Please note - this article was originally published on the id21 website which has now closed. This and other articles produced by id21 were archived by Eldis in 2009 and are not actively maintained. If you find links and references which are no longer valid please email eldis@ids.ac.uk.

Forest futures: improving institutions for better rural livelihoods

How can forest-based livelihoods best be improved? Key constraints lie in the institutional environment - in the relationships between and within the forest department, forest users and the political environment. This Overseas Development Institute paper focuses on the Western Ghats Forestry Project (WGFP) in Karnataka, India, to illustrate the processes involved and the problems of supporting change within the institutional environment in which rural livelihoods are formed.

State Forest Departments in India, established in the nineteenth century when demands on forests were radically different from today, are typical public sector organisations. Hierarchical with an internal culture of fear and rigidity, they are characterised by centralised planning, factionalism, no long-term planning, frequent changes of leadership, and little public contact.

In response to concern by the Karnataka Forest Department that forest areas were being neglected, the WGFP was set up in 1987, to secure conservation objectives in forest areas of the Western Ghats. The paper presents a framework to analyse and consider the nature and functions of different agencies in the forest environment and examines the relationship between these agencies and development of livelihood assets. It focuses on attempts to change structures and processes within a forest sector delivery organisation: unless there is fundamental internal change within the main delivery organisation there will be little or no change in their external relationships with forest users, and no sustained change in access or influence over key livelihood assets.

Conclusions of this study include:

Forestry is closer to social sectors such as education and health rather than more privately manageable natural resource sectors. A clear public dimension exists, justifying collective action and forestry investment.
Benefits arising from an entire forest exceed those arising from individual trees, creating interest not just locally, but for the wider community as well, where affected by water catchments, micro- and meso-climates, and the global environment and so on.
Benefits from forestry are diverse and varied and often highly site-specific. Standard blanket solutions are rarely applicable.
The variety in products and services has distributional effects. Trees are a slow growing investment, often owned by wealthier groups who can defer returns. Yet this disregards regular incomes generated by the poorest groups from fuelwood and non-timber forest products.

The following policy implications emerged concerning the effectiveness of the external change process.

Support from the enabling framework is needed for process change at the frontline of the delivery agency and institutional change at the civil society level to be fully effective.
There is need for wider involvement in the construction of, and better communication of the vision for change as it evolves.
Conflict over objectives is inherent and should be tackled head on.
Debate over goals and vision must be both deep and wide within the delivery agency and managed across agencies and stakeholders and not limited to traditional delivery agencies.
It must be recognised, however, that change is never easy, and that the main delivery agency requires space to make adjustments, not just to processes but also to attitudes.

Source(s):
‘The Reality of Trying to Transform Structures and Processes: Forestry in Rural Livelihoods’ ODI Working Paper #132 by Mary Hobley and Dermot Shields (2000) Full document.
‘Sustainable Livelihoods: lessons from early experience’, London, DFID, by Ashley C, Carney D (1999)

Funded by: DFID (Rural Livelihoods Department)

id21 Research Highlight: 13 February 2001

Further Information:
Mary Hobley and Dermot Shields
Glebe House
Thorncombe
Chardd
Somerset TA20 4NE
UK

Contact the contributor: Mary_Hobley@compuserve.com

Livelihoods Connect

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DfID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Articles featured on the id21 site may be copied or quoted without restriction provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2009 IDS. All rights reserved.

id21 is funded by the UK Department for International Development. id21 is one of a family of knowledge services at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. id21 is a www.oneworld.net partner and an affiliate of www.mediachannel.org. IDS is a charitable company, No. 877338.