Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Revisiting Participatory Forest Management in India


Affiliations
1 Independent Consultant on Forest Ecology and Management, 216 A, Ranka Colony, Bilekahalli, Bengaluru 560 076, India
 

Participatory forest management (PFM) in India was initiated mainly with the objective of restoring degraded forests and to support livelihood of forestdependent communities. PFM can help achieve India’s mitigation targets such as the Paris Agreement in the forest sector, and improve livelihood of forestdependent communities and biodiversity. However, there are several limitations in the current PFM policies and programmes to achieve such outcomes. This article, based on a review of the literature and examining government reports, discusses the current challenges in PFM and possible ways to strengthen its policies and programmes to achieve better forest management outcomes.

Keywords

Biodiversity, Mitigation Targets, Participatory Forest Management, Stakeholders.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Environment Information System, Protected areas in India, Wildlife Institute of India, 2019; http://www.wiienvis.nic.in/Database/Protected_Area_854.aspx (accessed on 27 March 2019).

  • Pandit, M. K. et al., Unreported yet massive deforestation driving loss of endemic biodiversity in Indian Himalaya. Biodiver. Conserv., 2007, 16, 153–163.

  • National Wasteland Atlas of India, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development. Government of India (GoI), 2011; http://dolr.gov.in/sites/default/files/Wastelands_Atlas_2011.pdf (accessed on 28 March 2019).

  • Roy, P. S. et al., Forest fragmentation in India. Curr. Sci., 2013, 105(6), 774–780.

  • Davidar, P. et al., Assessing the extent and causes of forest degradation in India: where do we stand? Biol. Conserv., 2010, 143, 2937–2944.

  • Census of India, Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs, GoI, 2011; http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-common/CensusData2011.html (accessed on 15 March 2019).

  • Livestock Census of India, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, GoI, 2012; http://dahd.nic.in/documents/statistics/livestockcensus (accessed on 15 March 2019).

  • India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, submitted to UNFCCC, 2015; http://envfor.nic.in/sites/default/files/pressreleases/revised%20PPT%20Press%20Conference%20INDC%20v5.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2019).

  • Miles, L and Kapos, V., Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: global land-use implications. Science, 2008, 320, 1454–1455.

  • Phelps, J. et al., Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science, 2010, 328, 312–313.

  • Chisholm, R. A., Trade-offs between ecosystem services: water and carbon in a biodiversity hotspot. Ecol. Econ., 2010, 69, 1973– 1987.

  • Aggarwal, A., How sustainable are forestry clean development mechanism projects? – A review of the selected projects from India. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Global Change, 2014, 19, 73–91.

  • Blomley, T. and Ramadhani, H., Going to scale with participatory forest management: early lessons from Tanzania. Int. For. Rev., 2006, 8, 93–100.

  • Singh, P. P., Exploring biodiversity and climate change benefits of community-based forest management. Global Environ. Change, 2008, 18, 468–478.

  • Guha, R., The prehistory of community forestry in India. Environ. Hist., 2001, 6, 213–238.

  • Environment Information System, JFM status in India, 2011; http://frienvis.nic.in/Database/JFM-Committees-and-Forest_Area_ 2243.aspx (accessed on 20 April 2019).

  • Bhattacharya, P. et al., Joint forest management in India: experiences of two decades. Resour., Conserv. Recycling, 2010, 54, 469–480.

  • Participatory forest management in Himachal Pradesh; https://hpforest.nic.in/pages/display/ZDRmNjVniDY1NHNk-himachal-pradesh-participatory-forest-management (accessed on 23 April 2019).

  • Comptroller and Auditor General Performance Audit Report on Maharashtra Forest Department; https://cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Chapter_2_Performance_Audit_15.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2019).

  • Gubbi, S. et al., Evaluating the legacy of an integrated conservation and development project around a tiger reserve in India. Environ. Conserv., 2008, 35, 331–339.

  • Arjunan, M. et al., Do developmental initiatives influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case study from the Kalakad– Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. J. Environ. Manage., 2006, 79(2), 188–197.

  • Murali, K. S. et al., Institutional and policy issues of participatory forestry: Indian experience. Trop. Ecol., 2003, 44, 73–84.

  • Ghate, R. et al., Local institutions as mediators of the impact of markets on non-timber forest product extraction in central India. Environ. Conserv., 2009, 36, 51–61.

  • Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on Peformance of Forest Department of Nagaland, 2014; https://cag.gov.in/sites/ default/files/audit_report_files/Nagaland_Report_2_2014.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2019).

  • MoEFCC, National Afforestation Programme (Action taken by Government on the Recommendations contained in Thirty-Sixth Report (Fifteenth Lok Sabha) of the Committee on Estimates) Committee On Estimates (2014–2015), Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, GoI; http://164.100.47.193/ lsscommittee/Estimates/16_Estimates_3.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2019).

  • Evaluation format for first concurrent evaluation of forest development agency projects sanctioned Under National Afforestation Programme (NAP) Scheme 2006; https://naeb.nic.in/Reports/eval_ manl_06_07.pdf

  • Chhattisgarh Certification Society, cgcert.com/wp/ (accessed on 23 April 2019).

  • Environment Information System, Forest development corporations update, 2015; http://www.frienvis.nic.in/Database/Forest-Development-Corporations_1824.aspx (accessed on 10 March 2019).

  • Upadhyay, S., JFM in India: some legal concerns. Econ. Polit. Wkly., 2003, 38(35), 3629–3631.

  • Rampur Forest Division Working Plan (2014–2024), Government of Himachal Pradesh, 2014, p. 425 (accessed physical copy from the Forest Department on September 2018).

  • Rishi, P., Joint forest management in India: an attitudinal analysis of stakeholders. Resour. Conserv. Recycling, 2007, 51, 345–354.

  • Nayak, P. K. and Berkes, F., Politics of co-optation: community forest management versus joint forest management in Orissa, India. Environ. Manage., 2008, 41, 707–718.

  • Kumar, S., Does ‘participation’ in common pool resource management help the poor? A social cost–benefit analysis of joint forest management in Jharkhand, India. World Dev., 2002, 30, 763– 782.

  • Gouri, S. M. et al., Policy influences on forest-based livelihoods in Himachal Pradesh, India. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. 2004, p. 19.

  • Lele, S. et al., Co-operative procurement and marketing of tendu leaves in Madhya Pradesh: image and reality. Environment and Development Discussion Paper No. 3, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bengaluru, 2015, p. 45.

  • Fayiah, M. et al., Regeneration status and species diversity of a mix dry deciduous forest: a case of Barah forest, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India. Indian J. Trop. Biodivers., 2018, 26, 17– 29.

  • National Mission for Green India, http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/GIM%20presentation%20Feb%2022%202011.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2019).

  • Lélé, S., A ‘defining’ moment for forests? Econ. Polit. Wkly., 2007, 42(25), 2379–2383

  • Forman, R. T., Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landsc. Ecol., 1995, 10, 133–142.

  • Thompson, L. D. et al., Biodiversity and ecosystem services: lessons from nature to improve management of planted forests for REDD-plus. Biodivers. Conserv., 2014, 23, 2613–2635.

  • International Union for Conservation of Nature, World Resources Institute, IUCN, WRI. A guide to the restoration opportunities assessment methodology (ROAM): assessing forest landscape restoration opportunities at the national or sub-national level. Working paper (road-test edition), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2014, p. 76.

  • Nelson, E. et al., Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ., 2009, 7, 4–11.

  • Ananda, J., Implementing participatory decision making in forest planning. Environ. Manage., 2007, 39, 534.

  • Sheppard, S. R. and Meitner, M., Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. For. Ecol. Manage., 2005, 207, 171–187.

  • MoEFCC, National Working Plan Code, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, GoI; http://www.moef.nic.in/sites/default/files/wplancode.pdf

  • Pande, V. C. et al., Economic analysis of bamboo plantation in three major ravine systems of India. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev., 2012, 25, 49.

  • Saigal, S. et al., The new foresters: the role of private enterprise in the Indian forestry sector. 2002; https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/9063IIED.pdf? (accessed on 22 April 2019).

  • Vidyapati, U., Evaluation of Lok Vaniki in Dewas district, Ph D thesis submitted to University of Indore, 2014, p. 339.

  • Status on Forest Rights Act, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, GoI, 2018; https://tribal.nic.in/FRA/data/MPRApr2018.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2019).

  • Broome, N. P. et al., Biodiversity conservation and Forest Rights Act. Econ. Polit. Wkly., 2017, 25&26, 51–54.

  • Kumar, P., Capacity constraints in operationalisation of payment for ecosystem services (PES) in India: evidence from land degradation. Land Degrad. Dev., 2011, 22, 432–443.

  • Singh, J. S. and Kushwaha, S. P. S., Forest biodiversity and its conservation in India. Int. For. Rev., 2008, 10, 292–304.

  • Ravindranath, N. H. et al., Forest conservation, afforestation and reforestation in India: implications for forest carbon stocks. Curr. Sci., 2008, 102(8), 216–222.

  • Ravindranath, et al., Deforestation and forest degradation in India–implications for REDD+. Curr. Sci., 2012, 102(8), 1117– 1125.

  • Kaul, M. et al., Carbon storage versus fossil fuel substitution: a climate change mitigation option for two different land use categories based on short and long rotation forestry in India. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Global Change, 2010, 15, 395–409.


Abstract Views: 316

PDF Views: 104




  • Revisiting Participatory Forest Management in India

Abstract Views: 316  |  PDF Views: 104

Authors

G. Dhanapal
Independent Consultant on Forest Ecology and Management, 216 A, Ranka Colony, Bilekahalli, Bengaluru 560 076, India

Abstract


Participatory forest management (PFM) in India was initiated mainly with the objective of restoring degraded forests and to support livelihood of forestdependent communities. PFM can help achieve India’s mitigation targets such as the Paris Agreement in the forest sector, and improve livelihood of forestdependent communities and biodiversity. However, there are several limitations in the current PFM policies and programmes to achieve such outcomes. This article, based on a review of the literature and examining government reports, discusses the current challenges in PFM and possible ways to strengthen its policies and programmes to achieve better forest management outcomes.

Keywords


Biodiversity, Mitigation Targets, Participatory Forest Management, Stakeholders.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv117%2Fi7%2F1161-1166