lib null i, ,.,,,,, 11 i, .. c ^,, un, ,,,,, o9 · three different places representing three...
TRANSCRIPT
..,,.,,.. ,", .co, 1,1100, ,I 11.0, ,^. ., Icy 00'0^^ .,,,"I ,10
JOGj , on".^ G, , 0110/10 '0, ,,,,., JOGj ,, on".^ '00/10=I .a, 0 "^"OILVa:,, Iv^. 10^, aa", I. . TV"OrLV"^
."I
6.10 I. ^^,, u on a^, 1800 ^ ", 49".,,in, I. "
IP"I, 011. ,,,1,101"""I""^p A, I, q"I, ,.,. pun eon, 110.1", ouro. 1^,"^"I:, aV",!" L8a"0 ,0 n, , rill WIG
ACi poll 1.1q S
,q",.
,.^IOC^^ "OU. ^. aruOa o"V SS:,^190^Ia
1.10" co o" ,s. ,",cor '.,, re
Null I, ,.,,,,, 11 I, .. c ^,, un, ,,,,, o9 LIB
,.^:, rO
co
^^1.1.0.1,
\
,
Sustainable Tropical Forest Management throughCommunity Participation in India
Project No. PD 8199(F)(Ref. No. F. 99-0364
ITTO PRE-PROJECT
ON
FINAL PROGRESS AND COMPLETION REPORT
,
Submitted byINDIAN INSTITUE OF FOREST MANAGEMENT
(An autonomous Institute under Ministry of Environment & Forests,Government of India)
Nehru Nagar, Post Box 357, Bhopa1462003 (M. P. )Telephone: 91-755-7757/6,775998 Fax: 91-755-772878
Email: ramprasad@iifm. org\
^I^^n
To
INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATIONInternational Organizations Centre - 5' Floor,
Pacifico-Yokohama, , -, -, , Minato-mirei, Nishi-ku,Yokohama 220-00,2, Japan
Telephone 8,45-223-, I 10, Facsimile 81 45-223-1.1 IEmail: itto@mail. itto-unet. ocn. ne. ip
.,
,-
May 2000
I *
I.
2.
^ 3.
3.1
4.04.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.0
6.07.0
Project identificationPeriod covered by the pre-projectDescription of workTable: Field Training Workshops at a glanceExecution of work planTable: Progress in implementation of pre-project activitiesInputs appliedOutputs/AchievementPeople's indicators and means of their scientific validationFlow chart showing activities of pre-projectCritical analysis of project progressConclusions
Responsible for the reportList of annexure
Annexure-I reroceedings of Field Training Workshopat Khatpu ra)Annexure-2 (Proceedings of Field Training Workshopat Rahatgaon)Annexure-3 (Proceedings of Field Training Workshopat Motinala)Annexure-4 (Study Tour)Annexure-5 (Proceedings of Regional Workshopat Dehradun)Annexure-6 (Proceedings of Regional Workshopat Bangalore)
CONTENTSPage No.
0303
03
05
06
07
12
13
14
17
18
18
48
1920
27
36
45
52
7,
,
2
F
Pro^Ct identification
I . I Title
I, 2 Serial number
I, 31mplementing agency
Sustainable Tropical Forest Managementthrough Community Participation in India.
: Ref. No. F 99-0364. Project No. PD 8199 (F)
: Indian Institute of Forest Management(An autonomous Organization under Ministry ofEnvironment & Forests, Govt. of India)Post Box No. 357, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal (M. P. )Pin 462 003Phone:91-755-7757,6,775998,Fax: 91 -755-772878
Email: ramprasad@iifm. org
: Government of India1.4 Host Government
I. 5 Starting date
1.6 Duration (months)
1.7 Project costs (Us $)
2. Period covered by this report
From September I 999 to April2000
: September , 999
: Six months
3. Description of the work implemented on the period
Sustainable Forest Management has been realized as a prime necessity forsustainable development. India being producer member country of ITTO, iscommitted to the year 2000 objective regarding certification of forest productsgoing in the international market that these are from the sustainably managedforests. Therefore adoption of SFM is necessary in the country. The 11FM being. premier institute of the country in the forest management sector, has takeninitiative to develop criteria and indicators for SFM with the support of ITFOthrough the present pre project. n obiec Ive was'~'^a'^f^'ill'^61management of tropical dry deciduous forests through community participation.To facilitate development of understanding among communities, field forestersand other stakeholders about the C&I of Bhopal-India Process for SustainableForest Management. The pre project is envisaged to evolve suitable C&I atForest Management Unit (FMU) level for three major types of tropical drydeciduous forest ecosystems. The little experience gained by the pre project
: 56, , 00
3
(;^~>V
activities has lead to development of full^ed, ged project proposal on OperationalStrategy for Sustainable Forestry Development with Community .Participation in India. ,
Attempts - were made to popularize the concept of Sustainable ForestManagement in the country. Three field-training workshops were organised atthree different places representing three different forest types viz. , teak forest,mixed miscellaneous forest and sal forest, involving the communities, fieldforesters and other stakeholders. Two regional level workshops were organisedone in Northern India at Dehradun and the other in Southern India at Bangalore.
Two-prong strategy adopted for evolving/ restructuring the Criteria and Indicators(C & I) developed under Bhopal-India (B-I) Process through regional workshopsand village level training workshops. The criteria I to 8 and indicators thereindeveloped for B-I Process were debated at length at both the regional workshopsorganised at Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy, Dehradun (Uttar Predesh,India) and Institute of Wood Science and Technology (IWST), Bangalore. Anxietywas expressed about the field execution and application of C&I. Differentparticipants suggested the Forest Management Unit (FMU) for application,monitoring, collection and feedback of information. Range, Division, District,Conservator's circle and foresters' working circle were some of the suggestions.For the state, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was suggested to be thenodal authority. The forest division was suggested to be FMU because forestmanagement plan is prepared and executed at Forest Division level. Duringthese workshops, all the criteria and indicators of Bhopa!-India Process werethoroughly discussed, The participants have given some useful suggestions. Thedetails of discussions and suggestions are given in the proceedings of both theworkshops.
The communities participating in forest management have their own perceptionof good forest management. Also, they have their own perception of SFM andhence their own indicators for assessing its applicability. People's Indicators wereevolved based on the discussions in the field-training workshops. Theseindicators are based on indigenous technical know-how and experience. As aresult of the participatory process of discussion and involvement, thecommunities ratified the eight criteria of B-I Process but out of the 47 indicatorsonly some (15) indicators were perceived by villagers to be relevant forapplication at the FMU level. Further, several (32) new indicators were evolvedby the communities and tested during the process (annexure I, 2.3ProceedIhgs of field training workshops held at Khatpura, Rahatgaon andMotinala),
An international study tour was undertaken by project 'team members to study thedevelopments about SFM in U S and Canada. Their report is appended inannexure 4).
c^-) *
4
L,
,
S
nO
Tropical drydeciduous
Forest typeMixedmiscellaneous
Table 3.1 : Field level training workshops at three sites at a glanceand participation of field foresters and communities.
Place
2 Teak forest
Khatpura(SehoreForest
Division)
Field forester
Ranger- 01Forester" 02
Forest guard-04
Rahatgaon(HardaForest
Division)
3
Community
Sal forest
CF- 01DF0- 01
Ranger- 01Forester- 02
Forest guard- 04
Khatpura,Forest
ProtectionCommittee
(FPC)
Motinala
(EastMandlaForest
Division)
,--- - - ^-
M
Khumi, FPCBadwani. FPCRahatgaonEDC
14
,
F
Others
CF- 02OF0-04ACF-03
Ranger-04Forester- 04
Forest guard-06
12 Teacher- 01
Panchayat- 06Aganwadi- 03RGWM- 01
Project team- 10
14 08
Total
Panarikheda.FPC
Baila, FPCLohta, FPCSathia. FPCAamgahan, FPcHatta
Devgaon, VFCGyarahdongriMudia
Richka, FPCMohgaon. FPC
Teachers' 02
Panchayat- 01Aganwadi- 01RGWM- 02
ElectricityBoard-I
Ayurvedic- 02EDC - 04
RAE0- 01
Project team- 09
Proceedingand C&I
54
36
Annex-I
14 Teacher- 02
Aganwadi- 01RGWM- 02
Project team- 12Silk station-01
52 Annex-2
66
5
Annex-3
*
4. Execution of the work plan
4.1
All the activities related to Pre-Project were planned after discussion among theproject team members, consultants, research staff, research students and others,All the activities were carried out as per the planned schedule including thepresent report and the document for a full-fledged project. These have beenalready submitted to ITFO. The activities are shown below in the bar diagram.
too%
6
,
;_
Table: 4.2
Activities
A. Technical
meeting of pre-project30.09.99
Progress in implementation of Pre-project activities.
Organizationrepresentatives
B. Workshop on
InO pre-
project at 11FMI In 5 Oct, 99
. Pre-project teammembers
Forest ResearchInstitute
IIFM facultyGovt.State
representatives
.
.
o
. Pre-project teammembers
Internationalconsultant
Nationalconsultants
faculty11FM
members
Pre-projectresearch staff
.
.
Awareness and understanding of SFM bymore persons of different organisations
.
Outcome
.
C. Sensitization
meeting withresearch staff25.10.99
.
. Chalked out Activity Plan of the pre-project.Positioning of consultantsPositioning of research staffIdentification of three study sitesOutline of field training workshopsOutline of two regional workshopsOutline of the study tour of project team.Networking with forest department,research institution etc.
Involvement of NGOs & other line
departmentsCollection of secondary informationGuidelines for field work & data collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11FM Pre-projectteam
Research staff
Researchstudents
.
.
%exe-
cuted
.
.
Estimated
completiondate
100
.
.
. Sensitization & clearing concepts of SFM& C&I
Importance and necessity of SFM in IndiaJFM as a tool for SFM
Ecological, economic, social institutionalaspects of SFM
.
.
.
100
,,:
\
7
100
.
D. Regionalworkshop atDehradun inNorthern India3-4 Nov. 99
. InspectorofGeneral
Forests, Govt. ofIndia
Facultymembers
IGNFA,Dehradun
Scientist, FRl,Dehradun
Forestryeducation
Forest Survey ofIndia
Wildlife Instituteof India
NGOs
ITFO pre-projectteam
.
. Detailed explanation of various SFMprocessesDiscussion on C&! of Bhopal-Indiaprocess
.
.
.
.
Familiarization and popularization ofSFM & C&I
Presentation of the ITFO pre-projectactivities.
Presentation of papers related to SFM.Discussion and ratification of the C&I of
Bhopal-tridia(B-I) Process
E. Field trainingworkshop atKhatpura inSehore forestdivision
(Tropical drydeciduous
mixedmiscellaneous
forest)
.
.
of
.
.
.
.
.
,
-- -- - -
.
.
o
Communities
Field foresters
Line
departments(Panchayat,Aanganwadi,Rajeev GandhiWatershed
Mission)Pre-project team
100
.
. Sensitization about the concept of SFM &C&I.
ofFamiliarization & awareness
communities & other stakeholders.
Discussion on C&I of B-I process andpeoples indicators.Presentation by communitiesVisit to forest and scientific validation of
people's indicators.Areas rich in NTFPs
.
.
.
.
,,.
.
100
8
.-
F. Field trainingworkshop atRahatgaon,Harda forestdivision.
(Tropical DryDeciduous
Teak forest).
. Communities of
villagestwo
representingForestProtectionCommittees
Communities
representingECo-
developmentcommittee
Other
departments(PanchayatAanganwadiM. P. electricity
RajeevboardGandhiWatershed
Mission)Field forestersand middle levelforest officers
Pre-project teammembers
.
.
.
Awareness about the importance andneed of SFM.
Understanding and sensitization towardsC&I.
Discussion on C&I of B-I processEvolving people's indicators.Scientific validation of evolved people'sindicators in the field.
.
.
.
.
G. Field trainingworkshop atMotinala, EastMandla forestdivision.
(Tropical Drysaldeciduous
forest).
line
.
.
. Communities
representingFPC of eightvillagesFrontlineforesters
levelMiddleforest officers
100
.
.
. Understanding and sensitization aboutSFM and C&I of B-I processGroup discussion and evolved people'sindicators
Scientific, testing of peoples indicators inthe field.
Area rich in bio diversity and fieldexercise.
.
.
.
.,.
100
9
.- - -
H. Study21.01.2000
01.02.2000
.
tour
Line
departmentsPre-project teammembers
.
. Projectmembers
team
InternationalI.
workshop on SFMAsianinvolving
countries
, Met Director Asia Forest Network Berkleyand visited Adaptive Management Area(Model forest)Met officials of Watershed Resource
Training centre at Hayfork and discussedtheir activities.
Met officials of Us Forest Service andandBureau of Land Management
discussed about the SFM, C&I.Visited another Adaptive ManagementArea in the Pacific North-west.
Visited University of Toronto, Canada anddiscussed about the SFM process ofIndia with faculty members and researchstaff.
Met officials of Earth Island Institute
Visited world forestry centre.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ITFO
FAO
UNEP
UsFs
11FM
Participants fromChina, Magnolia,Nepal, Bhutan,Thailand,Indonesia,Myanmar,Bangladesh etc.
.
o
.
.
.
.
.
100
Discussion about SFM processes indifferent countries.
Discussion. on C&I of B-I process andratification.
Presentation of ITFO pre-project activitiesby students,Field visit to Khatpura, one of the ITFOPre-Project study sites
.
.
.
...
I
100
10
L
Meeting of theTasknational
Force CommitteeSFM 18-19on
February 2000
. ofConvenorforcetask
committee andDirector 11FM
Representativefrom ICFRE.
Special inviteeforestUp
departmentITTO pre-projectteam members
InO pre-projectResearch staff,
Faculty memberof 11FM.
.
I
.
I. RegionalworkshopBangalore(SouthernIndia)
.
o
.
Further discussion on C&I of B-I processDiscussion on C&! modified duringDehradun workshop.Evolving C&I at national level.Applicability of C&I in field conditions.
.
.
.
.
at
.
J. Preparation ofprojectfull
document
Forest officialsSouthernof
states
Forestryscientists andacademicians,NGOs
Otherstakeholders
.
.
.
,. --
.
.
.
Awareness and understanding of C&I forSFM
Bhopa!-IndiaDiscussion on C&I onProcess
Possible improvements in C&I on Bhopal-India Process
Field applicability of SFM
Internationalconsultant
Nationalconsultants
teamProjectmembers
Research staff
.
.
100
.
.
.
.
. As a follow-up of this Pre-Project, a fullproject has been prepared and submittedto ITFO with endorsement of Governmentof India.
';
too 15-16March 2000
100
11
April 2000
4.3 Inputs applied
The financial resources of the pre project have been appropriateIy utilized for different activities as per the pre projectproposal. The details are given below as per the Pro-forma of ITFO manual for project monitoring, review and evaluationsecond edition 1999:
Components
10. Project Personnel20. Sub contracts
30. Duty travel40. Capital items50. Consumable items
Approved total(in Us $)
60, Miscellaneous
70. Executing agencyManagement costs
80. ITFO Adm, , Mori. , &Evaluation
100. Grand total
Up-to-dateCommitted
by E. A. butnot spent(in us $)
5100
(A)
1200023500
U p-to-d atespentOn us $)
o
14500
o
1000
(B)
Spent +Committed
theIn
periodOn us $)(B+C)
o
56.00
.
(c )
5769
2352,
Remainingvalues
(in Us $)
(D)
14735
(B+C)5769
1000
23521
Explanation ofremaining values
I,
(A) - (B+C)
57204
44735
-669
1000
57204
-235
12
-1104 xcess
ofexpenditureUs$ 11 04 was metthrough interest on
principalthe
amount of Us$56100 during theproject period
*'~
4.4 Outputs/achievement
As per the requirement of the project work the International (01 ), NationalConsultants (02) and project research staff (03) were identified and positioned,The necessary research staff was sensitized to carry out the pre projectactivities. Three representative sites i. e. Khatpura in Budhni range of SehoreForest Division, Rahatgaon in Harda Forest Division and Motinala in East MandiaForest Division, representing three major tropical dry deciduous forestecosystems were identified. The Pre Project Steering Committee has been setup which also includes representatives of Government of India, The pre-projectmeetings were organised at 11FM, Bhopal to discuss methodology and approachfor performing various activities of the pre-project as listed in table n0.4.2.
The members of the pre project team have made a pilot visit to one of the studysites before starting the work i. e. Khatpura in Budhni range of Sehore district andhad interaction with local people and members of Forest Protection Committee.They have also visited the forest along with the FPC members and discussedwith them about SFM and other aspects of forest management.
A meeting of steering committee was held on 25 October 1999 at 11FM, Bhopalto sensitize the newly recruited research staff.
In order to collect field level information a questionnaire pro-forma wasdeveloped and tested in one of the selected sites at Khatpura as a pre-fieldexercise.
,
For field training workshops, the methodology adopted comprised of three steps.The first step, was sensitization of the villagers about the concept of C&I forSFM. This was followed by a questionnaire survey to analyze their perceptions ofJoint Forest Management (JFM). The third step consisted of organizing threefield training (village level) workshops, one at each of the sites for testing of Cand I from 19'' November to 26'' November 1999, The new indicators arrivedduring the workshops are based on villagers perceptions and experience. Forexample the indicator 'exposed gravel and pebbles on the forest floor' indicatederoded site (criteria 3: soil and water conservation). The presence of good soilcover and leaf litter on the forest floor without pebbles indicate good site.Seasonal streams turning into perennial ones. This has been observed in thefield which is a result of Forest Protection, Soil and Water Conservation practicesby the communities and field foresters. Thus such indicators were incorporatedwhich are based on the experience of local people in the forests. The indicatorpresence of 'honey bees' (criteria 2: ecosystem function and vitality) was thoughtof as an indirect indicator of presence of flowers round the year and thereforetrees of various species (bio-diversity) with different phenological cycles. Severalother bio-indicators were also evolved. For example spiders being predator ofinsects, indicate less chances of pest epidemics in the forest. Presence of Koha
13
3'~
(Terminalia artuna) trees indicate soil moisture. People's Indicators evolvedduring the workshops are given in Table 4.5
Table: 4.5 People's Indicators and means of their scientific validation
CriteriaCriterion I :Extent of forestand tree cover
People's IndicatorsI. Forest area
2. Forest density3. Trees on
wastelands etc.4. Areas under NWFP
producing trees5, Conversion of forest
areas to non-forestry useunder6. Forest area
community managementCriterion 2:
Ecosystemfunction
vitality
.
and
I. Natural regeneration2. Age gradation in trees
3. % of healthy trees4. Weeds, grazing
bunds,
Mean of Scientific Validation
I . Remote Sensed Data2. Actual Surveys3, By field surveys4. Can be surveyed and
enumerated5. Field observations and
office records.6. Records
Criterion 3:
diversityBioconservation
5. Forest fire
6. Presence of cobwebs
,
7. Complete food chain
I&2 Can be assessed byecological methods.
3. By sample enumeration4. Uncontrolled grazing by
cattle.
5. Field survey/mapping
insect6. Spiders as
predators control pests;
7. Adequacy of prey andpredators
I, No. of birds and animalsof different species
2. No. of tree species
Criterion 4:Soil and waterconservation
3. Availability of NWFP's,medicinal and aromatic
plants4. Area under closure
\
.
I . Presence of koha trees
(TerminalIa artuna)2. Exposed gravel, pebbles
the forest flooron
indicated erosion3. Presence of gullies4. Si!tation of tanks and
reservoirs
5. Duration of water in waterbodies
I. - Can be observed andenumerated
2. Can be assessed byPhyto-SOCiOIOgical studies
3. Can be surveyed andenumerated
J
4. Actual Survey(Participatory)
6.
I.
Presence of earthworms-
Indicator species havingaffinity with water (T.alluna)Eroded sites mapped2.
3. Indicate soil erosion4, Poor vegetation cover in
the catchment
5. Field observations bycommunities; Seasonalto perennial
6. Can be observed in the
.
14
,
,
.
,.^
Criterion 5:Forest resource
productivity
of smallI . Availabilitytimber, woodfuel, NWFP's
2, Availability of medicinalplants, flowers and fruits
3. Girth and height of trees
Criterion 6:Forest resource
utilisation
4. Flower
production
field conditions known
indicator of soil fertility,
5.
I. Questionnaire interactionwith communities and
sample survey.with2. Interaction
communities, middle inariand sample survey.
Mensuration al3. Bymethods.
4. Interaction with
communities and samplesurvey
5. Pertains to nutrient cycleand soil fertility. Can beobserved in field
Leaf litter
householdI. Per
consumption of woodfueland NWFP's
2. Per household utilisationof timber
3. Dependence of people onforests
4, Sustainable harvest
and seed
Criterion 7:culturalSocial,
and spiritual needs
5. Employment from forests-Direct and Indirect
I. Trade of fuelwood andtimber
I. PRA with communities
Criterion 8:
Policy, legal andinstitutionalframework
2. Interactioncommunities
3. PRA with communities
2. Increase in income
3. Participation of all sectorsof society
4. Trees of religious values5. Use of traditionalknowledge
4. Awareness and training tocommunities.
with5. Interactioncommunities and fieldforesters and office record
I . Level of participation
withInteractionI.
communities, middle men andfield foresters
with
2. Decision making processresolution3. Conflict
mechanism
4. Capacitymeasures
and5. Documentationmaintenance of accounts
2. Sodo-Economic Surveys3. Absence of conflicts and
attendanceregular In
meetings4. Such trees not damaged.5. Continuity of indigenousvalues
r
supportt . Policies/rules
JFM and officials honestlyexecute
2&3 Frequent meetings anddiscussion amongcommunities
4. Participation in trainingprogramme.5. Communities and fieldforestsrs' records
building
15
L
-..
6. Rights and concessions
7. Mechanism for handlingforest offences
8.1nter-institutional clashes
Efforts to reduce pressureon forests
Regional level workshops were organised at Indira Gandhi National Forest
Academy, Dehradun (Northern India) on 3" and 4'' November I 999 and at
Institute 'of Wood Science & Technology (IWST), Bangalore (15-16 March 2000)in order to popularize the concept of SFM among the foresters, forestry scientistsand NGOs. 31 and 38 participants have actively participated in the deliberationsof both the workshops. The proceedings of these workshops and the Criteria andIndicators evolved/restructured are appended in annexure 5 and annexure 6.
As has been envisaged a document for full-fledged project has been preparedand submitted to ITFO with endorsement of Government of India in April2000.
6. Awareness about policiesand rules.
efforts of7. Jointcommunities of fieldforesters
8. Co-operation amongGovt.communities,
departments & NGOs
.
16
L
-..,
Village LevelField Training
Workshops
11FM, Bhopa!ITTO Pre-Project
NationalTask Force
Sensitization of> Coriumunities
> Field Forestsrs
> NGO's
> Other line
departments
Bhopal-IndiaProcess C&I
Evolving PeoplesIndicators for SFM
RegionalWorkshops
ConceptualDiscussions with
> Policy makets> Senior
foresters
> Academicians
> NGO's
Flowchart showing activities of ITTO Pre-Project
Improvement inC&I of BhopalIndia Process
SFM
17
.
_.*
5. Critical analysis of project progress
The pre project activities have been conducted as per the scheduled planbetween September I 999 (after financial approval from ITFO) to April2000; Theassumptions relating to the development objective of the pre project have beenfulfilled. The local communities have participated in the field level trainingworkshops. The field foresters and other stakeholders have also taken equalinterest in understanding the concepts and importance of SFM. The technicalinstitutions like FRl, Wll, FSl, IWST have also contributed.
A full fledged project has been prepared at the end of the pre project period, toachieve the specific objective of evolving and field testing of C&I of SFM on alarger scale.
6. Conclusions
The pre project activities have been conducted as per the specified objectivesand time schedule* From this point of view the pre project activities have beencompleted.
As has been indicated earlier, the pre project activities were primarily aimed at adeveloping a full-fledged project document for SFM in India, which has beenprepared and submitted to ITTO for further financial support in continuation of thePre-'Project.
7. Res onsible for the re on
Name:Dr. Rain Prasad
Date
Director, 11FM and Project Leader
18
., ^
Annexure
Annexure
Annexure
An nexu re
Annexure
List of annexure
I Proceedings of field level workshop at Khatpura
2 Proceedings of-field level workshop at Rahatgaon
3 Proceedings of field level workshop at Motinala
4 Study tour
5 Proceedings of regional level workshop at IGNFA,Dehradun
6 Proceedings of regional level workshop at IWST,Bangalore
An nexu re
I
19
,:.~
Annexure-I
PROCEEDINGS OF FIELD TRAINING WORKSHOPAT
KHATPURA, DISTRICT- SEHORE, M. P
(Tropical Dry Deciduous Mixed Miscellaneous Forest)
19-20 November 1999
Background
Participation of the local communities in the management of forests officiallystarted after the Indian forest policy of 1988 and the subsequent 1990 resolutionon JFM. The objective was sustainable management of forests with the help ofthe resident communities that were directly or indirectly dependent on the forests.Since then all over the country, JFM is being implemented. Till, 998, about 18states had passed resolution on JFM. JFM, as such, is viewed as a strategy forachieving the overall objective of SFM. With almost a decade of theimplementation, it is imperative to monitor the direction of change, And thus itnecessitates criteria and indicators.
Although, there have been many an initiatives worldwide for evolving criteria andindicators for SFM; these efforts have concentrated on national and regionallevel. But, few have centered on the grassroots level or tried to incorporate localknowledge.
In connection with the ITFO project titled " Testing of criteria and indicators forsustainable forest management through community participation, a one and one-half day workshop was conducted at Khatpura village. The village has beentaken up under JFM since 1996. The objectives of the workshop were:
I . To sensitize the villagers, field level forest department staff and otherstakeholders about SFM.To capture the perception of the stakeholders regarding SFM2.
To initiate a dialogue on SFM and spread the message of SFM3.
To evolve people's indicators for SFM based on indigenous4.
experience and common sense.
20
knowledge,
S'
Description of site
Khatpura is a village in the Sehore district of Madhya Predesh. The totalpopulation of the village is 773(1991 census). Majority of the residents is tribal.Almost 509', of the 152 households are landless laborer. Only three householdsare involved in services sector while the rest are agriculturists. The dependenceon forests is in the form of collection of minor forest produce, fuelwood, cattlegrazing and employment as laborer in forest department works. The topographyof the area is mainly hilly and the rock type is Deccan Trap basalt. The soil depthvaries from 0.3 metres to 2 metres.
The forests around the village are dry deciduous teak forests. Teak- (Tectonagrandis) is the predominant species (609"0), associate species (409"0) being Sala(Terminalia tomentosa), Bija (Prefocarpus marsupium), Mahua (MadhucaIatifolia), Palash (Butea monosperma), Semal (Bombyx Gema), AmIa (Emblicaofficinalis) etc. The canopy density is more than 0.4 and at majority of the placesvaries from 0.6 to 0.8. The regeneration of forests was badly affected byuncontrolled grazing and fires. Also, illicit felling both for commercial anddomestic use was a problem.
The village was taken up under JFM in 1996. After meetings and detaileddiscussions, a Forest Protection Committee (FPC) was formed in the October1996. One inari and one woman from each household of the village became amember of the committee. An executive committee comprising of I5 memberswas elected. - The executive committee has three women members. All thesectors of the society are represented in the committee. The local field levelforest staff, the Forest guard acts as the secretary of the committee. The villagersare protecting the forests since then against. Fire, theft and grazing, Otherdevelopmental activities like providing safe drinking water, micro-credit etc. are
' also being taken up.
Participants Profile
An interesting mix of participants in the workshop included members of KhatpuraFPC as well as a few nori-members, Panchayat members, Aaganwadi workersand a teacher. Beat Guards, Deputy Rangers and Rangers represented the fieldlevel forest staff. The workshop was facilitated by the 11FM team under theguidance of Dr. Rain Prasad, Director 11FM and Principal Investigator of theproject. The team members were Dr. Rain Prosad, Dr. J. B. Lal (NationalConsultant), Dr. K. C. Maihotra (National Consultant), Dr. P. C, Kotoal (Faculty,11FM), Dr. P. Bhattacharya (Faculty, 11FM), Dr. Manish Mishra (ResearchAssociate), Dr. Dharmendra Dugaya (Research Assistant), Yogesh Jadhav(Student, 11FM), James T Kharkongor (Student, 11FM) and DharmendraChandurkar (Student, 11FM).
.
,
.
.
e
21
,.-
A total of 54 persons participated in the workshop including 12 womenparticipants. In all, there were 37 villagers, 7 field level foresters and 10 membersof the 11FM team. The significant feature of the participant villagers was that theyrepresented all the age groups and all the sections of the society.
Workshop activities
D^y_!.Sessionl
Dr. Bhattacharya welcomed the participants and explained the theme and theobjectives of the workshop. Then, Dr. P. C. Kotoal introduced the members of the11FM team and asked the other participants to introduce themselves. After theintroduction, Dr. J. B. Lal did the icebreaking by initiating a discussion on goodsand services from the forests. After some talk on the various goods and services,he explained the concept of SFM as "Management of 'forests in such a way sothat it provides goods and services for at least seven generations" which was inconsonance with the Indian maxim which defines sustainability in similar terms.He then explained the concept of JFM being a tool for SFM rather than the end.He gave the analogy the use of-plough for agriculture. He then went on to explainthe different aspects of SFM viz. ecological, economical, institutional and SOCio-cultural aspects. He then also elucidated upon the objectives of the workshop.Mr. Roop Singh, one of the members of the FPC then expressed his perceptionof SFM. He was of a view that for SFM the FPC should be sustainable, Thus, hestressed upon institutional sustainability as a prerequisite for SFM. Then, heemphasized on the need of ensuring regeneration for SFM. Mr. Girraj Singh thenexpressed his views on the clash between ecological and economic interest. Mrs.Me erabai then informed about the different fuelwood species. According to her,canopy density and the adequate forest cover were the indicators of SFM,Continuing from Mrs. Meerabai, Mrs. Sabina Be also added some more of thefuelwood species not yet covered. She also informed about the harvestingpractices of NTFP. She was of the view that the villagers cut the branches but donot cut the trees of NTFP's like Aon!a (Embffca officianalis) and Char(BUGhanania Ianzan) while harvesting the produce.
Mr. Succha Singh regarded care for the young plants as a prime necessity forSFM. He also suggested that all the stakeholders should understand theirresponsibility and accordingly execute their duties. He recognized grazing as amajor menace that affects regeneration drastically and opined that the villagersshould graze their cattle in the alternate area provided for the purpose. This canbe a step towards achieving SFM. Also, he stressed upon the need for economicincentives for protection. As a majority of the villagers is landless laborers theyhave to forgo their wages for the day they go for patrolling the forests as part oftheir duty of forest protection. He suggested that there should be some economicincentives for these persons for those particular days. He therefore correlatedlivelihood security with SFM.
22
.
<.-
The villagers were then asked to explain and interpret a few posters. The firstshowed the various goods and services from the forests while the other depictedgood forests and prosperity on one half and degraded forests and misery on theother half. Mr. Chandurkar then explained the poster showing the eight criteria ofthe Bhopal-India process as the roots of a healthy tree. The concept of criteriaand indicators was further elucidated during the process.
Mr. Bhadoria (Ranger, Budhni), then threw some light on the works done by theforest department in the Sehore forest division. His talk centered on the variousinitiatives towards implementing JFM. Also, he accentuated the need forprotection of forests from fire, grazing and illicit felling as the primary requirementfor SFM. He then went on to explain the need and effects of soil and waterconservation measures like check darns, contour trenches on the status offorests in general and regeneration in particular. Further, he informed of theeffects of forest in regulating the moisture regime. He explained this by citing theexample of the Khatpura village itself. Earlier, before JFM, the water in the stop-dam used to last till December. But now after protection the forest cover hasincreased substantially and water lasts till February end. He also informed aboutthe effect of protection on the regeneration of Bamboo, which also has increasedconsiderably. He was of the view that presence of all age classes in the forests,presence of a variety of species with different phenological cycle such that thereare flowers throughout the year, presence of seeding plants, presence of goodsoil cover so that when you walk on the forest floor bare-footed the pebbles donot hurt the feet's and presence of perennial water bodies are the indicators ofSFM. He also mentioned the use of Tendu (Diospyros meIanoxy!on), Kusum(Sohleichera oreosa) and Palash (Butea monosperma) twigs in fire fighting(Beating out the fire) and called them as 'friends of foresters',
Mr. Dhurve (Deputy Ranger, Khatpura) expressed his views about people's rolein protecting the forests. He was of the opinion that earlier people thought of theforests as 'government forests' but now the perception has changed and theythink of them as their own forests. Also, this has led to optimization of forestresource utilization and thus reduction in the pressure on the forests. Accordinglyhe suggested adequate tree cover, water sources and wildlife as indicators forSFM.
Mr. Shankarlal, another FPC member, highlighted the role of united effort andinstitutional sustainability in ensuring SFM. He also, talked about the perceivedeconomic benefits from SFM. Mr. SUGcha Singh elucidated the role of collectivebargaining and again stressed on the need for economic incentives for thecommunity supplemented by concessions from the forest department. Mr.Bhadoria informed of the efforts of the forest department in organizing the NTFPcollection and the subsequent marketing of the produce.
23
..^
..
Dr. J. B. Lal explained the concept of phenologica! cycle and described thephenological cycle of Kullu (Sterculia urens) and' Salai (BOSwellia serrata). Thenhe initiated a discussion on sustainable harvest of NTFP's. The villagers informedthat approximately I O% of the produce remains in the forest after harvestingalthough they try to harvest the whole .quantity. Dr. K. C. Malhotra informed theparticipants of the sustainable harvesting practices in other villages andexplained why some amount of produce should be left on the forest. In the similarcontext, Dr. P. Bhattacharya gave example of harvesting. of medicinal plants inBetul (M, P. ).
Mr. Bhadoria informed about the initiative taken by the forest department inplanting Safed Mus!i (Chlorophytum bonvilianum) and the destructive harvest ofthe plant by the villagers. This was also cited as the reason for decline in Musliproduction from 20 quintals earlier to 2-3 quintals now. This led to a discussionon species extinction. Mr. Nawab Khan then informed about the species that areextinct now in the Khatpura forests.
Session 2
The session started with a game on sustainability. The game was designed toreinforce the concept of sustainability and equity in the minds of the villagers. Sixparticipants played the game in one go. 36 potatoes were kept in a basket. At thesound of the whistle, the players took as much as they can in one go, using onehand only. The remaining potatoes in the basket were doubled after each draw.The players can continue playing the game till the basket is empty or for sevenrounds. Each player was supposed to maximize his/her score. First, six maleparticipants played the game and then six female participants played the game.They could not play for more than three rounds. Then they were asked to play byrules with each one taking the equal amount and sharing only half the number ofpotatoes in one draw. The final scores after seven rounds for each 'of the playerwere equal and the basket still had 36 potatoes. Then they were asked tointerpret the game. Mr. Nitakat Khan and Mr. Mangi!al interpreted the game andexplained it to the villagers.
After the game, to have directional discussion, the participants were divided intoeight groups based on the eight criteria of Bhopal-India process. One member ofthe 11FM team facilitated each group. Each group was more or lessrepresentative of the heterogeneity of the workshop participants. The task foreach group was to evolve indicators for the criteria that have been assigned tothem.
To CUIminate the first day of the workshop, Dr. P. Bhattacharya informed theparticipants of the activities of Day 2.
24
-^.,.
Day_Z
The day started with a brief review of the activities of the first day. To begin withDr. Rain Prosad gave a brief talk on biological diversity and health and vitality ofthe forests.
This was followed by field visit to the forest by the participants. The field visitswas aimed at getting a firsthand look at the forests and thus facilitate refinementand review of the indicators evolved during the earlier day.
This was followed by presentations by the groups. The village participants madethe presentations. Questions were asked and the other participants during eachof the group presentations sought clarifications. The final set of indicators wasarrived at after the presentation hereby incorporating the suggestions during thepresentations. The final set of the evolved indicators is given in Annexure I.
This was followed by the feedback session. The participants were of the viewthat more workshops of this kind should be organized to facilitate participatorylearning and information eXchange. They also suggested that the duration of theworkshop be extended to two days. They also emphasized the need for exposurevisit to other JFM villages to facilitate experience sharing. Use of plays, songs etcin addition to posters for explaining the concepts was also suggested by theparticipants.
After the feedback session, Dr. Rain Prasad on behalf of 11FM Bhopal delivered abrief vote of thanks to all the participants.
Indicators evolved with communities' discussions.
I. Extent of forests and tree cover
I . Overall increase in forest area2. Dense forest (no. of trees/ha)3. More number of NTFP producing tree species4. Increase in forest area allotted to FPC5. Reduced conversion of forest land into non-forestry use6. Plantation work7. Visibility through the forests
2. Ecosystem function and vitality, . Presence of honey bees2. Age gradation3. Presence of water bodies4, More number of seedlings5. Green canopy color6. More number of healthy trees
.
25
-. ....
3. Bio-diversity conservationI . Reduce fire2. Reduced illicit felling3. Reduce' poaching4. More number of wild animals5. More number of tree species6. High availability of NTFP, medicinal and aromatic plants
4. Soil and water conservationI . Presence of doob grass (Cynodon dactylon)2, More young plants3. Presence of gullies4. Presence of bamboo5. Less exposed gravel6. Increase depth of soil
5. Forest resource productivityI . Presence of young plants2. Increase no. of rainy days3. 'Availability of timber increased4. Availability of honey, medicinal plants, flowers and fruits
increased
5. Presence of fallen twigs, branches etc6. Reduce time taken for collection of fire wood
6. Forest resource utilizationI. Per household consumption of fuelwood less2. Per household utilization of timber less3. Per Household collection of NTFP's more4. Employment-Direct and indirect5, Dependence of people on forests reduced
7. SOCio-cultural and spiritual needsI . Trade of fuelwood2. Illegal trade of timber3. More use of traditional knowledge4. Participation of all sections of society5. Efforts to overcome obstacles in management6. Better management
8. Policy, legal and institutional framework*. Increase level of participation2. Decision making and delegation3. Conflict resolution mechanism4. Monitoring and evaluation mechanism5. Capacity building measures6. Training of personnel7. Less inter-institutional clashes
26
<.~
Annexture-2
PROCEEDINGS OF FIELD TRAINING WORKSHOPHELD AT RAHATGAON
(Tropical Dry Deciduous Teak Forest)
Date of the workshop : 21-22-November 1999No of participants (From Village : Khumi & Badwani) :52
FORESTPROTECTION COMMITTEE, KHUMl.
Brief description:Khumi is a village situated at a distance of 16 km from Rahatgaon, inHarda, (Hoshangabad district)Formation of FPC : 25 March 1991Area under FPC :Forest area :
Compartment n0 : 95,96, I 05, 106, I 16, t 17Area : 2050ha
Agricultural area : 37,459haIrrigated- 17.459haUn-irrigated -20.1 Ooha
Demographic:Total families-27
Population-, 36 (scheduled tribe- I8)Executive committee members : I ICommittee President : Ghasiram SIO GirdhariCommittee secretary : Hangovind MishraCattle population : 213
Background:Agriculture was dependent on the rains only>
People used to earn their living by selling firewood(headload)>
Practiced grazing in an unsustainable manner.>
People used to be dependent on money lenders for contingent loans.>
There was a general lack of cooperation among the villagers.>
As a result there was rampant illicit cutting of trees, fires, uncontrolled>
grazing, and girdling of trees, due to which the regeneration of grasses, treesand bamboo Was severely affected.
> The people used to get intoxicated and there were frequent quarrels.> Due to excessive erosion the field soils started degrading drastical!y.
,
27
<. 6-
INITIATIVE OF JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT
Under the guidance of the then DFO B. M. S. Rathore, the decision to protect theforests , conserve the resources, by peoples' cooperation. was undertaken.There was wide ranging discussion with the villagers by the forest department togain support from the villagers,After discussions the villagers unanimously gave their consent for forestprotection and village development.
THE WORKING OF JFM
I . In forest village Khumi the constituted FPC was instructed to stop illicitgrazing, felling and fires and these should be given top priority in order toenhance the regeneration.
2. The FPC decided to protect forests from fires, uncontrolled grazing, andfelling.
3. The composite account was opened in the name of the committee, to meetaccidental and contingent needs
4. The committee was entitled to collect NTFP from the forests in return for theservice to the forests, .
5. Developmental works to be initiated after the suggestions from the villagers.6. Development of a feeling of mutual cooperation.
7. Development of means of irrigation.
8. Generation of additional sources of income like hand weaving machinespoultry farming, fish rearing, photography, loudspeaker, bangle making,grocery shop, blacksmith, etc,
9. Facilities for education, health and shelter.
IO, Coordination between various departments.
,
THE CONSEQUENCES OF JFM
Forest development> Increase in regeneration:> Tree species from 153 to 900 per ha> Bamboo area : from 78 to 322 per ha> Grass production :
28
."h
> 0.25 MT per ha> Reduction in forest fires> Control of uncontrolled grazing> Control on'illicit hunting and felling
( every day and night, two committee members protect the forests along withthe forest department stain
> Stoppage of girdling of trees.> Control on encroachm*ent.> Collection of MFP (like Gassia tora and AmIa)> Collection of grass ( Which resulted in added revenue and also protection
from fire hazards. ) 135 ton per year
Rural develo merit
> Increase in irrigation means through> Stop darns, Sprinkler irrigation, Jeevan dhara well -4 ,> Advanced agriculture:> Diesel engines -9> Electric motors -3> Cultivation of fruit trees, and planting Agave and Jatropa on slopes and
boundaries, supply of advanced seeds and fertilisers,
Means of communication
I kin forest road construction by donated labour
Drinkin - water facilit
Hand pumps 2
Means of alternative sources of energy
Smokeless chulha 20
Su
> Photography -I> Blacksmith - I> Sound service -,> Thresher - I> Flour mill-,> Jute weaving machine-I> Poultry farm -5> Vegetable shops-2
Iementa sources of income throu h settin u of units viz
E
29
.=
Freedom from the middlemen
Formation of a coin OSite fund (from self help group fund, women's committeefund, micro watershed development fund)
Social upliftment through
> Education,> Women's participation,> Control on social evils> Family planning
Cattle rearing
Immunization of all the cattle
Health and women's development
> Eye camps> Family planning> Health education camps> Polio eradication> Anganwadi program
Thus due to the cooperation between the forest department and the villagers'theKhumi village is progressing towards development.
Participants profile
52 people attended the workshop from villages Khumi and Badwani, To facilitatethe proceedings a team of IO resource persons from 11FM also attended theworkshop. The team comprises of Prof. K. C. Malhotra (national consultant), Dr.J. B. .Lal (national consultant), Dr. P. C. Kotwal (Project member), Dr. P.Bhattacharya (Project member); Dr. M. Mishra (Research Associate), Dr. D.Dugaya (Research Assistant) and three students from 11FM, namely, YogeshJadav, Dharmendra Chandurkar and James T. Kharkongor.
This also included the range officer Ms. Kamlika Maiumdar, Conservator ofForests, Mr. S. P. Dubey and Mr. 0. P, Chaudhary (D. F. 0. , Harda), the othermembers included* Mr. R. S. Chaure (the Village Agriculture Officer), Mr. T. R.Ahirwar and Mr. Vishnu Prosad Chaudhary (both primary school teachers fromBadwani). Also the Chairman of Rajiv Gandhi mission for WatershedManagement (RGWSM) Mr. Jokhilal and the secretary. Ms. Ranjita, Chairman ofthe FPC Khumi Mr. Mojilal, and Asst. Chairman Mr. Chhogilal, Chairman FPC
,
30
~
L
.. --
Badwani Mr. Premsingha and other Executive committee members and themembers of the FPCs of Khumi and Badwani.
Worksho activities
DAY I
The workshop was attended by 52 people from villages Khumi and Badwani,(including resource persons).This also included the range Officer Ms. Kamlika Maiumdar, Conservator ofForests, Mr. S. P. Dave and Mr. 0. P. Chaudhary (D. F. 0, Harda)The other members included, Mr. R. S, Chaure (the Village Agriculture Officer),Mr. T. R. Ahirwar and Mr. Vishnu Prasad Chaudhary (both primary schoolteachers from Badwani). Also: the Chairman (RGWSM) Mr. Jokhilal, Secy. Ms.Ranjita Chairman FPC Khumi Mr. Moilal, and Asst. Chairman Mr. ChhogilalChairman FPC Badwani Mr. Premsingh. And other Executive committeemembers and the members of the FPCs of Khumi and Badwani.
The venue was Rahatgaon ECo-Development centre.
On the 21'' of November the villagers traveled to .Rahatgaon by means of aminibus, which had been arranged by us.The participants reached there at 9:30 a. in.The enrolment of the participants began at 9.30 am and extended till lunch hours'
The Workshop began with a basic question as to "Why the forests need to beprotected" which was put forth by Dr. Kotwal.
"go on" for at least sevenIt came out from the villagers that the forest shouldgenerations. (thus introducing the concept of sustainability).The villagers (viz Ramprasad the villager ) said that the sustainable harvestinglimit for Amia should be 90% i. e 10% of 'the existing fruits- should be left on thetrees.
NTFPs: The chief NTFPs which were extracted from the forests (as told by thevillagers) were Mahua flowers and seeds, AChar fruit, Amia fruit, Tendu leaves,fuelwood, bamboo, and also small timber and fodder.The villagers said that the amount of NTFPs available in the forests is notadequate for them as their population has increased beyond the carryingcapacity of the forests (this was told by the villagers in response to our questionas to the extent of forests and its productivity).The villagers agreed to the fact that the current method of extracting the fruitswas not sustainable, (i. e. cutting, or felling the tree for harvesting the fruit)
31
^^
Fuelwood : The villagers said that the current pattern of procuring the fuelwoodfrom the forests was as per the norms given by the FD i. e. collecting dead, dyingor diseased trees. The chief specie which was used as fuelwood was Papdi,Tendu, and also sometimes Teak.
Bamboo: The villagers used bamboo for their shelter purposes. They changedthis timber after every 3-4 years, The chief source of bamboo was from the nistardepots which they get at lesser price. Bamboo was in abundance on the Khumipart of the forest.
Wildlife: The villagers said that wildlife is an integral part of the forests, and thatit should be protected But they said that the wild boar and the chital should bekilled as they destroy the crops and are a menace.
Teak wood : The villagers agreed that there should be teak trees in the forestand added that the ratio should be 1:1 i. e. 50 % of the trees should be of teakand 509". should be of other type of trees which also includes the fuelwoodspecies.
Fodder and grass: The villagers agreed that there was a marked change in theavailability of grass in protected and unprotected areas. They added that Theavailability of grass. determined the health of their cattle and livestock.
Biodiversity : It was unanimously declared by. all the participants thatbiodiversity was an integral part of the forests and that there should be a varietyof plants as well as animals in the forests so as to keep the forests lasting for atleast seven generations.
People's perception about forests : The people perceived the forests as ameans of fuelwood as also as a means of livelihood. The forest departmentprovided occasional employment in road construction, building temporarystructures, check darns, etc. The villagers also said that they had their Gods' inthe forests, in the form of various 'babas' and 'devis' whom they revered and didnot cut the trees in which they were believed to be residing.The villagers also had trees surrounding their temples, which they worshippedand were never cut.
Till lunch the participants discussed the topics which covered almost all the eightcriteria and their indicators as mentioned in the Bhopal-India process.
The lunch time was from I:45-2:30 p. in.
After the lunch was over, the program was as follows:
.
J
32
.. -I *
8. Game of sustainability
After the lunch, the participants assembled at the venue. The game ofsustainability was played in three rounds. The first included only men memberswho were allowed to harvest as much as they could gather. In the second roundthe women were asked to do the same procedure. In the third round they wereasked to gather the harvest as much as they needed.
This made the villagers understand the concept of sustainability and also that theneed based approach (rather than the traditional grab-the-things- approach) wasa more acceptable one and also contributed to sustainable methods of forestutilisation.
Division of the participants into groups:The assembled participants were divided into eight groups and were given oneresource person each to facilitate the discussion process. The groups were giventhe eight criteria, and were asked to discuss on the same and the points werenoted. They were also asked to distinguish between good and bad foreststhrough pictures.
DAY 2
at 10:00 am on 22"' NovThe Resource people then went to the village Khumi, 999, and there the previously discussed topics were presented in front of all theassembled -villagers by each group. There were new points, which the assembledvillagers quoted from time to time.Then a group photograph was also taken in order to document the participantswho were present at the venue.
Feedback session
A small feedback session was also arranged in which the participants wereasked to fill out a small feedback form.
Workshop outcomes:
I . The workshop gave the villagers an opportunity to express their views aboutthe forests as well as the forest department. (as expressed by the villagers inthe feedback forms. )
2. It also helped the villagers to sit together and discuss the issues of intimateimportance and need i. e. fuelwood and employment.
3. The eight criteria and their respective indicators were discussed and tested(with regional significance).
J
33
,. .,
4. There were various observations, which came out as new indicators of forest,its health and vitality.
5. The issues of alternative sources of livelihood were discussed at great lengthand was a major issue as regards reduction of load on forest.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE:
The workshop didn't have enough number of youth participants andtherefore it is recommended .that in future, a sizeabte number of youngparticipants (age I 5-30 yrs) be necessarily included.
~ The issues regarding empowerment of villagers as well as those ofalternative sources of livelihood should be given due justice as they forma major part in the sustainable use of the existing forests.
^
Evolved indicators with communities
Criteria , : Extent of forest and tree cover
I . Total forest area has increased2. Density of forest is more3.1ncrease of tree species in the forests4, Transfer of land to non-forestry activities has been a regular trend5. Land has been lost due to submergence6. Area with the FPC has been increased
Criteria 2: Ecosystem function and vitality,. Green leaves have increased2. All age classes of trees are present3. High rainfall leading to less of pests has been a recent trend4, Presence of cobwebs in the forests5. Weeds are produces in large numbers6. Animals and birds number have increased
Criteria 3: Biodiversity conservation:
I . Fire protection is more pronounced in the recent years as a result of whichthe flora and fauna have increased
2. Grazing has been decreased in the forest area due to protection3. Roads have been built which act as fire linesCriteria 4: Soil and water conservation:I. Pebbles hurting feet's while walking2. Presence of shrubs, spiders3. Presence of Koha trees(TerminalIa aji'uria)
,
34
<.. -
Criteria 5: Forest resource productivity:
I : Girth and height of trees determine the productivity2. Regeneration status of the forests is more as evident from the increase in the
number of seedlings in the recent years3. Availability of fuelwood has been increased4. Availability of NTFPs has been decreased
Criteria 6: Forest resource utilisation:I . Collection of NTFP's has reduced2. Employment from forests-Direct has been increased3. Employment from forests- Indirect4. Forest related offences reported have reduced
Criteria 7: Social, cultural and spiritual needsI. Increase in total income
2. Sufficiency in good production3. Trees of religious values have increased4. Participation of all segments of society (gender, age, class)5. Aesthetic value of the forests.
Criteria 8: Policy, legal and institutional frameworkI. Income generation activities by the FPC2. Employment through FPC3. Documentation and maintenance of accounts4. Bargaining power for NTFPs5. Incentives and concessions
J
35
*.
Annexture-3
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIELD TRAINING WORKSHOPat
Motinala, East Mandla Forest Division
(Tropical Dry Deciduous Sal Forest)
Background:
Participation of the local communities in the management of forests officiallystarted after the Indian forest policy of I 988 and the subsequent I 990 resolutionon Joint Forest Management (JFM). The objective was sustainable managementof forests with the help of the resident communities that were directly or indirectlydependent on the forests. Since then all over the country, JFM is beingimplemented. Till now 18 states have passed resolution on JFM. JFM, as such,is viewed as a strategy for achieving the overall objective of Sustainable ForestManagement (SFM). With almost a decade of the implementation, it is imperativeto monitor the direction of change. And thus it necessitates criteria andindicators.
Although, there have been many initiatives worldwide for evolving criteria andindicators for SFM; these efforts have concentrated on national and regionallevel. But, few have centered on the grassroots level or tried to incorporate localknowledge.
In connection with the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) projecttitled 'Testing of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest managementthrough community participation", a one-day workshop was conducted atPanerikheda village. The village has been taken up under JFM since I 996.
The objectives of the workshop were:
I. To sensitize the villagers, field level forest department staff andother stakeholders about SFMTo capture the perception of the stakeholders regarding SFMTo initiate a dialogue on SFM and spread the message of SFMTo evolve people's indicators for SFM based on indigenousknowledge, experience and common sense.
2.
3.
4.
36
L
F",.
Profile of the area:
Panarikheda: Panarikheda village lies in the Mandla district of Madhya Predesh.The population of the village is 465 in 81 households. The people are mainlytribal. Only 28 of the households have land and the rest are landless labors. Thetopography is undulating with moderate slopes. The rocks are of igneous rocks ofcretaceous age. The soil type primarily sandy.
The forest type is Moist Peninsular Valley Sal Forest. The predominant speciesis Sal (Shorea robusta). The associate species are Saia (TerminalIa tomentosa),Kusum (Sohleichera o1eosa), Baheda (TerminalIa beliefica), Tendu (DiospyrosmeIanoxylon), Char (BUGhanania Ianzan) etc. The canopy density varies from0.6 to 0.9. The crop is generally young to middle aged.
In this village, FPC was formed in the year 1996. There are 12 members in theexecutive committee including three women members. All the households aremembers of the committee. The members protect the forests from grazing, fireand illicit felling. The FPC also takes up other income generation activities,
Participants:
The participants for the workshop consisted of the 66 villagers of Panarikheda,Hatta, Aamgahan, Devgaon, Sathia, Lohta, Giarahdongri, Baila, Moodiarichkaand Mahagaon. Besides villagers (both members and as well as non-membersof FPC), others who participated in the workshop are Forest Department fieldlevel staff, NGOs, other field level staff and the 11FM team. The team comprisesof Dr. Rain Prasad (Project Principal Advisory, Dr. K. C. Malhotra (nationalconsultant), Dr. J. B. Lal (national consultant), Dr. P. C. Kotoal (Project member),Dr. P. Bhattacharya (project member), Dr. M. Mishra (Research Associate), Dr.D. Dugayya (Research Assistant) and three students from 11FM, namely,Yogesh Jadav, Dharmendra Chandurkar and James T. Kharkongor.
Workshop activities
Session I (Pre-lunch):
The workshop proceedings started with the deliberations of the variousmembers of the 11FM team on SFM, then a game on SFM, discussions byvarious groups on the SFM criteria, field visit, presentations by the groups andlastly the feedback sessions.
The workshop started with an introductory note by Dr. Rain Prosad, Director11FM. He first explained to the villagers the various aspects of forest protection.He first stated that if the forests are protected that the regeneration status of theforest would be very good based upon the indicators that are the number of
.
37
L
$-
seedlings and saplings. He also describes the concept of age gradation statingthe importance of the presence of the different age class. Then he went on todescribe the concept of Bio-diversity in context to the different function of thedifferent community of the village. Each community has a definite function toperform without which the villagers would face difficulty in undertaking their dailyactivities. Thus he concluded that each tree ahs a definite function without whichthe forest would somewhat suffer.
He then went on to elaborate the importance of the Nori Timber Forest Produce(NTFPs), such as Tendu (Diospyros me Ianoxylon), Mahua (Mahuca indica),Harra (TerminalIa chebula) etc.
He then went to explain the difference between good forest and bad (degraded)forest. A good forest is that which have a good regeneration status, no soilerosion, water availability, green canopy etc. This exercise was carried out withthe help of the villagers. Though Dr. Rain Prosad took the initiative, the villagerswere the ones who gave the indicators of good forests as well as good forest.
Then each of the presidents of the concerned FPC and Village ForestCommittee (VFC) gave a short description of their respective committees. Someof the highlights of this exercise were:
I. In Lohta village, the president, Mr. Phoo! Singh elaborated that prior to theformation of the committee, thefts were taking place at an alarming rate. Butafter the formation of the committee these incidents have ceased completelydue to the protection of the forest by the committee.
2. In Bela village, the president, Mr. Mansa Rain of the FPC stated that due tothe formation of the FPC, there was an increase in employment as the FPCundertook some employment generating activities. Some of these activitiesproviding employment include loans for tractors, shops etc, setting up of waterpumps for irrigation and so on. Also the occurrence of fire, theft of forestproduce and other illegal harvesting practices have stopped altogether due tothe effectiveness of the patrols of four to five persons daily. These points werefurther substantiated by the secretary, Mr. Pandey, of the FPC who is also theforest guard of that of that forest.
Similarly, other FPCs'NFC's presidents also gave an account of their respectiveactivities. In this exercise, after the presidents have relayed their activities, theforest guards, usually the secretary of the respective FPCSNFCs gave a brieaccount on the activities carried out by the FPCSNFCs.
Then onwards, Dr. P. C. Kotoal, project co-ordinator, sensitizes the stakeholdersabout the concept of SFM. The criteria and indicators for SFM under the Bhopal-India Process were explained to them with visual aids consisting of colorfulposters. Mr. Dharmendra Chandurkar helped him in the process in explaining
38
....
further; some more posters based on SFM and the Bhopal process criteria andindicators on SFM.
Dr. Kotoal explained that if the people utilize the forest beyond its carryingcapacity, in no time the forest would become unproductive. And without theforest the future generations would have to face the consequences of what thepresent generation did. Dr. Kotwal prompted the villagers to say what was intheir mind. One villager explained what a good forest should be. He indicatedthat each household should have land which would have at least 75% forestcover and the remainder could be utilize for domestic purposes as well as
,
agricultural practices. But this statement caused a furore as some of thevillagers felt that the agriculture land allotment should be at least 25% and thatfor forest -cover of 50%. Then some of the villagers came up with the idea ofsocial forestry. Though they may not know the technical ity of social forestry, butwhen they explained that they could plant on wastelands, roadside, householdsetc, , the resource team from 11FM felt that the people are referring to nothingelse but social forestry. Some section of the participants felt that this kind offorest i. e. social forestry should be at least 25% of the total land of the village.
Then Dr. J, B. Lat, national consultant, then continued from where DR. Kotoalleft and went further on by asking the participants what a good forest should be.Then one of the villagers explained that a good forest is that which keeps ongoing (giving products) and keep on going forever. He then went on andprompted the participants what the indicators of a good forest should be. Thenthe villagers stood up and said that a good forest is that which would last for at
t' , th t their future ' eneration would not suffer. Thisleast seven generations, so that their future generation would not suffer. Thisthen lead to - a discussion on a series of indicators of good forests, which thevillagers gave.
Some of these indicators are:
^ Green and dense canopy5:1 Presence of more seedlingsall- Presence of trees of different age classes* Different species of both flora and fauna*. Presence of bamboo^!- Different sizes tree i. e. storey (e. g. undergrowth, middle storey, and top
canopy)3.1- Visibility-*I- Aesthetic values of the forest^. Presence of sufficient amount of water^,. Cool surroundings (especially during the summers)
The villagers then went on and said that smaller trees would not be present if thebigger trees are not as the bigger trees give the seeds for the production of moretrees. They also said that if the forests are present then the air they get also isclean and feels good as compared to the air in other town and cities where there
39
.=-,
are no forests nearby. One learned villagers, a school going girl, explained that agood forest is that where there is efficient eXchange of carbon dioxide (CO2) andoxygen (02)-
The villagers then contributed to the workshop by saying that one of the meansfor SFM is by having a secure, effective and sustainable institution, in this casenamely the FPC or the VFC. One of the methods for having a sustainableinstitution (FPC) is by giving it economic security. This could be achieved bysigning a contract with the forest department by which the latter is obliged to buytheir products. For in this way the villagers would not be exploited by themiddlemen, who usually buy their products at throwaway prices. At present thevillagers do riot have a secured market for the products that they obtain from theforests.
Further general discussions about the forest then took place. The villagers statedthat the livestock of the villages are decreasing due to them failing prey to thejungle cats (tigers, leopard etc). This also indicates that there is an increase inthe population of the wildlife in the forest. This could be evident from thepresence of wild pigs which do not only cause damage to the agricultural cropsbut to also the forest roots, tubers etc, The menace of these wild pigs isincreasing and the people are agitated at the forest department for not taking anyadequate action upon this matter. They also stated that the people should alsobe given their rights inside the sanctuary, national parks etc. These people aremostly from the areas surrounding the Kanha National Park (buffer zone). Thesepeople want that their rights inside the National Park could be limited to 50%. Butthey say that the Forest department officials do not listen to their claims.
They say that while protecting the forest they create enemies as they do notallow the other party to collect firewood, fodder (or for grazing), felling trees,extracting forest produce etc. But the villagers said that such disputes are boundto happen and they have to bear it.
For the participating villagers, whose village is under JFM has no dearth offirewood, though the may have to walk a bit further to collect the firewood. Forexample, Panerikheda village gets its fuelwood from a teak plantation that isnearby (sixty minutes to seventy-five minutes walk). They usually collect fallenbranches, twigs and other dried woody material. Even dried Lantana is used as afuelwood, This weed is abundantly available in the forests.
The villages then gave an account of the work carried out by the respectiveFPCSNFCs. Panerikheda representative said that they were employing two fulltime chowkidar for the protection of the forest. This, according to them, has beena real success as the number of thefts from the forest allotted to them decreased.An offender if caught is let off with a warning, but if he is found repeating theoffence then he is fined according to the rates fixed by the villagers. The roles ofthe villagers in this case also could not nullify as they also contribute a lot to the
,
40
,.+.\
protection of the forest. The Bela representative stated that the whole villageprotects their forest. They do not employ chowkidars as in the previous case, butinstead they form patrols, which was on rotation basis i. e. different groups patrolsthe forest alternately. He went on further to say that this system is better than theprevious one as the whole village becomes responsible for protecting the forest.
The villagers stated that the landless are the least benefited from the formation ofthe FPC as these people are so poor that if loans are given to them, most of thetimes these loans are not repaid. As a result the loans which one could avail fromthe FPCNFC are given to those who are potential loaners that is those who havesome ability to repay back the loans.
Then Dr. K. C, Maihotra, national consultant, initiated the discussion on genderfemale doesissues. During the discussion that followed it was found out that the
the following chores (besides the other daily chores a woman does):Prepare food^it.
Water collection*-
Provide fodder to the animals^.
Fuelwood collection-*:-
Buying the daily requirements from markets^I-
Selling of forest produce;^-
Handling of the household accounts-it!-
And the chores for the inari of the household are:^!- Farming
Provide fodder to domestic animals*-
^ Taking the cattle out for grazing*- Selling of Mahua (Madhuca indica) if the women are not available
Besides the above jobs, the males performs the female chores as well if thefemale member of the family could not undertake the above mentioned chores.
After these discussions, a game on sustainable forest management was playedamong the participants, except for the resource team, as -they were the oneswho conduct the games and explained the rules to the participants.
The game was designed to reinforce the concept of sustainability and equity inthe minds of the villagers. Six participants played the game in one go. 36lemons were kept in a basket. At the sound of the whistle, the players took asmuch as they can in one go, using one hand only. The remaining lemons in thebasket were doubled after each draw. The players can continue playing thegame till the basket is empty or for seven rounds. Each player was supposed tomaximise his/her score. First, six male participants played the game and thensix female participants played the game. They could not play for more than threerounds. Then they were asked to play by rules with each one taking the equaamount and sharing only half the number of potatoes in one draw, The fina
r
41
<^c
scores after seven rounds for each of the player were equal and the basket stillhad 361emons.
Then eight groups were formed on the basis of the eight criteria and each groupis selected in such a way that it is heterogeneous in terms of sex, age, class,designation etc. Each group is facilitated by at least one member of the resourceteam. Then the groups were given some time before lunch to discuss upon thegiven criteria and its indicators.
Session 2 (post lunch session):
In this session the groups were again asked to further discuss upon the givencriteria and indicators. This discussion went on for another thirty to fortyminutes.
After the discussions, a field trip led by Dr. Rain Prasad was organised, All theparticipants went to he field for the exercise. In the field, Dr. Rain Prosad led theparticipants to a check darn and explained to them the benefits of building sucha darn. He pointed out that the benefits could be observed, as the vegetation onthe banks are thick and also that there is no more soil erosion in that area. Thenthe contingent went on to another spot where a regeneration survey was carriedout. This survey was carried out by naming the various tree species that wasfound in the area falling in between the human grid. Human grid as the namesignifies is a grid, formed by humans. Three persons were selected to name thespecies -and each person came up with more or less the same number -ofspecies. All together 27 species were found.
After this field trip, presentations by the different group were held.
Then a feedback session followed in which the participants gave their views onhow the workshop could be more effective for them. Some of the views were:I . More visual effects such as video shows, slide shows etc2. This kind of workshop should be held regularly3. Should be more practical-based e. g. This of workshop could also teach the
villagers some of the technical aspects of plantation4. The workshop period should be extended
Then a vote of thanks was offered from the 11FM team by the project advisor, Dr.Rain Prosad and from the forest department by the D. F. 0. (Production), MandlaDivision, Then the representatives from different villages also expressed theirgratitude for the conduction of the workshop.
.
42
$..~
Evolved indicators b communities
Criteria I : Extent of forestsI . Area under forest should not decrease
2. Forest area keeping up with the increase in populationAll age classes of all tree species3.
Increase of tree cover outside natural forest (plantation)4.
5. More no. of NTFPs and fruit bearing trees6. Reduce transfer of forest area to nori forest use7. Increased area with the FPC8. Canopy density9. Plant trees on bunds ands wastelands
Criteria 2: Ecosystem function and vitalityI . Disease free2. Green leaves
3. Adequate regeneration4. Less grazing, fire, weeds etc.5. Presence of cobwebs6. Complete food chain7. Presence of honey bees8. - Good rainfall
Criteria 3: Bio-diversity conservationI. Area under closure2. More number of animals and birds of different species
Criteria 4: Soil and water conservationI . Presence of gullies2. Soil compaction leading to less regeneration3. Less exposed rocks4. Pebbles hurting the feet's while walking5. Less siltation of tank and reservoirs6. Increased duration of water in water bodies7. Presence of earthworms
Criteria 5: Forest resource productivityI. Stern density2. Increased in no. of different tree species3. Increased' flower and seed production by trees, like in ahua, Jamun, Char etc.4, Increased regeneration5. Quality of seeds6. Increase leaf litter7. More number of beehives/honey production
.
43
.. ,
..
Criteria 6: forest resource utilisation
I. Variety of uses2. Fuelwood availability and less consumption3. % of seedsmowers left on trees after harvest
4. Employment in forestry sector increased
Criteria 7: SOCio-cultural and spiritual needsI. Increased share of income from NTFP2. More religious and sacred trees3. Equity of gender, caste, class etc4. Decrease in number of offences5. More use of traditional knowledge
Criteria a policy, legal and institutional framework.I . Mechanism for handling forest offences2. Special facilities whenever a need arises e. g. marriage
Income generation activities by FPC3.
Efforts to reduce pressure on forests by the FPC4.
,
,
44
3'~
Annexrue-4
Study Tour in reference to ITTO Pre-project(21. ,. 2000 through 7.2.2000)
Dr. Rain Prasad, Director, 11FMDr. P. C. Kotoal, Associate Professor
Dr. Prodyut Bhattacharya, Assistant Professor
I
Started from Delhi on 2, st January and reached Berkeley on 22nd January, 2000
1.1 Meeting with Dr. Mark Poffenber'ger - Director, . Asia Forest Network and
Dr. (Ms. ) Angana Chaterjee, in reference to their India Research Projectsubmitted to DFID for funding support (in collaboration with 11FM, Bhopal).
Berkeley January 22-26,2000
1.2 Also met officials of Earth Island Institute of Sari Francisco and had
preliminary .discussions regarding possible collaboration in a project on"Tibetan Plateau Environmental Research Programme".
Visit to "Hayfork" about 500 Kin . North of Berkeley to AdaptiveManagement Area (AMA) (Model Forest). This is one of the ten suchimportant areas, which are managed as AMA with a concept ' Learning to
to Learn". Discussed with the officials ofManage and Managing
Watershed, Research and Training Center, Hayfork namely Dr. (Ms. ) Lynn
Jungwirth - Coordinator, Mr. Roger jaegel and Cece!ia Danks. Discussionon the Center's activities and achievements.
Visited participatory (Public and private participation) managed Forestareas where thinning, inventorying, water quality assessment, fire as amanagement tool is being practiced under AMA.
I. 3
.
45
,
*~
The area is being managed under Ecosystem approach after the' injunction of the U. S. Court to stop felling of old growth trees to conserve
the habitat of spotted owl under endangered species Act. This has
resulted in banning of tree felling. Due to this many forest depended
families became jobless who use to be work in this area as loggers. ThisCenter has involved such jobless people in the activities of AMA.
The study team also visited to the saw milling area where the small
diameter logs of PonderOSa pine, Douglas fir, Oak etc. are converted into
many utility items, furniture by mechanized process.
*
The Watershed Research and training Centers representative Ms.
Cecelia Danks made a presentation regarding the impact of their activities
in Hayfork .area. She has also discussed about capacity building through
training. The details of curriculum were also discussed.
.
Also visited the District Range office, Hayfork where the study team met
with officials working in the field of GIS, Wildlife Management Unit.Observed their excellent office facilities and working environment.
,. 4 Visit to California University, Berkeley
I. 4.1 Visited the Center for South Asia Studies and meet with Raba
Gunasekara, programme representative of the Center. He has briefed theactivities of the Center.
and Natural1.4.2 Meeting with Prof. Jeffery Romm, Professor of ForestryResource Policy at California, University of Berkeley. Director, 11FM alongwith the study team discussed the possibility of future collaboration withDepartment of Forestry, UCB. The discussions in relation to Research
-,
46
.. ,-
Areas like Community Forestry, NTFPs, Biodiversity Conservation* Fire,
Policy and Environmental Economics.
,
Dr. Romm has consented to provide institutional support to visiting
researcher, faculty member in response to 11FM Director's offer. Similarly,Director, 11FM has also offered to provide the logistics and infrastructure
facilities for the visiting fellow's of UCB. Dr. Romm was very much happyto have immediate collaboration with 11FM. He has also taken around the
different sections of his department and introduced with some
researchers.
11 Visit to University of Toronto, Canada {Jan. 27-30,2000)
2.1 Meeting with Dr. Shashikant, Faculty of forestry. He had organized a
meeting with faculty members of faculty of forestry with the visiting team of11FM. Meet Dr. D. N. Roy, Dr. Jagdish Nautya!, :Prof. Emeritus; Dr. (Ms. )
Breats and other faculty members and Ph, D. scholars,
Director, 11FM gave a detailed presentation about 11FM and Indian Forestryand SFM. The lecture was attended by several faculty members,
researchers and master level students,
2.2
2.3
,
Meeting with the Prof. Rorke B. Bryan the Dean, Forestry Faculty. Thevisiting team discussed various aspects of possible collaboration withUniversity of Toronto. Dr. Bryan has positively responded and promised toprovide all the institutional support to 11FM for building collaborativeprogrammes.
The discussion was concentrating around student eXchange, collaborative
research, faculty development etc. He has offered to sign an agreementbetween 11FM and UOT for sustaining long term relationship(Mou)
47
.-
C~
between the two organisations. Dr. Bryan was happy in the eXchange ofstudents, Two Master students of UOT will visit 11FM for I O weeks to work
on project as a part of their course curriculum during June - August, 2000.
\
2.4 Along with Dr. Shashikant the study team has visited the famousecotourism area of Niagra falls in Niagra District boarding USA.
111 Visit to Portland 31st Jan. - 3rd Feb. 2000 ,
2.5 Met Dr. Tim Tolle (of Us Forest Service) Regional Coordinator Adaptive
Management Areas at his Regional Office in Portland.
Meeting with different officials namely :
I. Mr. Richard Phillips, Regional Economist Strategic Planning
2. Dr. Gary Benson PNW Research Station Representative, Regional
Ecosystem Office
3. Mr. Research W. Haynes - Programme Manager Us DA Forest
Service, Pacific North-west Research Station
Dr. Tim Tolle gave a presentation on the activity of Adaptive Management3.2
Areas. There are special Ecological Units where innovative approaches to
Ecosystem Management are developed and tested. He gave a brief idea aboutIO such AMA's namely , . Olympic 2. Finney 3. Sooqualmie Pass 4. Cispus 5.North Coast Range 6. Central Cascades 7. Little River 8. Applegate 9.Goosenest IO. Hayfork. He had given brief differences between Model Forestand AMA Concept.
.
The ten Pacific North-west AMA's were selected to represent areas
impacted by reduced timber harvests from federal lands that have a mix of
I
48
,.*
public and private ownership and a range of technical challenges.
Ultimately, they are intended to be prototypes of how, forest communities
might be sustained by integrating local knowledge and experience. TheAMAs will be critical to managing the future landscape of the region,
including restoring, protecting and sustaining healthy ecosystems as well
as providing goods and services for future generations.
He has also made a reference to Oregon's approximation report for
sustainability.
.
Therefore a detailed presentation was made about the criteria and
indicators of SFM as developed for Pacific North West. There are seven
criteria and 67 indicators. Criterion No. 5 "Contribution to global carbon
cycles" is new. Indicator No. 44 "Employment in the forestry sector' canalso be considered in the C&t of B-I process,
Dr. Richard Phillips Regional Economist has given a web site "
htpp:11www. fs. us. /institute/lucid/index. html" for criteria and indicators. Hehas also made a presentation and LUC! D project (local unit Criteria &
Indicators Development).
Director, 11FM assisted by his visiting colleagues has made a detailed
presentation about 11FM, Forestry Scenario in India, C&I of B-I process.
*
Thereafter visited World Forest Institute at 4033 SW Canyon Road,
Portland. Ms. Sara, Director, Education of the World Forest Institute has
taken around forest displaced and thereafter she gave a presentationabout activities of the Institute. During her presentation, she said that the
World Forest Institute is a none-profitable NGO and is being run by
donations and by the board. The Board members can nominate someresearcher for a study on a particular topic relating to forestry on a 50 16
J
.
49
-^
matching grant basis. This is a good opportunity for 11FM to arrange 50%
grant from some other donor agencies to work areas like Community
Forestry,
Next day, we were taken to Northern Coast Range which is one out of 10
Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs). We have seen the forest and metvarious officials particularly Mr. Warren Tausch of Bureau of Land
Management, AMA Coordinator; Mr. Garry Benson, Pacific North-westResearch Station, Regional Ecosystem and Office (REO). The old trees of
Douglas fir provide the only nesting habitat of the Marbled murrelet ( arobin sized sea bird listed as threatened under endangered species Act of
USA ). This area has a Late Successional Reserve(LSR) due to theconcerns for this bird. The late successional forest habitat features include
larger trees with larger crowns and branches, openings in the canopy,snags and down logs, forest range of over story tree visit a variable
degree of establishment and growth of under story species. 12 old trees
of Douglas fir and girdled at. about 80' ft. height to promote growth of sidebranches over which the bird makes nest. We have also seen the Douglas
fir forest affected by Swiss needle cast disease caused by a fungus. Theneedles are affected from the top turn gray and thereafter shed off,
Investigation is being carried out to control this disease. The research andmonitoring is coordinated by the Swiss Needle Cast Cooperative (SNCC)which is a coalition of I 720 companies and agencies from the State of
Oregon and Washington.
IV
Visited the red wood forest near to San Francisco and seen the World's largest
Seqoia (Red wood) which reaches to a height of 367 ft and corresponding hugediameter. In the afternoon again met and discussed with Ms. Angana Chattedee
Visit to San Francisco (Feb. 4,2000)
trees
50
L
,. ^
and Dr. Richards of the Earth island Institute about their Research Project and
possible collaboration with 11FM.
V Departure oreb. 5-8,2000)
05.02,2000 and reached New Delhi onDeparted from Sari Francisco on
07.02.2000 evening and to Bhopal on 08.02.2000.
,.
A
.
51
*'~
Annexrue-5
Workshop on Sustainable Forest Management was organised jointly by In direGandhi National Forest Academy Dehradun and Indian Institute of ForestManagement Bhopal on 3'' and 4th November 1999. The venue was IGNFADehradun (U. P. )
INAUGURAL SESSION
WELCOME ADDRESS
PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL WORKSHOP
AT IGNFA, DEHRADUN (NORTHERN INDIA)
Shri P. B. Gangopadhayay, Director, IGNFA, laid stress on developing indicatorsfor our major functional categories of forests i. e. production, protected, degradedand commercial forests while extending the welcome to the participants. Hesuggested that the indicators should be practicable, measureble and verifiableand should stand to quick field-testing. He indicated that the Academy had a planto launch a project to develop realistic training package with regard to thedevelopment, testing and application of indicators. Referring to the ITFO projectproposed . by 11FM, a need for visualizing mechanism for field-testing wasemphasised. Bio diversity, Production Degradation and Forestry in nori-forestareas like Agro Forestry and Industrial Forestry were considered the broadcriteria by Shri Gangopadhayay.
INTRODUCTION To WORKSHOP
Dr. Rain Prosad, Director, 11FM, introduced the subject of Sustainable ForestManagement (SFM) and explained the Bhopal-India Process to the participantsas discussed, resolved and agreed through a workshop held at 11FM Bhopal inJan 21 " I 999. He also informed about the international recognition to Bhopal-India Process. Eight criteria, developed and accepted for. the Process, weredescribed and elaborated. Need for discussing and refining the criteria andindicators in the workshop was emphasised. It was explained that the indicatorsshould be simple and quickly and easily me asurable. According to him Bhopal-India Process of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) was applicable to theDry Zone Forests of Asia, which included mainly the countries of Indian sub-continent.
Necessary of involving various stakeholders in the Sustainable ForestManagement (SFM) process was considered rather obligatory. In thi^ context,joint efforts of the people and foresters, popularly known as Joint ores
I
52
$4
Management, was stated to have acquired the most preferred status. Dr. RainPrasad stressed the need for safeguarding the national interest by subjectingimports and exports to certification in accordance to India's own criteria andindicators, instead of being subjected to the certification scrutiny in accordancewith the norms of other countries. He desired the workshop to deliberate uponthe various issues relating to Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and tocome out with solid recommendations about the criteria and indicators. He alsoimplored to ratify and strengthen Bhopat-India Process and improve upon thedecision taken in Bhopal workshop.
ADDRESS BY CHIEF GUEST
Shri C. P. Oberoi, Inspector General of Forest, India was the Chief Guest of theworkshop. In his address, he threw light on the acute biotic pressure faced by theforests of India. Inadequacy of forests in relation to the enormous human andcattle population and imbalance in demand and supply of forest products werehighlighted. Richness of the traditional and indigenous knowledge existing in thecountry and number of plant species utilised for various purposes were broughtout by giving use wise number of species. Stress was laid on the necessity ofSustainable management of Forests and strategies for the same were outlined.Raising and answering the question of "what to achieve? The criteria ofsustainable forest management were indicated. These were:-
(i) ' Optimal level of productivity(Ii). 33% foresUtree cover,(iii) Livelihood security of people,(iv) Aesthetic/emotional/religious needs of people and(v) Sense of general well being/improved environment(vi) Jointlparticipatory management(vii) Reclamation of problem lands(viii) Forestry beyond forest lands and(ix) Improved technologies
He impressed upon the need for developing India's own process of SustainableForest Management (SFM) and criteria and indicators therefore, Iest the samewould be dictated by the other signatories of various conventions onenvironment, bio diversity World Trade etc. Referring to the National ForestAction Plan of India, interrelated programmes and sub programmes set thereinwere explained. Protection of existing forests, improvement of forest productivity,reduction of demand pressure, expanding forest areas and strengthening po icyand institutional frame work were stated to be the major programmes of NationalForestry Action Plan (NFAP) India. He reminded that India had plenty pi land,light, laborers and technicians and as such scopes of increasing productivity anproduction was tremendous. Advantage of rich ITK (Indigenous TechnicalKnowledge) was also highlighted.
.
,
I
53
-.^*
KEY NOTE ADDRESS
Keynote Address was delivered by Shri A. K. MUKherjee, Ex-IG, Forests. He dealtupon the complexity of managing tropical forests for sustainable supply of goodstogether with maintaining environmental and ecological services. Referring to theincreasing emphasis laid by the WTO and ITFO on regulated harvesting andtrade in forest products by developing criteria and indicators for sustainability, hemade brief mention of international perspective of Sustainable ForestsManagement (SFM).
In this context mention was made of Brundtland Commission 1987, non-legallybinding "Forestry Principles" adopted at Rio in 1992, FAO document titled" Thechallenges of Sustainable Forest Management (, 93)" and ITTO Newsletter, 16-05-94. Definition of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) by FAO and ITTOwas referred to. In the Indian context he claimed that 'traditional life styles' ofIndians, forest management as referred to in 'Kautilaa's Arthshastra' and forestconservation measures initiated by emperor Ashoka were the evolutionary stepsleading to the concept of Sustainable Forest Management. Propounding andpracticing the principle of 'removal of only incremental gro\nth' followed byregeneration of forests through Working Plans was credited to Dr. D. Brandis thefirst I. G. Forests of India. This was also referred to as laying down of criteria forsustainability. In the post independence era formulation of National ForestPolicies (1952 & I 988), constitutional provisions tArticle 48-A and Article 51-A(g)I, inclusion of the subject of 'Forests' in the concurrent list (1976), enactmentof Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, issuance of guide lines by the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests to State Governments, enactment of the Wildlife(Protection) Act I 972 (amended in , 991 ) etc. were the various actions and toolsaiming at facilitation of Sustainable Forest Management in India.
While elaborating upon the new approach to forest sustainability in India'ecosystem approach', 'balancing different perceptions of different stakeholders,'safeguarding user-community rights, national needs, harmonizing conservationand environmental goals with national and international concerns', ensuringinterrelationship amongst various stakeholders and interest groups and 'bridgingthe wide gap between demand and supply' have been highlighted for sustainableforest management.
Shri Mukherjee suggested guiding principles for developing criteria for forestsustainability as below:
(a) Optimizing Productivity,
J
(b) Adoptioh of Appropriate Technologies,(c) Ensuring social and Environmental compatibility(d) Managing the forests for optimal production
sustainable limits of carrying capacityand harvesting within the
54
L
f'-
(e) Developing linkages with the market forces and devising strategies foralternatives
(f) Limiting extraction of forest produce within the carrying capacity and(g) Ensuring equity in the use of the goods and services,
Following strategies for implementing Sustainable Forest Management practicehad also been suggested:
Bring about 100 in ha. of land area under foresVtree cover. For these(a)additional 30 in ha. Of public and private wastelands should be set aside forforest and tree cover purposes.
area of the country as National Parks,Preserve one-third of the forestSanctuaries and Protected Areas. Support this by eco-development activitiesin the periphery.
should beManagement, utilisation and conservation for the balance area(c)renewableguided by the policies and strategies that capitalize on its
character through working plans and modern management tools,(d) Strengthen the capacity of government machinery and adopt innovative
approaches and technology.(e) Provide a framework of Sustainable Forest Management within the NationalForest Policy. . .Fully support the Bhopal-India Process initiated by the 11FM and deliberate on(f)this at the national level for adoption by MOEF and State ForestDepartments.
(g) MOEF may mobilize the resources for a much higher level of investment (atleast 3% of the national plan):
Concluding the inaugural session Shri A. K. Up adhyay, IFS, Joint Director, IGNFAthanked the speakers, Chairman, IG Forests and other participants for attendingthe workshop. He also acknowledged the contributions by all those who havehelped in shaping out the outlines of workshop.
TECHNICAL SESSION PRESENTATION OF PAPERS4.
Proceedings of the workshop was chaired by Dr. J. K. Rawat, Director, F. R. I,Dehradun on both the days.
Dr. Barin N. Ganguly, Foundation for Forestry and Rural Development could notattend the workshop. His paper "Sustainable Forest Management GlobalPerspectives - Need for Conformity" was presented by Dr. Rain Prasad.Describing the background of Sustainable Forest Management Dr. Gangulyreferred to UNCED (R10,992) where global forces recognized and stressedSustainable Forest Management as an important element of sustainabledevelopment. This conference adopted a statement of principle for a globalconsensus on management, conservation and sustainable development oforests. This statement was properly knows as "Forest Principles. " According to
.(b)
,
55
*
*~
Dr. Ganguly, "Demand for certified wood in consumer market and globalinstitutional forces are the two concurrent and parallel events for bringing toforefront the Sustainable Forest Management, It is co-terminus with sustainablehuman development with dimension of people . centered-ness, environmentalsoundness and participation of forest dwelling and forest dependentcommunities. " He has analyzed the policy environment in light of the newdevelopment paradigm. GlobalIy development of criteria and indicators formeasuring Sustainable Forest Management has been attributed to forestrycommunity. At regional level ITTO, Helsinki Process, Montreal Process, TarapotoProposal, Sub Saharan Dry Zone Africa Process, Near East and CentralAmerican region process and African Timber Organization have devotedthemselves tremendous!y for developing various sets of principles & standardsfor Sustainable Forest Management. At international level efforts have beenmade by Intergovernmental Seminar organised by Finland and FAO, CIFOR,World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UNDP and unO. All have commontheme and incorporated seven criteria. Nordic Forest Certification Project,Swedish Forest Certification Group, some major furniture producers in Swedenand Central and Western European buyers are reported to have put Sustainable
New
,
Forest Management in practice by adopting Certification. NonNay, U. K.Zealand, Indonesia and Malaysia are working on Certification standards.
Through a workshop in early I 999 11FM had taken initiative to discuss anddevelop criteria and indicators. The initiative has been named as Bhopal-IndiaProcess. The criteria developed have striking similarities with the regional andother country driven criteria. Dr. Ganguly has stressed the need for moving theBhopal-India Process to gain acceptance with the stakeholders, furtherrefinement and development of the indicators (the purpose of this workshop),field testing and implementation of the draft criteria and indicators. He hasproposed to deliberate upon the following issues to move Bhopal-India Processfurther and help develop common agenda for further follow up.
(a) Strengthening institutions for operation(b) Refining the draft criteria and indicators(c) Establishing mechanism for dialogue and deliberations(d) Carrying out and conducting selective field testing(e) Establishing a network with other global processesco Initiating a process for further deliberations among experts from the
and the States Involving Political and Administrative Institutions.
PAPER BHOPAL INDIA PROCESS BY DR. RAM PRASAD
Dr. Rain Prasad had earlier introduced the subject of Sustainable ForestManagement. He discussed the status of Sustainable Forest Management in theinternational and national context. National Forest Policies of India werehighlighted and their impact analyzed with special reference to sustainability.
56
Centre
*
According to him while I 894 policy resulted into large scale clearance of forestarea 1952 policy could be credited with emphasizing on the ecological dimensionof forest management. Though minimum obligatory area under forest wasprescribed and environmental, ecological, social and economic functionsappreciated by this policy, these could not be realized. I 988 policy wasconsidered as a landmark in formulating policy for people's participation. Thispolicy subordinated revenue earning and timber production to social,environmental and ecological functions of forests. While dealing upon thecontinuation of this policy in caring for the ecological environmental and socialdimensions of managing forests emergence of Joint Forest Management as apolicy was highlighted. He warned not to take Joint Forest management assynonym of Sustainable Forest Management. Joint Forest Management wasconsidered as a major tool for managing forests sustainable. This policy wascredited as an important step to Sustainable Forest Management through JointForest Management in India. Dr. Rain Presad explained historical backgroundleading to initiation of Sustainable Forest Management process in India andarticulated the ecological functions of Sustainable Forest Management. Startingfrom 1795 when German Forester Hanig coined the term 'sustained yield'initiatives taken by ITTO, European countries, Canada, South Americancountries, African countries, Australia etc. were highlighted. The concept ofsustained yield vis-^I-vis Sustainable Forest Management was analyzed.According to him Sustainable Forest Management had come to be recognized asimportant forest management innovation. He also informed about the criteria andindicators, (C & Is) for Sustainable Forest Management, evolved by different'processes'. world over. Necessity and obligation of India for developing its owncriteria and indicators for Sustainable Forest Management were explained. Thiswas further elaborated in the context of differing perspectives about SustainableForest Management of different interest groups not only at country level but evenwithin a country itself. He defined criteria and indicators. Being signatory to WTOpact and I 992 Rio convention India would have to abide by criteria and indicatorsdeveloped for Sustainable Forest Management. In absence of its own criteria andindicators other countries might dictate and thrust criteria and indicatorsdeveloped by them for serving their own interest* Dr. Rain Presad explained that
.
import and export of forest products would be regulated by criteria and indicatorsand as such for serving India's national interests these should be framed andinterests safeguarded. It was revealed that cost of production in India was morethan South East Asian Countries, Australia, New Zealand, Scandinaviancountries, Canada, South America and some of the African countries. Absence of
indicators might be thrust on India. In this context developingcriteria andrules and mechanism was further emphasized. The. lack of forestcertification
management information for Sustainable Forest Management process, especiallyfor applying indicators was highlighted. Also the need for a sustained andcontinuous process of generating and providing the same was emphaticallystressed for monitoring and evaluating Sustainable Forest Managementapplication.
57
.
Dr. Rain Prosad informed that in view of the international scenario onSustainable Forest Management and also .in the background of above situationprocess of developing India's own criteria and indicators for Sustainable ForestManagement and thereby developing capabilities of certification Bhopal IndiaProcess had been put in position. Workshops were held and field exercisesconducted to develop and test criteria and indicators for India. He explained theappropriateness of calling the Indian process as Bhopal India process.Collaboration and Co-operation of the state Forest Department & State MinorForest Produce Federation. Central location, presence of maximum forestscovering wide range of eco-zones and also presence of 11FM were some of thepoints in naming the Process as such. Moreover Madhya Pradesh State ForestDepartment was reported to have set aside area for the field application ofSustainable Forest Management, The draft criteria and indicators developed bythe Bhopal India Process of Sustainable Forest Management were presentedand elaborated. 8 criteria were developed and under each criterion sets ofsuitable indicators were fixed. In fact Bhopal-India Process would represent theIndian Sub continent. This was resolved and agreed at the internationalworkshop held at Bhopal and attended by both national and international experts.Majority of the Forests in the subcontinents falling in the type "Dry deciduous" likeSub Saharan Process it was proposed and agreed to further qualify the Bhopal-India-Process as "Dry Zone Forests of Asia". The needs for involving variousstakeholders and implementing through the joint agency of the people andforestsrs were emphasized. In this context Joint Forest Management wasconsidered the most appropriate tool and strategy for ensuring SustainableForest Management. Criteria and indicators of Bhopa!-India Process werecompared with and were found to have good convergence with them. Agreeingwith these processes also. The actions initiated by the 11FM for popularizingsustainable forest management were elaborated. Needs for wide acceptance ofBhopal"India Process, refinement and development of measureble indicators andfield testing and implementing were stressed. In Sustainable Forest Managementpathway actions at international and national levels were explained. Coordinationand harmonization of conventions and initiatives coordination of donor activitiesand motivation of Sustainable Forest Management efforts were suggested asinternational actions.
At national level conducive laws and legislation, ratification of internationalconventions, competent forestry authority, adequate ' material and financialresources, good information system, land use plan, inter-sectora! cooperation,bottom up planning, decentralized administration collaboration with NGOs etc. ,were emphasized.
Dr. J. B. Lal, presented his ' paper titled "Forest Management in India - theIgnored dimensions. " According to Dr. Lal, "Three basic goals of SustainableForest Management are
58
(I ) Maintaining stability of physical environment(2) Maintaining and increasing biological productivity of resource and(3) Establishing equity in distribution of the generation benefits in the dependent
society.
These goals are required to be attained in perpetuity. He stated that the majordimensions of Sustainable Forest Management were ecological, silvicuttural,technical, socio-economic and institutional. He identified the objectives of Indianforestry as:
(I) Forest cover monitoring(2) Collection of data and converting the same into information for management
planning(3) Simulation of forest ecosystem to foresee the effects of various human
interventions
(4) Conservation of species diversity(5) Conservation of genetic diversity(6) Improvement in the production of forest produce(7) Harvesting systems which do little damage to residual crop(8) Regeneration of harvested areas(9) Wood preservation and(, 0) Storage and processing of NWFPs.
'Forest Management Plan' or 'Working Plan' had been advocated as- basicrequirement of sustainable forestry. Attributing deforestation to the big gapbetween demand and supply ' managing demand also had been considerednecessary for Sustainable Forest Management. Dr. Lal dwelt upon the draftcriteria developed by Bhopal-India Process. He described and analyzed theSustainable Forest Management leading to Sustainable Forest Managementwere stated as Sustained yield ------sustention "-"---NFM (FAO initiative) -----Ecosystem approach ------ Sustainable Forest Management. Social acceptability,ecological compatibility, participatory and economic viability had been consideredas basic points of Sustainable Forest Management. He laid special emphasis ontechnical dimension for Sustainable Forest Management and felt it was ignoredin Indian Forestry.
PAPER - DEVELOPING CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR MONITORING OFSUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT - DR. GOPA PANDEY
In her paper 'Developing Criteria and Indicators for Monitoring ofSustainable Forest Management', Dr. GOPa Pandey, stressed the need fordeveloping objective!y verifiable indicators which would be the parameters ofincrease and decrease. The structure and quality of these parameters should besuch as to be easily understandable, measureble and applicable by the staffposted at the cutting edge. Referring to the state of World's Forest, 1997 and
L
59
.
Us DA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (F1A) RPA Publications1999, she enlisted 7 criteria and 35 indicators. According to her these criteriajustified the multifaceted Sustainable Forest Management. She categorized theseagainst the four categories of forest i. e. Production, Protection, Degraded andCommercial forests. She emphasized on the selection of Forest ManagementDemonstration Areas and suggested 11FM, Bhopal. To trigger off the process tostandardize "Forest Resource Accounting System" in India.
Dr. M. P. Shiva, suggested following activities to be covered under SustainableForest Management.
I . Species selection2. Forest inventory3. Yield studies
4. Periodic regeneration surveys5, Periodic harvest assessment and6, Harvest adjustments.
He emphasized on placing NTFPs in the mainstream of Forest Management. Hehighlighted the activities and achievements of his organization 'COMFORPTS'which were mainly for achieving sustainability in Forest Management.
Shri Jamail Singh, in his paper 'Sustainable Management of Forest Resource- Holistic Approach' referring to the history of scientific management of Indianforests brought out the various shortcomings of the past. According to himNational Forest Policy , 988 emphasized the sustainable management byinvolving local communities. Traditional management approach and itsinadequacies have been described. The inadequacies pointed out are:-
I. A conditioned rather than an open approach,2. Forest-Type specific Approach3. Methodological than a Process Approach,4. Insignificant role for Watershed Management,5. Little concern for Peoples involvement,6. Inadequate emphasis on Bio-diversity & Wildlife, and Forest Protection7, Sustainable Yield concept falling short of sustainable management,8, Secondary considerations to managerial considerations.
Management Objectives (MOB)He proposed management strategy based onof sustainable management ofand suggested essential integral constituents
forest resources.
Dr. P. C. Kotoal presented the pre-project activity being carried on at ,Bhopal under Bhopal-India Process of 'Sustainable Forest Management. Hethrew light on the depletion and degradation of forest resource and unsustainablewithdrawal there-from. In this context need for Sustainable Forest Management
60
I
>
project was explained and objectives thereof described, Describing the Bhopal-India Process he stated the present actions as pre-project activities. Theseactivities were explained in the context of National Forestry Plan and ITFO'sactions. He informed that to sensitize stakeholders, monitor direction of changeand measure indicators field sites had been selected in Madhya Pradesh. Healso outlined the project strategy and elaborated upon the technical, scientific,economic and managerial aspects, further activities and inputs, institutionalarrangements and mechanism for monitoring and evaluation.
He explained that at present the field-testing sites could be taken in M. P. andproposed to select sites in different eco-geographical regions at some laterstage.
Describing the contents of the "Pre-Project on Sustainable Tropical ForestManagement through community participation in India, Dr. Kotoal informed thatPre-project had been sponsored by ITTO. Three major tropical dry deciduousforest ecosystems namely sal, teak and miscellaneous had been selected inMadhya Pradesh. Main objective was to test application of criteria and indicatorsdrafted for Bhopal-India Process for formulation of a full-fledged .project forSustainable Forest Management. The testing was being done at FMU level withthe involvement' of communities, forest and NGOs. Pre-project would also help insensitizing the stakeholders and develop understanding -in them about the criteriaand indicators of Bhopal-India Process. Problems identified for addressingthrough pre-project were stated to be forest depletion, unsustainable withdrawal,lack of information and awareness, lack of reliable measuring tool and lack ofparticipation of the local people. Target beneficiaries had been identified. Seriesof meetings, seminars and workshops were organized to evolve suitable criteriaand indicators. Inputs and outputs required and expected had been identified.
DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Most of the participants wanted to know the motives and intentions behind the somuch highlighted emphasis on Sustainable Forest Management at this stage -specially when Sustainable Forest Management had been stressed in Indiahistorically. Some even expressed the apprehension of the pressure of someexternal driving forces. In this context the Bio diversity Convention, ITTO, W~FOetc. , were also mentioned.
The draft criteria I to 8 and indicators therein developed for Bhopal - IndiaProcess were debated at length. There was virtual unanimity on the eight criteriathough some additions and rearranging the -order of placement were suggested.Considering the necessity of enabling environment for Sustainable ForestManagement and application of criteria and indicators. ^. ri^ri^I^Q_fPollc Le al and Institutional Framework" was recommended to be ke t in toas criterion I .
.
61
L
\
Anxiety . was expressed about the field execution and application. Differentparticipants suggested the Forest management Unit (FMU) for application,monitoring and collection and feedback of information differently. Range,Division, District, Conservator" circle and Working circle were some of thesuggestions. Dr. Rain Presad suggested the managerial level to be entrustedwith the task. Since Divisional Forest Officer is the manager at district levelForest Division was acce ted as the FMU and Divisional Forest Officer as theExecutor Im Iementer and Monitor, Shri Shivendu Shrivastava wanted CFS tobe involved. Shri A. K. Up adhyay suggested DFO to be the nodal officer anddesired to equip him with the entire necessary infrastructure for the purpose. Forthe state, PCCF was agreed to be the nodal authority.
Practicability and limitations of assigning the FMU level responsibility to the DFOwere discussed at length. Expertise, facilities and time and energy needed for thegigantic jobs of applying, monitoring, collecting and feeding back various dataand information and enabling national and international certification wereconsidered enormous additional responsibilities, very difficult to be discharged bya DFO.
CRITERION - , :
Indicators
,., Area and type of natural and man-made forests:
Under this indicator, monitoring the change in area of forest and tree cover andits indicator would require MIS and GIS facilities. Especially the changes takingplace at numerous points and levels and from time to time in the forest and non-forest areas both qualitativeIy and quantitative Iy are very difficult to monitor,measure, document and report. Need was felt by the participants not to ignoreand take lightly this aspect at the outset itself.
Reason for using 'Forest and Tree Cover' instead of 'Forest Cover was asked.Dr. Rain Prasad .explained that the former term was internationally accepted.That would facilitate the inclusion of trees planted outside the forests undervarious schemes and programmes both in government and private sectors.Social forestry, agro-forestry, farm forestry, roadside plantations etc. were statedto be the examples of creation of tree-cover.
I2 Forest area under fragile ecosystems:
Under the indicator, queries were made about 'fragile ecosystem. In practicewhich area should be considered as fragile and what should be the criteria therefor? It was suggested that generally areas out under Protection Working Circle
Increase in the Extent of Forest and Tree Cover
. I
62
and areas prone to accelerated erosion might be considered as 'fragileecosystems'. Ecological definition of 'fragile ecosystem' was also referred to.
, .3 Area of dense and degraded forest:
Under this indicator, use of the word 'degraded' was objected. Forest Survey ofIndia (F. S. I. ) had used the word 'Open'. It was therefore recommended to inodiC1.3 as 'Area of dense and o en forest
,. 4 Forest in nori-forest area:
Under this Indicator, inrecommended.
1.5 Area rich in NWFP species:
Dr. Shiva inquired about the efficacy of the world 'rich'. It was explained thatareas having concentrated occurrence of certain species - like Aonla in Pan'nadistrict of M. P. were meant to be covered by the term. Issue of measurement andestimation of NWFP was discussed and develo inassessment of NWFP was recommended.
lace of 'Forest' use of 'ForestITree Cover' was
I. 6 Forest area diverted for nori-forestry use:
No change was proposed and it was accepted unanimously to retain it.
, .7 Community managed forest areas:
No change was proposed and it was accepted unanimously to retain it.
CRITERION - 2: Maintenance, Conservation and Enhancement of Bio
,
diversity
Indicators
8.1 Area of protected and fragmented ecosystems:
Under this indicator, clarifications on fragmented' were sought. In this contextareas isolated from main and contiguous tracts of floral and faunal importancewere referred to. Main purposes were explained as linking through corridors andproviding focused attention to conservation and protection.
methods of surve s and
J
63
I
8.2 Number of rare, endangered, threatened and endemic species includingtiger Population:
Under this indicator, exclusion of 'includin ti er o u!ation was recommendedThis was done to remove the impression, which might develop that populationsof other animals had been excluded, Technical, managerial and administrativeproblems of field application were keenly debated. At FMU level the nodal officer(DFO territorial) was reported to be very ill equipped for ascertaining the rareendangered and threatened status of flora and fauna. Moreover measuring andmonitoring the changes in those respects considered next to impossible for aDFO. The periodicity and methodology of measurement and system toimplement the criteria were proposed to be developed. In that connection thetype of linkage with relevant expert agencies was also proposed to be definedand developed.
8.3 Level of species richness and diversity:
No change was proposed and it was accepted unanimously to retain it.
8.4 Canopy cover:
The Indicator was recommend to be deleted as the same had been coveredunder Criterion I,
8.5 Medicinal and aromatic plants and other NWFP:
i ator 'and other NWFP' was to be deleted as Criterion 5 covers these.
8.6 Level of non-destructive harvest:
The method of assessing the level of destructive harvest was proposed to bedeveloped and also the system to execute the s^line was stated to be verydeficient. The harvest level to be taken as 'non-destructive' and the criteria forthe same were not stated to have been scientifically and statistical Iy well defined.Moreover measuring the same qualitative Iy and quantitative!y was stated to bevery difficult.
Dr. GOPa Pandey suggested addition of indicator "Number of Keystone andFlagship Species" under Criterion 2.
J
64
..
CRITERION 3: Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources:
Indicators
3. ,
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
Soil moisture
Soil compactionStatus of erosion
Run-off (water yield)Soil pHSoil organic carbonNutrient status of the soil
Soil flora, fauna and microbesLevel of water tableSediment load
Extent of protection measures:
Under this indicator Shri B. M. S. Rathore wanted " to be replaced by 'Adequacy'.Shri S. S, Garbyal emphasized on procedure especially with reference to Criterion5.6.
5.6
Level of tangible benefits:5.7
No change was proposed and it was accepted unanimously to retain it.
Under Criterion 5 necessity of elaborating upon the technology and procedurewas emphasized. Sthi Gangopadhyay suggested addition of Criterion 5.8 as"Extent of area under SPA, SSO, CSU and Clonal plantation, Recommendationwas also made bIntervention".
No change wasproposed and itwas acceptedunanimously toretain it
Criterion 6: 0 timization of Forest Resource Utilization
Indicators
6. , Aggregate and per capita wood and nori-wood consumption.6.21mport and export of wood and nori wood forest products.6.3 Recorded and unrecorded removals of wood and NWFP.6.4 Direct employment in forestry and forest Industries.6.5 Contribution of forest to the income of forest dependent people.
With regard to Criterion 6, a general remark was about generating data wherevernecessary. Participants expressed concern about the non-availability of data andinformation, leaving apart the accuracy thereof. Dr. M N Jha and Dr. JK Rawatsuggested mention of processing, value addition, treatment, seasoning anpreservation under this criterion. Shri S K Shrivastava suggested inclusion ofwood substitution and energy saving devices. The workshop agreed to add one
.
the artici ants to add Criterion 5.9 as 'Seed Technolo
J
65
.
more indicator as C6.6 "Level oftreatment seasonin and reservation of wood"
CRITERION 7: Maintenance and Enhancement of Social Cultural & SpiritualBenefits
Under Criterion 7, the word "Needs was recommended to be re laced bBenefits". In fact in Dr. Rain Prasad's presentation, this had already beenincorporated. This criterion also generated considerable debate. Theabstractness of some of the indicators like Cultural and spiritual caught theattention of the workshop participants. The mechanism and parameters ofmeasurement were required to be developed. There could be lot of adhoc inassessing cultural, religious, spiritual indicators. Shri S S Garbyal laid greatemphasis on Human Aspect and proposed to add one more indicator i. e.Attitude> Dr. M N Jha brought out the importance of HDl (Human DevelopmentIndex) in the criterion and proposed to include this as an indicator. In fact HDlmight be considered as an all- pervading criteria/indicator.
About indigenous knowledge (IK) the need for measuring the level of acceptanceand application in the planners, implementers and monitors was stressed. Shri A.K. Mukhertee proposed to add indicators "Degree of people's participation", "useof T. K. (Traditional Knowledge) and IK" and "Extent of which Rights andPrivileges are documented and recognized". Shri B. M. S. Rathore stressed. theneed for refinement and branded the existing criteria and indicators very abstract.He also proposed to put 'Conflict management' under 'Institution'. Dr. J. B. Laldisagreed and explained the 'Conflict' to be 'social phenomenon' and not 'aninstitutional phenomenon'. Dr. Rain Presad explained as to why 'conflictresolution' was put there, Dr. Jha proposed inclusion of 'Quantification ofIntangible Benefits'. This was appreciated by all. Dr. GOPa Pandey suggestedincluding 'Resource Accounting'. Shri Jamail Singh stressed the importance of'value and percentage of contribution to GDP and GNP.
rocessin and value addition of NWFP and
Shri Gangopadhyaya wanted more detailed discussion on this criteria specificallyand the issue of criteria and indicators as a hole. He proposed holding of onemore workshop.
CRITERIA 8: Adequacy of Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework
Indicators
8.1 Existing policy and legal framework.8.2 Extent of community, NGO and private sector participation.8.31nvestment in research and development.8.4 Human resource capability building efforts.8.5 Forest resource accounting.8.6 Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.8.7 Status of information dissemination and utilization.
.
66
.
Criteria 8, was recommended to be retained as a whole.
Dr. Rain Prosad summarized the discussion of the workshop and outlined the'further strategy. Many participants raised the question 'From here where andwhen?' Practicability of using indicators, implication thereof and enabling thesystem to apply and monitor these were the points worrying most of theparticipants. However the necessity of acting upon Sustainable ForestManagement urgently was felt by one and all, Need for repeated deliberation onand regular refinement in the quality and variety of indicators was also aconsensus. Dr. Rain Prosad informed that very shortly one more workshop wasto be held at 11FM, Bhopal. In that workshop various stakeholders and experts ofnational and international levels would participate. It was also informed thatoutcome of the pre-project activities would be presented and discussed in theworkshop. Dr. Rain Prosad suggested one workshop to be held in Delhi andoffered to sponsor the same.
VALEDICTORY
The workshop ended with vote of thanks by Shri P. C. Kotoal. He acknowledgedthe individual contributions by all those who have actively participated in thediscussions and sharing their valuable experiences for the last one and half days.He personally thanked Dr. J. K. Rawat for taking personal interest as achairperson for presentation of papers by different participants. He also thankedthe participants from FRl, ICFRE and participants from non-governmentorganisations. Lastly he Iauded the sincere efforts by the faculty members of theacademy for taking keen interest and organizing the workshop with greatsuccess. He 'thanked the director IGNFA and shri S. M. Singh, AssociateProfessor who coordinated the workshop.
Participants of regional level workshop held at IGNFA, Dehradun
SNo
place
IGN FA,Dehradun
Participants & no.
Inspector General of Forest, MOEF - 01Faculty, IGNFA, Dehradun - 09Scientist, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun- 07Forest Survey of India - 01NGOs - 06
Forestry education - 02Wild life Institute of India- 02trio Pre-project team - 03
Total
31
67
CRITERIA AND INDICATORS (PROPOSED) RECOMMENDED AFTER THEDISCUSSION AT DEHRADUN WORKSHOP
CRITERION I. Increase in the Extent of Forest and Tree Cover
I ., Area and type of natural & man-made forest and Tree Cover1.2 Forest area under fragile ecosystems1.3 Area of dense and open forestI A ForestITree Cover in non-forest areaI. 5 Area rich in NWFP species1.6 Forest area diverted for non-forestry useI7 Community managed forest areas
CRITERION 2
^!^ty
2.1 Area of protected and fragmented ecosystems2.2 Number of rare, endangered, threatened and endemic species.6.3 Level of species richness and diversity6.4 Deleted
6.5 Medicinal and aromatic plants6.6 Level of non-destructive harvest6.7 Number of Keystone and Flagship, Species
Maintenance
(Addition)
CRITERION 3. Maintenance and Enhancement of ECos stern Function andy^ty
3.1 Status of natural regeneration3.2 Status of natural succession3.3 Status of secondary forests
3.41ncidence of weed, pest, disease, grazing, and fire3.5 Number of indicator species in the food web
Conservation and Enhancement of Bio
(No change)
CRITERION 4. Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources
(No change)(No change)(No change)
4.14.24.3
4.44.54.6
,
Soil moisture
SQil compactionStatus of erosion
Run-off (water yield)Soil p HSoil organic carbon
(No change)
(No change)
(No change)
(Replaced)
68
(No change)
\
4.74.8
4.94.10
4.11
Nutrient status of the soil
Soil flora, fauna and microbesLevel of water tableSediment load
Water quality
CRITERION 5: Maintenance and Enhancement of Forest Productivit
5.15.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
Growing stock of wood and NWFPNatural regeneration status.Increment of wood and non-wood productsArea of afforestation and new plantationsLevel of material and technological inputsAdequacy of protection measures:
(No change)Level of tangible benefitsExtent of area under SPA, SSO, CSU and clonal plantation (Addition)
(Ad ditio n )Seed Technology Intervention
CRITERION 6: 0 timization of Forest Resource Utilisation
6.1
6.26.36.4
6.56.6
Aggregate and per capita wood and non-wood consumption}Import and export of wood and non-wood forest productsl (No change)Recorded and unrecorded removals of wood and NWFPPlDirect employment in forestry and forest industries IContribution of forest to the income of forest dependent people ILevel of processing and value addition of NWFP and treatmentSeasoning and reservation of wood. (Addition)
(Addition)
CRITERION 7 Maintenance and Enhancement of Social Cultural & S witualBenefits
7.4
(No change)
Degree of people's participation, use of Traditional Knowledge andIndigenous knowledge and extent to which Rights and privileges are
(Addition)documented and recognized
(Addition)At titu d e(Addition)Human Development Index(Addition)Quantification of Intangible Benefits(Addition)Resource Accounting
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
.
69
CRITERION 8
8.1
8.2
8.38.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
Existing policy and legal frameworkExtent of community, NGO and private sector participationInvestment in research and developmentHuman resource capacity building effortsForest resource accountingMonitoring and Evaluation mechanismsStatus of information dissemination and utilization
Ade uac of Polic Le al and Institutional Framework
I(NO Change)
.
70
ANNEXURE 6
PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP
"SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT THROUGHCOMMUNITY PARTICIPATION"
INSTITUTE OF WOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, BANGALORE
ON 15'' AND 16'' OF MARCH 2000
Venue : Vana Vignan, IWST, Bangalore
ON
EDITED BY
H E LD AT
DR. KEDAR N. BAIDYA
JOfNTLYORGANfSED ByIN'DinNnVSTfTUTE OFFORESTM, 4NAGEMEN7; BHOPAL
11ND
rNST/TUTE OF WOOD SCl:E'NCE AND TEC, 7NOLOGY;BANGAL ORE
71
\
Chapters
CONTENTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
2
Programme:
Ina11gural Session
Technical Session I
Technical Session 11
Technical Session 111
Recommendations
List of Participants
List of OrganiserSIvolunteers
3
4
Annexure I
Armexure 2
5
Page Nos.
73
74-76
77-82
83-90
91-97
98-101
I02- I 07
108-109
72
10-00 - 10.10 AM
PROGRAMME
15th March 2000
Dr. K. Satyanarayana Rao,Welcome Address
Director, IWST, Bangalore
Lighting of the lamp by the Chief Guest
Overview of the workshop ~ Dr. Ram Prasad, IFS. ,Director, 11FM, Bhopal
Sri. lagjit Lamba, IFSPrincipal Chief Conservator ofForests, Chainnan & ManagingDirector, 1<amataka State ForestIndustries Corporation, Bangalore
Padmas}ree Prof. Madhav GadgilCentre for Ecological Studies,Indian Institute of Science,
INAUGURAL SESSION
10.10 ~ 10.25 AM
10.25 ~ 10.35 AM
.
10.35 - 10.50 AM
Presidential Address
Bangalore
10.50 - 11.00 AMEnvironmentalist
Key Note Address
11.00 - 11.15 AM
Special Address
11.15 AM
Inaugural Address by theChief Guest
Sri. Duleep Mathai,
Bangalore
Sri. V, R. Chitrapu, IFS. ,Principal Chief Conservator ofForests & Chairman, TamilnaduArasu Rubber Corporation &Tamilnadu Plantation Coinn. ,Chennai.
Sri. K. S. Reddy, IFS. ,Group Coordinator (Research)IWST, Bangalore
.
Vote of Thanks
\
73
Dr. K. Satyari}arayana Rao, Director, IWST, while welcoming all the delegates said itwas a privilege that 11FM, Bhopal had chosen Bangalore as the venue for conducting thisimportant workshop. He emphasised that ITFM, Bhopal being a premier ForestManagement, Research, Education and Training Institute of the country has a mandate toconceptualise sustainable forest management (SEM) for the country's wide adoption. Healso added that IWST had taken a lead in this direction by fonnulating the "Bhopal-Indiaprocess" that identified criteria and indicators (C & I) for Sustainable Forest Managementin the Indian context. He also gave a brief description about the Instittite of WoodScience and Technology (IWST) one of the eight institutes of Indian Council of ForestryResearch and Education (ICFRE), which has an abiding interest in promoting sustainableproduction and use of forest products in general and wood in particular. SustainableForest Management (SFM) is a key element, in any sustainable development activity asforests exercise "Master Control" over the wealth, vitality of several natural resourcesused by the mankind. Over 100 countries have already adopted the SFM as an importantmanagement vehicle to reconcile the productive function of forests with economic andsocial values they fulfill. India is a signatory to a rimnber of international initiativesrelating to forestry including the ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organisation)initiatives. India, despite being bestowed with 4000 woody species, was importing woodand wood products to the tune of about Us $453 million every year. It is an alarmingsituation as the productivity gap in woody biomass is far beyond the current productivityin natural forests and expected productivity from the plantation forestry. It washeartening to note that considerable progress is being made in mobilising people toparticipate in activities relating to protection, conservation and production through IFMand other initiatives. He expressed that there will be in depth discussion on utilisationaspects and for identification of some more C & I (in the criteria No. 6 of Bhopal - IndiaProcess) utilisation in the Workshop.
The next speaker Dr. Ram Prasad, IFS, Director, Indian Institute of Forest Management,Bhopal gave an overview of the workshop. He expressed his pleasure that at such a shortnotice the workshop could be organised, He emphasised that the National Forestry Policyof 1988, four years prior to the New York SUITrrnit aimed at the integrity of forestecosystem and the well being of forests. In 1988 the Joint Forest Management resolutionaimed at eco-system restoration, In 1991, ITTO (International Tropical TimberOrganisation) - a mini UN organisation, the number of countries were divided into 2categories - Consumer I User and Producer countries. India belongs to the first category.in 1991, ITTO came out with certain criteria for sustainable management, in 1997, WorldForestry Congress in Turkey emphasised this point. By 1998, over 100 countries hadalready initiated sustainable forest management prograrririie. It was still in the process,and hence they were called initiatives. In 1998, ITTO came out with Save ForestTimber' what came from sustainable management. In 1998, while the change was goingon globalIy, - India remained untouched. Hence, in 1998, ITFM came out wit ' opa
INAUGURAL SESSION
74
I
India Process' to help in taking care of 16 types of forests. It was considered as a"Genetic
Superway". As Bhopal lies in the Central part of India and covers most of the types offorests, in January 1999, a National Level Workshop with the help of SEFAR wasconducted in which some scientists from Us were also involved* A number ofacademicians, foresters, NGOs and other stake-holders also participated. It came out with8 criterias and 67 indicators. In October 1999, the workshop was conducted at Dehra Dunwhere the 8 criterias were retained, but the number of indicates came down to 51. InNovember-December 99 Meet, which was organised jointly by FAO and ITFM, thenumber of indicators came down to 44, retaining the 8 criterias. In January 2000, Govt. ofIndia appointed a 'National Task Forestry Force' with TERM as the leading body. Thisexercise is to be carried out with support from forest departments. In that connection, Dr.Ram Prosad said that this workshop was organised at Bangalore , Southern India, as theCentral (Bhopal) and Northern (Delrra Dun) were already covered in the earlier meets,The sole aim is to cover more and more number of stake - holders.
Sri lagjit Lamba, IFS, PCCF, Chainnan and Managing Director, Karnataka State ForestIndustries Corporation, Bangalore in his presidential address said that sustainable forestmanagement through community participation is a very topical subject. This has been inthe news from a very long time, The concept of Forest Management is a bonsticapproac, u eworanoj gThere are two int!jor compartments - Ecological and Economical values. Till recent past,the economic aspect, i. e. production and revenues were the main criteria, But in the lastdecade or so, because of forest legislations which came about, the aim is towardsconservation, He said that sustainable aspect is the soul of forests ecological value andenvironmental stability. The body is what material benefits we will be getting. The soulhas reached the site of brain. The soul can be protected through sustaining our forest eco-system, Today and tomorrow and for many more years to come, we need the vitalcontribution in tenns of water resource, biodiversity, agriculture, health, environment,climate so on and so forth. We need to mobilise resources and other stake- holders whoare connected with these management. Some of the objectives for sustaining the foresthas been enumerated to rehabilitate the forest itself. Cornmunity participation is nothingvery new to us. It used to be considered as sustainable yield, We have not only touchedthe capital which is synonymous with the soul. What is required is to know how wellpeople who are managing forests are equipped with and how the public are participating.These have been tried in the Joint Forest Management being run in the country, Effortshave been made and also success has been achieved in this respect through communityparticipation, In the last 8-10 years, 10 million Ha. have been worked out by way ofprotection, He suggested that what is required is mutual trust, respect and co-operation yvarious agencies particularly the state and the conrrnunity. Efforts need to be supportedby the Govenmient and the NGOs. Technological practices which are essential for takingforward this prograTnme is to be closely looked into by this workshop. He also thankeboth ITFM and myST for giving him an opportunity to participate in this workshop.
\
,
75
Padmashree Prof. Madhav Gadgil, Centre for Ecological Studies, IISc, Bangalore in theKey note address shared his thoughts about sustainable Forest Management throughcommunity participation. He said that the perspectives emerged over the years because ofscientific developments. This is very old concept, But it was not put into practice, He alsospoke about the attempts made in the fisheries field to put this concept into use.Arrogance of scientists that it is easy to understand ecological system has been provedwrong time and again. Ecological system is very complex and nobody knows what is instore. We have limited understanding with what is happening in nature. A differentapproach has to be taken. Adaptive management needs to be followed. Detailedmonitorino needs to be undertaken. It will become an important area of scientific researchon herbivorous animals and their food. The thing is how do we protect the forests? Thereare too many people and too many forests. How much should we have, how much shouldbe taken is the question, It is their (animals) resource for survival. In forestrymanipulation is necessary. He also cited the example of the bustards of Ranibennurwhich become dependent on the plantations for their food.
Sri Duleep Martial, Environmentalist, spoke that ecological security is not only confinedto forestry alone, it sustains our very survival. If we undennine this, our very existence ischallenged. The hydrological resource is 300 million tons, out of which 80% goes out tothe sea: with this 80%, fishery takes something like 6 billion tons. Biomass are of twotypes phytomass and zoomass and every care to be taken for conserving the naturalecosystem so that the developmental activities do not deplete the biomass.
Sri V. R. Chitrapu, IF'S, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chairman, TamilnaduPlantation Corporation & Arasu Rubber Corporation, Chennai said that, Tamil Nadubeino conservative took a long time to accept Joint Forest Management, principalIybecause the forests of Tamil Nadu are very different from the forests of other states. Thefirst foray of IFM experiment in Tamil 11adu was at Tininelveli. Almost 130 villages areunder IFM, of which 100-101 villages have been successful. The remaining villageswhere it failed is due to political, columnnal, social problems etc. Earlier sustainabilitymeant sustainability of timber or fibre. This is a narrow view. Now with a view to benefitcommunity at large, timber can be grown anywhere. MFP ' can be grown in any farm.Then what are those basic needs? On biodiversity conservation and regulation of climate,India is a large country with different people and varying climates etc, , the basic need hasto be kept in mind for each state and each district, Forester is a part of the Goverrunent. Inthe past over 90-100 years, the forester has not been involved in the making of forestpolicies, He is only executing the policies. There is a feeling that there stands a nexusbetween contractor - forester - politician, but forester is least corrupt of all theprofessional like medical, legal etc. because he is in constant touch with the nature. Theforests of this country have been destroyed not because of the forester but becauseeverything available from it was tried to be encashed Forests have tremendousresilience. Taniil Nadu was the first state to bring a ban on use of forests for fuel in 9One more encouraging conservation is that Plainting Commission has deci e to putforest conservation under planned budget. This will go a long way in restoring the forests.
76
L
*
Vote of thanks was proposed by Mr. K. S. Reddy, IF'S. He thanked all thedelegates/invitees and wished the workshop a grand success.
,
77
Chairperson:
Sri. A. H. Moosvi, IFS. , (Retd. )Fomier Principal Chief Conservator of Forestsandhra Pradesh Forest DepartmentHyderabad
TECHNICAL SESSION I : Presentation of papers
CHAPTER Two
I. Concept and scope of Sustainable Forest Management in India - Dr. Ramprasad,Director, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal.
Requirements for the Sustainable 'Forest Management trough communityparticipation - Dr. S. Rajendran, Director, Forest Research and Training Institute(FORTl), Kamataka Forest Department, Vana Vikas, Maneshwaram, Bangalore.
3. Role of Community Participation in the conservation of sacred groves in COOTg,Kaniataka - Prof. M. G. Chandrakanth, Professor & Head, Dept. of AgriculturalEconomics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
2.
.
78
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUSTAINABLE FORESTMANAGEMENT THROUGH COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Dr. Rajendran, SI
.
Introduction:
I. The Forest are one of the renewable natural resources. The Forests providetimber, non-timber forest produce, soil, water, biogenetic resources and meet theecological and socio-economic needs of the people. The forests were treated as alocal resource earlier but now they are being considered as a global resource andheritage. Earlier the forests were managed for the sole production of timber andthe perforrnances of the forest officers were judged by their revenue contributionto the state exchequer. On the other side, the local people use the forests foruncontrolled cattle grazing, removal of firewood, poles, small timber and non-timber forest produce. Thus the forests are exposed to uncontrolled exploitation,unscientifically managed and this led to the deforestation and the forests startedlosing their structure and function. There is a clash between the foresters and thelocal community in protection of the forests and collection of forest produce. This
-7-
clash alienated the local people from their forests and the foresters from the localpeople. The local coriumunity started having an indifferent attitude towards theprotection of forests. The forests also waged a losing battle with the timbersmugglers, wild life poachers and the local people. This prolong^:d conflictbetween the foresters and the local community saw the disappearance of theforests and the wildlife. To protect the forests and the wildlife, a strategy has to befound out. The strategy should enlist the wholehearted support of the local peopleThe local will give support when their needs are met from the forests. Thus thenew concept of sustainable forest management tlrrough the conrrnunityparticipation was born in India in the 1980s.
The global finance institutions while sanctioning forest projects in the developingcountries insist that the projects must involve the local community in themanagement of the forests, Like this, the concept of sustainable forestmanagement through community participation is being implemented in thedeveloping countries. In addition, it may be the last resort by the foresters toprotect the forests from disappearing from the planet earth, All attempt is madehere to list out some of the important requirements for the successfulimplementation of the policy of sustainable forest management throughcommunity participation,
2.
,
I. Chief Conservator of Forests & Director, Forest Research and Training Institute, Vanavikas,Bangalore 560 003
79
. L
^Q^:
I. There should be a strong forest policy both in the centre and the states in whichthe people's participation in the management of the local forests must be mademandatory, The purpose for which the forests are managed must be transparentand made known to the local people. The local people must be allowed toparticipate in the decision making. The technicalities in the management of theforests must be explained in simple terms to the local people.
^!^
2. A sound long tenn PIamiing for a block of forest is a must; PIaririing requires areliable data. The working plans must incorporate the aspirations of the localpeople. The forest department needs to gain the trust of the local people.
Research and Trainin
3. A sound forest research alone can give an adequate data for the planning for thesustainable forest management. The research must provide the data regarding therate at which the forests are growing and disappearing, the soil fertility, thegoods and services available from the forests to the local people. The forestersand the local cornmruitty can sit together and plan for the sustainable managementfor a particular forest. A kind of partnership must be developed between the localpeople and the foresters.
Well-trained forest personnel and a good training program for the localcommunity will definitely bring success of the people's participation in the
andsustainable forest management. Both must be made clear of their rolesresponsibilities.
4.
A ro nate fundin
5. It is a sine qua non. A policy without adequate funding will bring only ft!ilures.Through project financing, the funding can be done for the requirements oadequate research and training programs.
80
L
Conclusion:
6. The sustainable forest management practices through community participationwill conserve the forests for the use of the future generations while meeting theneeds of the present generations.
The sustainable forest management through community participation must ensurethat the economic values derived from the forests must be shared with the localcommunity for their development. A higher proportion of the return from theforests must be directed to the local community who is directly dependent on theforests for their livelihood, Unless this is done, the success of the sustainableforest management through community participation is at stake.
7,
*
\
81
,
ROLE OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATIONOF SACRED GROVES IN cooRG, 1<. ARI, IATAK. A
M. G. Chandrakanth' and M. G. Nagaraja
COOTg (Kodagu), in the southern part of Karnataka State is the only district in India,which has conserved and maintained at least one ecological heaven in every village sincetime inanemorial, an achievement worthy of acclaim. Each village coriumunity maintainsa 'devara kadu' (temple forest I forest temple I god's forest I or deity's forest) as a self-imposed nonn* The paper highlights COOTg's devara kadu tradition and the role of thevillage cottonunity in consciously providing a 'social fiance' for its sustainability.
At present, there are 346 devara kadus with 4184 acres, with an average size of 12 acres.The Somvarpet talukhas 619 acres, Madikerihas 14/8 acres and Virajpet has 2147 acresAccording to the 1900 statistics, in Vitajpet and Machkeri taluks, the main deity in thedevara kadu was the lawappa (Ishwara); lawappa deity was in 134 out of 382 devarakadus in Virajpet taluk and 75 0^t of 230 devara kadus in Madikeri taluk. In theSomvarpet taluk, the harvest gods represented by female deity 'Sriggiamma* (anincarnation of Parvathi or Saptamatrikas) and male deity "Bhyrava" dominated amongother deities in the devara kadus.
ROLE OF DEVARA 1<ADU As PERCEIVED BY THE COMMUNITY
Devara Kadus are located on plains, hill slopes or hill tops. They play an Importantecological role in soil and water conservation, reduce erosion, provide rich humus tocultivated fields. They are also rich source of medicinal flora, diversity and give rise tovital water springs. The sovietal tore they play in preserving the environmental, religiousand social culture is equally significant. People of diff^:rent cqrruntinities attend festivals,perfonn folk ritual and enjoy atmosphere of spirituality, peace and harmony. They off^r*arefuge from COOTg's warm slumners and the large Devara kadus act as a sanctuary forwildlife.
The vinage coriumunit. y is expected to sustain the Devara kadu' by refraining fromencroaching on, cutting live or dead trees, removing the humus rich soil and leaves evenharvesting fruits from trees. Violation of these rules leads to an apology being renderedbefore the grama sabha, payment of fine imposed by the grama sabha and even socialboycott. A number of taboos also operate in this system which are a disincentive for anyact harmful to the growth and sustenance of the devara kadtL tradition. A number of thesenonns have currently been diluted due to several socio-economic, political and culturalfactors operating in the villages at present.
82
REMEDIES
The re-survey recently initiated by the Karnataka Revenue and Forest Departments willreveal the exact extent of reduction in size of devour kadus over the years, This will alsogo a long way in drawing up the necessary policies to deal with this situation.Encroachment of collrrnon lands by farmers I planters in COOTg has become a rule ratherthan an exception. The present socio-economic and political atmosphere is favoringencroachment of all types of common lands inclttding devour kadus by encouTaging"squatters' rights" and periodically regularizing the encroachments of different sorts.This has led to a general feeling aniong encroachers that any sort of encroachmentwhether of revenue lands (paisari) or Devour kadu will ultimately be regularized. It hasbeen estimated that about 22,000 acres of all types of land have been encroached inCOOTg. If this situation continues, the remaining virgin forest lands in COOTg have bleakfuture, since the new economic policy aims at commoditying lands and encouragesoutsiders to settle in COOTg and this may result in total dinttion of the tradition ofpreserving devour kadIIS.
Hence the Revenue, Forest and Home departments should educate and encourage thevillage communities in conserving the existing devour kadu lands and also in preventingfurther encroachment of any sort, for dweUing or for cultivation or for both. The villag!ecommunity should be educated and . devour kadu should not be treated as 'economicunits' of production, but instead be treated as centres imparting 'codes of conduct' inconserving environmental assets. This in addition includes choice of tree species to beplanted. It is desirable to plant trees for which villagers have sentimental attachment.Both the Government and the Village conrrnunity should be convinced that they have anoblioation to pass on the devotir kadu they have, to their future generations at least withthe same inventory,
*
I. M. G. Chandral:arith, Professor, Departtnent of Agricultural Economics, University of AgriculturalSciences, GKVK, Bangalore 560 065
2. M. G. NagaTaja, Historian and Epigraphist, 221 V Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560010, India
.
83
\
Chairperson:
Sri. J. N. Saxena, IFS. ,Chief Conservator of Forests,
Ministry of Environment and ForestsRegional Office, Southern ZoneKoranangala,Bangalore.
I. Global experiences on SFM processes and initiatives - Dr. Ramprasad, Director,ITFM
2. Involving people for better utilization of timber to sustain its supply: Challenges andopportunities - Dr. K. S. Rao, Director, IWST, Bangalore
3. Strategies for participatory sensitization for achieving SFM at a local level - Sri. R.Annamalai, IFS. , Dean, SERC, Coimbatore
4. IFM: Some Legal and Policy Issues - Ms. Devaki Panini, Consultant (Legal), NewDelhi
5. PFM: Leading issues in Design & Implementation - Dr. Mainmen Chundamannil,Scientist, Economics Division, KFRT, Peechi, KGrala.
6. Will IFM succeed in Sustainable Forest Management? - Sri. N. S, Adkoli, IFS. ,(Retd), Executive Director, Bamboo Society of India, Jayanagar, Bangalore -11.
"
TECHNICAL SESSION 11 : Presentation of papers
CHAPTER THREE
~
84
INVOLVING PEOPLE FOR BETTER UTILISATION OF TIMBERTo SITSTAIN ITS SI. IFFLY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
'Dr. K. Satyana. rayama Rao
The ever widening gap between the demand and supply and unscientific use of wood andwood products in India have accelerated depletion of forests in general and traditionallyfavoured timber, species in particular. Contrary to the widespread but incorrectperceptions, wood use is increasing despite introduction of modem materials, due totechnical-economic and social constraints. Even though having over 4000 woodyspecies, the country at present imports wood and wood products to the tune of nearly halfa billion Us dollars every year, reflecting the enorrnity of one aspect of the problem.There is thus an urgent need not only to augment production but also to rationalise theus aoe pattern, Whiule demands of the major wood-based industries in the Paper and PulpPanel products, construction and furniture sectors are partially met through agro-forestryefforts and imports, no systematic approach has been made to address the needs ofsectoral groups like catamaran and boat builders, (over 6 million fishermen population),handicraft and toy manufacturers (23,000 toy makers in Kamataka and andhra Pradeshalone), agricultural sector (farmers who own nearly 18 million bullock carts and 665million agricultural implements, etc. ), bamboo basket weavers (30,000 medaros alone inKamataka), agarbathi manufacturers (3000 units, large number in Kamataka) etc. Thereis an urgent need and great potential to involve such user groups who depend on theavailability of specific timber species for their very livelihood in SFM. Communitybased timber production (CTP) units for specific end uses could be encouTaged. Moreimportantly, all the stakeholders need to be catalysed for greater participation inpromoting wider usage of LUS (Lesser Used timber species) as substitute for traditionalspecies which necessitates a far greater level of adoption of processing techniques.initiatives to involve different groups (timber traders, NGO's, users, producers, etc. ) forachievino rational utilisation need be intensified and mechanisms institutionalised forgreater contributions to widen the scope of SEM efforts,
~
I. K. Satyanarayana Rao, Director, Institute of Wood Science & Technology, Maneshwaram, Bangalore-560 003
85
SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANGAGEMENT ANDCOMMUNITY PARTICIPATION:
LEGAL & POLICY ISSUES
Devaki ^anini
The genesis of Sustainable Forest Management (SEM) and community participation inforest management can be fully understood only when we examine the Joint ForestManagement progranrrne in the country. The JFM prograirnne was officially launchedexactly a decade ago in 1990 when the Gol guidelines were issued on 1st June, 1990.Prior to this in 1988, a National Forest Policy was fonnulated which made a significantdeparture from the earlier Forest Policy of 1952. The 1988 National Forest Policyrecignised the need to involve people in the development, protection and management offorests. This 1988 policy signified a radical policy shift from the earlier colonial policiesthat were based on maximising extraction from forests. With the 1988 policy, a holisticapproach to forest management was adopted, forests began to ve viewed not from theperspective of revenue generation but also from the prespective of regeneration andconservation of forests.
This 1988 policy further recognised that the rights and concessions enjoyed by forestdependent communities should be fully protected. In fact the Policy established that therequirements of fuel-wood-fodder, minor produce and construction timber should be thefirst charge on forest produce. In short, the National Forest Policy of 1988 gave amandate for creating a massive people s movement for participatory forest managementwith the involvement of women. Thereafter the central Ministry of Environment andForests issues guidelines dated I st June 1990, concerning the involvement of villagecoloniunities and voluntary agencies in the protection, development and management offorests under the umbrella of JFM.
The guidelines provided a broad umbrella framework for action and policy prescriptionsfor various states to issue their own regulations giving effect to IFM. It was significantthat even before the June 1990 Gol guidelines, the state govenmients of West Bengaland Ovissa has already issued regulations for giving JFM a forrnal status in their states.
Although there are many studies outlining, analysing and CTitiqInng the IFM movementin the country there are very few studies looking at the legal aspects of sustainable forestmanagement and community participation in the same. Since. SFM necessarily hingesand is based on IFM in the country, our main preoccupation would be to analyse IFMfrom the legal perspective.
Deuski Panini, Consultant (Legal), ECotech ^ervices (ETS), A-3 S^rvodaya End^^., New Delhi1100/7,
.
86
~
Broadly, this paper would look at Joint Forest Management and community participationin IFM especially highlighting the legal issues.
The paper would examine the following:
I) The legal status of IFM orders and notifications (especially in the selected eight states)
2) The legal nature of IFM agreements between the forest department and villageinstitutions and the loop-holes ill the agreements.
3) Benefit sharing, payment of compensation in the event of terniination, suspension ofJFM agreement and dispute resolution.
4) Conflicts between IFM orders with other statutory laws.
This paper examines eight state goveniriient orders giving off;act to JFM from the rangestates of GIIjarat, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Kamataka, Rajasthan, West Bengaland Uttar Pradesh. These states were chosen for ETS's larger study on Community FundManagement,
\
Broadly my findings are:
The eioht state orders vary greatly and they prescribe and envisage different identitiesfor the village institutions. In Hatyana, for example, the entity of the villageinstitution is not specified. The village institution in Hayana, could be either ahamlet or a grain panchayat. in contrast, in Gujarat, a village institution has to beregistered as a co-operative society. Even the most recent IFM gindelines dated 21 stFebruary, 2000 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests takes cognizanceof the need for IFM committees to be registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860 in order to invest them with a legal identity. Also the new guidelines recognisethe need of uniform nomenclature for the Vl and prescribe the terni IFMCollunittee. "
I.
2. The Vinage institution (V) in most states has very few real powers and had excessiveand unreasonable liabilities. In contrast, the Forest Department (FD) enjoys greaterpowers of decision making in IFM (for example: larger share in benefit sharing). FDhas very few liabilities in comparison with Vl,
Dispute Resolution in the eight IFM orders and agreements are arbitrary and unfair.in fact, the provision of dispute resolution in most state orders violates the IndianContract Act. For example, in HaTyana, disputes shall be referred to and adjudicatedby a senior officer of the Forest Department (even when the FD is a party to theproceedings and is implicated in the proceedings between Vl and FD).
3.
.
87
4. Payment of Compensation is rarely made to the Vl on termination or suspension ofIFM arrangement and compensation is hardly paid for the labour extended by the Vl.
5. IFM aoreement in most states in not a legally valid contract as Vl does not get realand valid consideration for the labour supplied. (Most IFM agreements are voidablecontracts under the Indian Contract Act as consideration is inadequate and illusory forthe labour supplied by the VFC).
6. IFM orders alone cannot vest the VFC with powers of "forest officers" to preventcommission of forest offences. As per section 66 of the Indian Forest Act, only forestofficers and police officers have powers to prevent the commission of offences. Inmost states (except U. P), no separate order has been passed investing VFCs withpowers of "forest officers".
7. JFM orders are also incompatible with other statutory laws and judge made law. Forexample, according to the Supreme Court's interim order in T. N. Godavarma, I vers!, sUnion of India and the judicial interpretation of the Forest (Conservation) Act,intercropping envisaged in the West Bengal IFM order maybe considered as non-forest purpose. Grazing has also been expressly prohibited in IFM areas in someIFM orders (for example: in the Gujarat order) and in the Gol 1990 circulaT but theright to graze maybe a well recognised legal right settled in accordance with theWildlife (Protection) Act or under the Indian (Forest) Act. Mere administrative ordercannot override statutory law.
Some recommendations'arising from our study:
. IFM orders need to be amended in order to provide for compensation payable toVinage institution of IFM Committees (in the event of suspension or revocation ofIFM agreement). Further IFM orders need to be amended in order to provide for fairand equitable dispute resolution, Benefit sharing between VFC and FD must also beequitable just as liabilities in the event of tennination/suspension of IFM agreementmust be equally shared.
. All IFM Committees or Village Institutions involved in IFM must be registered underthe Societies Registration Act, in order to give a proper legal status to Vl s,
. State Governrrients must pass separate state rules/amend existing Forest Rules inorder to make JPM orders lack legal backing.Training and orientation of field forest staff for monitoring, conducting IFMprogrammes using most participatory methods essential in order to make the IFMprogr^Ie successful and effective.Rights awareness campaigns focusing on legal rights, entitlements, benefits andcompensation payable to village institutions must be undertaken for Ginpoweringvillage institutions.
\
\
.
.
,
88
PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT: LEADING ISSUES INDESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION2
3 Dr. Mainmen Chundamannil and V. An itha
\
,
In a democratic society, community participation in resource management is theappropriate method to gain support for sustainable management and to shareresponsibilities and benefits. In translating this strategy to guidelines for implementation,only the broad directions and contours can be given due to differences in local resources,community interaction and local issues, Sustainability is a far-reaching concept, whichneeds to be tackled on a site and situation specific basis. In this paper some of theleading issues in participatory forest management are briefly discussed.
First of all, limits of the area, membership access and responsibilities have to be settled.Benefit sharing could be very tricky in some connnunities. What benefits will be shared ?How much ? Who all will geta share ? Is it on the basis of work participation ? Is it onthe basis of social criteria like need and disadvantage? Is the institution created to managethe resource, capable, resilient, democratic and its decisions transparent? Does it ensureequal opportunities for women in decision making, monitoring and benefit sharing? Whatshould be the criteria for evaluation of the success of community participation andsustainability? ATiswers must be found which should be just, sound and acceptable to allconcerned. Can we say we know them all? Opportunities for interaction and sharing ofexperience can shorten the learning time and improve the design and implementation ofall programmes,
2Dr. Mainmen Chundamannil Scientist Kerala Forest Research Institute Peechi KeelaV An itha Keela Forest Research Institute Peechi Kerala
J
89
.
I
WILL JFM SIICCEED IN SITSTAINABLlB FORESTMANAGEMENT?
HISTORY OF THE PANACEA:
Participation of the user columnnity in forest management is the present day panacea forsustainability of forests ailing from imbalance between consumption, investments andproduction. There were enough efforts made in the last century for a similar solution tothe ailment . It is worthwhile to analyse the results of such past efforts before taking rapidstudies in the direction of participatory management by involving the stake-holders in ourrural community. The very concept of participatory management had been tried evenunder colonial rule by a) classification of forests into Minor (Protected) forests forexercise of privileges, b) pasture lands for grazing by village cattle, both of which existedin the National Forest Policies of 1894 and 1952. The privileges granted were qualifiedby obligations on the part of users to ensure protection of forests and their productivity.The provision of a whole chapter of village forests in Indian and State forest Acts was afurther improvement on the concept of management by stake-holders with statutorycontrol. The results of such participatory managements are known for their failures as
, also the causes for the sanie. Since I belong to one village having a notified VillageForest in Uttara Karmad district in Kamataka, I have competence to mention about itsfailure. Several other temporary measures like "Eksala i. e one year leases, Taungya i. e.aorisilvi practice, grant of strips around cultivable lands, lease of forest for fruit,cardamom and coffee cultivation, grants of Kans of different categories, have all beentried in participatory forest management with adverse results. The village notified underthe Forest Act had defined statutory regulations. Even when this experiment has failed,the present enthusiasm at IFM through Committees deserves a hard look.
N, S. Adkoli
PRESENT TYPE:
,
The participation of stake-holders in foTest- management for sustainability is animaginative remedy suggested by many vocal voluntary agencies of which few eitherhave the knowledge of the results of past experience or any idea about the magnitude ofinvestments and efforts to sustain forest productivity. Their main efforts is to deriveSOCio-magnitude justice to the cornrriunities with no consideration for sustainability.Since the idea admirably suited the democratic govenrrnents which have their obligationsto strength the party cadres at the conrrnunity level even at the expenses of publicproperty and funds, the ideology has caught up fast in momentum with some currentforest administrators finding it convenient to "sail with the wind".
90
REALITY:
The coriumunity in india today is fractured between haves & have-riots, landholders & the landless, rich and the poor, privileged versus the oppressedclasses, this or that political party, literate versus the illiterate and so on. In asystem of joint forest management where the stake holders share the benefitsof products and investments by the state exchequer but not the costs, it is notdifficult to judge as to who are or will be the real beneficiaries among suchfractured conirriunity. If the participatory management is considered as asound principle for sustainable forest management, why are theGovernments and their socially active advisors do not extend the sameprinciple to forest based industries and bulk users who are equipped andorganized to raise resources, use improved technologies and improvedmanagement practices to achieve sustainable management, than the fracturedcoriumunity on whom we are prepared to repose faith ?
I. Adkoli, IFS (Retd. ), Executive Director, Bamboo Society of india, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 011.
\
91
a. Presentation of paper
Chairpersons:
Sri. S. K. Das, IFS. ,Vice-Chainnan & Managing Director,Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation,Hyderabad
Sri. K. Kesava Reddy, IFS. , (I^. etd. )Fomier Principal Chief Conservator of Forestsandlrra Pradesh
CHAPTER FOUR
TECHNICAL SESSION 1/1 :
I, Dr. Rain Prasad:Dr. P, C. Kotwal:
b. Discussion
.
Indian initiatives: Bhopal -India Process onInO - Pre-project on Sustainable Forest Management throughcoriumunity participation
92
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREST MANAGEMENT, BHOPAL
SIIS'I'MNABLE TROPICAL FOREST MANAGEMENT THROl. ICH
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATIONININDIA
THE PROJECT
ON
SPONSORED BY
ITTO, YOKOHAllylA, JAPAN
I(Ref. No. F. 99-0364 Project No. FD 8199(F)l
,
93
SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT:
Sustainable Forest manaoement is the process of managing forest to achieve one or moreclearly specified objectives of management with regard to the production of a continuousflow of desired forest products and services without undue reduction of its inherentvalues and future productivity and without undue undesirable effects on the physical andsocial environment.
CRITERION:
DEFINITIONS
All aspect that is considered important by which sustainable forest management may beassessed. A criterion is accompanied by a set of related indicators,
INDICATOR
A quantitative or descriptive attribute that, when periodically measured or monitored,indicates the direction of change.
FOREST MANAGEMENT
A Forest Management Unit (EMU) is a clearly defined forest area, managed to a set ofexplicit objectives and according to a long-tenn management plan (may be a ForestDivision).
INTRODUCTION
. India being a member country of ITTO, is committed to year 2000 objective.
. Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) is a necessity for international Trade of ForestProducts.
. SFM is also necessary for continuous supply of goods and services
. Several countries have taken initiatives in this direction and have developed criteriaand indicators (C&I) suitable to their conditions.
. India, although have excellent forestry practices, is lagging behind in this matter
94
. ITFM has taken initiatives to develop C&I of SFM as 'Bhopal-india' process in thecountry.
. The ITTO pre-proj ect is an attempt to derive international support and strengthenSFM in India
OBJECTIVES
. To facilitate development of understanding among coriumunities, field foresters andother stake-holders about C&I of Bhopal-India process of sustainable forestmanagement and compare it with ITTO set of C&I
. To evolve suitable C&I (from I above) at EMU level for 3 major tropical drydeciduous forest ecosystems - (Sal, Teak and mixed miscellaneous) throughparticipatory approach.
. To prepare a full fledged project proposal for development and testing of C&I forSFM, its popularisation and application in the country
RELEVANCE To NATIONAL POLICIES
. The pre-project is on accordance with basic objectives of national forest policy (1988)of India.
o It aims at halting forest degradation through:
a) Conmiunity participationb) Sustainable management and utilisation of timber and non-timber products.
THE PRE-PROJECT SITE
Three sites in the state of Madhya Pradesh were chosen representing the three in 21jorforest types Viz, Teak, Sal and Mixed Miscellaneous.
IMap of Pre-project sites in Indial.
,--^-
95
PROJECT STRATEGY
. Series of meetings, seminars and workshops were organised to understand more andmore about SFM and to improve C&I of Bhopal-India process at national level and atFMU level suitable to local conditions.
. Two regional workshops organised, one at Dellra Dun in North India and the other atBangalore to sensitize foresters, forestry scientists, national NGOs.
. In the regional workshop at Delrra Dun the C&I of B-I process were discussed andcertain suggestions were made.
-.
96
,
The chainnan Sri. S. K. Das, IFS coriumented the remarkable work done by 11FM, Bhopalby conducting various workshops and collecting the opinions of various forest officersand stake-holders. The criterias and indicators which have been followed ' through'Bhopal-India process' is good but it should be very simple for sustained forestmanagement, he added. He also remarked that the extent of community participation insustainable forest management has not been highlighted as an indicator. The financialaspect, i. e. , aid obtained from State Govt. /Societies also need to be given importance.
Dr. Marlinien Chundarnannil of KFRl, Peechi, This SUT, said that the social scientists, andlegal people have been kept away from the forestry field. He added that forestry does notpertain only to Botany and Zoology fields and other fields also need to be involved. Dr.P. C, Kotwal replied that definitely social sciences and other fields directly related toforestry who are competent also need to be involved. How it is to be done, the modalitieshave to be worked out, he said. Only the forestry service people cannot do justice headded.
B. Discussion
Dr. P. C. Kotwal replying to one more query raised by Dr. Mart^nen Chundamarmil as towhy organisations like KFRl were being kept ignored in the Westeni/Eastern Ghatsproject said that the projects now running would be completed by March and the newPTOj ects would be taken up through out the length and breadth of the country covering themajor area of the country. He also added that KFRl and ITFM have been working togetherand it is not that KFl<I is being ignored.
To another query from Dr. Mainmen Chundam^il regarding nomination of NationalTask Force members, Dr. Rain Prasad replied that it was Govt. of India who wereappointing/nominating the members and TIEM could only co-opt members.
Sri. 1.1\I. Sanena wanted to kilow as to what work 11FM have been doing as far asdocumentation is concerned. Dr. Ram Prasad replied that they have done the process ofdocumentation in the State of Madhya Pradesh and they are the consultants for the Stateof Uttar Pradesh and they will be doing process documentation only and not doingevaluation of the project.
Sri. Sanena pointed out that in Mallarashtra, one consultant had given somerecoilrrnendations, but when the second consultants took over, they pointed out thatwhatever work was being carried out are not satisfactory and that the project should betaken up in a different perspective. So the project had to be shelved and had to be starteall over aoain. Dr. Ram Prasad pointed out that what policies were being followed fromthe past' 100-150 years, camiot be changed suddenly, the changes have started only or t e
*
97
,.
past IO years and it was not possible to undo it drastically. He also pointed out that onbehalf of the foresters, somebody else is trying to take credit and the whole gainor is thatthey are being htiacked for which something has to be done.
Mr. A. H. Moosvi pointed out regarding Forest Management Units (FMU), which he saidare mini forest departments and are nothing but Van Salarakshana Sarnithis (VsS). Thereare 1000s of VsS in this country. They are joint venture of the Forest Departments. Themonitoring and evaluation system needs to be done at the FMU level. The planningprocess needs to be realigned. The indicators should be me asurable at that level, It shouldnot be so sophisticated that people would not be able to understand it. He pointed out thatinstead on ust using the tenninology sustainable yield, it would be better if it is called asprogressiveIy sustainable yield as it is not dynamically balanced. He also pointed out thegostation period for the Village Management Unit (VMU) also should be worked out. Itshould be clear as to when the VMUs would become independent and be able to functionon their own without any aid from WB/I\IABARD, The financial criteria also has to beinvolved, he pointed out,
The chainnan summed up the whole session and once again stressed that the Indicatorsand Criterias need to be simplified. This job can be done only by specialised people.ITFM has the talent and it could definitely do it, he added.
Dr. S, N. Rai, IFS. , PCCF (E, WP & R & T) in his Valedictory address said that healso was there when the Bhopal India process were being discussed. He saidthat if any common inari was asked why he planted trees, his normal reply wouldbe for money, or for fruits, for hutment purpose or aesthetic purposes. Hestressed that forests are the life line in this country, where 70% is semi arid,about I0-15% come under the Himalayan belt and only 15-209", comes foragricultural system. Rest of the country is to depend on the forests for the healthof the soil. He thanked the organisers for having given him an opportunity toparticipate in this workshop.
98
Chairperson:
Dr. S. N. Rai, IFS. ,Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (E, \AIF, R&T)Kamataka Forest Department, Aranya Bhavan,Maneshwaram, Bangalore
CHAPTER FIVE
CRITERION I. INCREASE IN THE EXTENT OF FOREST AND TREE COVER
Area and type of forest cover1.1
Naturala)b) Mar^nade
1.2 Tree cover outside forest area
Area of dense and open forest
1.4 Forest area diverted for non forest use
Extent of community managed forests,
CRITERION 2. MAINTENANCE, CONSERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OFBIODIVERSITY
Area of protected ecosystems
Area of fragmented ecosystem
No. of rare, endangered, threatened and endemic species including tiger
Level of species richness and diversity in selected areas
Availability of in!ethernal & aromatic plants
2.6 Status of non-destructive harvest of I*I\NFP
No. .of keystone & flagship species
Faunal conservation, from microorganisms to mammals
1.3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.8
-29-
99
CRITERION 3. MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF ECOSYSTEMFUNCTION AND VITALITY
Status of natural regeneration
3.2 Status of natural succession
Status of secondary forests
Incidence of pests & diseases, invasive weeds, grazing and fire
3.1
3.3
3.4
CRITERION 4. CONSERVATION & MAINTENANCE OF FORESTPRODUCTIVITY
4.1 Area under watershed treatment
4.2 Soil erosion status
Area under ravines, saline & alkaline soils, mining and sand dunes (mainland &coast)
Ground water table in the vicinity of forest areas
4.3
I
4.4
CRITERION 5. MAINTENANCE ENHANCEMENT OF FOREST PRODUCTIVITY
Growing stock of wood5.1
Production and volume of identified/important NWFPs
Increment of volume of identified species of wood
Level of financial investment in forestry sector5.4
Extent of area under SPAS, SSOs, CSOs and clonal plantation
Extent of economicalIy high value timber species Eg. sandal, red sanders,agar wood
5.2
5.3
5.5
5.6
100
<
CRITERION 6. OPTIMIZATION OF FOREST RESOURCE UTILIZATION
Aggregate and per capita wood and non-wood consumption
Import and export of
a) Wood
Wood productsb)Non wood forest productsc)
Recorded production of wood and NWFPs
6.4a, Direct employment in forestry and forest based industries
6.4b indirect employment in forestry and forest based industry
6.5 Contribution of forests to the income of forest dependent people
6.6a Level of processing and value addition in I\I\;VFPs
6.6b Treatment, seasoning and preservation of wood
6.7 Demand and supply ratio of timber, firewood and fodder
CRITERION 7. MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF SOCIAL,CULTURAL AND SPIRITUAL BENEFITS
Degree of people's participation - No. of Committees and areas protected bythem
Use of indigenous technical knowledge: identification, documentation andapplication
Quantity and extent througli which rights and privileges are utilised,
Human Development Index in close vicinity of forest area
Extent of cultural I sacred - protected landscapes, forests, trees, ponds, streams,etc
Livino condition of people dependent on forests
6.1
6.2
6.3
~~'~~'." I
7.1
7.2
7.3
,
7.4
7.5
7.6
101
,
CRITERION 8. ADEQUACY OF POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORK
Existing policy and legal framework
Enabling conditions for participating community, NGOs and civic societies
Level of investment in research and development
Human resource capacity building efforts
Forest resource accounting (tangible and intangible)
Monitoring and evaluating mechanisms
Status of infonnation, dissemination and utilisation
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
_ . ._**;;'~;'
,
.
102
I. Painashree Prof. Machav GadgilProfessor of EcologyCentre for Ecological StudiesIndian institute of Science, Bangalore 5600/2
Sri lagjit Lamba, IFSPrincipal Chief Conservator of ForestsChainnari & Managing DirectorKamataka State Forest Industries CorporationManeshwaram, Bangalore 560 003
Sri V. R. Chitrapu, IFSPrincipal Chief Conservator of Forests &Chainnan, Tamilnadu Plantation Corpn. &Arasu Rubber Corporation, Cheimai
Sri S. K. Chadaborti, IFSPrincipal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief; Wildlife WardenKaniataka Forest DepartmentManeshwaram, Bangalore 560 003
Sri S. K. Das, IFSPrincipal Chief Conservator of Forests &Vice Chainnan & Manaoing directorandhra Predesh Forest Dev. Corpn. Ltd.3" Floor, UNI BuildingA. C. Guards, Hyderabad 500 004
Dr. S. N. Rai, IFSPrincipal Chief Conservator of Forests (E, WP, R&T)Kaniataka Forest Department,Aranya BhavanManeshwaram, Bangalore 560 003
Dr. Ram Prasad, XE'SDirector
Indian InstitiLte of Forest ManagementP. 0.357, NGhru NagarBhopa1 462 003
2.
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/INVITEES
ANNEXtInn - I
3.
4.
, t' ~. ,'~ Pr, "P, ;=^,^^.\'
5,
- ,
6.
7,
103
\
* -~.
8. Dr. K. Kesava Reddy, IF'SPrincipal Chief Conservator of Forests (Retd. )(Andlira Pradesh Forest Development)202, Victoria Apartments7' Cross, Doin Iur LayoutBangalore 560 071
Sri A. H. Moosvi, IF'S (Read)Fonner Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,andl^a Pradesh Forest Development CorporationNo. 6-3-25117
Pornagutta, Innanzil ColonyHyderabad 500 082
9.
10. Sri J. 1.1. Sarana, ERSChief Conservator of Forests (Central)Ministry of Environment & ForestsRegional Office, Soulh ZoneIV Floor, E&F WingKeridriya Sadan, KoramangalaBangalore 560 034
11.
"' "' \^^:^;- I
~----- - I
Sri A. K. Venna, IF'SChief Conservator of Forests (Working Plan)Karanataka Forest Department ATanya BhavariManeshwaram, Bangalore 560 003
Dr. K. N. Baidya, IF'S (Read)Chief Conservator of Forests
No. 49,1'' Cross, 9'' MainHAL 111 StageBangalore 560 075
Sri, Duleep MathaiEnvironmentalist
No. 7, Langford Gardens(Near Republic Hospital)Langford Rustomji ApartmentsBangalore 560 025
12.
13,
.
104
*..-
14. Sri K. S. Reddy, IFSConservator of Forests
Coordinator (Research)Institute of Wood Science and Technology,Bangalore-560003.
Dr. S. RE^jendran, usSCheif Conservator of Forests & Director FORTlVana Vikas
Maneshwaram, Bangalore 560 003
Sri V. P. Hiremath, IFSConservator of Forests (Research)Kaniataka Forest Department, Aranya BhavanManeshwaram, Bangalore 560 003
Sri B. A. Khan, IFSConservator of Forests,Forest Research Center
Dulapally, via Hat'impetHyderabad 47
Sri Subramanian, IFS,Conservator of Forests
Dhamiapuri Circle, Tarnilviadu
Dr. M. H. Swaminath, msConservator of Forests (Devt. )Kamataka Forest Department,Aranya BhavariManeshwaram, Banga!ore 560 003
Sri R. Armamalai, IFSConservator of Forests (Training) &Dean, State Forest Rangers CollegeForest Campus, R, S. FuramCoimbatore 2
Prof. 11^^,. G. ChandralcarithProfessor and Head
Dept. of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of Agricultural SciencesGl<. VK Campus, Bangalore 560 065
15.
I
16
17
18.
--.- = =-,.-=*--^,.^^^*
19.
20.
21.
,
105
L
*
22.
I_
Mrs. Devaki Padni
Consultant (Legal)ECotech Services
A-3, Sanodaya EnclaveAurobindo MargNew Delhi 110 017
23. Dr. A. A. FarooquiProf. Of Horticulture O\^fedicinal & Aromatic Plants)University of Agricultural SciencesGKVK, Bangalore 560 065
24. Mrs. Geeta Ban
Associate Profiessor,Department of Zoology,Bangalore University,Bangalore 560 065
Dr. H. 1.1. JagadeeshJoint Director
hidian Plywoodlndustries Research & Training Institute (relRTl)Trunkur Road
Bangalore 560 002
Dr. lagaimatha Rao, R.Centre for Ecological Studiesinchanlnstitute of Science, Bangalore 560 012
25.
26,
27. Dr. P*C, KotoalAssociate Professor
Indian institute of Forest Management,Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462003
Dr. Mainmen Chundamarmil
Scientist, KGrala Forest ResearchlnstitutePeechi, This sur Dist.Kerala 680 653
28.
29. Dr. U. V. Singh, IFSDy. Conservator of ForestsKaniataka Forest Departtnent, ATanya BhavanManeshwaram, Bangalore 560 003
106
.. - - -
30. Dr. Mohan Kamat, XE'SOSD, Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions,50, MsH Layout 11 Stage,'/1 Main, 2nd cross,inlandnagarBangalore 560 024
Sri Painct\j AggarwalScientist-SD & Deputy Director (Exin)Institute of Wood Science and Technology,Bangalore 560 003
Dr. R*V. Rao
Scientist-SF,Head, Wood Properties and Uses DivisionInstitute of Wood Science and Technology,Bangalore 560 003
Sri C. Mohan, IFSDivisional Forest Officer
Dharmapuri Circle,Tamilnadu Forest DepartmentTamilnadu
Sri C. H, Muralichar Rao, IFSDy. Conservator of Forests & ControllerInstitute of Forest Genetics & Tree Breeding,Forest Cmpus, Post Box No. I 061,R, S. PUTam (PO)Coimbatore- 641 002, Tamilnadu
Dr. T, s. Rathore
Scientist-SE, Head, Tree Improvement Dim, *Institute of Wood Science and Technology,Bangalore 560 003
Sri Armi KumarConsultant Editor, INBARA-3 Uttam Apartments,8th Main, ManeshwaramBangalore 560 003
31
32.
33.
'q .., ~. .....^^.^.^, u I
, ..*. r^'='~
34,
35
36.
107
37.
,.
Sri K. V. Lakshmana Murthy, IF'SCoordinator (Facilities) &Convenor of the Workshop oil SFMCPinstitute of Wood Science and Technology,18*I Cross, Maneshwaram (PO), Bangalore 560 003
38. Sri* 1.1. S. Adkoli, ^'S. , (R. etd. )Executive Director,Bamboo Society of india,22-23, Mezzanine Floor,Jayanagar,Bangalore"560 011.
~ ~,**^-,,
*******
.
108
*'-~
ANNEXURE-2
..
ORGANISERS:
I.
2.
3.
Dr. Ram Prasad, IFS, Director ITFM, BhopalDr. K, S. Rao, Director, IWST, BangaloreSri K. V. Lakshmana Marthy, IFS, Coordinator (Facilities and Convenor of theWorkshop on Sustainable Forest Management throuig}Iconnnuriity Participation,IWST, Bangalore,Dr. P. C. Kotwal, Associate Professor, 11FM, Bhopal.4.
VOLUNTEERS:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8,
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19,
20.
21.
22.
23,
24.
Dr. Vimal Kothiyal, Scientist - SEDr. R. Sundararaj , Scientist - SESri. 1.1. K. UpTeti, Scientist - SDMr. Pankz!j Aggarwal, Scientist - SDMs. Geetba 10shi, Scientist-SCMrs. T. R. Hemavathi, Scientist -SCMrs. Allandalakshmi Manickam, Scientist- SCMs. Surekha G. Sawant, Scientist- SCMr. S. H. lain, R, OMrs. R. Devaniaiii, Sr. P. A. to DirectorMr. G. Ravikumar, R. A. Gr-Itvfr. . B. G, Gayakwad, 1<A Gr-ITMr. S. Ramathirtha, I^A Gr-11 (MisoMr. K. T. Chandrashekar, 1<A Gr-11Mr. Sanjay, SRFMr. Palaniswamy, SRFMr. Tharakanth, SRFMrs. T, s. Lalitha, Stenographer Gr-11Mrs. D. G. Hemamalini, Steno Gr-11Mrs. S. Bhavani, Steno Gr"11Mr. B, C. Ramakrishna, LDCMrs. Latha Narayanan, LDCMr. P. Ravi Kumar, LDCMr. Reyaz Sad, LDC
,
109
^-^
25.
26.
27,
28.
29.
30,
31,
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
,
Mr. M. R. Krislmamurthy, LDCMr. V. G. Ashok, Staff Car Driver Gr~IMr. S. Megaraj, DriverMr. S, Jayaram, DriverMr. B. Nagaraja, DriverMr. L. Chandrashekara Rao, DriverMr. Ramaiali, Gr DMr. The agaraja, Gr Dlvfr. . Lakshmaiali, Gr. DMr. Narayanaswamy, Gr. DMr. R;^jama, Gr. DSint. Nanarmna, Gr. DSint. Nagarimia, Gr. Dlvfi. . K. Rosaiali, Gr. Dlvh. . Charmaiali, Gr. DMr. Minchan, Gr, D
-38-
*,,:;,, t, . .-~-^- - -
******
A,
J
,,
,
110
