Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 Available online at www.ijpab.com

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.2648 ISSN: 2320 – 7051 Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) Review Article

Evaluating the Joint Management: A Review of Impact, Performance and Constraints

Bishwa Bhaskar Choudhary1, Pitambara2* and S.K. Srivastava3 1Department of Agricultural Economics, National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana, 2Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India 3Department of Agricultural Economics, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Uttarakhand, India *Corresponding Author E-mail: [email protected] Received: 28.02.2017 | Revised: 10.03.2017 | Accepted: 12.03.2017

ABSTRACT The Joint Programme(JFM) has been a major thrust area of forest management over the last two decades. The programme is operating with main objective of forest management and empowerment of local livelihoods through sustainable resource utilization and income generation opportunities. This paper summarizes the previous standard studies carried out in India and abroad to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of the programme to meet its aforesaid objective. The paper focusses mainly on presenting the most of the previous literatures concerned with impact assesment of the JFM programme on income and employment of the rural households associated with the programme. Further, its role in equality in income distribution has also been emphasized. Apart from that, literatures concerning the problems faced by different stakeholders in implementation of the programme has also been summarized. The present paper will provide a brief overview to the policy makers regarding effectivness of the programme operationalized in different parts of the country and will support the decision makers at all level of decision making in understanding the location specific constaints associated with the programme and targeting financial resources and better management of resources to fulfill overall goal of the JFM programme.

Key words: Joint Forest Management, forest, sustainable, income distribution

INTRODUCTION where humans play a significant role, and We are living in an age where human activities these ecosystems themselves are dominated by have intervened with the Earth‟s ecosystem at an increasingly homogenous group of flora an unprecedented rate and affected its geology and fauna. The situation is analogous within and physiology, moving us from the Holocene India where have provided a habitat into a period aptly termed as the and livelihood to approximately 360 million Anthropocene8. Currently, almost 90% of the people29. world‟s plant activity is found in ecosystems Cite this article: Choudhary, B.B., Pitambara and Srivastava, S.K., Evaluating the Joint Forest Management: A Review of Impact, Performance and Constraints , Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5(2): 813-825 (2017). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.2648

Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 813

Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 Forests cover 31% of total land area act as catalysts and diverting forests for worldwide, which is an area just over 4 billion agriculture, both small and large scale, is a hectares15. FAO defines a forest as an area that major cause of across the globe. covers a minimum of 0.5 to 1.0 hectares with However, demand for timber also drives crown cover of more than 10 to 30%, deforestation whilst contributing to land use where the have a potential height of a change emissions28. minimum of 2 to 5 meters at maturity. This Pressure on Indian Forest definition includes areas which are temporarily Forest and tree cover of the country is 78.29 m unstocked due to human intervention or ha, which is 23.81 per cent of the geographical natural causes, but have the potential to revert area. This includes 2.76 per cent of tree back to forest14. cover19. India has only 1.8% per cent of the Forests harbour much of the world‟s global forest area but has to support 16 per territorial biodiversity, and India is one of the cent of the world‟s human population9. A 12 mega-biodiverse countries in the world. burgeoning population means continuously Forests provide a range of ecosystem services. increasing demands for natural resources. Of Ecosystem services are divided into direct and the 1.21 billion people in India, 27.5 per cent indirect services. Within direct provisioning live below the national poverty line and most services, forests provide water, timber and of them depend directly or indirectly on forests other raw materials for domestic and industrial for their livelihood. Almost all of the 83 use, food and fruits, fuel as fuel is a million tribal people depend on forests directly significant source of cooking fuel, and fodder for their survival. Of the total population using for livestock grazing, medicinal plants, and fuel wood, 23 % of population is obtaining other non timber forest produce (NTFP)39. fuel wood from forests19. This tremendous Forests also regulate soil, water and climate pressure results in the degradation of forests, and act as carbon sinks, by absorbing around which further affects their livelihood. Thus, 11% of India‟s carbon dioxide emissions protection of forests in India cannot be annually3. Besides, forests have been discussed independent of the people dependant important in India culturally and spiritually for on it. generations as traditional Indian culture and In India, increasing greenhouse gas customs embraced environmental protection concentrations are expected to raise and conservation of forests and wildlife, for temperatures, reduce water flow and decrease example, through sacred groves and crop yields36. At the same time, India already worshiping of trees and animals. suffers severe food shortages and food prices All of these play a vital role in the are expected to double in the next twenty socio-economic well being of forest dependent years15. Thus, in such a world where humans communities. In India, there is a strong are simultaneously a cause of the problem and dependence of the societies on their the solution, it is essential to find ways to surrounding ecosystem for survival. This has involve people in utilizing the limited resulted in a deep ethnology of conservation resources in a sustainable manner and and judicious use of these natural resources preserving essential ecosystem functions today over many generations in rural India, which and in the future. includes poor individuals and tribal hamlets39. Joint Forest Management (JFM) In India Using forest products to satisfy basic needs Origins and evolution of JFM such as food, fuel and fodder for sustenance in To understand the concept and process of Joint an unchecked manner can often lead to Forest Management (JFM) in India we need to deforestation and forest degradation. delve into the evolution of the forest policy Deforestation is prolific across the globe with and legislations in the country. Though the manifold causes that vary from country to initial set of policies and laws on dates country. Poverty and population growth often back to the colonial period and the immediate Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 814

Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 post-independence period, one notices a areas. This was ostensibly designed to meet paradigm shift in India‟s forest policy and the growing demand for firewood and small legislations in the 1980s, with the passage of wood required by the local communities. It the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This Act was also in line with the thinking implicit in highlighted the primacy of conservation of the National Forest Policy of 1952. forests over the previous emphasis on utilizing In the mid and late 1970s, the spread „forests‟ for meeting the requirements of of the „Chipko‟ movement in the U. P. Hills agriculture and industry. (now in Uttarakhand) led to a situation where The first forest policy of India was the accepted tenets of the 1952 National Forest enacted during the British period in 1894. This Policy were questioned by the environmental policy was centrally influenced by the Volcker movements in the country. The adverse Commission Report, which posited forests to consequences of large-scale diversion of be a provider for the agricultural forestlands to non-forestry purposes (which hit sector. After independence, the Government of an astounding rate of 150,000 hectares per India enacted a new forest policy in the year year prior to the 1980s), were too glaring to be 1952 that, while largely subscribing to the ignored by the policy makers35. Accordingly, philosophy of the 1894 policy, nevertheless the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 was highlighted the functional classification of enacted by the Government of India to check forests. The 1952 policy classified forests into diversion of forestlands for non-forestry protection forests, national forests, village purposes. This act made it obligatory for State forests and tree lands. The policy Governments to seek prior approval of the recommended weaning of tribes from shifting Central Government for undertaking diversion cultivation practices and controlling of grazing of forestlands for non-forestry purposes. and other activities in forest areas. Functional Meanwhile, in pursuance of the 1972 Wildlife classification presupposed that forests had to (Protection) Act, the Government of India set be typified in terms of their relative ability to up an extensive network of protected areas in subserve agricultural and industrial systems in the country. By the end of the 1980s, protected India. Accordingly, forests in hilly regions had areas accounted for 13.6 million hectares with to be preserved and protected on account of the constitution of nearly 70 national parks and their possible role in preventing 411 wildlife sanctuaries in different parts of and water runoff from agricultural catchments. the country. Forests that had the potential for timber and The other major development was the related raw materials required for the industry growing protest against forest in were to be exploited on the basis of „scientific different parts of the country. The movement working plans‟ to yield raw materials. against Eucalyptus plantations in the early Meanwhile, in 1973, the National Commission 1980s raised serious questions about the on Agriculture came up with the idea of ecological desirability of raising industry- production forestry based on „high oriented monoculture tree plantations in Indian productivity‟ man-made plantations. A string forest areas. The key issue was how to resolve of forest development corporations was the growing biomass shortage for agriculture. accordingly set up in the late 1970s to As mentioned earlier the Social Forestry „corporatize‟ the process of production Programme initiated in mid-1970s had aimed forestry in India34. This development was in to raise fuel wood and biomass generating consonance with the prescriptions of the plantations in non-forest lands. But its track National Forest Policy, 1952. record of the program was dismal. Further the In the late 1970s, the Government of program suffered for want of the participatory India and the State Governments initiated the element. social forestry movement with a view to These concerns caused the carrying out in and around village Government of India and the States to shift Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 815

Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 their policy towards a massive which were organized into „ program in the wastelands of the country, committees‟ (FPCs), successfully protected the which were estimated to be of the order of 175 degraded forests from illegal , million hectares. The National Wasteland overgrazing, fire, and encroachment. In Development Board (NWDB) was set up in Sukhomajri, in Haryana State, the movement the year 1985 to promote the afforestation started from amongst the people. Construction process in community and private lands, with of earthen dams stabilized agricultural output the involvement of stakeholders. The NWDB in the village. Forests in and around schemes included establishment of rural fuel Sukhomajri village regenerated as a result. The wood plantations, treatment of micro- regenerated forests in turn provided valuable watersheds in the Himalayan States, promotion biomass, including bhabar grass to local of tree growers‟ cooperatives, establishment of communities. people‟s nurseries and farm forestry activities. These instances awakened the policy In due course, afforestation programs of the makers at the Central level to the need to go NWDB were restructured to cover degraded beyond the legalistic “Forest Conservation forestlands as well. Act, 1980”. Institutional measures for arresting Despite these initiatives, the trend of the alarming trend of forest depletion in the depletion of forest cover in India continued country were actively considered. The unabated. Working plans were not successful National Forest Policy 1988 was accordingly in conserving forests. The Forest Survey of enacted by the Government of India with a India came up with the finding that only in 15 strong focus on conservation, environmental per cent of the forest area covered by working stability and ecological balance through plans, adequate regeneration was noticed. Fire association of tribals and local communities in and grazing were held to be the culprits in this protection, regeneration and development of regard. Further, it was noted that in over 60 forests. In pursuance of the National Forest per cent of the area covered by the Working Policy of 1988, the Government of India Plans, the annual cut exceeded the increment issued a „circular‟ in June, 1990 for 34 on account of unauthorized felling . Between involvement of village communities and 1983 and 1987, the country lost forest cover at village associations (VAs) in the regeneration the rate of 47500 hectares per annum. of degraded forest lands. This marked the birth However, these developments were not of the Joint Forest Management (JFM) without their exceptions. The success of two movement in India. community-driven “greening” movements in JFM defined India opened the eyes of the policy makers to Scholars and policy makers have defined Joint the immense potential afforded by people‟s Forest Management (JFM) in different ways. participation in the management of forests. One source defines JFM as „a concept of The first one was a community-based forest developing partnerships between fringe forest conservation movement initiated in Araberi in user groups and the Forest Department (FD) Midnapur District of West Bengal during on the basis of mutual trust and jointly defined 1971-72, while the second one was a grassroot roles and responsibilities for forest protection movement in the Sukhomajri village in and development‟25. The other definition of Haryana in the 1980s, to rejuvenate forests and JFM runs as follows: „JFM is a forest agricultural systems in the village. In Araberi, management strategy under which the the movement was triggered by a Silviculturist government (represented by the Forest of the State Forest Department, who by Department) and the village community enter offering incentives to local communities into an agreement to jointly protect and induced them to protect and regenerate manage forestlands adjoining villages and to degraded Sal forests. The local communities, share responsibilities and benefits‟4. Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 816

Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 The objectives of JFM programme The base of the JFM structure, which  Maintenance of environmental stability comprises of village level institutions, is through preservation, restoration of the referred to as “forest protection committees”. ecological balance and reduction of These bodies include a “General Body” and a degradation of forests in the country “core”, “Executive” or “Management  Conserving natural heritage of the country Committee (MC)” elected by the General by preserving the remaining natural forests Body for discharging the assigned functions. which represent the remarkable biological The General Body comprises of eligible diversity and genetic resources of the members of the village. The eligibility criteria country. for membership vary from state to state. In  Checking soil erosion and denudation in most states, adults are eligible for joining the the catchment areas of rivers, lakes and General Body. The General Body elects the reservoirs. local community representatives in the  Bio-diversity conservation. Executive Committee. The Executive  Empowerment of local people giving them Committee has elected members ranging in greater responsibility for forest number from 5 to 15. It also includes ex- management and increasing motivation to officio, non-elected members drawn from the conserve the forests Forest Departments, local NGOs, village  Equity, through management of forests, schools, village administrative and and eventually the improvement of local development officers and in some cases livelihoods through sustainable resource representatives of the Gram or Mandal utilization and income generation Panchayats. The states of Bihar, Himachal opportunities. Pradesh, Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab give  Increasing the productivity of the forests representation for underprivileged to meet the essential national needs. communities and castes and women in the  Meeting the requirements of fuel wood, Executive Committee. Andhra Pradesh has fodder, minor forest produce and small moved towards compulsory 30 per cent timber of the rural and tribal populations. representation for women in the Executive  Increasing substantially the forest/tree Committee. The states of Gujarat, Jammu and cover in the country through massive Kashmir, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh afforestation especially on all denuded, require inclusion of two women degraded and unproductive lands. representatives in the Executive Committee  Creating a massive people's movement and provide for both „husband‟ and „wife‟ with the involvement of women, for from a given household to be members of a achieving these objectives and to minimize General Body. The term of the Executive pressure on existing forests. Committee is generally for two years in most Structures of JFM of the states. However, in Arunchal Pradesh, Until recently, Forest Protection Committees Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, (FPCs) were by and large, not legal bodies as Maharashtra, Tripura and West Bengal, the they were not recognized or registered under tenure is of one year. In Karnataka, Nagaland the Societies Registration Act or through and Tamil Nadu, the tenure of the Executive related, enabling legislations. However, states Committee is five years. The Executive such as Gujarat, Karnataka and Rajasthan had Committee undertakes decision-making, provided for registration of FPCs under the planning and implementation of management Cooperative Societies Act in the early stages plans. itself23. Contribution of JFM in Livelihood and Structures and nomenclatures of JFM Family Income have varied from state to state. In general, one can delineate the following structure for JFM. Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 817

Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 Sarin34 conducted a study on livelihood improved levels and security of forest products analysis of JFM in Chamoli district of and benefit flows, household income- Uttarakhand, concluded that forest based generating opportunities, development income is a major contribution to the activities, and improved social capital for livelihood of rural people. JFM users group collective planning and action. Nevertheless, were operating the forest based micro impacts to date were below their potential, and enterprises. Income generations from sale of the needs of rural households required more non timber forest products (NTFPs), forest investigation to determine what further nursery and medicinal plants had started. The opportunities existed and how policy and quality of life has been improved through easy extension agency might offer specific needs- access to fuel wood, fodder and water. oriented support. Dave et al11., examined changes in Ajaz– ul– islam2, carried out a study in livestock farming associated with JFM Ushkara village of Jehlum Valley Forest programme in Almora district of Uttarakhand. Division of Baramulla district in Kashmir Based on survey of 259 households, the paper valley where JFM programme was launched in concluded that forage availability had 1991 aiming at popularization of tree decreased with commencement of JFM consciousness among villagers, self- programme. They pointed out that improved sufficiency in terms of fuel, fodder, timber and forest condition may not necessarily leads to other non-timber forest products, reduction of improvement in livelihoods of the farmers. pressure in traditional forests and efficient Murli24 based on the empirical research utilization of common lands. Analysis of the carried out in Wayanad and Calicut districts of benefit components based on data from 137 Kerala found that the institutional beneficiaries revealed that the JFM development of JFM through Forest Protection programme had impact on meeting tangible Committee (FPC) widened its impact on benefits to the beneficiaries. The programme livelihoods. Evidences showed that the JFM was comparatively less effective in accruing programme has been contributing to rural intangible benefits to the beneficiaries. The livelihoods mainly in two ways: (1) better flow overall level of impact of JFM programme on of forest products through the improvements its beneficiaries was medium. There was of forest resources and (2) through the significant difference in level of impact of development of livelihoods assets at the JFM programme among landless, medium and grassroots level, which are the basis for large land holders. sustainable livelihoods. Rao et al32., based on their study in Behera et al5., based on their study Shivmogga district of Karnataka revealed that carried out in Patwar village of Andhra the JFM programme was supporting to the Pradesh concluded that JFM had tremendous people‟s livelihood by providing fire-wood, potential to reduce poverty and promote social fodder/grass, and non timber forest products inclusion in rural communities by improving on regular basis. In addition, the programme the livelihoods of the poor and excluded, in collected community fund from both forestry particular the livelihoods of women, dalits and and non-forestry sources, which had multiple disadvantaged ethnic groups. However, there effects to carry out forest management and was existence of large gap between the community development activities. These potential of the programme and its activities were also equally supportive to achievements in reality. improving the local people‟s livelihood. The Dev et al12., conducted impact study of study concluded that JFM programme was not JFM on four eastern districts of Nepal ( only effective for collective forest Dhankuta, terathum, Sankhuwasabha and management, but also it was equally Bhojpur). They found that impact were diverse imperative for empowering the local people to ,but had been generally positive in terms of Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 818

Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 seize forestry activities as a means of rural of household‟s fuel-wood collection from the livelihood improvement. forest. Poor households were highly dependent Kafle20 conducted a study on on the forests for fuel-wood in order to sustain contribution of JFM programme on user‟s their day-to-day livelihood. Authors felt that household income using data from 92 the high dependence of poor coupled with household of Gorkha district of Nepal. Non – their large population size in the region (more farm sources were found as the major and than 27%) would possibly cause forest largest source of income of households degradation. contributing 65.5 per cent share in household JFM and its Impact on Employment income followed by agriculture income ( 16.9 Pattern % ), livestock income ( 2.3 % ). JFM Gangadharappa et al16., conducted a study to programme supported 12.3 per cent of total examine the type of employment generation household income to poor, 4.06 per cent to by the JFM programme in Kalpetta district of middle and only 2.78 per cent to rich class Kerala and found that the programme could households. As there was huge difference in provide three kinds of employment. First kind household income across the three classes, the of employment is direct employment like absolute income of JFM to rich class wage labour in various JFM activities. households was the largest though it seemed Second, self employment like removal of greater to the poor in percentage income terms. head loads of firewood and fodder from the Participation of poor class households was forest, rising of food crops: cereals, found low in decision making activities. vegetables and fruits through agri– Somanathan et al40., assessed impact of silvicultural practices, social and farm JFM programme on household income in forestry programme, which help build the fuel Theni district of Tamil nadu using 100 and fodder resources of the rural areas besides households samples. Results indicated that ameliorating the living condition of masses. JFM programme had positive impact on Thirdly, secondary employment generated betterment of household economy of the site. through both primary forest industries like The rich and medium groups of people were saw mills, sawing and planning of wood, pulp more benefited than the poor people. The and paper, and panel products, wood mean livestock unit was increased after seasoning and preservation, wood wool, implementation of JFM programme. The tanning etc and secondary forestry industries feeding pattern of animal was also changed like sports and athletic goods, match splints from grazing to mostly stall feeding. The mean and veneers for match industry: boxes, crates, total income was increased by 11 percent. The drums, barrels; furniture and cabinet; bullock- regression analysis showed that land holding cart and agricultural tools and implements etc. size and livestock holding size affects the Adhikari1 observed that sustainable income of the users directly. management of common pool resources was Damodaran et al10., conducted a study still an important question facing both on household dependency on JFM programme development planners and the academia. in Salem district of Tamil nadu. It was found Experiences from JFM programme in Nepal that household‟s wealth status ( reg. had so far indicated that poorer households Coefficient for rich = -0.420 ; poor = 0.019), were still marginalized even if resources were proximity to the forest ( reg. Coefficient for managed through JFM programme. The distance, rich = -0.280; poor = 0.083), forest author analyzed the socio-economic attributes visit ( reg. Coefficient for frequent forest visit, of households that determine labour allocation rich = 0.257; p = 0.066) exerted a strong decisions for collection influence on appropriating fuel – wood from activities. This will help better understand the forest. Above all, income status of why poorer groups have not been benefited households was found to be key determinant from the programme. He highlighted the need Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 819

Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 for more effective policy and institutional million rupees i.e., 0.11 million person days interventions that would ensure efficient and of paid employment during Aug 2006 – July equitable access to the local level natural 2007. resource base. Joint Forest Management and Equality in Gowda et al17., conducted a study in Income among Users Raichur district of Karnataka to examine the Gauli18 conducted study on behavioural impact of JFM on rural- urban migration and assessment of joint forest management users found that roughly 600 people used to migrate groups (JFMUGs). Using information from outside Neelamangalam Panchayat area four JFMUGs of three districts, Nawalparasi, before the JFM was implemented in 1999. Rupandehi and Kapilbastu of western Terai in Within five years this figure was halved to Nepal. He found that there was almost equal around 300 after implementation of JFM level of participation across different caste programme. groups in labour work. Still there were Poffenberger30 documented experiences disparities in decision-making and benefit of JFM programme in five Southeast Asian sharing. Upper and middle caste people were nations. He examined shifts occurring in the mostly involved in above activities. There was forest policy sector in Cambodia, Indonesia, no enabling environment for poor people to Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, following participate in decision making and benefit the decline of JFM paradigms over the last sharing. Their main involvement in JFM decade and the emergence of new generation programme was for labour work. There was of environmentally and socially oriented lesser involvement of women in decision- policies and legislation. The study explored making and benefit sharing. However, their how these new policies, laws and national involvement in labour work was higher than programs were affecting forest dependent men. people across the region in an effort to track Prabhakar et al31., conducted a the transition in forest management on the household survey focusing on levels of ground. He explained that JFM system was participation and benefit sharing from JFM affecting forest cover, biodiversity, rural programme in Vizianagaram district of Andhra livelihoods and employment positively. Pradesh. They reported that poorer households Dhakal et al13., examined the were significantly less benefited than wealthier relationship between JFM policies on the one households and in some cases even hand and income and employment in rural disadvantaged by the advent of participatory area Jharkhand on the other, by modelling the forestry in their villages. A major cause of this effect of forest management constraints on inequity was that FPC (Forest Protection JFM user groups. Based on data from 259 Committees) are dominated by wealthier households in Palamu district, they showed households. In addition, awareness levels of a that current JFM policies were insufficient to range of JFM programme and FPC generate a bare subsistence income for the institutional issues were low, particularly poorest households and suggested that a among the poorest groups. Forests were policy change to JFM using a more flexible managed below their productive potential and agro forestry model could overcome rural only a limited proportion of member‟s forest unemployment problems and increase product needs came from JFM programme. incomes with ensuring sustainable resource Sarin et. al35., conducted a study in use from the forests. Chamoli district of Uttarakhand. The Nagaraja et al26., conducted a study on household survey was carried out focusing on impact of JFM programme on employment of sharing of income among different classes of rural people in Tamilnadu and Karnataka and farmers. Small and medium farmers were reported that the programme generated paid found to realize low returns than large farmers employment for local people equivalent to 20 which prove that JFPM development Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 820

Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 programme has brought unfair distribution of 48 percent share in total income. The rich income across different classes of farmers. group constituted 7 percent of the sample Mittal et. al22., based on their households having 14 percent share in total participatory action research with four JFM income. The richest group represented only 2 user groups in Madhya Pradesh concluded that percent of the sample households and had 7 despite large scale expansion of JFM percent share in the total income. Among the programme in the state, there were no clear middle group, self-employment constituted 45 and consistent contributions to the livelihood, percent of the household income. The richest especially of the poor. The paper discussed six group got 64 percent of their household factors affecting the ways by which benefits income from the salary predominantly coming from JFM programme were generated and from the government. The households in the distributed. The six factors analyzed were; lowest income group relied mainly on off-farm limited support from District Forest Office, income for subsistence living. The low income limited access of committee members to new households captured 29 percent of the income information, limited knowledge and technique from the JFM while the highest income groups for forest management, limited access of the were confined to 5 percent only. Gini poor in the Forest Protection Committees coefficient of household income distribution (FPC) decision-making, inappropriate including JFM income was 0.242 while arrangements for forest products distribution, excluding it was 0.265. and emphasis on forest protection rather than Constraints and Challenges of JFM management. Programme Richards et al33., developed an Murthy25 conducted a study on forest fires economic methodology, usable by Forest User related aspect in Jharkhand. He reported that Groups (FUG) for increasing equity forest fires degrade the soil, inducing floods transparency in JFM in Nepal. A main and landslides. The risk of forest fires from indicator for inequity was labour collection local people was high and destroyed JFM time. The return per Labour Day rose with the plantations. With difficult topographical wealth group, reflecting shorter distances to conditions, hot and dry climate, low level of collect forest products and more on –farm tree education, high dependency on forest resources among the wealthier households. It resources, and lack of proper extension was suggested that a suitable equity indicator activities, JFM had difficulties coping with to act as a proxy for more complex economic forest fires. Illegal , accidental burning, indicators, and which could be more easily carelessness, and encroachment on forest land collected in a participatory way, was the time for cropping and infrastructure development needed (average hours per day) to collect a by local people had destroyed the JFM bundle of subsistence forest products per unit plantations. Cattle grazing, smokers, and of household demand (a composite of accidental burning comprised 54 percent of the livestock ownership and household size). They known causes of forest fires; while 32 percent suggested that gender-based equity indicator were of unknown causes. would be the number of female hours per day. Sarin34 based on his study in Chamoli Similarly, livestock ownership and household district of Uttarakhand pointed out a number size should be a sufficient proxy for use levels. of limitations of JFM programme. Higher Sharma et al37., analyzed the household dependence upon the co-operation given by income by income group in south forest local people is an essential requirement for division of Gujrat. Results showed that out of smooth functioning of the programme. There the 42 sample households, share of half of the could be different levels of such co-operation households in total income was just 30 ranging from active participation to percent. The middle income group constituted indifference. If the programme is launched on 40 percent of the sample households and had commercial lines, there could be every danger Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 821

Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 of it passing into the hands of the urban areas had not come under preview of JFM people, rather than bringing benefits to the interventions in Karnataka. The study further poor, for whom it meant. The objective of the established that there were lower programme might become too far-fetched and representation of socially disadvantaged ambitious. As a result, the people involved groups in FPCs, larger scale membership might become disheartened and would tend to duplication, and those FPCs nearer to DFOs stay away from further participation of any offices received better services compared to kind. That would break the morale of entire remotely located FPCs. community. Kanel and Kandel21 explained that since Yadav42 in his study examined the inception of JFM programme officially in late effectiveness of Forest Protection Committees 1990s in Nepal, movement had been evolving (FPCs) in Kadapa district of Andhra Pradesh to involve local communities in the in implementing their operational plans. The management and utilization of forests. The participation of users in managing JFM in policy of the government was originally terms of sustainability was assessed. The intended to meet the need of basic forest external support and technical assistance to products required by the communities through FPCs after they were formed was inadequate active participation in forest development and and site specific plans that reflect local management. Later, it was extended to include conditions were lacking, leading FPC towards the mobilization and empowerment of the forest protection rather than effective members of JFM user groups in the management of the forest. Some FPCs were development of their local communities. It was benefiting more than others because of observed that the trend of forest degradation superior resource management. There were had decreased since the handing over of two main factors, which contribute to the national forests to local communities, but a success of JFM process: the commitment of number of unintended social anomalies had users and the forest resource condition. In this also cropped up. Such anomalies essentially regard, the institutional arrangements of the constituted inequity and unfairness at the local FPCs and the incentives for participation in and national level and in terms of long-term forestry activities were assessed because these sustainability of forest resources. They affect the whole JFM process. On the forest provided an overview of various issues of JFM resource management side, the overall forest programme. It called for rethinking on JFM resources managed by the community were programme in order to face the present day found as being underutilized because of the challenges of linking JFM with livelihood lack of awareness and technical know-how. promotion, good governance, and sustainable The study attempted to identify whether FPCs forest management. It also focused on strategy were capable of managing forest sustainably. for reforms in JFM programme. He reported that larger groups were less active, Gowda et al17., based on their study capable of mobilizing users, and managing conducted on 160 households in Raichur large patches of forest. Small groups tend to be district of Karnataka, explored that more cohesive and actively involved in forest participation of poor and dalit in forest management and contribute to generate assets. protection and was high but it was In principle, each group had an equal low in training and income generating opportunity of receiving support from external activities. Although, poor and dalits agencies but this varied in practice. participation in meeting was quite satisfactory Biradar7 examined the predicament of but was limited to only physical presence. JFM user groups and FPCs in Chikmagloor Participation of poor in income generating district of Karnataka and indicated that JFM activities was very low compared to other programme implementation had taken place in users. Fodder and Non Timber Forest Products relatively low accessible areas and remote (NTFPs) were having high demand from the Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 822

Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 JFM programme. There was reduction in their lives and livelihood can be enhanced collection time for fuel wood and fodder. Most through good forest management practices28. of the poor and dalit users were not satisfied The need to manage our world‟s forests for with the timber and NTFPs distribution global and local reasons spans ecological, system. economic and social domains. The importance Shrestha38 conducted a study focussing of forest management is obvious considering on poor performance of JFM programme in that 40% of India‟s forests provide a home to Nepal and highlighted the problem of around half of India‟s tribal population decentralized JFM policy and the forest (indigenous people in India) and between 20 to bureaucracy. Decentralization universally 50% of their household income is derived imposed a formal democratic system based on from these forests6. Despite the recent equality without acknowledging unequal industrialization and urbanization, India till societies. In Nepal, there had been little date is an agrarian economy dependant on land reorganization of the forest bureaucracy. and land based resources such as agriculture Despite being an international model for JFM, and forest based goods and services. In 1998, in Nepal the existing bureaucracy had been there were 100 million forest dwellers in India unable or unwilling to transfer knowledge to and another 275 million people who depended forest users. on forests for their basic needs and Tripathi et al41., examined the livelihood39. Thus, forests need to be protected constraints faced by local JFM users in to ensure the long term supply of resources Gadhwa district of Jharkhand. The primary including fuel wood and fodder for the data were collected through personal numerous people who rely on the Indian interviews and group discussions. The result forests for their survival. The above review showed that the existing constraints for local suggests that there had been few studies in users mainly include non availability of selected region of the country to assess the regular work, nepotism, corruptions and fewer share of the rural household income derived wage for the work. from the programme along with its impact on Ojha et al27., mentioned that an unequal income distribution and employment relationship exists between the oppressed and generation among different user groups. the oppressor groups in Almora district of Uttarakhand. As a result, the local leaders and REFERENCES elite groups mostly dominate decisions of the 1. Adhikari, M., Household Characteristics user groups. Fulfilling the needs of poor was and Common Property Forest Use: still a difficult practice in participatory forestry Complementarities and Contradictions, programme. Thus, supporting poor and Environment, Development and disadvantaged groups for their livelihood Sustainability. 5(1): 353-367 (2005). sustenance was a big challenge of JFM in 2. Ajaz-ul-Islam, M., Impact of Joint Forest Almora district of Uttarakhand. Management Programme in Baramulla of Kashmir Valley, Journal of forest and CONCLUSION livelihood. 2(1): 314-322 (2005). Forests support almost 90% of the world‟s 3. Ashutosh, S., A Behavioural Assessment terrestrial biodiversity. Forests directly support of User Group in the Context of over one billion people globally by providing Programmes, food, fuel, shelter and medicines. These people International Forestry Review., 7(3): 56- that directly depend on forests for their 69 (2009). livelihood are often poor. Thus, the loss of 4. Balooni, K. and Ballabh, V., Why Local forests through human intervention and Resources Management Institutions climate change will impact these poor Decline: A Comparative Analysis of Van communities to the hardest. At the same time, Panchayats and Forest Protection Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 823

Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 Committees in Uttarakhand, World 15. FAO. Global Forest Resource Assessment- Development. 30(12): 215–221 (2007). Main Report and Key Findings, Available 5. Behera, S.K. and Sharma, B., at Determinants of Sustainable Management http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2011/en of Natural Resources: The Case of Joint /. Accessed on March 8, 2012. (2011). Forest Management (JFM) in Andhra 16. Gangadharappa, S. and Roberts, D.G., Pradesh, Nature and Science. 8(8): 168- JFM and Its Impact on the Indian Forest 173 (2003). Sector, International Forestry Review. 6. Bhattacharya, P. and Pradhan, L., Joint 10(2): 401-413 (1999). Forest Management in India: Experiences 17. Gawda, H. and Beer, D., JFM in Eco- of Two Decades, Resources, Conservation Development - An Experience from and Recycling. 54(4): 469–480 (2010). Karnataka Forest Division, Journal of 7. Biradar, D.M., Formation and Recovery of Forest and Livelihood. 15(4): 39-56 Secondary Forests in India: A Particular (2005). Reference to Western Ghats in South 18. Gauli, E., Government-initiated India, Journal of Tropical Forest Science. Community Resource Management and 6291101369330, 13(4): 601-620 (2004). Local Resource Extraction from Nepal‟s 8. Chakraborty, D., Small Holder‟s Carbon Forest, Journal of Development Forestry Project in Haryana India: Issues Economics. 68(8): 89-115 (2003). and Challenges. Nature and Science. 19. India State of Forest Report. Forest Survey 15(8): 899-915 (2010). of India, Ministry of Environment and 9. CIA World Factbook. Available at Forests, Government of India, Dehradun. https://www.cia.gov/ . Accessed on (2011). November 25, (2011). 20. Kafle, M.R., Contribution of Joint Forest 10. Damodaran, A., Prasad, R. and Kant, S., Management Programme to user‟s Institutions, Forest Management and household income: A financial analysis. Sustainable Human Development – Journal of Forest and Livelihood. 6(3): Experiences from India, Environment, 254-271 (2006). Development and Sustainability. 5(2): 21. Kanel, K.R. and Kandel, B.R., Joint Forest 353-367 (2008). Management in Nepal: Achievements and 11. Dave, H. and Upadhyaya, J.K., Village Challenges, Journal of Forest and Resource Development Programme of Livelihood. 4(1): 55-63 (2004). Village Forest Committees in Almora 22. Mittal, N.S. and Singh, K., Environmental Forest Circle, Uttarakhand – A Case Action, Income Equity and Women‟ Study,The Indian . 23(6): 271-285 Participation, Development and Change,. (2002). 21(9): 1070 – 1081 (2009). 12. Dev, J. and Platteau, J., The Ambiguous 23. Murali, K.S., Ganeshaiah, K.N. and Bawa, Impact of Inequality on Local Resource K.S., Joint Forest Management and Management, World Development. 27(4): Community Forestry in India: An 845- 862 (2003). Ecological and Institutional Assessment, 13. Dhakal, R. and Winslow, M., Experiences Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., in Monitoring and Assessment of New Delhi. 7th ed. pp. 25-38 (2000). Sustainable Forest Management. Journal 24. Murli, J.R., Does the Establishment of of Forest and Livelihood. 8(4): 31-48 Joint Forest Management Facilitate the (2007). Rejuvenation of Indian Degraded Forest 14. FAO. Forests and Climate Change Land: Are You Surprised? Journal of Working Paper 4, Available at Environmental Economics and http://www.fao.org/forestry. Accessed on Management. 37 (3): 272-289 (2002). November 5, 2011. (2006). 25. Murthy, S., Does Participation in Common Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 824

Choudhary et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (2): 813-825 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051 Pool Resource Management Help the Forest Management, JFM Working Paper Poor? A Social Cost-benefit Analysis of No. 14, Society for Promotion of Joint Forest Management in Jharkhand, Wastelands Development and Ford India, World Development. 30(5): 763-782 Foundation, New Delhi. (2001). 35. Sarin, M. and Bisht, R., Disempowerment 26. Nagraja, A. and Somashekar, H.I., in the Name of “Participatory” Forestry Development and Status of Joint Forest Village Forests Joint Management in Management in India: A case Study from Uttarakhand, Indian Journal of forestry. South India, International Forestry 14(6): 34-41 (2008). Review. 34: 116-123 (2008). 36. Seetharaman, V., Joint Forest 27. Ojha, C.S. and Mukherji, S.D., Old Roots Management: Critical Issues, Economic & New Shoots, A Study of Joint Forest Political Weekly. 24(9): 212-225 (2010). Management in Uttarakhand, Indian 37. Sharma, R. and Chakrabarti, S., Forester. 127(7): 737-742 (2009). Environmental Resources and their 28. Parker, C., Mitchell, A., Trivedi, M. and Economics of Use, Current Science. Mardas, N., Institutions, Forest 93(12): 1673-1683 (2010). Management, and Sustainable Human 38. Shrestha, J.M., Collective Action and Development – Experiences from India, Equity in Nepalese Community Forestry. Environment, Development and World Development. 38(11): 1642–1656 Sustainability. 5(7): 353-367 (2008). (2005). 29. Paul, S. And Chakraborty, D., Socio- 39. Singh, T.P. and Varalakshmi. V., The economic Issues in Forest Management in Forest Rights Act 2007: Implications for India. Forest Policy and Economics. Forest Dwellers and Protected Areas. 13(3): 55–60 (2011). International Forestry Review. 10(2): 127- 30. Poffenberger, M., Communities and 139 (1998). Forest Management in Southeast Asia, 40. Somanathan, K. and Mallik, R.M., International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Management of Non-Timber Sustainable Development. 5(2): 284- 301 Forest Products in Tamil Nadu: Some (2006). Issues and Options, Indian Journal of 31. Prabhakar N.H. and Murthy, I.K., Agricultural Economics. 55(3): 385-396 Greening India Mission, Current Science. (2007). 99(4): 67-74 (2005). 41. Tripathi, K.D. and Marzoli, A.R., Forestry 32. Rao, B. and Pattnaik, K., JFM in South- in India: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow West Karnataka: A Study in Participatory in the Framework of Country Capacity Development, Economic and Political Building Project in Forest Resources Weekly. 345(47): 3225-3232 (2005). Assessment, Indian Journal of forestry. 33. Richards, M. and Kanel, K., Economics, 12(4): 24-47 (2008). Poverty and Transparency : Measuring 42. Yadav. K. and Ostwald, M., Application Equity in Forest User Groups, Journal of of Joint Forest Mechanism to Forest Forest and Livelihood. 3(3): 91-104 Plantation Projects and Rural (2009). Development in India, International 34. Sarin, M. 2001. From Conflict to Forestry Review. 29(13): 312–325 (2003). Collaboration: Local Institutions in Joint

Copyright © April, 2017; IJPAB 825