ABSTRACT
Orissa contains among the highest concentrations of forest-dependent populations, particularly of tribal groups, and some of the most acute poverty in India. In terms of forest management, it is unique in many ways. Communities took the initiative well before the forest department, and self-initiated forest protection committees have spread widely across the state since the 1960s. The forest department took the initiative in the formation of Vana Samarakshyan Samities (VSS), or forest protection committees (FPCs), only during the 1990s. About 9677 VSS have now been formed in different forest divisions of the state, many of which are simply formalized self-initiated groups.
The state implementation of participatory forest management (PFM) has been a haphazard affair, reflecting the weakness of the Orissa Forest Department as an institution. There has been a lack of proper participatory process, either at the outset or post-formation: local people’s participation in the preparation of the ‘micro-plan’ is generally marginal, as the forester exerts major control over this. In VSS executive committee and general body meetings, important decisions have been taken by elites, including the forester (who is secretary). Self-initiated groups were found to be much more participatory than the VSS, although few women are involved in either type of management (VSS and self-initiated forest protection groups, or SIFPGs), and those who are have little power in decision-making.
Conflicts of various natures, including in and between villages, were found in the study areas, with consequential deforestation, mismanagement of resources and judicial proceedings. There are also conflicts over sharing benefits, usufruct rights, illegal felling, forest boundaries and with forest mafias. Mining, mostly located in forest areas, has led to conflict between forest-fringe communities and mining leaseholders.
The forest development agency (FDA) scheme has further created a rift between those VSS villages which receive FDA assistance and those which do not, as forest officials concentrate their resources and time more on FDA-assisted villages than on non-FDA villages. This acts as an incentive for many people in self-initiated community forest (CF) villages to convert to VSS in order to have the chance of financial help from the scheme.
Dependence on the forest for their livelihoods has been crucial for poor households in the absence of adequate resource endowment, such as land and access to the service sector. Collection of forest products (for own use and market sale) is a major labour allocation for the majority of poor households. Overall, 25 per cent of household income comes from forest-related activities. This supplements the total income of poor households; but absolute income from the forest is very low for this group. About 80 per cent of total forest income is generated during the summer season and around 12 per cent from the rainy 262season. Since a major portion of forest income in the rainy season is consumed, forests are fundamental to the poorest groups as insurance against starvation and hunger. Given their low total income, these households have to depend on loans to subsist. More than 40 per cent of FPC households have outstanding loans from private creditors such as shopkeepers. Indebted collectors are forced to sell their forest products to their creditors at depressed prices.
PFM has generally led to improved forest conditions and increased access to a variety of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), although there has been no improvement in market relations regarding NTFP sales, which are critical in determining the level of livelihood benefits (despite the licensing of NTFP extraction being transferred to panchayats).
Different stakeholders have contradictory interests and are uncoordinated; as a result, forest-related policies have not been effective in raising the quality of forests and the livelihoods of rural people. To achieve these two objectives there is a need for assured tenurial rights to the forest as an incentive to local communities; recognition and endorsement of the diverse local participatory management practices, including self-initiated groups; legitimization of subsistence forest use; promotion of forest product value addition and enterprise development; improvement of marketing networks through collaboration with panchayats, self-help groups (SHGs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and increased investment in the forestry sector.
