International Journal of Academic Research and Development

International Journal of Academic Research and Development

ISSN: 2455-4197
Impact Factor: RJIF 5.22
www.academicsjournal.com
Volume 3; Issue 2; March 2018; Page No. 295-299

Forest conservation and livelihood generation through joint forest management in India
Abdul Wahid Bhat
Research Scholar, Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalya, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India

Abstract
Forest is one of the most important natural and renewable resources for the very survival of human beings, especially those who
are living in and around the forest. Forests are known as green gold as forest not only assures ecological security but also in
providing livelihood support to a sizable tribal and other forest dependent population. However, one of the major reasons for its
depletion is unsustainable exploitation often by the same very people whose survival depends on the forests. Several attempts have
been made in different countries to save this invaluable resource. The total forest cover of India is believed to be 69.8 million
hectares which constitutes about 22 % of the total geographical area of the country. There are at least 200,000 villages that live
inside or on the fringes of forest and an estimated 275 million people significantly depend on forests for their sustenance and
livelihood. But, forests alone cannot sustain the livelihood of the people. This research paper attempts to highlight that alternate
livelihood support to the communities not only provide employment opportunities but also results in conservation of forests over
which they are traditionally dependent. To attain the objectives of the study secondary sources of information published by
Government and Non-Government organization were collected. Thus an Integrated approach for development of forest dependent
population and natural resource conservation through the Joint Forest Management (JFM) by promoting forest and non-forest
livelihoods brings significant attitudinal change in communities.

Keywords: joint forest management, forest conservation, livelihood generation

Introduction depend upon forest for a variety of goods and services. These
Forestry in India includes collection of edible fruits, flowers, tubers, roots and
Forest is one of the most important natural resources for the leaves for food and medicines; firewood for cooking (some
very survival of human beings, especially those who are living also sale in the market); materials for agricultural implements,
in and around the forest. Forests are known as green gold. house construction and fencing; fodder (grass and leaves) for
However, one of the major reasons for its depletion is livestock and grazing of livestock in forest; and collection of a
unsustainable exploitation often by the same very people range of marketable non-timber forest products. Therefore,
whose survival depends on the forests. Several attempts have with such a huge population and extensive dependence
been made in different countries to save this invaluable pattern, any over exploitation and unsustainable harvest
resource. Forestry in India is an important rural industry and a practice can potentially degrade forest. Moreover, a significant
major renewable resource. India is one of the ten most forest- percentage of the country’s underprivileged population
rich countries of the world along with the Russian Federation, happened to be living in its forested regions (Saha and Guru,
Brazil, Canada, United States of America, China, Democratic 2003).It is very well known that there is a high scope for
Republic of the Congo, Australia, Indonesia and Sudan. illegally denuding the forests of its possessions credit goes to
Together, India and these countries account for 67 percent of the inordinate callousness shown by Indian officials and
total forest area of the world. According to the report (MoEF, politicians in this regard. This has no doubt endangered many
2010), the total forest cover of the country is 69.09 Mha— a species of plants and animals.
about 21.02 % of the total geographical area. Of the total
forest area, 8.34 Mha is very dense while almost half of it Joint Forest Management in India
(31.9 Mha) is moderately dense and the rest being open forests Joint Forest Management as “the official and popular term in
and mangroves. The report further claims that there has been India for partnerships in forest management involving both the
an increase of 3.13 Mha of forest cover in the country since state forest departments and local communities. Joint Forest
1997, i.e., from 65.96 Mha to 69.09 Mha. There are close to Management (JFM) in India, one needs to look into the
200,000 villages that live inside or on the fringes of forest and evolution of the forest policy and legislations in the country.
an estimated 275 million people significantly depend on Though the initial set of policies and laws on forestry date
forests for their sustenance and livelihood (World Bank back to the colonial period and the immediate post-
2006).India's forest cover grew at 0.22% annually over 1990- independence period, one notices a paradigm shift in India’s
2000, and has grown at the rate of 0.46% per year over 2000- forest policy and legislations in the 1980s, with the passage of
2010, after decades where forest degradation was a matter of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. This Act highlighted the
serious concern. People living in these forest fringe villages primacy of conservation of forests over the previous emphasis

295
International Journal of Academic Research and Development

on utilizing ‘forests’ for meeting the requirements of (MoEF, 2010), the total forest cover of the country is 69.09
agriculture and industry. The National Joint Forest Mha—about 21.02 % of the total geographical area. Of the
Management Policy came out after the successful experience total forest area, 8.34 Mha is very dense while almost half of it
of Arbari hills in Midnapore district of West Bengal during (31.9 Mha) is moderately dense and the rest being open forests
the early 1970s where local communities formed forest and mangroves. The report further claims that there has been
protection committees to conserve their forest resources at a an increase of 3.13 Mha of forest cover in the country since
very early stage. The concept of joint forest management was 1997,i.e., from 65.96 Mha to 69.09 Mha. There are close to
discovered accidentally by the innovative Divisional Forest 200,000 villages that live inside or on the fringes of forest and
Officer of Midnapore District, West Bengal, A.K. Banerjee, in an estimated 275 million people significantly depend on
1972. In response to the continued grazing of cattle by local forests for their sustenance and livelihood (World Bank 2006).
villagers in an area of new plantation, thereby jeopardising the People living in these forest fringe villages depend upon forest
crop, Banerjee asked the locals to refrain grazing in the plot, for a variety of goods and services. These includes collection
in return for a share of the final timber harvest. The strategy of edible fruits, flowers, tubers, roots and leaves for food and
was found to work, to the benefit of the Forest Department, medicines; firewood for cooking (some also sale in the
and the local community alike. It was therefore 'discovered' market); materials for agricultural implements, house
possible to devolve responsibility for protection of forest land construction and fencing; fodder (grass and leaves) for
to people, providing they had a stake in it. Banerjee also livestock and grazing of livestock in forest; and collection of a
launched a 'Socio-Economic Project' in the same Arabari range of marketable non-timber forest products. Therefore,
Block, where eleven villages became engaged in protecting with such a huge population and extensive dependence
areas of sal coppice, in return for subsistence NTFP's, pattern, any over exploitation and unsustainable harvest
preferential employment, and a 25% share in the profits from practice can potentially degrade forest. Moreover, a significant
sale of short rotation sal poles. 618 families initially percentage of the country’s underprivileged population
participated, in protecting 1272 ha of forest. (Malhotra and happened to be living in its forested regions (Saha and Guru,
Deb, 1998). The success of JFM spread quickly throughout 2003). It has been estimated that more than 40 per cent of the
the state, and by July 1990, 1611 Forest Protection poor of the country are living in these forest fringe villages
Committees had been formed, protecting 195,000 ha of forest (MoEF, 2006). The forest cover and area under JFM is shown
lands in the three southwest districts of West Bengal; in Table-1,which reveals that Jharkhand has highest
Bankura, Midnapore and Purulia - 47% of the total forest land percentage (72.94) of forest under JFM followed by Bihar
(Malhotra and Deb). (71.42) and Madhya Pradesh 70.62 percent. All 28 State
Governments and Andaman and Nicobar Islands have adopted
Importance of Forest for Rural Community and State wise JFM by July 2005.There are 84632 JFM Committees covering
forest under JFM 28 States in India. The area co-managed by these committees
Forests in India form the second largest land use after is more than 17 million ha. About 83, 84,788 families are
agriculture (Afreen et. al.2011).According to the report involved in the JFM process.

Table 1: State wise forest cover and area under JFM in India.
States Recorded forest area (ha) Area under JFM (ha) Forests covered by JFM (%)
A & N Islands 7,17,100 262 0.04
Andhra Pradesh 63,81,400 15,19,000 23.8
Arunachal Pradesh 51,54,000 1,00,377 1.95
Assam 26,83,200 52,499 1.96
Bihar 6,47,300 4,62,333 71.42
Chhattisgarh 59,77,200 33,19,000 55.53
Goa 1,22,400 10,000 8.17
Gujarat 18,92,700 4,14,151 21.88
Haryana 1,55,900 41,188 26.42
Himachal Pradesh 37,03,300 2,05,056 5.54
Jammu & Kashmir 20,23,000 38,736 1.91
Jharkhand 23,60,500 17,21,700 72.94
Karnataka 38,28,400 8,08,020 21.11
Kerala 11,26,500 2,07,404 18.41
Madhya Pradesh 94,68,900 66,87,390 70.62
Maharashtra 61,93,900 24,03,344 38.8
Manipur 17,41,800 1,66,767 9.57
Meghalaya 9,49,600 17,245 1.82
Mizoram 16,71,700 55,990 3.35
Nagaland 9,22,200 42,929 4.66
Orissa 58,13,600 11,48,676 19.76
Punjab 3,05,800 1,78,333 58.32
Rajasthan 32,63,900 8,58,614 26.31
Sikkim 5,84,100 88,518 15.15

296
International Journal of Academic Research and Development

Tamil Nadu 22,87,700 7,56,446 33.07

Tripura 6,29,400 2,41,138 38.31
Uttar Pradesh 16,58,300 1,83,393 11.06
Uttarakhand 34,65,100 5,64,221 16.28
West Bengal 11,87,900 6,46,084 54.39
Source: ICFRE, 2011

Impact of Joint Forest Management on the Rural India collective action. The JFMCs working through a user-group
A key objective of JFM is to protect and regenerate forests model were able to take up, through support gained by
with the community’s help and, in turn, contribute to their promoting NGOs, water-harvesting and other developmental
livelihood enhancement. Forest conservation, aided by activities benefiting the community significantly. Combining
programmes like JFM, is expected to improve the socio- water harvesting with JFM helped increase bio-mass outside
economic conditions of forest-fringe communities in various the forest, reducing pressure on forest land thereby. However,
ways. Forests are expected to serve as a more secure source of factors including preference for teak while ignoring the
meeting basic needs related to fodder, fuel wood, and other people’s current needs and uncertainty in the context of
minor forest products. While regeneration efforts can increase sharing the final harvest served to curtail potential impact.
wage-employment opportunities for the poor, bio-mass Besides capturing general improvement in livelihood
increase can enhance the scope for additional employment and conditions, many studies have highlighted the predominant
income generation through the collection of NTFPs. Improved role of forests in the livelihoods of the very poor along with
green cover serves to boost soil and water conditions in and the role of JFM in augmenting the latter.. Sahu and Rath
around forests leading to greater farm productivity. At the (2010) revealed that micro-plans based on strong community
same time, the restrictions accompanying protection measures participation in Orissa created considerable employment and
can, potentially, curtail the access and customary rights of income opportunities that helped reverse stress migration, a
forest-dependent communities affecting their livelihoods resultant of environmental degradation, on the part of the
negatively thereby. Findings on forest regeneration prove that poor. The study reported that the poor and landless gained
any significant livelihood impact of JFM is likely to have been maximum benefits with small and marginal farmers also
constrained. The micro studies reviewed on livelihood impact benefitting from the protection. The poor and landless
by JFM confirm this by revealing a diverse scenario across the registered an income increase ranging between `4,000 and
country. Positive and negative consequences of JFM have `9,700 and an employment increase between 94 and 192 days
been observed, though, in varying degrees. Dhar (1994), in his annually. Sarker and Das (2008), studying FPCs in the
study based on Haryana, observed that besides improved tree Bankura district of West Bengal, concluded that JFM had
cover annual fodder yield had gone up from 0.04 ton/ha to created a beneficial impact both for the community and FD.
2.00 ton/ha. Also, combining watershed activities with forest There was a positive change with income from the forest
rehabilitation had improved soil fertility and irrigation going up by 40 to 89 per cent across various categories. As far
conditions, incentivizing people to participate in forest as the poor are concerned, including the landless and marginal
protection proactively. The studies of Shylendra (2002) and farmers, over 80 per cent of their net income comes from the
Ravi Shanker (2009) revealed that JFM increased fodder forest with NTFP, forestry wage, and timber as the primary
production in the villages of Gujarat although no significant sources. Improved access caused the share of illegal sources in
gains were observed in fuel wood. A major change observed net return to decline overall within the FPCs, signifying the
as a result of JFM was the resolution of a contentious need to improve returns for the poor from sources like NTFP.
inequality issue concerning access to fodder. JFM increased The positive impact observed on the part of JFM, too, seems
the equity in fodder sharing between various sections through to have influenced the performance of FPCs.

Table 2: Average Livelihood opportunities generated Through JFM in different states of India
States No. of JFMC Total no. of families Annual employment generated in lakh mandays
Andhra Pradesh 7,718 14,38,000 100.00
Arunachal Pradesh 1,013 33,048 2.64
Assam 1,184 52,499 4.88
Bihar 682 2,11,674 4.72
Chhattisgarh 7,887 11,17,000 70.00
Gujarat 2,195 4,17,032 182.76
Haryana 2,487 66,036 7.05
Himachal Pradesh 1,023 2,63,024 2.70
Jharkhand 9,926 4,29,796 8.60
Karnataka 3,848 2,72,805 74.90
Kerala 576 78,501 4.00
Maharashtra 12,665 27,09,000 91.37
Manipur 665 24,102 6.43
Meghalaya 285 39,210 16.04
Nagaland 951 1,59,587 2.60

297
International Journal of Academic Research and Development

Punjab 1,224 91,850 8.00

Rajasthan 5,316 5,71,051 51.35
Tamil Nadu 3,487 4,82,269 16.99
Tripura 920 79,445 39.00
Uttar Pradesh 3,426 7,06,050 17.23
West Bengal 4,386 5,05,149 38.46
Total 71,864 97,47,128 749.72
Source: ICFRE, 2011

Conclusion in India - An Analysis of Policy Trends amid

Joint Forest Management has been successful in sensitizing Management Change, Policy Trend Report, 2002-2002,
the local forest dependent communities towards the 88-113.
importance and need of forest conservation and their proper 6. Ballabh V, Balooni K, Dave S. Why local resource
management. JFM has been able to convert the community management institutions decline: a comparative analysis
from users to custodians. JFM process in India needs to be of Van (forest) panchayats and forest protection
appreciated and analyzed from a wider philosophical committees in India World Development. 2002;
perspective that partakes of the issue of changing property 30(12):2153-2167.
rights over forest resources entailed by the process. Such a 7. Bwalya Samuel M. Rural Livelihoods and Collective
perspective can provide better appreciation of the changing Action in Joint Forest Management in Zambia. Retrieved
policy intent of the Central Government noticed since the February 13, 2004-2007.
National Forest Policy of 1988 and the circular of June 1990. 8. ICFRE (Indian Council of Forestry Research and
However, it seems that villagers who are dependent on the Education) (2011): Status of joint forest management in
forest for their livelihoods would first like to be assured of a India Proceedings of national workshop on JFM, 2011,
continued source of income for their daily subsistence. People 63.
who have little or no dependence on the forest may look for 9. Jodha NS. Common Property Resources and Rural Poor
indirect benefits like their recognition by others. Or they may in Dry Regions of India Economic and Political Weekly.
protect the forest because it appeals to their genuine concern 1992; 21:1169-1181.
for the environment. There are also cases where people have 10. Khare A. et.al. Joint Forest Management: Policy, Practice
sacrificed their immediate tangible benefits (which were and Prospects. IIED, Publishers, London, 2000.
important for them at that point in time) for the long term and 11. Kumar S. Does Participation in Common Pool Resource
intangible benefits, if they were assured of getting these. Management Help Poor? A Social Cost-Benefit Analysis
Forests have provided and will continue to provide livelihood of Joint Forest Management in Jharkhand, India, World
support to a significant proportion of the Indian Population, Development, 2002, 30(5).
Particularly tribal’s and other forest dependent communities. 12. MOEF. Report of the National Forest Commission New
International initiatives and environmental campaigns with in Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government
the country have helped in halting degradation and loss of of India, 2006, 421.
forest area to some extent. But it has also been realized that it 13. MOEF. Report to the people on Environment and Forest,
is only with the active involvement of local communities in 2009-2010 New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and
planning, implementation and monitoring of forest Forests, Government of India, 2010.
management strategies that sustainability of forest resources 14. Forest Survey of India. State Of Forest Report 2005.
can be ensured. Retrieved on February 15, 2008, from: http: / /www. zef.
de/file admin/web files/downloads/zefdp/zef_dp77.pdf,
References 2005.
1. Agarwal B. Environmental action, gender equity and 15. GoI MoEF. TERI, Study on Joint forest Management
women’s participation. Development and change. 1997; conducted by for Ministry of Environment and Forests,
28:1-44. http://www.teri.in.org/jfm Government of India. (2006).
2. Agrawal A, Gibson CC. Enchantment and National Forest Report, 2006. New Delhi: Ministry of
Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Environment and Forests, 2002.
Resource Conservation. World Development. 1999; 27 16. IIFM. Process Documentation of Joint Forest
(4):629-649. Management and Eco-Development. Bhopal: Indian
3. Agarwal B. Participatory Exclusions, Community Institute of Forest Management, 1999.
Forestry, and Gender: An analysis for South Asia and a 17. Poffenberger Mark. The resurgence of Community Forest
Conceptual frame work”, World Development, Vol. 29, Management in Eastern India, Vol. 5 of case study, Liz
No. 10, pp 1623-1648, 2001; Elsevier Science Ltd, 2001. Claiborne Art Ortenberg Foundation, 1993-1993.
4. Acharya BH, Role of Community Forestry for uplifting 18. Saxena NC. The saga of participatory forest management
the livelihood of Marginal and Poor People. In: A case in India’, CIFOR Special Publication, 1997, 1-214.
study from four Community Forest Users Groups of 19. Sarin M. From Conflict to Collaboration: Local
Kaski District, Nepal, M. Sc.Thesis, Tribhuwan Institutions in Joint Forest Management, JFM Working
University, Institute of Forestry, Nepal, 2011. Paper No. 14, Society for Promotion of Wastelands
5. Balooni, Kulbhushan. Participatory Forest Management Development and Ford Foundation, New Delhi, 1993.

298
International Journal of Academic Research and Development

20. Tata Energy Research Institute. Study on Joint Forest

Management’, Final Report, prepared for Ministry of
Environment and Forest, New Delhi, 1999.
21. Thakali R, Lesko L. Wisdom of the Ages: Traditional
Knowledge and
ForestEcosystems.http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_
DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5163026.pdf, 2011-1998.
22. World Bank. Report on The World Bank and Forestry in
India, World Bank, India, 1999.
23. Yadav NP, Dev OP, Springate-Baginski O, Soussan JG.
Forest management and utilization under com-munity
forestry, J. Forest Livelihood. 2003; 3:37-50.

299