Anda di halaman 1dari 29

Year 2000.

A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

1.Lessons and Future Research issues in JFM:

Ø The policy of JFM is still not very clear and needs revision in light of

experiences like Kheda and Mathwa villages. So that it can develop


to a national programme character, which is not at present.
Ø Role of facilitators (NGOs) need to be given official status to

intervene in matters related to conservation and benefit sharing on


sustainable basis. Currently they have no official status (as it is in new
GR of Madhya Pradesh).
Ø Comprehensive programme is needed, to promote JFM on larger

scale with community and NGO active participation. For this the
State should invite and involve more and more NGOs as it has done
in National Watershed programme and PIM in Andhra Pradesh.
Ø Separate budgets to be allocated for JFM execution with clear

project outlines. This only can ensure proper and sustainable growth
of forests. Currently many state forest departments are not convinced
on the fact that Forest Protection Committees are capable of
managing funds and forests.
Ø There should be a mix of ecological and economic goals in

community conservation projects like JFM. Currently the state


officials are promoting JFM on pure ecological lines and people are
demanding viable economic returns (NTFPs, small Timber, Wood,
etc).
Ø There should be clear‘ institutional structure’ to promote JFM from

grassroots, to ensure its proper execution right from State


1
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

headquarters to grassroots. Currently the officials have no obligation


or duty to serve on JFM and the portfolio often shunted between
different sections with in department and MoEF.
Ø It is generally not sustainable to manage CPR forests without

political will in Legislature and administrative commitment in


Executive. Experiences like Kheda or Mathwa are clear examples.
Ø The issue of succession, increase in family size are some of the

hurdles in managing the JFM forests on long term.


Ø Gender issues, if not considered at the initial stage, status of women

perhaps, will not change in later course even after reservation of


their seats in Executive Committee or on any other decision making
body.

2
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

2. INTRODUCTION:
The CPR forest situation in India has emerged out of interesting
historical developments in the last century. British presence in the late-
18th century started to change land and forest usage (communal to state
ownership) pattern in India. Guided by commercial interests the forests
were viewed as crown lands and alienated the people from their former
common resource regimes, leading to over use of resources. Later in the
post independence era, after abolition of the princely states and
landlordism, all uncultivated lands went under the State control
(Poffernberger and McGean (1996). Large tracts were handed over to
Forest Department as ‘protected forests’ and the remaining were vested
with village Panchayats(local governance) or under district collectorate
as revenue lands.

No longer we are in a position to blame oldies for all the misdeeds we


carried out in post independence era. After all, how long one can blame
‘East India Company’ or others for forest destruction, when what we
mismanaged in later part is of greater concern. Massive felling of trees
took place in these forests (under ex-princely states) because of the fear
that they would be nationalised, as indeed they were in 1950s and 60s.
For several years this impression has continued in the villages that if
trees are planted on private lands, not only would the trees belong to
government but the land on which such planting occurs would also
revert to government (N.C. Saxena 1998). This attitude was strikingly

3
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

visible in the experiences of prominent NGOs who tried to promote


farm and agro forestry in 70s in the tribal regions.
Similar developments observed in Gujarat where there were more
princely states. Most lands classified as forest lands were inherited from
some 200 ex-princely states. The local rulers leased out forests to
contractors for timber felling (ibid. 108) before they were inherited by
State (GOI). People were involved in large scale in these operations.
The same commons were logged in this period. British might have used
it for infrastructure development in past, but after independence, the
logging was indiscriminate and mere wastage of natural resource.

Adding to this, the strong cooperative movement in the state of Gujarat


where the timber logging contract was transferred from forest
contractors to the cooperatives to enable communities earn higher
incomes from forest harvests. The leaders of these cooperatives wielded
considerable political influence, and some built up large capital bases
(Femconsult 1995). In the later part, high industrialisation influenced
people from less-developed tribal regions to migrate in large scale,
leaving the commons to their fate. On the other hand the farm forestry
which was successful by 80s in some corners, reduced the dependency of
people on commons and hence ignored where it was not successful,
people up-rooted the remaining root stock to meet domestic needs.

With the increasing population pressures the need for agriculture land
forced people towards encroaching commons. When the forest
4
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

department tried to plant trees on the commons they were often


removed by people to demonstrate their right over these lands.
Successive governments also regularised(privatise) these
encroachments. This raised concerns over the political will favoring
commons? However, N.C.Saxena felt that, the political system has
generally been resilient and responsive to public opinion, which can be
built up without a proletarian revolution being a necessary pre-
condition. This lights some ray of hope for future of CPR forests which
are clouded.

Joint Forest Management has come in way addressing some of the


issues pertinent to forest rehabilitation. The national figures may be
rosy. Perhaps greater clarity in resolving some of the bottlenecks would
mean a world of difference to CPR forests. In some states, the lack of
consistency in political will to promote JFM has lead to a situation
where the enabling agencies (NGO and Forest Department) strive in
mutually conflicting situations, antagonizing each other.

On the other hand, several studies concluded that the short-term


political motivation of the panchayat leaders and cattle pressure would
not allow community managed plantations to continue for very long.
Panchayats are often political organisations, with difficulties in meeting
financial responsibilities in CPR management from their own sources.
More over the political rivalry often leads to factionalism that deter the
CPR status. However, as a section of 3 tier administrative structure,
5
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

panchayaats gained serious status in governance at grassroots. 73rd


amendment also gave various privileges to panchayats in managing and
controlling the village resource system.

Unfortunately, still many Panchayats in India still not fully aware about
their powers and duties towards communal resources. Evidences suggest
that, even though Panchayats were given rights to take control the non-
timber forest produce (NTFP), they seldom succeed in channeling the
benefits to village or village poor. In India, these commodities so far
controlled and marketed together by bureaucracy (Forest Development
Corporations) and market (local dealers) where the common man
remained as mere manual laborer.

Empirical studies suggests that factors such as village size, homogeneity,


remoteness, dependency over the commons, location of the CPR forests
and leadership attitude lead to success of CPR management. All the
above factors are generally does not exist and positively influence the
CPR resource system as they are not under controlled condition. The
conducive policy environment and pro-people administration is
generally found effective in promoting CPRs. But local collective action
has been undermined by a number of political and economic processes
(Bardhan 1993). Do the initiatives succeed in complex markets and
political coercion supporting the rich and powerful, in a democratic set
up of India?

6
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

2.1 Forest history and retrospect:


Taking in to account, forest lands have had history of rich teak and
bamboo. Large scale felling of teak occurred before independence
where the wood transported for ship building and railways in the second
world war time. The logging informally continued for a long period of
time. People use to cut trees and sell them in local markets when
needed. One farmer in Khunta Dalji village of Rajasthan said that 50
years back they used to sell 1 cubic foot of teak at the rate of Rs.1. He
said the pressure of population was also low and there were enough
trees for every one. Most of the adjacent forests (Mahudi village forest)
harvested for making charcoal and marketed to contractors, before they
were transferred to State by princely states just before independence.
People remember that the village was under the rule of princely state
Gadi Pratapur (now is in Rajasthan State). People paid taxes at Gadi on
agriculture (discussion with Kamjibhai ex-president of FPC, 97.) in
Kheda village of Gujarat.

Wild life survived till early independence period (1950s). However the
ground was cleared by Forest labor cooperatives in `60s logged all the
remaining forests in Gujarat. In Kheda all the teak and bamboo forests
were logged at the instance of State. People at that time were in search
of economic options to survive and they found that logging trees provide
employment to meet increasing family expenses. People now say that
they were not aware about the consequences at that time. After that,
repeated grazing and continuous exploitation for 30 long years has
7
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

degraded the forests to dust and rocks. Even root stock was also
extorted in many places to meet fuel demands (ibid.).

Lately, informal arrangements came into existence. Powerful people in


village started contracting the fodder for 6 months in an year, between
monsoon and winter. The land opened for grazing once the fodder grass
harvested. It was sold to people at higher rates by these contractors.
Rest of the 6 months barn forests were exposed to high temperatures
and indiscriminate grazing. Soil compaction took place over the years
and soils became impermeable. Moisture stress also remained high in
summers. And the degradation continued where people looked towards
more productive options in urban centers.

2.2 SWDF & JFM:


i). Organisational Policy:
♦ Work in collaboration with State to ensure that the State
administration and community finally come together for a venture
like JFM where they are the principle stake holders.
♦ Promote community access and management in governing common
property resources like forests and water through direct resource
intervention, network, policy advocacy and mobilising funds for
actoin.

♦ Promote stake of women in resource management by reserving 50%


stake in village institutional membership and in Executive
8
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

Committees of the respective institutions. If state laws are not


promoting the same, then research and advocate for the same.

♦ Promote other NGOs and departments in the region working for


natural resources issues, by giving technical support, guidance in
policy matters and familiarising/facilitating with state functionaries.

♦ Establish model technically and socially sites for replication and


research on sustainable growth patterns (economic and social)so that
scaling up of the activity can be realised in similar regions elsewhere.

ii). Approach:
SWDF has implemented JFM on experimental basis in one village with
integrated natural resource intervention model, where water resources,
private wasteland development, irrigation development and micro
watershed development through community groups. This experience
proved successful as community successfully took over the responsibility
of natural resource management SWDF has expanded JFM to 27
villages in Gujarat and Rajasthan.

Community & Livelihoods:


Most of the households (largely tribals) lived life under continuous
migration for about 9 months a year as the land productivity was too low
to meet minimum subsistence of the family.

9
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

The agriculture is mainly rain fed. Even though ‘hand dug well
irrigation’ was there it formed a tiny fraction of the total cultivated
land. Most of the wells dry up in summer. Maize, Wheat, Gram being
the main rainfed crops the village survived largely on income earned
from migration. As a result people did not show much concern towards
CPRs getting degraded. What ever little common land (wasteland)
remained that too encroached by adjacent cultivators to meet the ever
expanding family and inheritance.(retrospective group discussion 1996).
Here it is not the population but the option for new family created after
marriage lead to encroachments, land being scarce resource. The
availability of labor outside is also unconfined and susceptible to
changes.

Initial efforts:
Initially people were encouraged to take up small scale agro-forestry
and farm forestry plantations on marginal lands and private lands. This
has fulfilled the firewood and timber wood needs to an extent. Later
they were encouraged to protect the degraded forest area with a new
arrangement, where every one contributes in protection for forest
regeneration and holds, right over the produce. But then as it was
already under a kind of management (strong outside control), the
process of another change in forest management was more complicated
than originally thought of. For a long period of time people were out of
managing forests on sustainable basis for livelihoods and there were also
more than one stakeholder.
10
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

Complexities and political, financial & social realities in which the


community exists, will finally govern the resource system. Here the role
of NGOs extend a supportive hand in handling the complexities and still
progress ahead. The hard line, rigid bureaucracy can hardly be in a
position to influence change in the community situation. Quite often it
is found that, the community gets so habituated to a set of dynamics that
the community can never be able to change itself unless some strong
external influence occurs. Under process approach, only new leadership
can again foresee this change.
Table .2.
Activities carried out in addition to JFM by NGO.
Studying the resource sustainability and its nature, it is found that there
is fundamental difference in resource augmentation and disposability.
The risk factor in sustainable resource conservation is higher in CPR
forests to that of CPR water. The problems associated with its easy
liquidity, and mobility like proximity to the market, state boundaries and
informal (unauthorised) harvesting behaviors makes it a persistent
problem in CPR forests. The degree of problem and its recurrence is
less with CPR water. Long gestation periods in forestry also makes it
more vulnerable. The resource.

SWDF & Forest Department.


The ownership of the land and resources belong to State. As a result,
Sadguru pursued the villagers to get into an agreement with forest
department to legitemise the forest protection under JFM programme
11
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

when it came into existence after 1991. In Kheda village more than 80%
of the households formally became members of the Forest Protection
Committee (about118 HH) at that time.

It took 2 years to get sanction and agreement with State Forest


Department in the pilot village. In others followed it took more than
that.
Role of SWDF:
♦ Mobilise the Community,
♦ Manage Funds for socil conservation and social mobilisation works
♦ Develop technical plan with the help of forest department and
execute with the help of Community.
♦ Help the community in registering the VFI as cooperative
♦ Build the capacity of Community in managing the forests
independently
Role of Forest Department:
♦ Allocate the forest land to village Community
♦ Get in to agreement with the community on conservation rights,
duties and benefit sharing.
♦ Help the NGO in developing micro-plan for forest development.
Role of village Community:
♦ Enforce the agreement and protect the forests.
♦ Participate in micro-plan execution.
♦ Review and develop forest protection mechanism from time to time.

12
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

♦ Conduct Gram Sabha and make decisions in common interest of the


community and forests.
♦ Seek help from the Forest Department in forest conservation when
ever needed.
10. Major issues:
Broadly catagorising, the issues of future there will be 1. The issue of
succession, 2. Membership, 3. Diversified interests, 4. Ecological v/s
commercial harvest, 5. Change in leadership, 6. Change in attitudes
from conservation to commercialisation.

i). Institutional issues:


The VFI vis-à-vis JFM in Kheda faced many ups and downs in past
seven years. When it started its work, being first of its kind in the region;
faced tremendous pressure in protecting the forests. The department
officials also being ‘not so convinced’ about the programme, were non-
cooperative. Twice adhoc evaluations were conduction over the
performance of VFI and show cause notice were served over the
achievements and failures in re-establishing the forests in the first
couple of years itself. The environment was very hostile and not at all
conducive either for NGO or for VFI.

ii). Vegetation related issues:


Initially the choice of species and site were not matching and they have
not survived. Later the VFI made some changes to its original micro
plan and allotted some area as pasture depending on its suitability
13
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

classification. Exotic varieties were replaced with enrichment


plantations and seed sowing . Overall the silviculture operations yielded
good results with the VFI. The changes adopted in original micro-plan,
emphasizing on enrichment plantations has helped the VFI to a great
extent.

Kheda VFI faced some other problems such as members within the
committee getting involved in forest theft. Committee later disqualified
those members who were involved in the act for five years period of
time. This has not helped the VFI much, as other villagers involved in
forest theft. The main reason for the increasing forest theft is the good
growth of teak which can already fetch Rs. 300 per pole.

The fodder needs is not a major issue as majority of the village lands
were covered under irrigation and the fodder demand can be met from
agriculture lands. However the change in resource pattern creates some
pressure on the livestock. In 1998 the VFI has decided to open some
areas of forest land for free grazing, as the timber stock has grown to a
substantial height.

iii). Issue of membership:


After 7 years the problem of non-members cropped up as new houses
emerged in the span of 7 years as a matter of succession and
inheritance. The new families as non-members who are separately
settled after marriage are currently getting benefits on payments. Over
14
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

the years if the original member dies, then as per the cooperative law in
India, the elder son will be the successor. Other sons who separated and
settled in the village as new families are to be registered as new
members.

On a average each family having 5 children, leads to at least 3 new


members. Each year roughly 10 new families are claiming stake over
CPR forests1. At this rate there will be 400 new families at the end of 40
years where some of the Teak stock will be ready for harvest, totaling
@550 families. But the VFI is not prepared to this situation and not
clear about the entry fee for new members. If it is calculated at the rate
of NPV of forest as a result of protection by new members, then the
entry fee will be very high for ‘still poor’ new families, and undermines
the “equity” aspect in community resource rights. If they keep the
entry fee low then their efforts and energy in re-establishing the forests
gets un-economically vaulted and proves wrong.

iv). Agreement:
The current agreement is silent about many aspects of the future tree
wealth. Community anticipates trouble at that stage when final felling is
carried out. More over the agreement has vested enormous powers with
the DFO, the State representative in disqualifying the Committee at any
point of time for any reason that does not satisfy him(largely). This
creates a sense of dis-pleasure as the state has right over the forest land

15
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

but the produce is result of conservation efforts by the community and


State should keep its role limited.

v). Future of the resource:


The major issues of contention in future will be the final felling. Many
things would change by then. It takes at least 40 years for teak to reach a
stage of harvest under the new practice of teak harvest. However,
experts say that it should be harvested around 60 to 80 years. Imagine
what happens when a first harvest carried out between 40 to 80 years.
The generations would change, ownership succession would change as
new families emerging in village. With changing socio-political life,
older generations who formulated and agreed on conservation
principles would differ to that of what the younger generations
perspectives. This will lead to either positive or negetive trends as far as
CPR forests are concerned, as these forests under regeneration
predominantly are teak forests.

The complexity of social relations create conflicts in benefit sharing on


the principles of excludebility. Do people who have had active role in
forest protection in its intial stage, or at a stage in later period possess
rights over the produce? What if the person drifted away from village in
search of livelihood. There will be series of such problems in this context
and the issues may consolidate in resource degradation.

1
Calculated at the current growth rate of 118 families in 1993 to 191 families in 1999.
16
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

vi). Change in state policies:


Repeated changes in State policy towards peoples duties and rights
towards JFM is a major issue. These amendments result in a sense of
insecurity among community questioning whether they finally get
benefited after protection or state one fine morning will declare ‘here
after all the CPR forests belong to State again’. Secondly,
encroachments are however remain as future issue also, as
encroachments ( as such termed by State) are regularised by State time
and again.

The issue of 60/40 or 80/20 benefit sharing ratio, or what ever exists
would also create trouble at the time of felling as people may not be
ready to give up any portion of the benefit. Even if they have to (legally
as per the agreement) they manage to get more than their share by all
means as their proximity to forests is higher than others. This may not
be a fairer perception towards the community, but to be pragmatic, it is
fair to pre-suppose certain complexities as a practitioner.

Let us suppose that the VFI, federations and their apex bodies
collectively decide one agenda on the final felling, respective share,
distribution. Wouldn’t it be utopian to think that the committee accepts
the decision of apex body in larger interest. Even if VFI accepts, should
the entire village accepts the decision. This may also lead to conflict and
social unrest at larger scale. More over in countries like India which are
politically active, the influence of political parties would be high, when it
17
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

comes to benefit sharing out of CPRs. Political vested interests can lead
the population to different goals that not necessarily hold stand by the
same conservation principles and agreements. There are evidences to
this effect with in this region and in Gujarat. How could a federation or
an apex body be free from political interference.

If social unrest or dispute among people or community occurs at the


time of distribution, the chance of forest getting under complete threat
is clear. The situation may go back to square one. Precisely, where we
started conservation. In some of the African countries the forest cover
came to a ‘climax’, and the socio-political conditions fueled it to further
degradation. Now these countries (Sahel, Sudan, Ethiopia etc) are
trying to re-establish the forests again.

vii). Sustainability issue:


Even NGOs could hardly play a role here as it is the matter of parting
away from the ‘harvest’ of benefits from CPRs rather collaboration for
‘conservation’ or augmentation of ‘future benefits’. No village situation
would ever cooperate to give away a huge amount of CPR resources.
The emerging issues in west Bengal and the issues of van Gujjars could
be understood on similar lines, may be at a different scale. The issues of
parting away with degraded CPRs could be different to that of potential
CPRs with immediate benefits, where people collectively invested in
their regeneration and waited for long to realise benefits.

18
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

Trees are also susceptible for theft and smuggling. The only factor that
will ensure forest sustenance is long-term positive relation between
State officials and people and undoubted respect to each others
position. When they work in collaboration they could together resolve
their issues even outside the framework of the State policies. When the
VFIs perform well and get into the governance of village they hold
much better position and advantage than those who are separately
managing forest resources. The VFI members posses additional powers
to manage political influences. Being on Panchayati Raj system they,
also hold some additional administrative powers at village level and that
cushions the dealings with State departments or bureaucracy
independently. Thirdly they could also resist the interference of vested
interest with in the society as they possess the authority to stop any such
interest. Most of the VFIs, stand alone need strength to sustain and
survive.

viii). Gender and CPRs:


To ensure livelihood to the family has, predominantly been concern of
women in society. It is a misquote at least in tribal society of Dahod or
where Bhill tribes reside, that husband is a bread winner. Women as
mother or wife often takes on the responsibility to feed the family and
cares its integrity in social and economical aspects of village life. This
results in managing day to day affairs of household which makes her
exploit the available resources to run the family. Inevitably she depends
on forest for firewood, small timer, and other produce like, roots, leafs,
19
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

etc, to sustain her family. This for long, has been portrayed as undue
burden on the resource and blamed her for forest destruction(the
predominant notion among villagers and officials at grassroots).

On the contrary men exploit forest for timber that involves total felling.
The cash they earn often used for non-domestic purposes chiefly
individualised (like alcohol) . Whether it is state leadership or local,
these men often manage to get into VFI leadership and blame women
for largely indulging in forest tress pass. Women were also given place in
managing VFIs as partners in protecting the land from trespass, on the
pretext of sustainable forest management with gender equality. This way
of reserving minimum 2 seats in VFI management will not address her
problems with livelihoods and forests. As a result the forest protection
has never benefited women much in many cases in the country.

Deeply thinking, it will be more clear that how women can cope up with
ensuring livelihood on one end and involve in sustainable forest
management(JFM?). How come we expect women to stand up and
resist at large (not talking about isolated cases or success stories) against
management practices at grassroots when the unequal pay for
comparable work still in practice, financial credit, still not accessible to
women, inheritance of property (land) still a far fetch dream, and access
to normal family benefits, bank loans etc are sharply limited.

20
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

Women’s relative poverty and political factors, also limit her capacity to
realise the rights guaranteed to her by law. Lack of education, access to
right information and their socialization, family responsibilities from
young age etc, prevents her from asserting herself in social life to gain
access to resources and take decisions in favor of her living. Mere
institutionalization or legalizing her percentage of nomination does not
represent her realization of status, and will not solve her problems. A
conscious and committed effort by all external agents who are involved,
should pursue clear agenda with strong conviction.

Intensive and repetitive training should be encouraged at all levels of


the system in GOs and NGOs. This needs prioritization by funders
where they allocate budgets under various heads. State it self has so far
not invested much in HRD to its personnel and NGO personnel in
facilitating CPR management. Often in many workshops, forums,
research deliberations, it is found that this gender issues are taken as
necessary evil, to get a politically correct status. Unfortunately this
attitude (gender issues or topics often prescribed to women as exclusive
topic) would create further complexities in CPR context, pushing her
aside.

21
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

Appendix: 1
Summary of Kheda Forest area development and management action plan
(Transcription from the ‘Action plan document, 1994’ Gujarati language.) :

Location: The forest land is located on the boarder of Rajasthan and Gujarat states
of western India. It is 11 km away from Jhalod town in Gujarat. Market and other
facilities are available for the farmers and there is also proper approach road
constructed in 1997. The entire village is electrified.

Geo-physical conditions: It is located between 74-15 to 23-12 longitude and


latitude with undulating topography with severe slopes.
The slops vary in different groups right from 2% to 70%. The total forest area
measured at 84.15 hectares.
The average rainfall of this region is 870 mm and climatic condition is classified in
sub-humid. Rainfall varies from place to place through out the season leading to
frequent occurrence of drought.

Status of the land: In 1993 the land came under Joint forest management when it
was completely degraded, where the produce of rehabilitated forest be shared by
state forest department and village tree growers cooperative. To this effect an
agreement was made with forest department where the NGO (SWDF) facilitated the
process. The land was degraded to less than 2% canopy cover when JFM was
initiated.

Measures for rehabilitation:


Detailed soil and moisture conservation works were planned and executed according
to their need and importance. These measures are:

1. Protection trench and stone wall


This is to protect the forest land from open grazing practices. Entire forest area
stone walled and cattle protection trench was also excavated to provide additional
protection. Prosopis Juliflora was promoted with dual purpose; as live fence and
source of fuel wood for the families who earlier survived on teak root stock.
2. Gully pluging or checks
Where ever soil eroded and rill formation took place and deep gullies were formed,
Gully plugging was done to check further erosion.
3. Grade stabilisation structures

22
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

To level the surface of nalla which is prone to erosion and stop further increase in
slopes as per need with estimated intervals, stone walls are erected.
4. Gradonis
With increasing slops on hill sides the runoff remains at high velocity. With this, less
water percolates in to soil resulting in low moisture levels. To increase soil moisture it
is important to reduce runoff velocity through gradonis at short intervals. The
vertical difference between two gradonis kept at 2mt.,
5. Staggered trenches
On contours at 2mt., distance trenches are excavated to control soil erosion and
runoff water. With this soil moisture increased and water is allowed to percolate into
soils. Measures were taken to conserve optimum water where ever it was possible
as per site conditions.
7. Vegetative measures
The entire land area being highly eroded with severe slopes and exposed rocks,
vegetation measures were a must. This ensures soils from runoff and improve the
moisture levels. Further direct seed sowing of grasses enrich and establish
vegetation on the degraded lands. Local grass varieties were promoted and used in
multiple ways as Seven varieties of grass were available in this forest area locally.
8. Plantations.
The entire area is slopy rocky and mountanious. About 40 hectare of land is totally
degraded with almost no single tree existing when it was taken under JFM. Initially
multiple trees were suggested for promotion along the contours. However the root
stock regeneration and silviculture operations were part of the vegetation
management plan as second phase of interventions. Enrichment plantations were
done on higher ridges.

23
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

Appendix: 2

Different Activities Active roles as performed


carried out by VFI Forest SWDF
VFI, FD & NGO in JFM Departme
during nt
1993 to 2000.
Forest micro plan 4 4 4
Fund mobilisation 4

Contributions 4

Mobilising people 4
Execution of plan 4 4
S&M works 4 4

Protection 4

Corrective action 4 4
Rules & regulations 4 4

Registration of VFI 4 4
Agreement on rights 4 4

Benefit sharing 4 4
Organising village 4 4
assembly
Monitoring forest 4 4
growth
Evaluation of forest 4
development
Micro watershed 4 4
Lift irrigation 4
Water harvesting 4

Afforstation 4
Well recharging 4 4

Capacity building 4 4
Accounts & Audit 4 4
24
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

Study Methodology:

Essentially a process documentation, collecting the events and key


elements that triggered the process of JFM and kept the community in
constant persuasion towards retaining the forest resource. The three
major actors in the process are Forest department, Village community
and Non-government organisation. Even though the entire details of
process not considered for documentation, the trends in process and
some of the main features are captured. Data collection chiefly
depended on primary and secondary evidence and analysis was done on
the available data. Simple tables, and maps are used to give provide
glimpse of study area and easy understanding of the situation.

To arrive at the current documentation, relevant studies, documents and


state policy circulars are referred. The historical developments in Indian
forest resources juxtaposed to understand the context in which the
document is prepared.

Data collection:
The information chiefly collected from village community through
group meetings, key person interviews at primary level and reference to
NGO documentation, progress reports, field notes of staff and office
records and correspondence at secondary level. This process has taken
note of 7 years, starting from 1993 to end of 1999.

25
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

Group discussions with the village community at household level and at


VFI level conducted during 1995,96,97,98 and 99 at different periods.
Information of meetings with forest department and NGO are also used
in the process.
Interpretation:
Attempt in general, has been made to present the information in its
original form. Simple analysis is carried out where ever possible with out
complicating the presentation style. However, stress has been laid on
the ‘point of view’ of community, as the information largely derived at
grassroots situation. A summary of the lessons learned and further
implications for research is presented in the beginning of the document.

Limitation:
Author being associated with the process for over five years, some
amount of subliminal conviction can not be avoided. However, attempt
has been made to overcome this bias.

26
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

References:
Government of Gujarat resolution: No. 5 RC-1099-635-G;1/11/99.
Government of Gujarat resolution/Forest and Environment dept:
No.FCA/1090-125-K(part-3);2-91;6-94
Correspondence between FD, SWDF and Kheda Village JFM
Cooperative society;1993 to1999.
Kheda JFM action plan document. 1994.
Office file of Kheda village at SWDF 1993 to 1999.
Saga of Joint Forest Management in India; Dr. N.C. Saxena:1999.
State Level Working Group meeting, Gujarat Forest Department,
minutes: 1 to 14.

27
A Common Property Resource in Transition. Experiences from village Kheda. Year 2000. A Process
documentation. by : J. Ravi Shanker. NM Sadguru Water and Development Foundation, Dahod.

Acknowledgements.

I sincerely acknowledge the contribution of Kheda village community


and forest department in producing this document. I thank my
Director, Shri Harnath Jagawat for his comments, and painstaking
editorial work of Ms. Harmeet. I also extend my thanks to Mr. Aswin
Patel, who was involved through out data collection work in the village
and explained the intricacies of different elements in JFM, at grassroots.

Ravi Shanker.

28

Anda mungkin juga menyukai