Joint Forest Management in India: failing the poorest people

In 1992, the state government of Andhra Pradesh in India introduced Participatory Forest Management - initially under the Joint Forestry Management scheme, then the Community Forest Management scheme. Their aim was to involve local people in the management of forest resources, but what impact has this had?

At least 10 million people in Andhra Pradesh (14 percent of the population) depend on forests, either through agriculture or collecting forest products. A report coordinated by the University of East Anglia in the UK assesses the impact of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) on these people.

Almost half of forest dependents are tribal people who have traditionally practiced ‘podu’, a system of forest agriculture in which farmers move from place to place when soil productivity declines. Despite practicing this for generations, they have not being granted formal land ownership rights, by either the colonial or independent Indian state. As a result, most have insecure livelihoods and live in marginal forest areas.

The state forest department obtained substantial World Bank funding to promote PFM practices to protect degraded forests. Local people were seen as partners in forest protection through the Vana Samarakshyan Samiti (VSS) committee, and were given rights to collect and use forest products.

However, PFM did not give communities secure land tenure and restricted their access to podu land. PFM practices also lacked a strong legal basis and failed to significantly develop people’s livelihoods. A survey of three representative districts in Andhra Pradesh showed:

• The Forest Department prioritised long-term timber production and planted exotic tree species on podu lands without properly consulting local people. However, local people depend on non-timber forest products, which meet everyday needs and provide immediate income.
• The restrictions on podu led to an 18 percent decline in income from this source for the poorest people and 20 percent for less poor households. Food security also declined, with tribal groups worst affected.
• Attendance at management committee meetings was low; participants were mostly men and meetings were dominated by powerful local groups.
• Participation was generally perfunctory: the Forest Department decided the key issues, and local people participated by doing the activities they were instructed.
• Women were not allowed to express their views or even collect bank cheques for VSS payments.

Problems with PFM, as implemented in Andhra Pradesh, are mainly due to persistent power inequalities between local people and the state, and the limited devolution of power. PFM is only likely to succeed if local people have the power to plan long-term forest management while maintaining their immediate income, which requires secure land tenure.

The researchers recommend that policymakers:

• improve tenure security for local communities, by implementing the 2006 Forest Rights Act and amending the 1967 Andhra Pradesh Forest Act
• accept the importance of podu for food security
• empower local people to manage their own forests, with support from the Forest Department (particularly suppressing criminal timber gangs)
• let local people select appropriate species for planting, such as multi-purpose and horticultural trees, medicinal plants and bamboo, which rapidly provide income
• improve fair access to markets for forest products
• empower women to attend and take part in VSS meetings and collect bank cheques personally.

Source(s):
‘Participatory Forest Management in Andhra Pradesh: Implementation, Outcomes and Livelihood Impacts’, by V. Ratna Reddy, M. Gopinath Reddy, Madhusudan Bandi, V.M. Ravi Kumar, M. Srinivasa Reddy and Oliver Springate-Baginski in ‘Forests, People and Power: The Political Ecology of Reform in South Asia’ pages 302-332, Earthscan Forestry Library, edited by Oliver Springate-Baginski and Piers Blaikie, 2007

Funded by: UK Department For International Development Forestry Research Programme

id21 Research Highlight: 14 November 2007

Further Information:
Oliver Springate-Baginski
Overseas Development Group
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ
UK

Tel: +44 1603 59283
Fax: +44 1603 591170
Contact the contributor: oliver.springate@uea.ac.uk

University of East Anglia, UK

Other related links:
'Community forestry in Nepal – are poor people winners or losers?'

'Supporting community forest management in Lao PDR'

'Key issues in effective joint forest management'

See id21's links for forestry