About JFM

Minutes of the First JFM Network Consultation
July 27, 2000
Ford Foundation
New Delhi

Attendance

Agenda

• To clarify the mandate, role, composition and operational modalities of the Network and its linkages to policy at the national and state levels;
• To discuss issues and gaps in the February 2000 MoEF Guidelines and to recommend actions for strengthening the JFM program.
• To identify policy-linked research themes for JFM.

Introduction and MOEF Updates

• The Chairman welcomed the Network's constitution as providing a broadened institutional focus for JFM outside of MoEF. He underscored the Network's importance as a regular mechanism for official consultation with key stakeholder groups and its feedback role in policy formulation. He noted the Network's critical role in highlighting issues and recommending appropriate policies and actions to the Government.

• He outlined key factors impeding JFM's expansion which included:
  • Ideological resistance to democratization and devolution within the government;
  • Financial constraints;
  • MoEF's limited human resources and infrastructure; and
  • Lack of adequate baseline silvicultural and ecological data.
• Referring to the February 2000 Guidelines, the Chairman stressed that this is an evolving document and would be further revised on the basis of the Network's recommendations and state-level reactions and feedback.
• The Chairman called for state-level initiatives by governments and NGOs as an important means of strengthening the JFM program. Thrust areas for JFM identified included:
  • A renewed emphasis on silviculture with particular emphasis on increasing over-all forest productivity and revenue generation in a multiple use context; and
  • A broader rural development perspective focusing on agroforestry and effective funneling of funds to Forest Development Agencies (FDAs).
• The Chairman briefed the group on the progress of the National Forestry Action Plan (NFAP) which will involve a series of multi-stakeholder consultations culminating in a final national workshop to be held under the aegis of the Planning Commission. Key themes in the NFAP relate to JFM in varying degrees. These include:
  • Protection of existing forest resources;
  • Improvement of forest productivity;
  • Reduced timber wastage through improved harvesting systems;
  • Forest expansion; and
  • Capacity-building of the Forest Department.

Points of Agreement

1. The Network's role and operational modalities:

• As an official consultation forum on JFM, the Network will function as a broad-based platform for: discussion of critical issues relating to JFM; experience-sharing on best practices; identification and review of constraints to effective JFM, both at the policy and implementation levels; and recommendation of policy options and courses of action.
• Network recommendations and deliberations will be presented to MoEF for action and further discussion at the state level.
• Network meeting minutes and summaries of the recommendations will be widely disseminated through websites maintained by MoEF, ICFRE, the Centre for Environmental Education, and listserves of relevant JFM-related government and NGO networks.
• Venues for future Network meetings will be selected on a rotational basis, to be hosted by Network member institutions.

2. Vision statement:

• A comprehensive vision statement will be articulated for the Network, clarifying its mandate, role and objectives.
• A draft vision statement will be finalized with members' inputs, in consultation with MoEF, before the next Network meeting.

3. Network Constitution:

• Bearing in mind the need to include other perspectives and stakeholders in the Network's deliberations, it was agreed that the Network's present constitution need to be expanded to include:
  • Increased representation of grassroots federations, on a rotational basis.
  • Representatives from the Planning Commission and the Departments of Tribal Welfare and Rural Development, respectively.
  • Linkages with panchayati raj institutions.
  • Analytical expertise from key disciplines, especially economics.
• The group agreed that the Network membership should remain at a manageable size and that, depending on the agenda under discussion, external resource persons could be invited to attend specific Network meetings as needed.

4. Secretariat:

• The group agreed that a Secretariat for the Network would have to be evolved to handle Network-related logistical arrangements and facilitate follow-up action.
• The Secretariat is envisioned to provide a demand-responsive service including dissemination of summaries of important issues emerging out of the Network's deliberations.

5. State Level Working Groups (SLWGs):

• The group agreed on the necessity of establishing similar official, multi-stakeholder consultation forums on JFM at all levels of policy making and to link them to the national Network.
• It was agreed that the MoEF would facilitate the constitution and activation of SLWGs to meet on a regular basis and to include broad-based multi-stakeholder representation. Within individual states, multi-stakeholder consultation forums at district and sub-district may also be created.
• The SLWGs would then be linked to the National Network through the inclusion of SLWG representatives in the Network on a rotational basis.

6. February 2000 Guidelines: Recommended Changes and Action

• Legal recognition for JFM Committees:
  • Flexible registration procedures for JFM Committees, with the committees to decide whether and in what institutional form (e.g. van panchayats, cooperative societies, company etc.) they would like to be registered.
  • Recognition of and support for self-initiated forest protection groups (SIFPGs). However, institutional conformity with JFM should not be made mandatory.
• Expansion of JFM to include:
  • Wastelands development and watershed activities.
  • Wider institutional involvement to include the Department of Rural Development, the Department of Tribal Welfare and panchayati raj institutions.
• Enhanced participation of women in JFM:
  • Increased representation of women in JFM Executive Management Committees from 33% to 50%.
  • Programs for management and leadership training and information dissemination specifically for women committee members.
  • Increased recruitment of women into the front line forestry staff.
• Extension of JFM to good forest areas:
  • Development of appropriate silivicultural systems for good forests and establishment of methods for facilitating quicker returns to communities.
  • Elimination of the 100 hectare limit for JFM in good forests.
• Boundary definitions:
  • Clearly define "village" and village boundaries as a basis for JFM territorial allocation.
  • Definitions should be in conformity with customary boundaries and traditional management regimes while considering, to the extent possible, differences in land productivity and village population sizes.
• Preparation of micro plans:
  • Development of mechanisms to facilitate modifications to micro plans, which should be viewed as dynamic management tools reflecting changing needs, priorities and evolving contexts.
  • Specification of realistic resource requirements, possible sources, funding modalities and capacity-building inputs necessary for the implementation of micro plans.

7. Funding Issues

• The group debated the necessity of substantial external funding for JFM and explored the possibility of tapping funds from government programs such as NABARD's Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF). It was noted that success in accessing these and other funds would require greater measure of financial accountability and transparency at all levels in JFM implementation. It was agreed that:
  • MoEF would advocate for the designation of the forestry sector as a priority lending sector eligible for loans at reduced rates of interest.
  • MoEF would facilitate and assist state governments' efforts to access funds for JFM-related forestry development.
  • State governments would be encouraged to facilitate the establishment of direct linkages between JFM Committees and sources of credit from the banking sector through flexible mechanisms such as matching grants, loans and revolving funds.

Suggested topics for research

In the course of the discussions, the group identified several critical areas for which information and analysis need to be generated on a priority basis. The group suggested the following topics for research:

State-level studies:

• Generation of baseline ecological and silvicultural data to assess priority needs and impacts of JFM.
• Identification of best practices, constraints and capacity-building needs for JFM at the state level.
• Review of state-level experiences in micro plan preparation.

Institutional assessments:

• Extent and modes of empowerment of JFM Committees.
• Institutional roles in forestry and rural development focusing on appropriate interventions and structures of Forest Departments.
• Appropriate roles of NGOs in JFM.
• The status and impacts of SIFPGs.

Conflict issues:

• Conflicts anticipated as degraded forests regenerate and possible mechanisms for conflict mitigation and resolution.
• Forest encroachment in the context of JFM.

Funding issues:

• The role of micro credit and community funds in JFM.
• Comparative studies on the impacts of external funding on JFM programs.

Broader JFM issues:

• NTFP valuation, marketing and opportunities for micro-enterprise development.
• Potential linkages between JFM and agroforestry programs.
• Case studies of participatory silvicultural systems.

Follow-up Meeting

SPWD offered to host the next consultation meeting to be held shortly after Diwali. The agenda for the next meeting would include funding mechanisms for JFM, the role of Forest Development Agencies, extension of JFM to protected areas, and follow-up on recommendations of the ICFRE workshop on A Decade of JFM .

July 27, 2000      October 5, 2001     October 31, 2001

Third Meeting of the JFM Network

5th October, 2001
Van Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi

List of Abbreviations

DRDA: District Rural Development Agency
EDC: Eco- Development Committee
FD: Forest Department
FDA: Forest Development Agency
GoI: Government of India
JFM: Joint Forest Management
MoEF: Ministry of Environment and Forests
NAEB: National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board
NGO: Non Government Organisation
RUPFOR: Resource Unit for Participatory Forestry
SGVSY: Samanvit Gram Vanikaran Samriddhi Yojana (Integrated Village Afforestation and Eco Development Scheme)
VFC: Village Forest Committee

Proceedings of the Third JFM Network Meeting

Agenda

1. Review of progress regarding action points agreed in the last Joint Forest Management (JFM) Network meeting.
2. Key challenges facing JFM.
3. Madhya Pradesh Forest Department's stand on recent events in Harda and Dewas.
4. Proposed central sector scheme on JFM to be implemented through Forest Development Agencies (FDAs).
5. Feedback on new JFM guidelines issued in February 2000.

MORNING SESSION

I. Welcome Remarks and Review of Progress regarding Action Points agreed in the last JFM Network Meeting
By Dr. V.K. Bahuguna (Deputy Inspector General of Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF)

All participants' in the third meeting of the JFM network were welcomed. A special welcome was accorded to the new Chairman of the JFM Network - Mr. S.K. Pande, Director General and Special Secretary, MoEF.

Dr. Bahuguna reiterated the importance of the JFM network as a permanent mechanism for obtaining feedback and consultation on the JFM process from diverse stakeholders.

Progress regarding action points agreed in the last network meeting:

• An attempt has been made to further broaden the base of the network. Representatives from tribal organisations, industry and the Planning Commission have also been included in the network.
• A secretariat for the Network, Resource Unit for Participatory Forestry (RUPFOR), has been constituted and is temporarily hosted by Winrock International India.
• A Vision Statement for the network is under preparation.
• A JFM Monitoring format has been developed and sent to all state governments for compiling a national database on JFM. In addition a proposal for primary data collection through field studies has also been developed.
• A meeting of the JFM Nodal Officers is proposed to be held in December 2001.
• The central sector JFM scheme for the X Five-Year Plan has been prepared by the National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board (NAEB) inter alia using inputs provided by the JFM Network members.
• Reports of the two ad hoc task forces constituted in the last meeting are still awaited.

II. Introduction of Participants
(List of participants is given at Annex 1)

III. Keynote Address
By Mr. S.K. Pande (Director General of Forests and Special Secretary, MoEF)

Some of the salient points made by Mr. Pande are outlined below:

• Mr. Pande complimented Dr. Bahuguna and the JFM Cell for creating the JFM Network and stressed on the importance of networking in the information age. He emphasised the importance of sharing experiences and ideas not just within the country but also internationally as JFM is gaining importance globally.
• While the country has 77 million hectares (23 %) designated legally as forest lands, the actual forest area is under 20 %. Further, only 11-12 % area has "good forests" (having crown density of 40 % or more).
• One of the reasons for the degradation of forests is erosion of the buffer provided by village commons due to their degradation (due to increasing population) and privatisation. Hence, pressure has shifted to forests resulting in their degradation.
• Since the 1952 forest policy, there have been attempts to increase the country's forest cover to 33 %. The National Forestry Action Programme formulated in 1999 envisaged that this target would be achieved in the next 20 years. However, the Planning Commission has asked the MoEF to achieve this target by the end of the XI Five Year Plan in 2012. After the 1988 forest policy, the forest cover target for hills has been raised to 66 % from the earlier 60%. This has made the task for the hilly states more difficult.
• JFM will play an important role in not only increasing the forest cover but also in preventing degradation of existing forest resource. The concept of JFM is not new in the country and in the form of Van Panchayats, it has been practised for the past 70 years in the Uttaranchal. Today, there is much stress on JFM and it is being integrated into most forestry schemes.
• The critical role played by the forests in the nature's water cycle was stressed upon. The conservation of forests mainly for providing services such as water and soil conservation as against far costlier and unreliable engineering solutions was emphasised.

IV. Presentation on Key Challenges facing JFM: 'JFM: Impacts and Issues'
By Mr. Sushil Saigal (Co-ordinator, RUPFOR)

The themes that the presentation addressed are outlined below broadly:

• The overall status of JFM in the country was presented.
  • The impacts of the JFM process were outlined:
  • Changes in attitudes and relationships
  • Improvement in the condition of forests
  • Reductions in encroachments
  • Increase in incomes
  • Involvement of Non Government Organisations (NGOs).
• Some of the key challenges / issues confronting JFM today are:
  • Conflicts (Intra-community, boundary conflicts, with nomadic grazers etc)
  • Transparency
  • Issue of traditional/existing institutions (self initiated groups, van panchayats etc)
  • JFM in dense forests and protected areas
  • Project related issues
  • NTFP related policies
  • Adaptive silviculture
  • Marketing
  • Corporate sector involvement
  • Legal issues
  • Links with panchayats
• The way ahead for JFM was addressed.

V. Presentation on Integrated Village Afforestation and Eco development Scheme
By Mr. Arvind Kumar (Assistant Inspector General of Forests, NAEB, MoEF)

The broad features of this presentation are outlined below:

• Five major existing schemes of the MoEF and their funding modalities were explained.
• Revised IX Plan allocation for the three NAEB schemes is Rs. 462.50 crores.
• Promotion of JFM and microplanning are key elements being emphasised in all NAEB schemes.
• Some of the reasons which propelled the need for FDAs were as follows:
  • Absence of timely flow of funds from the state governments to the executing agencies
  • The need to further strengthen people's participation
  • Although 15% project funds are meant for 'entry point activities', it did not leave enough scope for eco-development work in the villages
  • The Ministry of Rural Development did not agree to restore earmarking of funds for afforestation under the employment generation schemes
  • The Planning Commission pointed out that multiplicity of schemes should be done away with.
• The options available were:
  • To merge existing schemes with greater emphasis on employment generation and poverty alleviation
  • Utilise the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) structure at the district level
  • To have an umbrella scheme and implement through FDA - a federation of Village Forest Committees

  This umbrella scheme option was favoured and a pilot scheme was implemented under the overall guidelines and cost norms of the existing Integrated Afforestation and Eco-development Project scheme. This scheme is being implemented on a pilot basis during the last two years of the IX Plan. It is known as 'Samanvit Gram Vanikaran Samriddhi Yojana' (SGVSY) / 'Integrated Village Afforestation and Eco Development Scheme'. In order to implement the scheme, the state governments have to first set up Forest Development Agencies as a confederation of Village Forest Committees at the Forest Division level.

Some of the salient features of the scheme are as follows:

• Currently 19 projects have received sanction
• The scheme is totally demand driven
• The establishment of FDAs is a pre-requisite. FDAs will be registered under the Societies Act
• There is no earmarking of funds for any particular state or FDA
• Comprehensive planning by each FDA of its funding requirements is needed
• The FDA will be headed by the respective Territorial / Wildlife Conservator of Forests. It will also include representatives of district officials, Village Forest Committees (VFCs) and Eco- Development Committees (EDCs)
• The VFCs / EDCs will be constituted in different villages within the jurisdiction of the FDA
• The local Forest Block Officer will be an ex-officio member secretary of VFCs/EDCs
• The FDA is to provide the funnel mechanism for assistance under SGVSY to flow from the Central Government to VFCs/EDCs
• All money within this scheme is to be spent through the JFM mechanism

VI. Presentation on the experience of the implementation of the FDA in Suket Division, Himachal Pradesh
By Mr. D.C. Khanduri (Conservator of Forests, Mandi)

Key learnings and issues needing attention:

• The project is being implemented through 55 VFCs in the Suket Division.
• The total project is worth Rs. 2.68 crores.
• Some of the provisions of the scheme have to be clarified e.g. the funds are to be released to the VFCs within 15 days of the receipt from NAEB. However, it is also stated that the fund release should be based on demand and actual progress and utilisation of already released amount.
• The exact mechanism of flow of funds, account maintenance and disbursement needs further clarification.
• Issue of administrative costs of FDA and extent of its powers regarding equipment procurement needs clarification.
• Mechanism to ensure accountability of Forest Department (FD) staff and VFCs is not clear.
• Roles of general house and executive body, particularly ex-officio members has not been specified.

Some of the positive experiences reported were:

• Excellent opportunity for villagers to plan and execute the project
• Release of funds directly to VFCs results in a sense of belonging among villagers
• Use of technical terms like "NR" and "MI" by villagers is an indication of their involvement in the process
• Timely release of funds to the FDA and no restrictions to the Financial Year leads to better utilisation of scheme funds

Some of the limitations and areas for improvement are:

• Since Field functionaries of the FD are only Facilitators, success of the project depends on the leadership quality of the VFC
• Accountability of different stakeholders not been well defined
• At times the demands of local people are not in conformity with technical feasibility
• Narrow personal agendas may conflict with collective interests

Open House Discussion on Mr. Kumar's and Mr. Khanduri's papers

Initial clarifications

• Mr. Arvind Kumar clarified that the FDAs would not be a governmental body. They would be registered under the Societies Act.
• Mr. A.K. Mukerji (Forum for Forestry and Rural Development): If there is no component for other line departments (which are ex-officio members of FDA) from the FDA, they may not take interest in FDA's activities. Therefore, the basic question is whether other departments are to be included in the FDA?
• In response to the above query, Mr. Kumar said that other line departments have been included keeping various entry point activities in mind.
• Dr. Bahuguna remarked that the FDA chairman should be able to harness resources not only from NAEB but also from other sources including banks.

Issues of decentralisation and participation

Mr. Anil Shah (Development Support Centre)

• The new scheme is a welcome step for it falls within the paradigm of decentralisation. However, it must be asked as to what kind of decentralisation this is if people prepare plans at the village level, but require approval at the centre - in Delhi? Only channelling funds directly, bypassing the state government, is not decentralisation. It should be vested in the decision making process itself.
• If the scheme is to be managed by the central government, it is not conducive to a participatory approach. The state government should have a stake in the process. Further people's share has not been indicated.
• The sharing of benefits between different stakeholders at the village level has not been laid out.
• Some sort of maintenance funds need to be created for the sustainability of the scheme. What will be the future of the VFCs/ EDCs?
• What will be the role of NGOs in this scheme?

Mr. V.B. Eswaran (Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development)

• Mr. Eswaran raised the issue of Forest Guards getting the work executed under the scheme. He felt that this read more like an employment programme rather than a participatory approach.
• He felt that the new scheme is parallel to the JFM process rather than a part of it.

Mr. Vineet Sarin (Japan Bank for International Cooperation)

• Since the flow of funds to the forest department has always been a bottleneck from a donor's point of view, the FDA is a good concept. How are foreign funds to be routed to the FDA? The primary concern of donors is that the flow of funds should be streamlined.
• Secondly, the projects should be implemented by people themselves.

Dr. Doris Capistrano (The Ford Foundation)

• The very attempt to facilitate the mechanism for the flow of funds is a positive indication of the MoEF's intention to pursue the decentralisation agenda. However, the issues lie in the details of design and implementation. There is a gap between the concept and implementation plan. At the VFC level, there should be a sense of ownership and identification with the project and its funds. Only then will resources be utilised efficiently. There is also the issue of sustainability of funds and incentives for asset building. How will this be tackled by a centrally sponsored scheme? Certain elements of the design of the scheme do not encourage an expression of demand from the ground.
• The outcomes on the ground depend on qualitative aspects of implementation, which in turn depend upon a consistent effort towards capacity building. This scheme does not provide for systematic capacity building, especially at the lowest levels of program implementation.
• The locus of decision making is somewhat distant from the locus of action and impact, which is inconsistent with the idea of decentralisation.

Mr. Kevin Crockford (Department for International Development, United Kingdom)

• The scheme is laudable in its objectives. There are concerns however regarding the level of decision-making, given the inherent weaknesses of centrally sponsored schemes.
• JFM should be a principle not a programme.
• Should the Forest Department be side-stepped by the FDA?

Queries regarding micro-plans

• Ms. Vanita Suneja (Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development): Will fresh micro plans be prepared for FDA projects or will these utilise existing JFM micro plans?

It was clarified that there will be separate micro-plans for FDA projects.

• Mr. R.K. Sood (Conservator of Forests (Policy and Law), Himachal Pradesh): Does the micro-planning process go through the state framework?

Other general questions and comments:

Sushil Saigal (Winrock International India)

• In the new scheme foresters are compulsorily being made member secretaries. This may reverse the process of the empowerment of VFCs.
• What are the reasons for dropping spearhead teams (consisting of NGOs and FD staff) suggested in the draft scheme prepared by the JFM Network members?
• What is the role of the JFM Cell in monitoring the scheme?

Doris Capistrano: In the Green India Report one of the recommendations is to abolish the NAEB. How will this affect the implementation of the scheme?

Clarifications provided

Mr. A.K Mukerji

• The concept of FDAs originated due to the problem of flow of funds from the state governments to field level. Since forests are on the concurrent list, central funds can be allocated more smoothly through the FDAs.
• JFM is the base of this new scheme as well. The FDA is only an administrative arrangement for money supply to JFM.
• Internationally aided projects cannot be routed through the FDA, as they require approval of the Department of Economic Affairs.

Mr. Arvind Kumar

• Most of the queries raised have already been addressed but could not be explained during the presentation due to shortage of time. There are detailed guidelines for the scheme.
• The scheme is not just a different funding mechanism. There has been a change in implementation modalities as well. It is not the forest guards who will be implementing the scheme, but the VFCs. The forest guards will only be assisting the VFCs. Further, the involvement of the Block Forest Officer is limited to being a member secretary of the VFC.
• All the VFCs will be required to make a preliminary micro-plan outlining their basic requirements. The FDA will compile these and then the proposal for funds will be forwarded to NAEB.
• There is a shift in the nature of central funding. Now central schemes will be central sector schemes rather than centrally sponsored schemes. As a result there will be direct funding.
• The FDA will not be duplicating the work of DRDA, but will be based on the same pattern. Some people feel that the DRDA works only in the periphery of urban areas. The FDA will focus mainly on remote forest fringe areas.

Action Point:

It was decided that the above queries, comments and recommendations must be taken into account in order to try and revise the scheme accordingly before it is finally passed by the Cabinet. According to Mr. Kumar the scheme will be sent to the Cabinet for approval in another month or so. Given this, it was decided to constitute a small group that would examine the proposed scheme in depth and give its comments to the MoEF. Considering the urgency of providing the feedback before the scheme is presented to the cabinet, it was decided to organise a meeting of this group at the Winrock International India office on 11th October 2001.

AFTERNOON SESSION

VII. Summary of a Web-based Debate on New JFM Guidelines
By Ms. Seema Bhatt (Centre for Environment Education)

Issues on which Ms. Bhatt provided feedback were as follows:

• Legal status of JFM Committees
• Participation of Women in the JFM programme
• Extension of JFM in Good Forest Areas
• Preparation of microplans in JFM areas
• Conflict resolution
• Recognition of self-initiated groups
• Contribution for regeneration of resource
• Monitoring and evaluation

Discussion following this presentation

• Mr. V.B. Eswaran emphasised that self-initiated groups should be recognised as such.
• Dr. V.K. Bahuguna clarified that registration as a Society is not compulsory, as was decided during the first JFM Network meeting.

VIII. Presentation on JFM in Madhya Pradesh
By Mr. Shahbaz Ahmed (Conservator of Forests, Madhya Pradesh Forest Department)

Mr. Ahmed presented the salient features of JFM in Madhya Pradesh. Some of the unique features are as follows:

• All persons in the voter list are eligible for membership of JFM Committees
• Vice Chairpersons of JFM Committees are women
• A local person becomes Secretary after two years, taking over from the FD official
• A detailed JFM Manual has been prepared
• Existence of 10,443 JFM Committees in the state
• 43 % of the forest area is under JFM
• As per the Forest Survey of India's latest report, 376 sq. km. of forest area has increased, mainly due to JFM
• A detailed JFM monitoring system has been put in place in the state

Some new challenges facing JFM are training of JFM Committee members and co-ordination between JFM Committee and Gram Sabha. Some training is being imparted through 50 eco-centres spread all over the state. It was felt that there is a need to establish a Village Resource and Ecodevelopment Training Institute in every state.

Another presentation by Mr. Ahmed was made on Harda and Dewas as a response to the recent conflict. Allegations of corruption and atrocities being committed by the Forest Department, JFM dividing people into pro and anti Forest Department groups, lack of transparency, JFM becoming a means of siphoning off funds, and violation of human rights were addressed by Mr. Ahmed.

The response of the State FD was as follows:

• Sporadic incidents should not be generalised and due to these incidents, the entire JFM effort of the state should not be discredited.
• That there was no intention of dividing the local people and all adults are eligible to become members of the JFM Committees.
• In the matter of funds flowing into the village, it had been decided that there would be a monthly public display of accounts in every village.
• The process of investigation should be more democratic, with involvement of all parties, which was not done in the case of Harda and Dewas reports by NGOs and independent observers.
• Only democratic ways should be adopted to express one's views.
• Registration of complaints regarding JFM implementation should follow laid down procedures. In addition to pointing shortcomings, constructive suggestions regarding remedial measures should also be made.
• NGOs should not just criticise but also specify their own roles in social welfare along with well-defined indicators for monitoring progress.
• Policy issues should be discussed at the appropriate levels of the government.

In the discussion that followed some comments were as follows:

Mr. A.P. Dubey, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Madhya Pradesh

• He explained that the Dewas incident was a result of attempts by the government to curb massive illegal felling - involving people from the surrounding 7-8 districts - that was going on in the area. The FD had seized illegally felled timber worth Rs. 3.5 crores.

Mr. D.N. Pandey (Indian Institute of Forest Management)

• Commented on the Monitoring and Evaluation and the formats developed which he found interesting. However, he felt that the learning from feedback received through these formats should also be utilised for policy responses and these formats should not become an end in themselves.

Mr. V.B. Eswaran

• Suggested that a monitoring system developed by the 'Public Affairs Centre' in Bangalore should also be looked at by the MoEF.

VIII. Presentation on Proposed Involvement of Industry in the JFM in Andhra Pradesh
By Mr. K. Rajan (Representative, Reliance Industries)

The main objective of this presentation was to clarify the thinking behind the controversial proposal to have Reliance Industries enter into contract with JFM committees in Andhra Pradesh. This proposal has, however, currently been dropped from active consideration.

Mr. Rajan made a brief presentation on the proposed tripartite arrangement between Reliance Industries, JFM committees and the state government. He clarified that no forest land was to be given to Reliance Industries and the land in question would have still belonged to the government. In any case, it was planned to take up only 5,000 - 10,000 hectares under the pilot scheme out of approximately 16 lakh hectares of degraded forestlands in the state.

He stated that this scheme was expected to:

• create employment opportunities for the participating village communities
• improve flow of income to the villages
• initially be tried in two districts in Andhra Pradesh
• work within overall objectives of JFM
• help in strengthening long- term partnership between all three parties, viz., government, local people and industry.
• not focus only on raising mono-culture crops. The land would be divided into different categories in which trees, fruit species and short gestation crops would be planted. An inventory of medicinal plants for each area would also be prepared.

In the discussion that followed:

Dr. Suryakumari (Joint Director (JFM), Centre for World Solidarity) raised the following issues

• The urgency and secrecy with which the state government passed the order for this scheme has created suspicion among NGOs.
• All inquiries that were made by NGOs received no response from the concerned officials and their only source of information was media.
• She questioned the capability of local communities to understand the implications of entering into such an agreement with the corporate sector.
• The benefit-sharing mechanism was not clear and she felt that both the local communities and NGO sector should be involved in a public debate on this issue.

Vote of Thanks

Vote of thanks was delivered by Dr. V.K. Bahuguna.

Annex 1

List of Participants

1. Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad - Conservator of Forests, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal
2. Ms. Seema Bhatt - Consultant, Centre for Environment Education, Ahmedabad
3. Dr. V.K.Bahuguna - Deputy Inspector General of Forests (Forest Protection and JFM), Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi
4. Mr. Ajith Chandran - Adviser, Aga Khan Foundation, New Delhi
5. Dr. Doris Capistrano - Deputy Representative, The Ford Foundation, New Delhi
6. Mr. Kevin Crockford - Rural Livelihoods Adviser, Department for International Development (UK) - India, New Delhi
7. Mr. A.P.Dubey - Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal
8. Mr. V.B.Eswaran - Chairman, Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development, New Delhi
9. Ms. Radhika Gupta-Program Officer, Winrock International India, New Delhi
10. Mr. N.K.Joshi - Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Uttranchal, Nainital
11. Mr. D.C.Khanduri- Conservator of Forests, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh
12. Mr. Arvind Kumar-Assistant Inspector General of Forests, National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board, New Delhi
13. Ms. Tomoko Koike- Representative, Japan Bank for International Cooperation, New Delhi
14. Mr. R.K.Mathur-Resident Commissioner, Tripura
15. Dr. Kinsuk Mitra - Vice President, Winrock International India, New Delhi
16. Mr. A.K.Mukerji - Director, Forum for Forestry and Rural Development, New Delhi
17. Mr. S.K.Pande - Director General of Forests and Special Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi
18. Mr. Deep Narayan Pandey - Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal
19. Mr. Neeraj Peters - Program Officer, Winrock International India, New Delhi
20. Mr. K. Rajan - Adviser, Reliance Industries, Mumbai
21. Mr. Sushil Saigal - Coordinator, Resource Unit for Participatory Forestry, New Delhi
22. Mr. M. Satyanarayana - Deputy Inspector General of Forests (Forest Policy), Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi
23. Mr. Vineet Sarin - Project Officer, Japan Bank for International Cooperation, New Delhi
24. Mr. Anil C. Shah - Chairman, Development Support Centre, Ahmedabad
25. Mr. A.L. Sharma - Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, Hamirpur
26. Mr. Mudit Kumar Singh- Assistant Director General (GEF Cell), Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, Dehradun
27. Mr. R.K.Sood - Conservator of Forests (Policy and Law), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
28. Ms. Vanita Suneja - Programme Officer, Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development, New Delhi
29. Dr. D Suryakumari - Joint Director (JFM), Centre for World Solidarity, Hyderabad
30. Mr. Anoop Upadhyay - Senior Assistant Inspector General of Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi

July 27, 2000      October 5, 2001     October 31, 2001

Minutes of the Second JFM Network Consultation of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India

Date: October 31, 2000
Venue: Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development, New Delhi

Agenda

• Follow up on the last meeting held at the Ford Foundation (July 27th, 2000)
• Presentations and discussions on
  • JFM in three new states
  • Proposed Central Scheme on JFM
  • Ecological and Economic Research Network
  • Industry's involvement in JFM programme in Andhra Pradesh

Welcome and Inaugural addresses

Dr. V.K. Misra, Executive Director SPWD, welcomed the participants of the Network. This was followed by the inaugural address by the Inspector General of Forests, Mr. C.P. Oberai. He emphasized the importance of forests in the lives of rural people and consequently the relevance of JFM. He mentioned that the latest Status of Forest Report indicated that there has been an increase in the forest cover in the country, which was an encouraging development. He hoped that revised JFM guidelines issued in February 2000 coupled with feedback and suggestions received through the Network would further strengthen the JFM programme.

Follow up on last meeting

Dr. V.K. Bahuguna, Deputy Inspector General of Forests apprised the participants on the follow up of the last meeting held on 27th July 2000 at the Ford Foundation. The salient points from his presentation are given below:

• Draft vision statement: The draft statement has been prepared but needs further consultations before finalising the document.
• Expansion of the Network membership: The network membership has already been broadened to include tribal representatives from Bihar and Rajasthan. The representation from the Planning Commission is also being solicited. However, the recommendation on linking with the Panchayati Raj institutions still needs to be worked on.
• Network secretariat: Since there is drive to downsize the bureaucracy, setting up of a secretariat for the network within MOEF does not seem an easy task. A facilitating unit outside MOEF, as agreed upon in the 1st Network meeting, would be pursued.
• State level working groups: Efforts have been made by MOEF to facilitate State level working groups on JFM
• Changes in the February 2000 guidelines:
  • Registration: The decision on this issue has been left with the State Governments and FPCs. While legal backing is essential, registration of JFM groups under the Societies Act of 1860 is not the only way. Two specific problems that need to be tackled are (1) cumbersome registration process and (2) problem of FPCs not being able to earn "profit" as a Society. In order to efficiently channelise funds, a federation of JFM groups at the district level may be separately registered. The issues pertaining to Self Initiated Forest Protection Groups (SIFPGs) are peculiar to these and should be specifically tackled.
  • Expansion of JFM to other areas: Regarding expansion of JFM to other areas, it was recognised that while there is merit in such expansion, careful examination is required so that there is clarity on issues such as conservation, utilisation, equitable sharing etc. from the outset.
  • Increasing women's participation: Efforts for enhanced participation of women in JFM are already in the pipeline as per new guidelines.
  • R&D: ICFRE has taken into account the need for development of appropriate silvicultural systems in JFM areas and other related research issues in their proposed plan.

Action point(s)

Given the diverse opinion on the issue of legal recognition of JFM groups and SIFPGs, it was suggested that specific groups should be set up, which would consider all arguments in favour and against, and come up with concrete suggestions. Consequently, it was decided to constitute two ad-hoc task forces: (1) ad-hoc task force on Registration to be convened by Dr. V.K Misra, SPWD. Other suggested members were Ms. Gopa Pandey (IGNFA), representative of legal cell at WWF and representatives from states of Gujarat, U.P and Karnatka, (2) ad-hoc task force on SIFPGs to be convened by Dr. N.H Ravindranath, IISc, Mr. S.S Rizvi (Member) and representatives from NGOs working in Orissa as member. It was decided that the task forces would submit their reports within two months.

Dr. Bahuguna also spoke about the progress regarding development of a monitoring mechanism for JFM and also updated the Network regarding the progress about the proposed Forest Development Agencies. These are briefly described below:

Monitoring mechanisms

Dr. Bahuguna stated that the most important component for sustainability of JFM is monitoring. The JFM Cell of the Ministry has adopted two approaches (i) to monitor the status through nodal officers in each State (ii) evaluation by some independent agency as was done by TERI for four states for MOEF last year. In order to strengthen the existing monitoring mechanism and format, a committee has been set up with nodal officers; IBRAD a member of this monitoring committee is developing a computerized format for monitoring on the basis of inputs received from the committee. SPWD has also developed a Performa for monitoring, which was shared with MOEF.

Suggestions

The house suggested that along with quantitative monitoring, qualitative monitoring should also be developed as part of the regular monitoring mechanism. It was suggested that MOEF can do regular monitoring but evaluations should be carried out by external agencies. The changes, if any, in the government policy (e.g. JFM Orders) and their impact at the field level should also be monitored. The house also pointed out that while carrying out monitoring and evaluation, policies, the state of vegetation as well as the sustainability of the institutions created should also be studied. It was felt that the entire monitoring process should be participatory in nature and should involve the local people.

Action point(s)

MOEF would share the Performa made by the monitoring committee with the Network members.

Forest Development Agencies

Dr. V.K. Bahuguna informed that Forest Development Agencies will be set up in the states to access the funds from NAEB. J&K and Punjab have already sent their proposals for setting up FDA so it was suggested that the NAEB guidelines should be circulated. Suggestions were also made to effectively access and utilize the money available with DRDA by the FD rather than creating a separate agency.

Presentations

Presentation 1: JFM in three new states by Mr. V.K Misra, SPWD

Mr. Misra started the discussion by drawing attention to the recently passed bill in the Parliament regarding the formation of three new states. The industry sector has showed interest towards heavy investments in the new states. The noteworthy thing is that all the new states have rich mineral reserves, all of which are under forests. After thirty years of struggle the interests of tribals may be sidetracked with development policies focussed on industrialization. The concern at this point of time is the share of people dependent on forests in this development.

Presentation 2: Proposed Central Scheme on JFM by Mudit Kumar Singh, ICFRE

• As per the task assigned by the JFM cell, MoEF, Mr Mudit Kumar Singh presented the draft of proposed Central Scheme for integrating JFM in the Tenth Five-year plan. The envisaged objectives of the proposed scheme are as follows:
  Integrated development of forest areas including (1) Socio-economic benefits to people (2) sustained supply of fuelwood, fodder and household timber and (3) Capacity building to retain the spirit of poverty alleviation. The salient features of the proposed JFM scheme are (1) Multi-Sectoral approach meaning continuity and uniformity in funding at national level (2) HRD in all villages in and around forest areas and (3) maintaining harmonious balance between goods and services. The proposed scheme shall be implemented in all the Forest Divisions of the country covering 28,040 villages over plan period of five years. Three models have been suggested to achieve the desired result (1) Agroforestry (2) Farm forestry and (3) Degraded forest and wastelands. The main objectives and the proposed financial details of these models were also explained. Mr. Kumar also presented the status model of NTFP under the JFM scheme. The proposed scheme will aim to improve the quality of the existing forests by:
  1. Enrichment planting
  2. Soil and moisture conservation works.
  3. Multiple shoot cutting in coppice species for clean boles and availability of fuelwood.
  4. Fodder production linked to increased milk production.
     Various capacity building measures were also proposed under the scheme. There will be a spear head team at the district level with five members out of which two will be women members. They would be trained in social skills, forestry, watershed management, gender sensitization and conflict resolution. In terms of budget estimates, the stakeholder contribution would be 70:25:5, where 70% would be Centre's contribution, 20% to be matched by State and balance 5% to be recovered from people as contribution. The scheme also proposes a "withdrawal plan" on the management and functioning details say after ten years when the government agency completely withdraws itself from the process.
     
     Suggestions
  • It was suggested that monitoring should be an integral part of the proposed programme with provision of at least one percent of the FPCs to be audited every year. This audit (technical/ social/ financial/ silvicultural) would ensure that work is done as per norms.
  • The scheme should have a multisectoral approach and should be completely different from Social Forestry, where the Gram Pradhans' cursory consent was taken.
  • It was pointed out that the investment should not be more in Agroforestry than in Community Forestry. Greater contribution ought to be taken from the beneficiaries, particularly when work has to be done on private land, like in case of agroforestry. The case of watershed programmes was cited where people's contribution is kept in a Village Development Fund (VDF).

Action point(s)

The draft proposal would be finalized after incorporating the comments from the house and will be sent to the Planning Commission for their consideration. He requested the house to send its comments within a month after which a committee would be set up to deliberate on selected issues.

Presentation 3: Ecological and Economic Research Network (EERN) by Dr. N.H. Ravindranath, IISc

Dr. Ravindranath informed the participants about the research objectives of EERN, and studies conducted by EERN along with its partners, in different parts of the country on institutional and ecological aspects of participatory management systems. Network studies have shown that there is an increasing potential for promotion of natural regeneration as an option for revegetating degraded lands, in diverse situations. The studies revealed little differences in silvicultural practices of plantations under JFM. There is a need to develop simple methodologies to enable local communities to monitor or assess the impact of extraction practices. The studies also revealed the potential and feasibility of community managed systems with minimal role of the FD.

Suggestions

The house suggested that state FD should be involved in the process of monitoring and research by independent research organizations for mutual sharing of information and learning.

Presentation 4: Industry's involvement in JFM programme in Andhra Pradesh by Mr. S.D Mukherjee, PCCF, Andhra Pradesh

Mr. S.D. Mukherjee (PCCF, Andhra Pradesh) stated that while Rural / Forest based industries have been getting concessions in many States, they have not contributed anything back to these States. The New circular of Andhra Pradesh gives them an opportunity to do just that. Industries like ITC, Reliance etc. have shown interest in supporting Vana Samrakshana Samities (VSS) to plant clonal planting material for regenerating degraded forest area and providing marketing support through buyback arrangement. Around 1300 ha. of forest land would be taken up under a pilot project and a tripartite agreement would be finalized between the VSS members, industry and the FD. The terms and conditions of the tripartite arrangement shall be in strict accordance with the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the provision of G.O for JFM won't be violated. The industry will provide the financial inputs to the department and the choice of species will be in consultation with all the partners.

Suggestions

The buyback guarantee hasn't worked well in the case of farm forestry and similar problems could occur in case of arrangements with JFM groups too. The question of capacity of industries in terms of raising and utilising forests for multiple products (e.g medicinal plants in the understorey) was also raised. These aspects need to be carefully examined.

Action point(s)

The presence of NGOs & observers should be ensured for monitoring the entire process.

General Discussion

• It was felt that the JFM cell at MOEF has a crucial role to play in the coming years and in view of frequent transfers of good officers, some permanent mechanisms should be put in place so that the momentum is not lost even if some good officer is transferred. It was suggested that the JFM Cell's secretariat needs to be strengthened to achieve this objective.
• Winrock International volunteered to host the next network meeting.
• Vote of Thanks was delivered by Mr. V.B Eswaran, Chairperson, SPWD

Annexure 1

List of Participants

Annexure 2

List of Acronyms

AIG: Assistant Inspector General of Forests
DFO: Divisional Forest Officer
DIG: Deputy Inspector General of Forests
DRDA: District Rural Development Agency
EERN: Ecological and Economic Research Network
FD: Forest Department
FPCs: Forest Protection Committees
GO: Government Order
HRD: Human Resource Development
IBRAD: Indian Institute of Biosocial Research and Development
ICFRE: Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education
IGNFA: Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy
IISc: Indian Institute of Science
J&K: Jammu and Kashmir
JFM: Joint Forest Management
MOEF: Ministry of Environment and Forests
NAEB: National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board
NGO: Non Government Organisation
NTFP: Non Timber Forest Produce
PCCF: Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
SPWD: Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development
TERI: Tata Energy Research Institute
VDF: Village Development Fund
VFPC: Village Forest Protection Committee
VSS: Van Samaraksahana Samiti (Forest Protection Committee)

July 27, 2000      October 5, 2001     October 31, 2001