Rao Enoch Siraj Pediredla P38096 Section B

Integrated Framework Approach to Joint Forest Management

The two broad levels of the integrated framework include:

1. Systemic Level Analysis

2. Program Level Analysis

Systemic Level Analysis

In the systemic level analysis, which assesses the Political-Economy level issues or macro or
system level issues, we determine and analyze the influence of social, economic, and political
factors on the implementation and adoption of JFM.

Introduction to JFM

Prior to the adoption of community-based forest management practices, such as JFM, the
management and protection of forests was the prerogative of the forest department staff. This led
to the alienation of local communities that depended on the forests for their day-to-day needs
such as NTFP. The forest policies put forth in 1854, 1894 and 1927 gave complete rights and
control to the Forest Department and alienated the forest communities from the forests.
Moreover, the forest resources were illicitly used for industrial production. The first State of
Forest Report published in 1987 highlighted the impact of such policies on the fast degrading
forest cover. The report highlights the inadequacy of working plan prescriptions, which assumed
protection after felling; such enforcement was ineffective, leading to poor regeneration of forest
cover.

The National Forest Policy of 1988 outlines the basis of the implementation of JFM. Some of the
objectives outlined include1:

• To maintain environmental stability through preservation and restoration of the

ecological balance, which has been impacted by the degradation and depletion of forests.
• To conserve the natural heritage of the country by preserving and attempting to restore
the variety of indigenous flora and fauna of natural forests.
• To arrest soil erosion and denudation in the catchment areas of rivers, lakes, reservoirs in
“interest of soil and water conservation, for mitigating floods and droughts and for the
retardation of siltation of reservoirs.”
• To improve the forest/tree cover on all denuded, degraded, and unproductive lands
afforestation measures and implementation of social forestry programs.
• To sustainably meet the requirements of fuel-wood, fodder, minor forest produce, and
small timber for the local rural and tribal populations dependent on the forestes.
• To improve the productivity and management practices of forests.
1
Accessed at: http://envfor.nic.in/legis/forest/forest1.html
Rao Enoch Siraj Pediredla P38096 Section B

• To encourage efficient utilization of forest produce among local population and

maximizing substitution of wood.
• To promote a massive people’s movement, especially women, for achieving these
objectives and to arrest the decline in forest cover.

The National Forest Policy of I988 recognized that the local rural communities are the central
stakeholders of forest protection and management. This resulted in the JFM Circular of June 1st
1990, and the subsequent 2000 and 2002 Guidelines. These guidelines provided the framework
for state level rules, regulations, and resolutions for implementation of JFM across rural
panchayats. The Panchayati Raj Act, PESA, and the FRA of 2006 further expanded the rights
and responsibilities of the local communities in the management of local resources and forests2.

JFM, thus, envisioned a collaborative effort, with village communities and voluntary agencies, to
restore and manage forests. In 2010, there were about 1,12,816 JFM committees managing, that
were managing roughly 24.65 million hectares of forest lands; this number is roughly one third
of the total recorded forest land in India. It should be noted that JFM also takes into
consideration the social dimension, as it enables participation of a large number of ‘backward
communities’ including scheduled tribes, scheduled castes and other disadvantaged groups.
These communities were the intended beneficiaries of the programme. The other primary
stakeholder is the GoI, which was to benefit from the improvement in forest cover on the
environment and prevention of illicit practices vis-à-vis forest produce.

Nature of the Intervention and Approach Adopted

JFM sought to provide a subordinate real rights (ius in re aliena) of limited duration to the local
community; these included rights on the collection of Minor or Non Timber Forest Products
(NTFP); the communities also received a share of the final harvest in a protected area.

The economics of JFM is based on the institutional economics (IE) mechanism. JFM was a
response to the problem of ecological conservation in modernization theory. To address the
tragedy of commons, IE advocates suggests the creation of an institutional mechanism to frame
and enforce rules. Thus, JFM encourages collective action in the local community and prescribes
a set of rules to address the resource exploitation problem. The mechanism of JFM requires the
involvement and inputs from the community, state, and market, thus bearing resemblance to a
liberal interventionist approach. Participation and decentralization are viewed as a means to
achieve growth and efficient resource allocation of forests3.

2
A Handbook: Joint Forest Management. Ministry of Environment and Forests. Retrieved from
https://ifs.nic.in/Dynamic/pdf/JFM%20handbook.pdf
3
H.S. Shylendra. (2015). Regenerating Forests Through People’s Participation: Role of Joint Forest
Management (JFM).
Rao Enoch Siraj Pediredla P38096 Section B

Inequitable Power Structures

JFM, assumes equal power systems in society, which is seldom possible. The local communities,
which are disenfranchised must be first empowered. This will require the establishment of parity
in terms of social and economic capabilities, before any real gains can be accrued from the
participatory approach.

In the JFM framework, participation from local communities can be proxy for the state to impose
its rules and provide selective benefits to different sections of the society. The interventionist
approach should take into consideration both the equity and efficiency angles. The poor are not
involved the decision making or participation given the lack of capabilities, and cannot assert
their point of view. The efficiency angle advocates for the use local/indigenous know-how. In
most approaches, traditional knowledge of such communities are ignored; more so in JFM,
where the control remains with the upper strata of the local populus with backing from state.

Thus, JFM can be regarded as welfarist approach, where the state dictates the terms and
condition of the program. Here, the local communities are merely beneficiaries of the program.
As widespread phenomenon is the clearing of forests for selected high revenue cash crops, under
the pretext of development programs. Moreover, the ingenious communities dependent on the
forests only retain as small share from the revenue generated in such deforestation projects. In
terms of diffusion of power to local communities, JFM has done moderately. However, the
position of the state has remained intact. It is still the prerogative of the state government to
determine the proportion of the forest produce be allocated to the local communities. The
program has witnessed widespread curtailing of grazing rights of the local communities that
depended on the forest land. Under the amendment made to JFM guidelines in 2000, the local
Panchayats must form a Forest Protection Committee (FPC). However, the efficacy of such
FPCs is limited, given that these entities are not legally recognized. On the other hand, the new
amendment requires atleast 50% participation of women in the general body of such FPCs and
33% participation in the executive body. Such practices have seen varied results in different
areas. For example, in the JFM at a village panchayat 4 near Vadodara, where women have
successfully regenerated forests to prevent oil erosion into the Vishvamitri River, prevented
illegal alcohol brewing practices in the forests. However, no comprehensive study is available to
assess the overall success of JFM.

Although the amendments to JFM are centered around productivity of forests, much of the good
quality forests are under Ministry of Forests’ control. For JFMs to successfully manage the forest
resources, micro plans must be made in consultation with the FPCs to incorporate local and
traditional knowledge vis-à-vis the choice of species to be planted.

4
PRA Fieldwork Report, Group 4, Section-B, PRM 38, IRMA
Rao Enoch Siraj Pediredla P38096 Section B

Program Level Analysis

i. JFM Policy Goals Broader Goals:

Empowerment of local communities dependent on forests, Growth of forest
cover and productivity, Poverty Alleviation of local communities and Equity
in distribution of resources.
Specific Goals:
Forest protection and regeneration, improving productivity of forest land,
income generation for the local forest dwelling communities and empowering
local community in terms of decision making.
ii) JFM Strategies Participatory Development Approach (PDA) strategy has been adopted for
making the JFM intervention effective. The program seeks to use inputs from
the local communities and forest departments to preserve and regenerate
forests. To enable a people-manage organization, Forest Protection
Committees to ensure longevity of the JFMs. Participation would serve as a
tool for empowerment where people can come together and make decisions
for themselves.
iii) Design Features Forest Protection Committee comprising, 1-2 members (one male and one
female) from each family of the village, were created to ensure sustained
participation. Executive Committee, comprising the FRC and Sarpanch,
Forest Department Staff, representative of NGO working in the area and Head
of the Women’s Sub committee as ex-officio members, were created.
Recently, local State governments have requested the GoI to set up Forest
Development Agencies (FDAs), which will be apex federation bodies of such
institutions at the district level. The legally registered FDAs will receive
funding for afforestation and regeneration activities and converge with other
development programs of the state. A certain percentage of revenue from the
sale of forest harvest will be ploughed back to fund the afforestation
activities.

iv) Implementation
and Monitoring Forest Protection Committees, with support from local Forest Departments
are mandated to jointly manage the forests. A local executive committee
constituting members of the village and a Panchayat member is formed. The
local forester generally acts as the secretary of the committee. The committee
routinely monitors the forest and takes decisions vis-à-vis resource
management. A periodical micro-plan is prepared to incorporate measures
and works that would be undertaken to manage the forest for a specific period
of time. The FPC would be entitled to some benefits of the forest products
(generally all of non-timber forest products) and a significant share of the
income from final felling of the forest. The registered bodies will receive
funding to afforestation and regeneration activities. The conflicts arising
among JFM committees will be resolved by state level representative forums
Rao Enoch Siraj Pediredla P38096 Section B

or working groups formed by the respective State Governments. This forum/

group will include representatives from all the stakeholders. The JFMC also
enables collaborate with NGOs who are interested in undertaking forest
conservation and management works. The monitoring of progress and the
performance of this program is to be undertaken at the district and state level.

v) Operation and The FPC and the Executive Committee, comprising local residents, state and
Maintenance civil society members, are responsible for the smooth operation and
functioning of the JFM activities. However, several studies have shown that
FPCs/ FDAs are majorly controlled by the forest department. Moreover, the
Forest Department and the local communities share a heirachial relationship5.
The top-down approach of the concerned Forest Departments as well as the
inadequate devaluation of powers and lack of transparency has led to low
capacity building of the FPC members, which has effectively given control of
the committees to the forest departments. The effect of such top-down
approach is the failure of micro-level plans drawn by the communities, given
the lack of participatory approach in formulation, tend to degrade the forests
over time; this is due to the incoherent species selection process, which fail to
meet the local needs, in favor of long run revenue yielding teak and sal
species.

vi) Impact and JFM were constituted to protect and regenerate forests with help from local
Outcomes communities, which will help improve their livelihoods. However, no
significant change in forest cover has been observed6. According to official
data, JFM committees were formed in 28,181 villages, covering over 10
million hectares of forests in 2008. The survival rate of plantations ranged
from 68 to 82% across different zones, especially in the initial years of
protection. JFM was able to catalyze the development of rural production
systems through soil and water conservation and enhanced bio- mass
production.

In Haryana, it was observed that people’s involvement in protection led to a

significant increase in tree density. However, it should be noted that not all
societies successfully regenerated the forests, given the lack of traditional
rights and conflicts due to inadequate inputs during the regeneration efforts.

5
Douglas Hill. (2000). Assessing the promise and limitations of Joint Forest Management in an era of globalisation:
the case of West Bengal
6
(21.23% in 2013 which was 19.52% in 1987).
Rao Enoch Siraj Pediredla P38096 Section B

Regeneration efforts were aimed to increase wage employment opportunities

and income generation for the locals. However, on the other hand, restrictions
accompanying the protection measures curtailed the rights the communities
dependent on the forests7. Combining watershed management with forest
rehabilitation improved soil fertility and irrigation conditions incentivizing
people to participate in forest protection proactively. It has also led to creation
of biomass outside the forests. It also led to improvement in dairy and animal
husbandry. JFM increased fodder production8 in the villages of Gujarat
although no significant gains were observed in fuel wood poorer households
were significantly less benefited than wealthier households; moreover, in
certain cases, by the advent of participatory forestry in their villages, the
villagers were at a disadvantage. A major cause of this inequity was that FPC
(Forest Protection Committees) are dominated by wealthier households.
Forests were managed below their productive potential and only a limited
proportion of forest product needs of the members were derived from JFM.
The problems identified are as follows:

a. limited support from District Forest Office

b. limited access of committee members to new information

c. limited knowledge and technique for forest management

d. limited access of the poor in the Forest Protection Committees (FPC)

decision-making

e. inappropriate arrangements for forest products distribution, and

emphasis on forest protection rather than management

vii) Lessons and The external support and technical assistance to FPCs after they were formed
Feedback was inadequate and site-specific plans that reflect local conditions were
lacking, thus, only achieving forest protection but not effective management
of the forest. Some anomalies which propped up include constituted inequity
and unfairness at the local and national level and in terms of long-term

7
Bishwa Bhaskar Choudhary1 , Pitambara2* and S.K. Srivastava3. (2017). Evaluating the Joint Forest
Management: A Review of Impact, Performance and Constraints. International Journal of Pure and
Applied Bioscience.
8
HS. Shylendra (2002) 'Environmental Rehabilitation and Livelihood Impact: Emerging Trends from Ethiopia and
Gujarat' Economic and Political Weekly, 38(31).
Rao Enoch Siraj Pediredla P38096 Section B

sustainability of forest resources. Thus, JFM must face the present day
challenges of linking JFM with livelihood promotion, good governance, and
sustainable forest management. Strategic reforms in JFM should be created to
enable the participation of poor and backward communities in forest
protection activities as well as plantation, through the inclusion of
training/skilling programs, thus leading to income generating activities.