Here is an essay on ‘Joint Forest Management (JFM)’ for class 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Joint Forest Management (JFM)’ especially written for school and college students.
Essay on Joint Forest Management (JFM)
Essay # 1. Introduction to Joint Forest Management (JFM):
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Forest is an area having woody as well as non-woody vegetation, dominated largely by trees. It provides land for growing food, plays important role in economic development by providing employment and provides wood as well as non-wood products. In addition, forest plays important role in stabilizing the environment and checking soil erosion. Forest is also important as a carbon sink, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect.
But to meet the needs of the increasing population, deforestation is on rise. Many forest lands are being cleared for agriculture and other developmental works such as construction of roads, bridges, dams, etc. resulting into loss of forest cover. In developing countries like India, where a large population depends on forest for their daily requirements, importance of forest is being increasingly recognized and more so particularly in the context of ongoing changes in global climate.
Although afforestation programmes are being carried out through various governmental and non-governmental bodies like World Bank, SIDA, CIDA, USAID and DANIDA, the total area under forest cover is still declining. This is due to not only to deforestation, but also to the failure of afforestation programmes.
The success of afforestation depends on identifying suitable multipurpose trees for the specific location, using quality planting stock and after care or management of the plantations on participatory mode. In order to reduce the deforestation and forest depletion, a new paradigm has recently emerged, called “Joint Forest Management” (JFM).
This is the activity which involves participation of people in managing forest Village committees take part in safe guarding the forest. Forest department collaborate with the village people and share ownership and benefits. Thus JFM is a forestry practice or a management which sustains forest and produce social, environmental and economic benefits.
Essay # 2. Definition and Objectives of Joint Forest Management:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
JFM is defined as a concept of developing partnerships between fringe forest user groups and the Forest Department (FD) on the basis of mutual trust and jointly defined roles and responsibilities for forest protection and development. Another definition of JFM states ‘JFM is a forest management strategy under which the Government (represented by the Forest Department) and the village community enter into an agreement to jointly protect and manage forestlands adjoining villages and to share responsibilities and benefits’ (Government of India 2002).
JFM has several objectives:
i. To analyze the history of forest use and management
ii. To analyze the social and economic characteristics of forest users and interrelationships of these factors
ADVERTISEMENTS:
iii. To analyze the relevance of appropriate cultural factors
iv. To appraise the perspective of forest users and forestry staff
Essay # 3. Origin and Evolution of Joint Forest Management:
To understand the concept and process of Joint Forest Management (JFM) in India, one needs to delve into the evolution of the forest policy and legislations in the country. Though the initial set of policies and laws on forestry date back to the colonial period and the immediate post-independence period, one notices a paradigm shift in India’s forest policy and legislations in the 1980s, with the passage of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. This Act highlighted the primacy of conservation of forests over the previous emphasis on utilizing ‘forests’ for meeting the requirements of agriculture and industry.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The first forest policy of India was enacted during the British period in 1894. This policy was centrally influenced by the Volcker Commission Report, which posited forests to be a biomass provider for the agricultural sector. After independence, the Government of India enacted a new forest policy in the year 1952 that, while largely subscribing to the philosophy of the 1894 policy, nevertheless highlighted the functional classification of forests.
The 1952 policy classified forests into protection forests, national forests, village forests and tree lands. The policy recommended weaning of tribes from shifting cultivation practices and controlling of grazing and other activities in forest areas. Functional classification presupposed that forests had to be typified in terms of their relative ability to sub serve agricultural and industrial systems in India.
Accordingly, forests in hilly regions had to be preserved and protected on account of their possible role in preventing soil erosion and water runoff from agricultural catchments. Forests that had the potential for timber and related raw materials required for the industry were to be exploited on the basis of ‘scientific working plans’ to yield raw materials. Meanwhile, in 1973, the National Commission on Agriculture came up with the idea of production forestry based on ‘high productivity’ man-made plantations.
A string of forest development corporations was accordingly set up in the late 1970s to ‘corporatize’ the process of production forestry in India. This development was in consonance with the prescriptions of the National Forest Policy 1952. In the late 1970s, the Government of India and the State Governments initiated the social forestry movement with a view to carrying out tree planting in and around village areas. This was ostensibly designed to meet the growing demand for firewood and small wood required by the local communities. It was also in line with the thinking implicit in the National Forest Policy of 1952.
In the middle and late 1970s, the spread of the ‘Chipko’ movement in the U.P. hills led to a situation where the accepted tenets of the 1952 National Forest Policy were questioned by the environmental movements in the country. The adverse consequences of large-scale diversion of forestlands to non-forestry purposes (which hit an astounding rate of 1,50,000 hectares per year prior to the 1980s), were too glaring to be ignored by the policy makers.
Accordingly, Forest Conservation Act of 1980 was enacted by the Government of India to check diversion of forestlands for non-forestry purposes. This act made it obligatory for State Governments to seek prior approval of the Central Government for undertaking diversion of forestlands for non-forestry purposes.
Meanwhile, in pursuance of the 1972 Wildlife (Protection) Act, the Government of India set up an extensive network of protected areas in the country. By the end of the 1980s, protected areas accounted for 13.6 million hectares with the constitution of nearly 70 national parks and 411 wildlife sanctuaries in different parts of the country.
The other major development was the growing protest against forest plantations in different parts of the country. The movement against Eucalyptus plantations in the early 1980s raised serious questions about the ecological desirability of raising industry-oriented monoculture tree plantations in Indian forest areas. The key issue was how to resolve the growing biomass shortage for agriculture.
The social forestry programme initiated in mid- 1970s had aimed to raise fuel wood and biomass generating plantations in non-forest lands. But track record of the program was dismal. Further the program suffered for want of the participatory element. These concerns caused the Government of India and the States to shift their policy towards a massive afforestation programme in the wastelands of the country, which were estimated to be of the order of 175 million hectares.
The National Wasteland Development Board (NWDB) was set up in the year 1985 to promote the afforestation process in community and private lands, with the involvement of stakeholders. The NWDB schemes included establishment of rural fuel wood plantations, treatment of micro-watersheds in Himalayan States, promotion of tree grower’s cooperatives, establishment of people’s nurseries and farm forestry activities. In due course, afforestation programs of the NWDB were restructured to cover degraded forestlands as well.
Despite these initiatives, the trend of depletion of forest cover in India continued unabated. Working plans were not successful in conserving forests. The Forest Survey of India came up with the finding that only in 15 per cent of the forest area covered by working plans, adequate regeneration was noticed. Fire and grazing were held to be the culprits in this regard.
Further, it was noted that in over 60 per cent of the area covered by the Working Plans, the annual cut exceeded the increment on account of unauthorized felling (Government of India 1991). Between 1983 and 1987, the country lost forest cover at the rate of 47,500 hectares per annum. However, these developments were not without their exceptions.
The success of two community-driven “greening” movements in India opened the eyes of the policy makers to the immense potential afforded by people’s participation in the management of forests. The first one was a community-based forest conservation movement initiated in Araberi in Midnapur District of West Bengal State during 1971-72, while the second one was a grassroots movement in the Sukhomajri village in Haryana in the 1980s, to rejuvenate forests and agricultural systems in the village.
In Araberi, the movement was triggered by a Silviculturist of the State Forest Department, who by offering incentives to local communities induced them to protect and regenerate degraded Sal forests. The local communities, which were organized into ‘Forest Protection Committees’ (FPCs), successfully protected the degraded forests from illegal felling, overgrazing, fire and encroachment.
In Sukhomajri of Haryana State, the movement started from amongst the people. Construction of earthen dams stabilized agricultural output in the village. Forests in and around Sukhomajri village regenerated as a result. The regenerated forests in turn provided valuable biomass, including bhabar grass to local communities.
These instances awakened the policy makers at the Central Government to the need to go beyond the legalistic “Forest Conservation Act 1980”. Institutional measures for arresting the alarming trend of forest depletion in the country were actively considered. The National Forest Policy 1988 was accordingly enacted by the Government of India with a strong focus on conservation, environmental stability and ecological balance through association of tribals and local communities in protection, regeneration and development of forests.
In pursuance of the National Forest Policy of 1988, the Government of India issued a ‘circular’ in June 1990 for involvement of village communities and village associations (VAs) in the regeneration of degraded forest lands. This marked the birth of the Joint Forest Management (JFM) movement in India.
Events generated by the 1990 circular forced the pace for the formation of the National Afforestation and Eco-Development Board (NAEB) in the year 1993, which was given the mandate of focusing its activities on degraded forest lands. The NWDB focused on its original mandate i.e., afforestation of community and non-forest wastelands. Subsequently while the NAEB functioned under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the NWDB was shifted to the Ministry of Rural Development.
Essay # 4. Principle and Scope of Joint Forest Management:
The main principle of JFM is to motivate the forest communities to protect the forest from over exploitation so that it meets the subsistence needs of the rural poor. JFM represents a significant shift in India’s forest policy that balances community and government interest while remaining sensitive to local conditions, institutions and forest dependence.
Scope:
The scope of joint forest management has been largely confined to degraded forest areas, though in certain cases such as Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal, non-degraded forestlands have also been covered under the JFM.
Essay # 5. Structures of Joint Forest Management:
Until recently, Forest Protection Committees (FPC) were by and large not legal bodies as they were not recognized or registered under the Societies Registration Act or through related, enabling legislations. However, States such as Gujarat, Karnataka and Rajasthan had provided for registration of FPCs under the Cooperative Societies Act in the early stages itself. Structures and nomenclatures of JFM have varied from State to State.
In general, one can delineate the following structure for JFM. The base of the JFM structure, which comprises village level institutions, is referred to as forest protection committees. These bodies include a “General Body” and a “Core” or “Executive” or “Management Committee (MC)” elected by the General Body for discharging the assigned functions. The General Body comprises eligible members of the village. The eligibility criteria for membership vary from State to State. In most States, adults are eligible for joining the General Body.
The General Body elects the local community representatives in the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee has elected members ranging in numbers from 5 to 15. It also includes ex-officio, non-elected members drawn from the Forest Departments, local NGOs, village schools, village administrative and development officers and in some cases representatives of the Gram or Mandal Panchayats.
The States of Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab give representation for underprivileged communities and castes and women in the Executive Committee. Andhra Pradesh has moved towards compulsory 30 per cent representation for women in the Executive Committee.
The States of Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh require inclusion of two women representatives in the Executive Committee and provide for both ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from a given household to be members of a General Body. The term of the Executive Committee is generally for two years in most of the States.
However, in Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tripura and West Bengal, the tenure is one year. In Karnataka, Nagaland and Tamil Nadu, the tenure of the Executive Committee is five years. The Executive Committee undertakes decision-making, planning and implementation of management plans.
Powers of Forest Protection Committees:
The functioning of FPCs in the post-1990 phase indicates that there are widespread inter-State differences, when it comes to grant of execution of powers by Forest Protection Committees. Different States give different flexibilities to FPCs in the matter of administrative, executive and financial powers.
Nevertheless, the standard parameters of power granted to forest protection committees can be broadly categorized as under:
i. Framing of rules governing management of forests.
ii. Administrative powers for convening meetings of General Body and Management Committee meetings.
iii. Voting rights in Management/Executive Committees.
iv. Punitive powers – i.e., powers for punishing and imposing fines on offenders.
v. Rights to collect specific resources and sell them.
vi. Distribution of benefits arising from conservation and regeneration.
vii. Cancellation of membership of recalcitrant members.
viii. Financial powers – to incur expenses, maintain accounts.
Essay # 6. Salient Features of Joint Forest Management:
It encourages the development of partnerships between local people and forest department to manage forest lands jointly. It provides a communication structure for consultation and negotiation between forest department and forest users and provides legalized access for the local communities to forest lands.
JFM encourages local people to protect forest areas in order to prevent free grazing of livestock and to assist in preventing illegal activities by outsiders. JFM assures local people that a certain proportion of the intermediate and final harvests from forest lands will accrue to them.
Essay # 7. Traditions and Experience of Joint Forest Management:
JFM is an old concept and a traditional way of managing forest lands. But with rapid increase in population, there is high pressure on forest. By the middle of the 19th century, Indian forest used to be managed scientifically. The royal commission on agriculture examined the role of forest.
It favoured establishing plantation of fuel wood along the river banks, streams etc. and recommended that forest lands be given to village people. After that, taungya system evolved in Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Northeast India.
Taungya System:
Three types of Taungya system are being practiced in India:
i. Departmental Taungya:
Forest department engages local people for planting trees and raising agricultural crops and management is done by forest department.
ii. Leased Taungya:
In this system, the local communities are given land on lease and management is done by the local communities who have got lease.
iii. Village Taungya:
A land is given to people for planting trees and management is also done by them.
Advantages:
It is a cheap means of obtaining artificial regeneration of forest lands. It involves local communities in managing plantation and helps in protection of forest. It also generates employment to local people.
Disadvantages:
It reduces soil fertility and causes soil erosion. It is more prone to epidemics or insect attack. Allotting forest land to local communities creates problems of ownership and tenurial rights. It also causes exploitation of human labour.
Traditional forestry practices such as home gardens and tree farms have been in practice since time immemorial to meet the demands of forest resources by the local communities. Some trees are planted and managed for commercial purposes which are known as cash crops.
Essay # 8. Joint Forest Management and Forest Policies:
With reference to JFM, forest policies had an influence on people’s participation in forestry. Some forest policies evolved and provisions were laid out in different forest policies. People in olden days lived in harmony and did not have any problems in accessing the forest resources.
National Forest Policy 1894 was enacted which stressed on conserving forest and maintaining environment stability and to the basic needs of those people residing near the forest. The policy was then revised in 1952 which give importance to social forestry and agroforestry.
The policy proposed that the forest cover should be 33 per cent of the total geographical area. The national forest policy was once again revised in 1988 which encourages the community to participate in protection and regeneration of forests and to manage the forest resource sustainably.
Essay # 9. Role of NWFPs in Joint Forest Management:
Non-wood forest products have significant importance and attraction in JFM system. NWFPs are integral to the lifestyle of forest-dependent communities. They fulfill basic requirements, provide gainful employment during lean periods and supplement incomes from agriculture and wage labour.
Medicinal plants have an important role in rural health. In parts of West Bengal, communities derive as much as 17 per cent of their annual household income from NWFP collection and sale. Small- scale forest-based enterprises, many of which rely on NWFPs, provide up to 50 per cent of the income for about 25 per cent of India’s rural labour force.
Second, NWFPs have a decided advantage over timber in terms of the time needed to achieve significant volumes of commercially valuable production. Timber production is a long-term endeavour and in many areas, timber harvesting may not be ecologically desirable.
Moreover, many NWFPs become available even in the earliest stages of rehabilitation of degraded forest areas. Third, at the national level over 50 per cent of forest revenue and about 70 per cent of forest export revenue comes from NWFPs, mostly from unprocessed and raw forms.
Thus NWFP management has clear ecological, social and economic benefits. Managing forests for multiple products including NWFPs and adding value to them at the local level are two of the most pressing challenges facing the JFM programme.
In attempts to optimize the production of multiple products to meet the objectives of the various stakeholders, due attention should be paid to the potential for sustainable production of NWFPs in forest management efforts, including JFM arrangements. The true spirit of JFM gets translated only when forests are also managed to meet the people’s needs.
Control of NWFPs by State:
Traditionally, the collection of NWFPs has been of low intensity and generally sustainable. However, as the economic potential of NWFPs has become apparent, the intensity of collection has increased and more significant infrastructures for trade and processing have developed. This has raised concerns for the sustainability of the resources and the distribution of the benefits derived from them.
In reaction to these concerns, a number of State Governments have taken over the control of a number of NWFPs. The state regulations bringing certain NWFPs under monopoly trade are summarized in Table 32.1.
Some of the explicit objectives for state monopoly of NWFP trade are:
i. To prevent unscrupulous intermediaries and their agents from exploiting NWFP collectors
ii. To ensure fair wages to collectors
iii. To enhance revenue for the state
iv. To ensure quality
v. To maximize the collection of produce
In most cases, trading is controlled through State-owned institutions such as State forest development corporations, federations, cooperatives and tribal societies. In Odisha, however, where the Forest Produce (Control and Trade) Act of 1981 provides the scope for a state monopoly on certain selected forest products. The State also has the option to give monopoly leases for collection and trade of forest products.
In fact, the State has granted monopoly rights for 29 NWFP items to a private company, Utkal Forest Products Ltd. Under this agreement, the local people who collect NWFPs are required to sell their collected materials to the company’s agents at preset prices that are lower than those they could have obtained by selling directly to processors. It is noteworthy that some of the 29 items yield very insignificant amounts of revenue yet have nevertheless been taken under the state monopoly.
Essay # 10. Extent of Joint Forest Management in India:
On 1st June 1990, Government of India issued guidelines to the State Governments for involving local communities in the protection and development of the degraded forest. Based on this, JFM programme has been widely adopted in several States. It is a powerful tool and aims at empowering people to participate actively in the management of forest resources to derive benefits and to improve their livelihoods. The forest cover and the area under JFM are shown in Table 32.2.
It shows that West Bengal has more than half of its forest area under JFM followed by Madhya Pradesh with more than 60 per cent of its forest area under JFM. There are 84,632 JFM committees covering the states in India. About 83,84,788 families are involved in JFM process (Table 32.3).
Odisha has the highest number of JFMCs (15,985) and Madhya Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal also have large number of JFM committees.
Essay # 11. Causes for Poor Performance of Joint Forest Management:
Different studies regarding the implementation of JFM in different parts of the country attribute the following negative features that have hampered the functioning of FPCs/VFCs:
i. Lack of legal status and financial and executive powers for FPCs.
ii. Forest Department in certain States vested with arbitrary powers to dissolve FPCs.
iii. Faulty design of micro-plans and management plans.
iv. Absence of participation by women in spite of their formal representation in management committees.
v. Unreasonable controls over the duration of exploitation of admitted resources leading to low level of exploitation of admitted NTFPs.
vi. Excessive rule and regulations.
vii. Inadequate remuneration for local communities from JFM activities.
viii. Inter and intra-community conflicts that hamper FPC functioning.
ix. Denial of rights on disposal over valuable NTFPs to local communities.
Essay # 12. Joint Forest Management and Microplans:
Micro-planning is a process of linkage of local people with local programmes. This is a plan for linkage of resource available or to be generated of identified area with specific individuals/ groups through consultation with the planners. The main aim of JFM micro- planning is to prepare a forest management plan.
Micro-planning should take care of the followings:
i. Group facilitation
ii. Options regarding choice of species
iii. Views of weaker sections (passive group women)
iv. Using terms as local practice
v. Avoiding lead question
vi. Avoiding those answers already known
vii. Avoiding sensitive questions directly, example encroachment, politics etc.
viii. Format should be very simple to understand.
Needs of JFM Micro-Planning:
JFM micro-planning needs to ensure people participation in management of forest. It should help to access the needs of the participating community and scope for development of the region or resource. It needs to plan, project and regulate the benefit flow to the participant in consultation with them. It should identify and highlight the local resources and set priorities for resource development based on site conditions and available funds.
The process of micro-plan formulation includes:
i. To explain the purpose to Forest Protection Committee in preliminary meeting.
ii. To identify resources on map with the help of villagers (men, women and young people).
iii. Beat officer prepares a draft micro-plan in consultation with the villagers on the basis of need assessment and resources.
iv. Plan is then sent to Ranger who compiles sector wise programmes and financial requirements, and sends it to DFO.
v. DFO, having small committee including ACF and Rangers, finalizes all plan allocation and draft plans are revised.
vi. They discuss about revised draft plan and finalize it.
vii. Each copy is sent to DFO, Beat Officer and forest protection committees.
Benefits of Micro-Planning in Joint Forest Management:
i. Two way flow of information during planning
ii. People’s participation in resource management
iii. Problem solving at local level
iv. Site specific and need based plan preparation
v. Fixing realistic objectives
vi. Linkage of users and planners
vii. Better identification of local resources
viii. Keeping aspirations and expectation within achievable limit by consent
ix. Reduction of conflict
x. Better chance of success
xi. Ensure grassroots monitoring and evaluation
Essay # 13. Participatory Assessment and Planning by Joint Forest Management:
It is a process for determining the availability of natural resources, identification of problems, gathering information and identifying the activities which can be implemented.
Participatory assessment has multiple objectives such as finding the status of natural resources in the village and how sustainable management is done, and level of dependence of the community on these natural resources.
This helps in building cooperation and strengthening relationship between the community and the staff of forest department. The local community could understand better about the JFM activity through participatory assessment and planning and the information generated by participatory assessment can be used in base line survey and evaluation of the activity.
Participatory Planning:
It is a developmental plan generated by the local communities.
It consists of the following aspects:
1. Natural Resource Management:
This plan provides improvement, regeneration and sustainable management.
2. Enhancing Production:
This is a plan for sustainable enhancement of forest produce.
3. Enterprise and Market Support:
Communities make a plan for developing forest enterprise as well as forest based products.
4. Management of Capital and Funds:
This is very important before implementation of the plan.
5. Social/Institutional Support:
This is also important for implementation of the plan.
6. Phased Plan:
Activities should be planned according to seasons.
7. Flexibility:
This is important so that any change can be made in future if necessary.
8. Monitoring and Evaluation:
Provisions are made for this.
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA):
It is a process of learning about the conditions of the rural areas in a very intensive way. It is a tool which involves local community in order to acquire information and to enhance understanding of rural conditions and combines with scientific expertise. It is based on the assumptions that the communities have more knowledge about the problems faced by them and motivates the local community to participate in this exercise so that their problems are mitigated.
Following are the tools used in PRA:
(1) Stakeholder analysis with the help of Venn diagram (also known as chapatti diagrams).
(2) Gender analysis shows the role of women and needs for involving in the exercise.
(3) Community needs assessment depending on the local conditions needs, problems and solutions are assessed.
(4) Time/history of the village, year of development of schools, hospital are recorded.
(5) Participatory mapping includes resource maps and social maps.
(6) Wealth and well-being ranking
(7) Transect work
(8) Cropping pattern
(9) Seasonal calendar
(10) Matrix scoring/ranking tree species, crop variety and uses of land.
(11) Livelihood analysis
(12) Mobility mapping
Rapid Rural Appraisal:
It is an important tool for creation, collection, analysis and management of information. Following are the salient features. It is seen as a learning process and less time consuming. It is site specific and information can be analyzed during the process of information generation. Results are reliable.
The constraints are:
i. New technique that has to be widely adopted under a diverse range.
ii. Methods varies by different experts.
iii. Personal bias if professional is inexperienced.
The tools include semi-structured interviews, group level interviews and observation. The methods consist of Triangulation, pre-existing data, interviews and multi-disciplinary team interactions.
Essay # 14. Training and Joint Forest Management:
Training is an activity to develop and upgrade the skills and knowledge of an individual, person or group of persons or a community. There are different types of training viz., Induction training, professional training, field training etc. The duration depends on the local conditions. Extension tools for JFM consist of processes in which the information is transferred to the people which gain knowledge of skills and utilization of the information given to them.
Different extension tools and methods are:
i. Farm and home visits
ii. General meetings
iii. Group contacts
iv. Method demonstration
v. Results demonstration
vi. Campaign
vii. Voluntary local leadership
viii. Conducted tours
ix. Exhibitions
x. Publications
xi. Enquiries
xii. Mass media
xiii. Audio and visual aids
Essay # 15. Externally Aided Projects for Joint Forest Management:
According to Ravindranath et al. (2000), JFM has been particularly successful in States, which have received external assistance for forestry projects. The States of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal have received external assistance, which the authors attribute as the reason for the States bringing in a higher percentage of open forests under JFM. The details of the different donor agencies and the projects they have funded in these States are given in Table 32.4.
However there are problems in assuming that JFM has worked well in all States that have benefited from externally aided projects. The States of Kerala and Maharashtra, which have benefited from externally aided projects, have not really performed well in terms of the multiple criteria for evaluating JFM success.
While Maharashtra has done well in terms of coverage but the structuring of FPCs in this State has not been in accordance with the objective of empowering communities. Similarly the State of Kerala, despite having the benefit of World Bank assisted Social Forestry Project, has not extended the JFM concept beyond “pilot zones”.
Evaluation Criteria and Factors Conducive to Success of JFM:
JFM, in its essence, is an institutional incentive for biodiversity conservation. UNEP (1996) categorizes three broad diagnostic tools for adjudging the effectiveness of different incentives (including institutions) in the matter of biodiversity conservation.
These tools center on “constraints” which could be “formal” (i.e. arising from laws, legislation policies), “social” (involvement or non-involvement of social groups and individuals having a stake in the conservation of the resource) and/or “compliance” (arising from actual ‘non-compliance’ to the scheme of conservation for which the incentives have been instituted).
Smith (1997) views incentives from the point of view of their efficiency as reflected in administration costs. In the context of JFM, various studies have viewed JFM performance in terms of multiple criteria. These include frameworks developed by Sarin (1993), Raju et al (1993) and SPWD (1992).
Following Sarin (1993), the framework for analysis of community level institutions can be considered as including the following parameters:
i. Viable, social unit of organization
ii. Organizational norms and procedures
iii. Accountability mechanism (transparancy, equity and democratization)
iv. Conflict resolution mechanisms
v. Autonomous status
Raju et al (1993) consider six basic traits of community level institutions, namely:
i. Transparency
ii. Clarity of rules
iii. Level of awareness
iv. Initiative and independence
v. Tenure security
vi. Satisfaction of basic needs
The Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development (1992) considers JFM to be successful where:
i. Existence of strong community forest management group
ii. High degree of homogeneity within the community and this may be highest where the community is a homogenous tribal group
iii. Effective leadership
iv. Easy access to rules and regulations
v. High degree of environmental concern among the members
vi. Community attaches a high level of importance to social/religious roles of forests
vii. Shared perception of acute resource scarcity
All these approaches serve as useful diagnostic parameters. However, what is common to them is their emphasis on the ‘efficiency’, ‘effectiveness’ and ‘ramification’ criteria for assessing JFM. The policy-intent or the philosophical approach is not scrutinized.