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.
Ø The policy of JFM is still not very clear and needs revision in light of
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
Ravi Shanker.
28