Can Local Forest Management help Improve Forest Based Livelihoods: Insights from West Bengal and Ori

1
Can Local Forest Management help Improve Forest-
Based Livelihoods Insights from West Bengal and
OrissaOliver Springate-Baginski, Ajit Banerjee
and Kailas Sarap
2
Contents

• Introduction to Study
• West Bengal
• 3. Orissa
• 4. Insights for Pro-poor PFM

3
1. Introduction
4

• forest based activities are significant
  components especially for the poorest -in forest
  areas of India
• Historically state forest policies and practice
  have negatively affected these livelihood
  components, often creating poverty and
  destitution
• JFM has been gradually implemented over 1990s
• How has it affected the livelihoods of the poor?
• Can it make positive impact in the future? How?

5
Introduction to Research

• Understanding Livelihood Impacts of
  Participatory Forest Management Implementation in
  India and Nepal
• DFID Forestry Research Programme supported
  research project 2003-6
• Led by Oliver Springate-Baginski
• West Bengal Dr. Ajit Banerjee
• Orissa Prof. Kailas Sarap, Dept. of Economics,
  Sambalpur University, Orissa
• Andhra Pradesh Dr. Gopinath Reddy, Centre for
  Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad
• With Madhu Sarin, Sushil Saigal, Piers Blaikie,
  Om Prakash Dev, Binod Bhatta

6
Conceptual Approach
7
(No Transcript)
8
Livelihood Analysis model
9
Intro Livelihood Impacts

• Livelihood impacts may be distinguished into
• changes in productive assets, and entitlement to
  assets
• changes in livelihood activities
• changes in income (product supplies, services and
  cash) household budget
• changes in vulnerability

10
Summary of Findings

• Our study showed
• Poverty reduced slightly because forest-based
  income increased
• But potential not nearly reached
• FD not systematically addressing livelihood issue

11
2. West Bengal
12
Context of PFM in West Bengal

• Population 80 million (72 rural)
• 13.4 of state forest land 9.4 actually
  forest
• Forest mainly in South West and North of state
• Average per capita annual income in state
  Rs.17,769. In study area Rs.8,430 (200)

13
The JFM Deal

• Village protect WBFD forests and plantations
  which are managed according to FD working plan
• Village get right to livelihood use and NTFPs
• Village get 25 share of final harvest

14
Study

• Random Selection of 10 JFMC and 1 control site
• Wealth ranking of local people
• PRA, household survey (176 households), forest
  survey

15
WB Outcomes

• 80 of forests of South West under JFM
• gt3,600 JFM Committees formed most functioning
  (about 50 well)
• Forest use regulated stopping timber mafias and
  outsiders
• Forest condition improving (although hardly
  biodiverse)

16
Livelihood Impacts

• 1.A Livelihood Productivity of Forest Resource
  improved a little
• 1.B entitlement to use asset established - forest
  use legitimised
• 2. Time spent to collect reduced and increased
  processing activity
• 3. Income stabilised and increased a little but
  not to potential (11 contribution from forest)
• 4. Vulnerability slightly less in immediate
  future

17
Livelihood Contribution from Forest in JFMCs
18
West Bengal Conclusions

• JFM not fulfilling its poverty alleviation
  potential. Why?
• FD is the dominant partner people subservient -
  and not empowered.
• WBFD have de-linked livelihood development from
  forest development
• the forest is not being developed as a
  sustainable livelihood asset.
• No pro-poor JFM technology developed
• total lack of attention to NTFP (which is major
  part of poors livelihood)
• livelihood benefits too limited compared to their
  effort.
• Poorer section not separately considered and so
  more or less excluded in decision-making, and
  women equally
• Participation of people in forest management
  planning zero
• Consequence JFMC stagnation and disillusionment

19
3. Orissa
20
Orissa Context and History of PFM

• Orissa Popl 37 million (85 rural), 37.34 of
  state forest land
• Very poor rural areas
• Self-initiated forest protection groups spread
  widely since the 1960s
• The Orissa FD started forming JFMCs during the
  1990s, many of which were converted
  self-initiated groups

21
Study areas

• Study of CFM, JFM groups and no organised
  protection (15 randomly selected villages) in 3
  districts

22
Livelihood Forest Use in Orissa

• products for own use and for market sale
• firewood
• fodder
• foods (mushrooms, bamboo shoots, roots, tubers,
  spinach, fruits)
• kendu leaves, sal leaves and seeds, bamboo,
  grasses and reeds (converted into mats or
  brooms).
• poles and wood (house construction, fencing)
• medicinal plants

23

• estimated 8,000 - 10,000 self initiated forest
  protection committees in Orissa (estimated 65
  active)
• FD has formed about 7,000 VSS (2005) including
  many converted self-initiated groups (33 of
  VSS in our sample), of which about 50 estimated
  to be active.

24
(No Transcript)
25
Orissa Livelihood Activities

• In the absence of adequate resource endowment
  such as land and access to service sector the
  majority of poor households rely on forest and on
  labour market
• collection of forest products is the predominant
  labour use for the majority of poor households

26

• Labour Allocation to Different Livelihood
  Activities by Wealthrank (Days)

27
Orissa Livelihood Income

• Income from forest activities constitutes a
  higher proportion of total income for very poor
  and poor households, 24 of mean household
  income is from forest-related activities, higher
  for the poor 27.5 for poor groups and 34.6
  for very poor.
• the absolute amount of income from the forest is
  very low. Average household income from forest
  activities (including non-marketed products) is
  Rs.3,708.
• Of the total value of forest products collected
  33.6 has been utilized for self use and 66.4
  to generate cash in VSS villages. (44.6 and
  55.4 in self-initiated villages).

28
(No Transcript)
29
Orissa Mean Household Income From Different
Sources (Rs. / )
30
Orissa Seasonal Factors

• About 77.2 of total forest income among the VSS
  villages has been generated during the summer
  season.
• The contribution of rainy season to total income
  was 13, but mainly for consumption purpose in
  absence of other options
• forest product collection are an insurance
  mechanism against hunger.

31
Orissa Depressed Income from Forest

• Income generated from sale of NFFPs as well as
  from other activities is meagre especially for
  poor and very poor households
• marketing facilities of NTFPs have not yet
  significantly improved even after control
  transferred to the Panchayats.
• there are little or no local opportunities for
  value addition of NTFPs collected by gatherers.

32
Orissa Debt and Forest Products

• total income generated by poor and very poor is
  not enough to satisfy their needs (esp when there
  is crisis such as illness or poor crop).
  Therefore they often depend on loans for
  consumption
• 43 of PFM group members have outstanding loans
  from private lenders (e.g. shop-keepers).
• The average size of loans Rs.664.5
• collectors are forced to sell forest products to
  creditors at depressed prices
• Over half of loans are linked loans to be
  repaid from NTFP sale
• a substantial part of the income generated from
  sale of NTFP also goes to moneylenders through
  extortionate interest rates (as high as 60 per
  year)
• Although forest product availability has
  increased indebtedness has not changed
• 95 of VSS and 86 of VFPC members say there is
  no change in their indebtedness situation.
• There is no provision for providing loans to VSS
  or VFPC members from common funds

33
Orissa Vulnerability

• More than four fifths of VSS and VFPC members
  felt that PFM has improved their economic
  condition positively but the improvement is
  marginal.
• The FPCs are unable to generate funds to help the
  members. There are no grain banks in any of the
  study villages. The amount of common assets
  accumulated is negligible.
• PFM has raised the expectation of members, and it
  now has to help raise the economic condition of
  the poor

34
Poor attitude and conduct of forest officials

• Success / failure of local group largely
  determined by forest officials. Most groups
  have a litany of complaints against the FD
  officials
• Committees formed to fulfil targets officials but
  after formation forget about supporting it.
• little support - Very sporadic visits esp to
  remote villages
• non-cooperation of forest officials means
  conflicts grow and FPCs languish.
• too much red tape and control. Some villages
  stop forest protection simply due to the
  non-cooperative attitude of the forest officials.
  
• When offenders are handed by villages to
  Officials they are often informally dealt with,
  and released without punishment.
• Forest officials, in some cases, have got
  involved in illegal activities like timber,
  firewood stealing.
• In one village the people have initiated a bamboo
  forest for 4 to 5 years and the converted it into
  VSS but at the annual harvesting period the DFO
  rejected that 50/50 share by saying that the
  entire crop will go to forest Dept. as it matured
  prior to VSS forest protection. In response to
  this statement the people broke the committee and
  exploited all the bamboo within a few days.

35
4. Insights for Pro-Poor Local Forest Management
36
Summary of Findings

• PFM has generally led to
• improved forest condition, leading to
• increased access to a variety of NTFP products
• But
• Problems of social exclusion
• little improvement in market relations for NTFP
  sale
• FDs delinking livelihoods from forest
• If government is really interested in forest
  based livelihood WHY obstruct CFM participation?

37

• The pre-existing forest management regime has
  hardly adapted and has become an anachronism
• Legal and administrative authority remains
  largely with Forest Departments.
• Anachronistic high forestry technical
  repertoire irrelevant and obstructive to local
  needs
• The tail wags the dog in terms of field PFM
  practice
• The output that ultra-stable organisations
  hold steady is their own organisation. Hence
  every response that they make, every adaptation
  that they embody in themselves, and every
  evolutionary manoeuvre that they spawn, is
  directed to survival Bureaucracy is concerned
  with producing itself
• Stafford Beer Designing Freedom

38
How Can PFM contribute to Improved Livelihoods of
the poor?

• Improve livelihood-oriented forest productivity
• Improve time productivity of poors livelihood
  activities
• Improve market remuneration of livelihood related
  activities- Liberalise obstructive regulatory
  environment
• Therefore
• 4. empower independent, inclusive local
  institutions to manage their forest by and for
  themselves

39
1. Improve livelihood-oriented forest productivity

• FD controls forest management according to
  divisional working plans anachronistic artefacts
  of high forestry paradigm and top-down
  centralised administration
• Local micro-management of forest for livelihood
  benefits needed. major opportunities vast
  range of options
• block rotation, species mix, understorey plants
  etc.

40
Anti-poor forestry vines removed
41
2. Improve time productivity of individuals
labour

• Poverty is partly an outcome of low productivity
• Collection time more productive if forest
  products more easily available
• Eg if Sal coppiced every 3 years leaves more
  easily available without climbing
• Value added opportunities quality control,
  packing, pre-processing, processing of products
• e.g. platemaking by electric press

42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
3. Improve Market Remuneration
45
4. empower independent, inclusive local
institutions to manage their forest by and for
themselves

• Facilitate local people to achieve the above
  through
• Legally Independent, institutions - diverse
  according to local practise and tradition,
  inclusive and pro-poor / gender equitable
  orientation
• secure tenure over forest
• demand led support eg technical management
  aspects, micro-finance and marketing

46
In Conclusion

• FD must become facilitator with power to people
  local people must be mobilised
• Focus on self-initiated Community Forest
  Management model in Orissa