Abstract
Decentralisation and devolution has been a major policy theme in common property resources (CPR) (including forest) governance in developing countries over the past few decades. Participatory forest management (PFM) has become one of the key objectives of forest policies and programmes in India, including in the state of Odisha since late 1980s. Simultaneously, efforts by local communities, which have evolved since early 1960s in different areas, have resulted into evolution and development of self-initiated forest protection groups (SIFPGs) in the state. These groups have grown and matured into viable institutions with self-governance, and they have been protecting and conserving forests of their own.
However, the present status of decentralisation of forest governance is beset with a number of problems, including exclusion of marginalised groups including women in the decision-making process and in the distribution of benefits.
The nature of decentralization of forest governance is analysed by using three contextual components, namely, access to resource, rules designed to govern it and the characteristics of the community and its involvement. Successful decentralised governance creates opportunities for agents for effective participation in decision-making that reduces the transaction cost of monitoring the behaviour of agents. It also provides incentives for hard work for the safeguarding and development of resources.
Based on secondary sources of information and the authors’ own findings from field work, this chapter tries to understand the nature of forest governance in the context of Odisha with a view to understand its functioning. It also analyses the implications in regard to the access to benefits accruing to the primary stakeholders in the context of their livelihood.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See also Bhattachrya et al. 2010
- 2.
However the commission hardly focused on conservation- it said the only purpose of forests was to generate revenue and setup forest development corporations to cut down natural forests to replace them with commercial, fast growing plantations.
- 3.
There was less to do with tribals than with commercial exploitation of forests, including replacing mixed natural forests with fast growing mono-cultural plantations- 3 million dense forests were felled for the purpose.
- 4.
This programme has covered more than 22 million ha of forests with the involvement of approximately 21 million people by the end of 1990s. In case of Odisha it has cover about 14 % of the total forest area involving nearly 17 million families by the end of 2010–2011.
- 5.
Under this provision of the Constitution of India, the Governor is empowered to administer in the Fifth Schedule Area and also he can make, repeal or amend any act of Parliament or of the state legislature or any existing law, if he thinks them to be detrimental to the interests of the tribals. The Governor may make regulations for the good government in the Scheduled Area, he can prohibit or restrict the transfer of land of the tribal people and regulate the carrying on of business of money lending in this area.
- 6.
However, in the administrative perspective, no effective coordination was found between PRIs and Forestry institution over controlling forest resources.
- 7.
i.e., Integrated Afforestation and Eco-Development Projects Scheme (IAEPS), Area Oriented Fuel Wood and Fodder Projects scheme (AOFPS), Development of Non-Timber Forest Produce including Medicinal Plants Scheme and Association of Scheduled Tribes and Rural poor in regeneration of Degraded Forests (ASTRP).
- 8.
At the all India level (as on 31st March 2013) 32,45,369 number of claims have been filed. Out of this 12,81,926 titles (39.5 %) have been issued to the claimants.
- 9.
As per the JFM plan the VSS, through its executive committee, is to execute an MoU with the concerned Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) for protecting, regenerating and management of forest area, VSSs constituted prior to 1993 have not been registered as VSS in full. Further, VSS institutions, in the absence of legal authority, have failed to resolve many interpersonal conflicts prevalent in the groups. In such situations VSS committee find it difficult to take strong action against erring individuals or the state for non- compliance. It also becomes difficult to ensure equitable distribution of usufructs given the prevailing socio economic inequalities in the rural communities.
- 10.
See also Baland and Platteau 1999, pp. 774.
- 11.
A study conducted by Bhattarchrya et al. 2010 based on a preliminary assessment of the status of JFM in the forest tract of central and central-eastern part of India including Odisha found that due to lack of or inappropriate conflict resolution mechanism, fragile institutional arrangement, inadequate people’s participation, inefficient accountability mechanism, and poor collaboration between the state forest department and the communities, the program has suffered.
References
Baland JM, Platteau JP (1996) Halting degradation of national resources: is there a role for rural communities? Clarendon Press, Oxford
Baland JM, Platteau JP (1999) The ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management. World Dev 27(5):773–788
Bhattachrya P, Pradhan L, Yadav G (2010) Joint forest management in India: experience of two decades. Resour Conserv Recycl 54(2010):469–480
CSE (1982) The first citizen report. Centre for Science and Environment. New Delhi
Gadgil M, Berkes F (1991) Traditional resource management systems. Resour Manag Optim 8(3/4):127–141
Gadgil M, Chandran MDS (1992) Sacred groves. India Int Cent Q 19(1/2):183–187
Gadgil M, Guha R (1992) This fissured land: an ecological history of India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi
Ghate R (2000) The role of autonomy in self-organising process: a case study of local forest management in India, Working Paper. Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Ghate R (2003) Ensuring collective action in ‘Participatory’ forest management, Working Paper No. 3. South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics, Nepal.
Ghate R (2004) Uncommons in the commons: community initiated forest resource management. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi
Gibson C, Ostrom E, Williams JT (2005) Local enforcement and better forests. World Dev 33(2):273–284
Government of India (2006) Scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers: recognition of forest rights act, 2006
Government of India (2013) Status report on implementation of the scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 [for the period ending 31st March 2013], Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi
Government of Odisha (2011) Economic Survey of Orissa, 2011–2012. Bhubaneswar
Kiss A (1990) Living with wildlife: wildlife resource management with local participation in Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank Technical Paper 130
Mishra R (1998) Capacity building for participatory management of degraded forest in Orissa, India. Sandia Consult for Nature, AB/Asia Forest Network, November
North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional changes and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Orissa Forest Manual (2005) Orissa Law Review. Cuttack.
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York
Ostrom E (2000) Collective action and evolution of social norms. J Econ Perspect 14(3):137–158
Ostrom E, Walker J, Gardner R (1992) Covenants with and without a sword: self-governance is possible. Am Polit Sci Rev 89:404–417
Pathak N, Gour-Broome V (2001) Tribal Self-Rule and Natural Resource Management. Kalpavriksha, Pune
RCDC (2004) Community forestry 3(4), May Issue
Sarap K (2005) The forest-livelihood context in Orissa. Phase-II, Project Report submitted to Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS), Hyderabad
Sarap K (2007) Forest and livelihood in Orissa. In: Springate-Baginski OS, Blaikie P (eds) Forests, people and power- the political ecology of reform in South Asia. Earthscan, London
Sarap K, Springate-Baginski O (2013) Participatory forest management in Odisha- implementation, outcomes and livelihood impacts. Bookwell, New Delhi
Sarap K, Sarangi TK (2009) Malfunctioning of forest institutions in Orissa. Econ Polit Wkly 44(37):18–22
Sarap K, Sarangi TK (2010a) Factors contributing to erosion of access to forest and private land in contemporary tribal Orissa. In: Sarap K (ed) Institutions, livelihood and natural resource management. Bookwell, New Delhi
Sarap K, Sarangi TK (2010b) An analysis of working of forest institutions in Orissa. J Soc Econ Dev 12(2):193–210
Sarap K, Sarangi TK, Naik J (2013) Implementation of Forest Rights Act 2006 in Odisha: process, constraints and outcome. Econ Polit Wkly (September 7) XLVIII(36):61–67
Saxena NC (2003) Livelihood diversification and non-timber forest products in Orissa: wider lessons on the scope for policy change? Working Paper No. 223, London, UK. Overseas Development Institute.
Sunder N (2012) Violent social conflicts in Indian’s forests: society, state and the market. In Rights and resource initiatives. Deeper roots of historical injustice: trends and challenges in the forests of India. Washington, DC.
Wade R (1988) Village republics: economic conditions for collective action in South India. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
White A, Martin A (2002) Who owns the world’s forests? Forest trends, Washington, DC.
World Bank (2006) India unlocking opportunities for forest dependent people. Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Unit South Asia Region. Oxford University Press. New Delhi.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix 1 (Table 11.1)
Appendix 1 (Table 11.1)
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Indian Society for Ecological Economics
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sarap, K., Sarangi, T. (2016). Issues on Forest Governance in Contemporary Odisha. In: Ghosh, N., Mukhopadhyay, P., Shah, A., Panda, M. (eds) Nature, Economy and Society. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2404-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2404-4_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-2403-7
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-2404-4
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)