1 / 19

Tenure and forest management in India – how should we assess the JFM reform?

Explore the impact of Joint Forest Management (JFM) reform in India, focusing on tenure issues, forest conservation, fuelwood collection, and equity considerations. This study analyzes the effects on forests, collection practices, and welfare implications for local communities.

mgray
Télécharger la présentation

Tenure and forest management in India – how should we assess the JFM reform?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tenure and forest management in India – how should we assess the JFM reform? Gunnar Köhlin and colleagues… Book workshop – Lake View Hotel Land Reforms in Asia and Africa: Impacts on Poverty and Natural Resource Management

  2. Papers drawn upon • Woodfuels, Livelihoods, and Policy Interventions: Changing Perspectives, Arnold, M., G. Köhlin and R. Persson (2006), World Development, Vol. 34/3 pp 596-611. • WelfareImplications of Community ForestryPlantations in Developing Countries: The Orissa Social Forestry Project, Köhlin, G. and G.S. Amacher (2005), American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 87/4, pp 855-869. • Fuelwood, forests and community management – evidence from household studies, Cooke, P., G. Köhlin, and W.F. Hyde (2008), Environment and Development Economics. • Spatial Variability and Disincentives to Harvest: Deforestation and Fuelwood Collection in South Asia, Köhlin, G. and P. J. Parks (2001), Land Economics, 77 (2): 206-218.

  3. 'The Other Energy Crisis: Fuelwood' Eckholm (1975): "for more than a third of the world's people, the real energy crisis is a daily scramble to find the wood they need to cook dinner". Application of “gap models” (forest growth-consumption=deforestation) Fuelwood collection => deforestation

  4. Predictions/expectations • Massive deforestation • Scarcity of energy • Increased time collecting • Reduced production/leisure • Inferior fuels • Reduced nutrition and health • Increasing part of household budget to fuel

  5. Implications • Large scale investments in community plantations (e.g. village woodlots) • Dissemination of seedlings to private households – farm forestry. • Rehabilitation of government forests. • Dissemination of improved stoves, biogas etc. • Division of the country between donors (Sida, ODA, ADB etc) Sida took Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Bihar1 billion SEK over 10 years

  6. The emergence of JFM in Orissa • Forest Department, parastatal/paramilitary/ corrupt/inefficient in managingforests. • Donor supported Social ForestryWing • 100 000 ha of communityplantations • (reduced tension againstinformalprotection?) • Informalprotectioncommitteesestablished • JFM established in West Bengal • Great majority positive to JFM in Orissa sample • Widespread adoption

  7. JFM • Earlyexperiences from West Bengal in the 1970’s • Supportivelegislation in 1988 and 1990. • Wide coverage in 1990’s • In 2003: 17 Mha, managed by 85 000 forestprotectioncommitteescovering 170 000 villages in 27 states. • Importanttool to reachlong-termforest cover objectives.

  8. Institutional issues • Shift from social forestry to local management of natural forests. • More conservation than basic needs. • Constrained fuelwood collection. • Efficiency vs equity. • Women and landless negatively affected • Does devolution of power really mean less government control?

  9. Concerns of constrained collection • Displacement effect? • Collection in neighboring areas • Replacement effect? • Own plantation of fuelwood trees • Market purchase • Fuel switching • Reduced consumption? • Increased time allocation?

  10. Review: impact on forests • Ostwald et al. 2000. Indicatinglocalprotectionefforts in forest vegetation change in Orissa, Indiausing NOAA AVHRR data. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 12:778-793 • Somanathan et al. 2009. Decentralization for cost-effectiveconservation. PNAS 106(11). • Baland et al. 2008. Forests to the People: Decentralization and Forest Degradation in the Indian Himalayas, draft. • Ravindranath and Sudha. 2004. Joint Forest Management in India: Spread, Performance and Impact

  11. Review: impact on collection - Agarwal, B. (2001), ‘Participatory exclusion, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework’, World Development 29: 1623–1648. + Bandyopadhyay and Shyamsundar, Fuelwood consumption and participation in community forestry in India, WBPRWP, 2004. + Ravindranath and Sudha. 2004. Joint Forest Management in India: Spread, Performance and Impact

  12. Review: impact on equity • Agarwal, B. (2001), ‘Participatory exclusion, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework’, World Development 29: 1623–1648. • Adhikari, B. (2003), ‘Property rights and naturalresources: socio-economicheterogeneity and distributionalimplications of commonpropertyresourcemanagement’, Working Paper 1-03, South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics, Kathmandu, Nepal. • Kumar, S. (2002), ‘Does “participation” in common pool resource management help the poor? A social cost–benefit analysis of Joint Forest Management in Jharkhand, India’, World Development 30: 763–782. • Ravindranath and Sudha. 2004. Joint Forest Management in India: Spread, Performance and Impact

  13. Potential welfare impacts of SF • Aggregate individual WTP (CVM on additional community plantation – in Environment and Dev’t Economics) • Impact on deforestation (Köhlin and Parks in Land Economics) • Impact on fuel consumption (thesis) • Impact on collection time (Köhlin and Amacher in American Journal of Agricultural Economics)

  14. And colleagues? • Somanathan, Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi • Ashokankur Datta • Ravindranath, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore • Indu K Murthy • Madelene Ostwald, Gothenburg • Gundimeda, IIT Bombay

  15. Potential data • NSSO, 54th round, 1998, special section on commons; • Standard NSSO rounds • EERN data from six states during 2001-2002 (1421 JFMC) • Forest Department records • Remote sensing

  16. Potential research issues • Environment: The impact on forest quality and effectiveness in arresting forest degradation (incl. spillover effects). • Equity: The distribution of cost and benefits of the program on different segments of village population. (over time?) Links to participation in FUGs. • Efficiency: the returns from alternative forest management

  17. Potential strategy I • Identify villages in NSSO special round • Combine with general village level data • Combine with Forest Department data on year of JFM establishment, land use etc etc. • Combine with remote sensing data on vegetation

  18. Potential strategy II • Start with EERN data; • Combine with general village level data • Combine with Forest Department data on year of JFM establishment, land use etc etc. • Combine with remote sensing data on vegetation

  19. Other alternatives • Review existing literature on devolution of forest management in India; • Do original data collection, eg follow-up surveys based on EERN or Orissa data • Tree planting on private lands (farm forestry) • Social forestry (community plantations)

More Related