In Section 4 the authors describe some case studies as to how the monitored information are being used by the Forest Department and local people for decision making to support sustainable forest management.
The last section summarizes the conclusions and makes a case for the systemic approach for development and utilization of such monitoring mechanism for JFM world wide.
JFM in India : A Systemic Description
Joint Forest Management involves management of a complex system where institutional, ecological and economic elements form a web of human and environment interaction. This system as a web provides checks and balances of cultural values with ecological and economic implications governed by state bureaucratic and community institutions.
The sustainability of the JFM programme can only be maintained, ultimately, at the level of the interaction between the entire complex of human systems and all directly implicated environmental systems. To understand sustainability therefore requires some understanding of the behaviour of systems in general and of social and ecological systems in particular. The more we study the problem of society or ecology, the more we come to realize that they cannot be understood in isolation (Capra, 1996). They are systemic problems, which means they are interconnected and interdependent. The problems are not merely intellectual but also involve human emotion and encompass the socio-political and economic domains apart from the ecological domain.
The problem of deforestation and what is called the socioeconomic growth should be tackled through systemic approach. Any kind of intervention through physical activity (such as plantation, soil work, pit making, thinning, pruning, harvesting) to improve forest conditions will not yield the required result unless the desired behaviour of individuals in society is monitored and controlled as social norms and institutions. Same way, any kind of new behaviour by an individual forester will not have sustained action unless organisation as a whole changes its philosophy, policy and operational plan. No doubt, cultural, ecological and economic systems form a complex whole of Participatory Forest Management, where villagers as community and foresters as government institutions try to achieve the common goal of forest conservation. Both the institutions have their own perception, belief, norms, procedures and behaviours, which need to be matched.
The JFM system has three subsystems namely ecological, institutional / social and techno economical which are interconnected and inter dependent.
Under the JFM system, the use of forest resources are controlled by two institutions i.e., Forest Department and the FPCs. Forest Department as a State owned organization has certain definite guidelines for forest resource use backed by legal and policy framework whereas the FPCs as peoples’ institutions develop certain rules and regulations and control mechanism through discussion, interaction and concensus, to check indiscriminate use of forest resources by the members of the society.
JFM Institution : FD/FPC interactive mode
The subsystems of the JFM system are interrelated and interdependent and they are effected by one other.
Conceptual framework for development criteria and indicators for monitoring JFM
The overall goal of JFM is to ensure well being of the forest as well as the people simultaneously and sustainably. The well being of the people and the well being of the forest are interdependent.
However the state of well being of neither the forest nor the people can be measured directly. Rather it has to be inferred from the measurement of a number of symptoms related to various aspects of ecology, economy at the society. Therefore one has to establish a conceptual framework of principles, criteria, indicators and verifiers (Refer CIFOR manual) linking the field measurable quantities to the goals and objectives.
Principles are top most level guiding factors (e.g. well being of people or ecosystems integrity) and are generally abstract properties of the system that are influenced by a multitude of factors.
Criteria are the first level decomposition of the system management principles. The decomposition can be made either structural or functional lines or at times using a combination of both. For example in JFM the well being of forests can be decomposed structurally into Biological (flora or fauna) and Geophysical (land, water) criteria whereas the well being of people can be decomposed functionally into economical and social criteria.
Criteria can be decomposed into indicators which capture a single meaningful of cognizable traits that can be sensed directly. Verifiers are the exact form in which responses are to be collected from the field and which relate directly to an indicator.
For participatory management it is firstly important that the stakeholder understand, in their own terms, the conceptual framework of C&I at its web of causal implications. Only then they are likely to appreciate its value and spend time and resources for acquiring such information from monitoring. Secondly the collection of information and its aggregation of analysis should be as simple and economical as possible. It should not be pursued as an unnecessary overhead compared to its value in decision making. In the context it should also be mentioned that measurement in the scientific research context often demand a level of accuracy and validation which may be totally unnecessary and infeasible in the context of participatory management. Here one is generally looking for major trends that are useful for management actions and accuracy to that extend need be stressed. To ensure the acceptability of usage in a participatory management setting, an initial process of training and facilitation may be necessary from external experts to realize the real value of the C&I system.
Below we describe to aspects of monitoring of JFM and demonstrate how a framework of C&I can be developed. We also discuss a few isolate cases where such monitoring has been taken up by the forest community in the context of JFM in India.
Participatory Vegetation Monitoring
The well being of the forest can be measured in terms of geophysical and biological systems. For monitoring biological system Participatory Vegetation Monitoring is proved to be one of the most suitable method where the community members can be involved. The two most important criteria for Participatory Vegetation Monitoring are the growth and diversity of species. The indicators of growth could be the Girth at Breast Height (GBH). It is an important parameter to estimate the standing biomass of a tree. The indicator for diversity would be species richness which denotes the total number of species present in a given area.
There are a number of standard scientific methods to monitor the well being of the forest but here we would highlight only one of the method of Participatory Vegetation Monitoring which has been adopted by 100s of villagers in different states of India. For example the measurement of canopy cover is also an accepted parameter for growth. It is not at all suitable for measurement by common villagers.
Vegetation Monitoring is an innovation in the utilitarian or technological order in the sense that it endures the villagers to determine what would be the judicious amount for harvesting the forest products so that sustainability is ensured. Villagers capacity has been built so that they can used quadrate method for Vegetation Monitoring. Quadrate method is the most common method, which can be adopted if it is a homogeneous forest or a monoculture plantation.
Quadrate may be rectangular or circular but typically it is a square plot. A plot of specific size is marked in the selected area. The size and number of plots is dependent on the number of species availability, size of the forest area and availability of resources.
Ideally, 10-15% of the total area should be sampled in the study however in case of large area minimum of 1 ha., should be studied. One can use species area curve to determine the size of appropriate quadrate by plotting number of species against size of quadrate.
Through vegetation monitoring people have information based on physical verification to evaluate the present status of forests. In many of the FPCs, after getting facts and figures of forest condition people have taken initiative to put more emphasis on protection (patrolling) and management (ban on grazing and barking of accacia).
Decisions on management practices are taken based n facts and figures and not on perception and belief or emotion. The people from Ghugimura (Midnapore, West Bengal) identified the extent of damage caused by barking, then discussed the problem and decided on banning barking. It strengthens community planning, monitoring, evaluation and reporting and enhances community ownership of the monitoring process.
Participatory Monitoring of JFM Institutions
A possible framework of C&I for the Institutional aspects of JFM is presented below:
“The concept of ‘well-being’ encompasses the economic, social and cultural aspects of people’s lives, as influenced by forest resources”. (The criteria and indicator toolbox)
At the forest community level – How the forest community as a social capital is taking part in forest conservation. “Social Capital refers to trust, networks and norms shared by a group of actors that enable them to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives (EPW, Feb 2001).
- perception, identity and belongingness of the community towards public forest and other natural resources around their village and how they foresee the benefit.
- communication mechanism within FPC and between FC and FD,
- the group formation and dynamics,
- social institutions in favour of forest conservation,
- clarity in roles and responsibilities related to gender and equity,
- effective leadership,
- values and norms through which community actions are integrated,
- symbols and rituals practised by the community relating to natural resource management,
- socialisation of the children to see how the parents interact and value natural resources and social capital through formal and informal orientation.
Coordination between the forest community and forest department as an organisation- As in JFM both FC and FD works as partners and have developed common goal and agreed plan of action it is expected that they would follow certain set norms for regular interaction. The communication mechanism between these two institutions are to be taken into account.
Authors had experience of working in 100s of villages in India and have found that monitoring the social institutions by the committee members themselves in a cluster have helped them immensely to take corrective measures and procedures for conducting meetings, writing minutes of the meeting etc. Inefficient leaders are replaced by efficient leaders.
Utilization of the criteria and indicators in decision making
The information generated through Participatory Vegetation Monitoring and participatory monitoring of social institutions have certainly helped both the community and forest department for decision making for improving productivity on a sustainable basis.
Utilization by the community members –
In case of vegetation monitoring information has influenced the community to debate, analyse, interpret data relating to the forest condition. For example, people of Ghugimura village used to bark tree for rope making which resulted in the loss of several trees in course of time. After monitoring, people got the facts, discussed the alternative options and banned barking. In another village loss of biodiversity due to unchecked harvesting has been restricted by villagers. Participatory NTFPs monitoring at Tungaduha village in Midnapore district is one of the examples where one can validate its impact on decision-making. It has effected a change in perception and attitude of people towards justifiable use of NTFPs and hence people have decided to go for sustainable harvest of NTFPs.
Now they keep records of daily NTFP collection, analyse data on monthly basis and then decide on the actions to be taken for collection of particular NTFPs.
Monitoring is one of the bases of enhancing community capability to think for better options and opportunities. Therefore, vegetation / NTFPs monitoring has not only influenced forestry-related decisions but also encouraged the community to decide on taking up income generation / village development activities based on local resources and expertise, such as pulse cake making, puffed rice selling, tailoring, cleaning of village, FPC office construction, conducting quiz, competition, awareness rally, and so on.
Enhance community voice with respect to other stakeholders.
Utilization by the Forest Department –
The information generated through Participatory Vegetation Monitoring and participatory monitoring of social institutions would help Forest Department in the decision making process. As in Andhra Pradesh the committees are being classified based on the information and appropriate actions are being taken to improve the capacity of the weak FPCs.
The data from Vegetation Monitoring may help the forest to take appropriate action for harvesting timber and non-timber forest products, plantation etc. This information may be incorporated in their macro level working plans.
Indian Institute of Bio-Social Research and Development (IBRAD) has been assigned by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India to develop a format for monitoring the JFM system in the country. This has been developed and tested in different States of India. Now, a systematic monitoring mechanism for JFM is being planned in the country.
Conclusion
The problem of Sustainable Development as in case of deforestation should be addressed through systemic approach. Any kind of intervention, through physical activities (such as plantation, soil work, pit making, thinning, pruning, harvesting) to improve forest conditions will not yield required result unless the desired behaviour of individuals in the society is monitored and controlled as like social norms and institutions. Same way any kind of new behaviour by individual forester will not have sustained action unless organisation as a whole changes its philosophy, policy and operational plan. No doubt, cultural, ecological and economic system form a complex whole of Sustainable Development, where people as community and foresters as Government institutions try to achieve the common goal of forest conservation. Both the institutions have their own perception, belief, norms, procedures and behaviours which needs to be matched. But this situation is ideal and easier said than done. Such complexities necessities the understanding and application of the Systemic Approach to Sustainable Development. Developing Criteria and Indicators for monitoring such system is one of the core technological inputs for Sustainable Development.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta for giving valuable inputs. We thank the Ford Foundation for funding support.
References
Capra, Fritjof, (1996), The Web of Life, Harper Collins Publishers, Hammersmith, London.
Clayton, Anthony M H and Nicholas J Radcliffe, 1996, Sustainability – A Systemic Approach, EARTHSCAN Publication Limited, London.
Dash M. C., (1993), Fundamentals of Ecology, Tata Mcgraw- Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.
Guillermo A. et. Al. Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Assessment of Criteria and Indicators; the Criteria and Indicator Toolbox Series 9; Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Guidelines for Developing Criteria and Indicators for Joint Forest Management 2000; Bhopal-India Process; Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal.
Iswantaro Heru; Developing Criteria Indicator for Participatory Forest Management; unpublished work submitted for Ph. D. degree.
Raju. G., R. Vaghela and M. S. Raju (1993). Development of People’s Institutions for Management of Forests. VIKSAT, Nehru Foundation for Development, Ahmedabad (a report)
Roy S. B. (1992). Bilateral Matching Institutions : An illustration in forest conservation, Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society 27 : 253-262.
Roy, S. B. (1996). Social Indications towards Institutionalization of Development Programme: A case study from Joint Forest Management. South Asian Anthropologist 17 (2) : 81-87.
Roy S. B., Yadav, G. and Mukhopadhyay D. (2000). The question of Social Change and Joint Forest Management : Case studies from Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, Journal Indian Anthropological Society 35 : 271-279.
Roy S. B., Mukhopadhyay D. and Das S. (2001). Strengthening Institutions in Joint Forest Management : Systemic Approach to Forest Conservation, Journal of Social Science, New Delhi.
Professor and Chairman, Indian Institute of Bio-Social Research and Development (IBRAD), 3A Hindustan Road, Calcutta – 700 029, West Bengal, India. Email : [email protected]
Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, Midnapore, West Bengal, India.
Email : [email protected]
