. Most people belong to general (not OBC and SC/ST) caste. Half of the villagers depend on agriculture. One-fifth do government jobs and one-tenth business. Rests are laborers in agriculture and allied activities as well as in activities like house construction.

The VSS was formed in the 1994 according to the guidelines of the government. 500 hectares of forest was under the control of the villagers. The VSS members and village committee have been taking good care of the forest.

The villagers on their own effort (25 ST households near by the reserve forest which have migrated from different places of Dhenkanal and Anugul districts) are performing round-the-clock duty to protect the forest. A concrete house has also been constructed in the midst of the forest where the villagers stay while doing their guard duty on a rolling basis to stop illegal tree cutting by the mafia. Now the forest has grown dense and is due for cutting.

The President of the village held a meeting to decide how much firewood (except teak, timber, and NTFP) a family can take and how much it should pay. With the help of the forest department, the VSS has done check-dams, plantations, roads, cleanings of the forest, and proper utilization of the government funds.

20 Table-1 Summary Statistics Average Average Average % of Average Average Mean am ount of num ber of No of quantity cooking distance of percentage Village Mean m onthly m oney hours District respon of fire need the of type age incom e spent on spent on dents wood satisfied com munity dependency (000) obtaining collecting used by forest forest (km ) on forest firewood firewood

CFM Dhenkanal 81 48 1763 5.9 5.8 7.0 100.0% 0.31 43.9 CFM Nayagarh 40 46 1303 8.8 5.5 5.6 100.0% 0.50 19.9 Dhenkanal and CFM 121 47 1611 6.8 5.7 6.5 100.0% 0.41 36.0 Nayagarh

JFM Dhenkanal 125 48 2190 6.5 24.9 7.2 96.8% 0.15 43.7 JFM Nayagarh 194 46 1796 6.5 21.3 5.5 98.4% 0.28 27.2 Dhenkanal and JFM 319 47 1949 6.5 22.7 6.2 97.8% 0.21 33.7 Nayagarh

CFM-JFM Dhenkanal 206 48 2021 6.3 17.4 7.1 98.1% 0.22 43.8 CFM-JFM Nayagarh 234 46 1711 6.9 18.6 5.5 98.7% 0.32 26.0 Dhenkanal and CFM-JFM 440 47 1856 6.6 18.0 6.3 98.4% 0.27 34.3 Nayagarh

No JFM or Dhenkanal 54 47 1951 5.5 102.9 7.8 85.0% 4.63 38.8 CFM No JFM or Nayagarh 26 46 1077 6.5 4.2 10.2 100.0% 2.25 14.5 CFM Dhenkanal and All 80 47 1663 5.8 69.6 8.6 90.9% 3.8 24.9 Nayagarh

21 Table-2 Relationship between duration of JFM or CFM and increase in forest density

Increase in Average duration Average duration proportion of Village type Districts of introduction of of introduction of trees in the JFM CFM forest. CFM only Dhenkanal 23.8 24.41% CFM only Nayagarh 16.4 18.75% CFM only Dhenkanal and Nayagarh 21.3 22.54%

JFM Dhenkanal 11.4 19.8 15.82% JFM Nayagarh 5.1 14.0 28.81% JFM Dhenkanal and Nayagarh 7.6 16.3 23.72%

CFM-JFM Dhenkanal 6.9 21.3 19.19% CFM-JFM Nayagarh 4.2 14.4 27.09% CFM-JFM Dhenkanal and Nayagarh 5.5 17.7 23.39%

Table- 3 Summary Stastistics for Anugul CFM Only JFM

Number of villages 5 13

Average number of 162 290 households Total number of 809 3765 households Average number of 151 281 people using firewood Average quantity of fire- 4 7 wood used Amount of money spent 43 34 on collection of firewood (rupees) Time spent on collection 23 20 of firewood (hours) Number of households 86 142 depending on agriculture Distance of the nearby 2 5 forest (kilometers)

Forest dependency 94% 79%