Evolution of Community

Based Forestry
BY:
ANJALI DHASMANA
Overview

 Origin of Community Based Forestry

 The Original Concept of Community Based Forestry
 Modern Concept of Community Based Forestry
 Categorization of Community Based Forestry
 Effectiveness of Community Based Forestry
 CBF: The Indian Context
 Issues for Future
 Conclusion
Community Based Forestry : Origins
 Community forestry was initially defined, by FAO, as “any situation which
intimately involves local people in a forestry activity.” (FAO 1978).
 Such activities commonly enter widely into rural life and have always done so.
Why, then had the in aggregate large but widely dispersed rural tree resource
which had always been present in the rural landscape been largely neglected
earlier?
 There is the almost total separation that had developed between forestry and
agriculture.
 In the 1950s and 1960s governments tended to favour of industrial forestry.
 By the mid 1970s it had become apparent that development strategies narrowly
based on industrialization were not working.
 The growth that was achieved became highly localized and all too often poorly
related to people's actual needs, particularly in rural areas.
 The added wealth generated seldom spread to the rest of the population.
 In fact, growth patterns often emerged that actually worsened the impoverishment
of those outside the growth sectors.
 The growing focus on rural development did much to draw attention to the
dependence of rural people on forests and trees.
 E. Eckholm, in his influential 1975 publication “The Other Energy Crisis:
Firewood”, pointed out that “for more than a third of the world's people, the real
energy crisis is a daily scramble to cook dinner” (Eckholm 1975).
 Mounting concern led to a number of initiatives, at both the national and
international level.
 China, India and the Republic of Korea, for example, initiated major rural
afforestation programmes.
 FAO, with support from SIDA, organised a series of meetings to review existing
experience and to define what was needed. This resulted in the 1978 publication
“Forestry for Local Community Development” (FAO 1978).
 FAO and SIDA launched a special action programme to heighten awareness of
the importance of “community forestry”.
 In 1978, the World Bank issued its influential Forestry: Sector Policy Paper
which signaled a major shift in its forestry activities away from industrial forestry
towards environmental protection and meeting local needs.
Community Based Forestry : The Original
Concept
 Community forestry was seen to comprise three main elements:

1. the provision of “fuel and other goods essential to meeting basic

needs at the rural household and community level”,
2. the provision of “food and the environmental stability necessary for
continued food production”,
3. the generation of “income and employment in the rural
community”
Community Based Forestry : Modern
Concept
 Community-based forestry includes “initiatives, sciences, policies, institutions and
processes that are intended to increase the role of local people in governing and
managing forest resources”.
 It includes formalized customary and indigenous initiatives as well as government-
led initiatives.
 CBF covers social, economic and conservation dimensions in a range of activities
including decentralized and devolved forest management, smallholder forestry
schemes, community−company partnerships, small-scale forest-based enterprises
and indigenous management of sacred sites of cultural importance.
Categorization

 CBF regimes can be categorized according to the tenure rights

enjoyed by stakeholders.
 The spectrum of generic types of CBF, in order of increasing
strength of rights devolved, includes:
1. participatory conservation,
2. joint forest management,
3. community forestry with limited devolution,
4. community forestry with full devolution,
5. private ownership
 CBF Objectives reported by various reviewers
Author Geographic Scope Objective
FAO/ECE/ILO Global To redress existing asymmetrical patterns and
Joint Committee Team of Specialists on Participation relations of power between different actors in
in Forestry, 2002 favour of marginalized rural communities
(political purpose)

Gauld, 2002 Global To reconcile goals of social justice, equity,

development, empowerment and
environmental sustainability

Odera, 2004 Sub – Saharan Africa To arrest forest resource degradation To

enhance production of multiple products
To enable communities to have secure access
to, and ownership of, the resources and their
benefits, through empowerment and building
of capacity for forest management

Pulhin, Inoue and Enters, 2007 Philippines Socioeconomic well-being, social justice and
equity, sustainable forest management and a
healthy environment

Cheng and Fernandez-Gimenez, 2006 USA To build resilient forests, communities and
economies
Beauchamp and Ingram, 2011 Cameroon To promote participation in forest
management, manage forests sustainably and
alleviate poverty
Effectiveness Of CBF :
 Determining the effectiveness of CBF is not easy, in part because it generally attempts to address
several key issues at the same time . Also there is inadequate documentation.
 In spite of the lack of comprehensive national-level data, evidence is mounting that CBF is a
valuable forest management modality that has the potential to contribute to SFM and improve
local livelihoods.
 Strong and effective CBF regimes are also resilient and able to withstand internal and external
shocks, including the uncertain impacts associated with climate change.
 Most countries that have adopted collaborative forms of CBF have policies in place to
decentralize and devolve rights and responsibilities.
 It can be generalized that largely because of internal and external constraints, collaborative forms
of CBF are performing below expectations and are still fragile.
CBF: The Indian Context
 CBF undertaken in India are Social Forestry and Joint Forest Management.
 The Indian Forest Policy of 1988 (MoEF, 1988) and the subsequent government
resolution on participatory forest management (MoEF, 1990) emphasize the need
for people's participation in natural forest management.
 Under joint forest management (JFM), village communities are entrusted with the
protection and management of nearby forests.
 The communities are required to organize forest protection committees, village
forest committees, village forest conservation and development societies, etc.
 All 29 states have implemented JFM.
 The JFM program is implemented currently by 106,482 Joint Forest Management
Committees (JFMC) and it covers 22 million ha of forests spread across 28
constituent states of India and union territories (Yadav et al, 2010).
Issues and Challenges: India

 JFM in India has been instrumental in changing the socioeconomic lives of forest
dependent communities (FDCs) but the government records suggest that with the
drying up of donor funds for the JFM program (Sundar, 2017).
 By and large, decision making rests with the Forest Department and hardly any
decisions taken by the community are implemented at the FPC level.
 Decentralisation of power and acknowledging the rights of the communities is still
an issue that needs to be addressed.
 Awareness among the community about the existence of JFM is the first step
towards the empowerment of people to manage forests and towards the
decentralisation process.
 Privatization of forests as a possible alternative option to address these concerns,
and enable the transition of our traditional linear economy towards a circular
economy.
Conclusion:

 CBF has been demonstrated as a potent vehicle for moving towards SFM and
improving local livelihoods.
 CBF regimes are now a major forest management modality globally, they are
performing below expectations because of numerous constraints, and they could
do much better.
 Solid data are lacking on the extent and effectiveness of CBF on a national scale
for use in informed discussion and decision-making.
 More time and effort are required for CBF to reach its potential in most countries.
 Despite the knowledge gaps, the knowledge base is sufficient to move ahead with
embracing CBF as a mainstream form of forest management.
 What is missing is a “level playing field” and the political will to make it happen.
Issues for the Future:

 Application of existing knowledge to improve CBF outcomes.

 Recognition of tenure rights of local and indigenous communities.
 Commercialization of CBF goods and services.
 Recognition of the limitations of CBF.
 Data on extent and effectiveness of CBF regimes.
 Research.
References:
 Prasad, R. (1999). Joint forest management in India and the impact of state control
over non-wood forest products. UNASYLVA-FAO-, 58-62.
 Bhattacharya, P., Pradhan, L., & Yadav, G. (2010). Joint forest management in
India: experiences of two decades. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(8),
469-480.
 Sundar, B. (2017). Joint forest management in India–an assessment. International
Forestry Review, 19(4), 495-511.
 Murali, K. S., Rao, R. J., Sudha, P., Sangeetha, G., Murthy, I. K., & Ravindranath,
N. H. (2003). Evaluation studies of Joint Forest Management in India: social and
institutional implications. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable
Development, 2(1), 19-35.
 Gilmour, D. (2016). Forty years of community-based forestry: A review of its
extent and effectiveness. FAO.
 Eckholm, E. (1975). The other energy crisis: firewood. Worldwatch paper, (1).
 World Bank. (1978). Forestry-Sector Policy Paper.
Thank You