Joint Forest Management- An Integrated Framework

Origin and Introduction:

Forest, the only habitat as well as provider of life to the tribal communities was moving towards
gradual depletion due to exclusionary tendencies of the past policies, which did not pay attention
to the inclusion and development of poor. The need of the hour was to take some necessary steps
to avoid such threat with the adoption of much needed community based approach which led to
formulation of “National Forest Policy” in 1988.
Joint Forest Management
JFM was initiated in 1990 which aimed at restoration of depleted forest with the help of local
communities and voluntary organisation through a participative approach majorly aimed at
inclusion of women. The approach had multiple components which started with the formation of
JFMCs (Joint Forest Management Committees) which represented women, weaker sections,
local tribes, natives and vulnerable communities. The local communities entered into MoU with
forest departments which led them to work jointly with bureaucrats for two common goals called
Forest cover and Livelihood generation for locals. Then the role of State Governments were
responsible for legal resolutions that needed to be passed for the formation of local village
community based organisations based on local conditions..
Analysis of JFM
The integrated framework can be used in analysing JFM from broader perspectives at various
levels and stages of JFM. JFM was adopted by GOI in 1990 under National Forest Policy (NFP)
in 1988. It aims at restoration of degraded forests through collaborated efforts of Forest
department and tribal community.
The framework provides two level of analysis having multiple components. These two levels are:
1. Systematic Level (Political-Economy) Analysis
2. Programme Level (Programmatic) Analysis

1. Systematic Level (Political-Economy) Analysis

This analysis focuses on Macro-environmental issues such as social, economic and political
factors influencing JFM.
Need for the intervention and its intended beneficiaries: - The JFM was initially launched to
overcome the shortcomings of National Forest Policy. Corruption and degradation of forest with
increase in poaching led to loss of flora and fauna due to vested interests of bureaucrats as well
as the forest official. As a result neither the forest productivity nor the density increased due to
lack of monitoring which led to JFM as a measure and a participatory approach with an objective
of enhancement of forest productivity as well as revenue. With depleting forest resources and
environmental degradation at national and global level has made several countries including to

1
 adopt suitable measures for environmental sustainability and forest protection therefore this
focuses on the forces which includes a massive effort by a large number of people, governments
environmental agencies and for-profit corporations Hence, JFM was adopted by NFM as
people’s centric approach for mitigating the environmental concerns. The JFM was an integrated
approach which led to collaboration of state forest departments, local communities, voluntary
organisations and local NGOs by establishing a synergetic relationship to enhance the people’s
participation and pass on the benefits to local communities and tribes.

Nature of state and class bias- of the intervention:

Joint forest management involving the state forest department and the local communities follows a
top-down approach by entering into MoU to maintain and mange forest area collectively. It is
decentralized and participatory approach. The efforts were made to involve those people who are
really responsible for the growth and conservation of forests but it was dominated by corrupt
officials at Forest department level and by influential villagers at community level. Therefore in
the initial years JFM could not achieve the desired results which resulted into a meagre increase in
forest cover.
In the 11th Five Year Plan of GOI the NAP with a target of adding 1 million hectares was
successful as the time progressed it was handicapped with decline in funding for NAP and JFM
between 2001-2011 the growth of area under forests was even less than one percent and it could
have been more with proper allocation of funds. JFM was to be led by state governments by
implementing various policies and proper distribution of power as well as resources between forest
departments and village communities. As a result, Forest Protection Committees (FPCs) were
formed and were later registered under Societies Registration Act 1860. To strengthen
stakeholder’s participation MoU signed between state government and FPCs to define roles and
responsibilities of different stakeholders. But FDs were considering JFM as a betrayal as it were
being led by wealthy capitalist who wanted to gain access to the plentiful resources of forest and
wanted to displace the native communities for their vested interests.. States were driven by
political economy which also hindered the overall objectives of JFM with inclination towards
capitalist agenda which decreases the effectiveness of this reformist approach.
2. Programme Level Analysis
After formulation and implementation of JFM, many programme level dimensions come into play
which play a major role in working and success of JFM. These dimensions play an important role
in assessment of JFM. These dimensions are depicted in diagram below and explained later:

2
 1. JFM goals:
The broader objectives of the JFM are to fulfil current as well as future needs of the local
communities which can be achieved by following measures
 Increase the area under forest cover and enrich the biodiversity
 Bring the equity and increase income of the stakeholders.
 Integrate tribal and village communities towards a collaborative approach of increasing
revenue and livelihood opportunities
 Check the depletion of natural resources, flora and fauna
Broader Goals of JFM:
Poverty reduction and Livelihood generation:
JFM have led to development of infrastructure in many regions by adopting the approaches like
watershed development, rainwater harvesting and also improved agricultural practices and
improved irrigation mechanisms which led to not only increased green cover, reduced soil
erosion but also improved water conservation and fodder availability.JFM is a user-based
intervention and those who are part or members only, of intervention can avail its benefits.

Women Empowerment:

Women, an important stakeholder group in forest management were neglected in initial phases of
JFM. The 12th five-year plan by GOI wanted to ensure the participation of women. Women are
also the focus for development thus it was mandated 50% participation of females in general

3
body and 1/3rd participation in executive committee. NFP has suggested in forming co-operatives
of tribal communities and labourers in order to unite them and strengthen them to prevent their
exploitation and making them aware of their rights.

Increase in Forest Cover and Productivity:

After a decade of JFM’s working the forest cover almost remained the same without significant
changes. The proportion of forest cover, which was 19.5 percent in 1987, increased only
marginally to 19.9 in 2001 implying that there is negligible impact of JFM on forest growth. This
was attributed to lack of availability of funds and top-down approach for JFM .Availability of
fuel wood and non-timber forest produce (NTFP) and its processing led to improved livelihood
conditions. Forests are very important in livelihood provision in tribal areas. With
implementation of JFM, both income and working days of poor and landless have increased. In

2. Strategies and policies:

1. JFM was promoted as people’s participatory approach involving role of both FD and
local communities
2 Participatory approach was adopted in order to empower local community for forest
conservation
3 JFM follows top-down and bureaucratic approach led by state government by involving
participation of individuals at all levels of community
4 Integration with rural development scheme led to increased water table and crop
diversification
5 JFM is an outcome of the National Forest policy, 1988 to conserve and to regenerate the
degraded forests with an involvement of community.
3. Design Features:
 Creation of joint co-operatives to control illegal felling between labourers and tribal
communities.
 Formation of FPCs, micro-plans was formulated based on local livelihood needs,
traditional knowledge and needs of local markets.
 JFM committees (JFMCs) were formed to represent the needs of weaker sections of the
society and strengthen the involvement of women with a minimum of 50 per cent and 33
per cent membership for women in the general body and executive committee.
 JFMC and FDAs were integrating for implementation of JFM in more effective way.
4. Implementation and Monitoring:

4
  Creation of Project team: It included formation of Forest Protection Committees without
any legal status and as voluntary organisations in each village.
 Women participation was also encouraged to bring women into focus.
 Forest Dept. and NGOs mobilized & formed FDAs with little power and minimum
control given to them.
 Funds obtained by states from NAP or donors disbursed through FDAs to joint accounts
of JFMC & FD.
 After so much efforts and participation happened, still only 34% JFMCs were formed
(1.13 lakh JFMCs covering 23 million ha.).
5. Operations & Management:

Under JFM, the CBO’s partnered with forest department to regenerate and conserve the forests.
There was an encouragement to involve women in these committees to have inclusion on a
holistic level.
The tribal communities, village communities and other backward communities including
scheduled tribes, scheduled castes and other disadvantaged groups helped in restoring degraded
forests and in return the committees were not given a portion of land of forest or forest land on
lease but rather the committees were given some benefits. Some of those are that the beneficial
recipients were given access to fodder, fuel, small timber, share of the harvest in protected area
and other non- timber forest products.

6. Impact and Outcomes:

 JFM did not leave a significant positive impact overall, except for the results seen in
some of the local cases.
 Though the programme generated income and employment opportunities but the
improvement in the livelihood of the people involved in JFM was limited.
 A major impact of JFM was the conversion of forest management programme into a
community based programme.
 The committees involved in JFM were given a very limited portion of the harvest.
 The attention shifted from non-timber forest products to Sal and Teak, this was an
undesirable aspect.

7. Lessons and Feedback:

 There were not enough capital and resources to have effective results as expected by the
initiative. The basic motive of regeneration of forests was not achieved to its fullest. The
start of the programme was effective but the outcome after the due course was not
favourable.

5
  The exercise control was completely with FD’s and to have successful outcome from the
programme, this control from FD’s has to be reduced.
 All the types of communities involved in JFM should be having equal participation and
rights.
What can be done?
 Gather more interest of the local communities by giving legitimate support to the CBO's.
The viability of the program can be improved by providing adequate self-rule to the
CBO's.
 Micro-plans ought to incorporate the recipients in the phase of preparation. Their
requirements and issues should be to be taken care of so that the livelihoods of the
beneficiaries can be improved to a greater extent.