Decentralized Forest Governance and Resource Management: Assessing Community Dependence and Conservation Effectiveness in Broad-Leaved and Coniferous Forest Stands
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55863/ijees.2024.3093Keywords:
Decentralised governance, Stand density, Diversity, Forest quality, Livelihoods, ConservationAbstract
Globally decentralized forest governance is being promoted to conserve and sustainably manage forest resources along with meeting local livelihoods. In the Central Himalayan region of India, it came into existence in 1931, long before the time when the concept of decentralized forest governance became popular globally, and the aim was to accomplish the subsistence needs of the smallholders in the region. This article discusses whether the species types (broadleaved and coniferous) affect biophysical conditions, species richness, and conservation effectiveness of community-owned forests (locally called Van Panchayat forests), and what could be done to improve their management in the near future. The findings are based on a household survey covering 16 villages as well as a biophysical assessment of 18 community forest stands (9 per forest type) covering an area of 1778 ha and 341 ha in both forest categories. It was found that farmers across the villages are intricately dependent on forest resources to support their livelihoods that are governed by a village institution (Van Panchayat) to maintain equity of benefit-sharing among all stakeholders. Both forest categories exhibited high dependence, however, there was a considerable difference in resource quality, viz. quality of fodder, fuel, and litter in broadleaved forests, therefore the community has more preference for such stands. The broadleaved Banj-oak stands revealed better biophysical status in terms of species diversity, tree density, total basal area, and regeneration than the coniferous Chir-pine stands. Although the local government has taken up selective policy initiatives to encourage decentralized forest governance, more needs to be done to strengthen it on the ground level, particularly in Chir-pine stands. It is suggested that the community management of forests needs to be improved in relation to leadership development, rationale use of bio-resources, and adopting site-specific management strategies. In areas with Chir-pine forests community need to be educated to reduce forest fire and promote the plantation of broad-leaved species. Also, the scope of community forests needs to be broadened by adopting and involving smallholders in various forest enterprise development and climate action programs. For this, developing proper alliances of village institutions with civil society groups and other partner institutions along with virtuous support from local government can lead to enhance social and environmental resilience of communities.
References
Agrawal, A. and Goyal, S. 2001. Group size and collective action. Third party monitoring in common-pool resources. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), 63-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414001034001003
Agrawal, A. and Ostrom, E. 2008. Decentralization, forest and rural communities: policy outcomes in South and Southeast Asia. Pp. 44-67. In: Web, E.L. and Sivakoti, G. (Eds.), Decentralization, Forests and Rural Communities: Policy Outcomes in Southeast Asia. SAGE. New Delhi.
Anonymous. 2007. Van Panchayat Altus. Uttarakhand Forest Department, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.
Anonymous, 2017. Smallholder Forest Producer Organizations in a Changing Climate: Forest and Farm Facility. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35234.43200
Armitage, D. 2002. Socio-institutional dynamics and the political ecology of mangrove forest conservation in central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Global Environmental Change, 12(3), 203-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(02)00023-7
Baker, P.C.J. and Kirkipatrich, J.B. 1994. Phyllocladus asplenifolius: variability in the population structure, the regeneration niche and dispersion pattern in Tasmanian forest. Australian Journal of Botany, 42, 163-190. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT9940163
Bhatt, I.D., Rawal, R.S. and Dhar, U. 2000. The availability, fruit yield, and harvest of Myrica esculenta in Kumaun (West Himalaya), India. Mountain Research and Development, 20(2), 146-153. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2000)020[0146:TAFYAH]2.0.CO;2
Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L.M., Healey, J.R., Jones, J.P.G., Knight, T.M. and Pullin, A.S. 2012. Does community forest management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1890/110040
Brosius, J.P., Tsing, A.L. and Zerner, C. 1998. Representing communities: Histories and politics of community based natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 11:2, 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929809381069
Cadman, T., Maraseni, T., Koju, U.A., Shrestha, A. and Karki, S. 2023. Forest Governance in Nepal concerning Sustainable Community Forest Management and Red Panda Conservation. Land, 12, 493. https://doi.org/10.3390/ land12020493.
Chakraborty, A., Joshi, P.K. and Sachdeva, K. 2018. Capturing forest dependency in the central Himalayan region: Variations between Oak (Quercus spp.) and Pine (Pinus spp.) dominated forest landscapes. Ambio, 47, 504-522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0947-1
Chandrashekara, U.M. 2013. Tree population dynamics in a low evergreen forests in the Western Ghats of Kerala, India. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 39(4), 231-237.
Chhatre, A. and Agrawal, A. 2009. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), 106, 17667-17670. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905308106
Churchill, D.J., Larson, A.J., Dahlgreen, M.C., Franklin, J.F., Hessburg, P.F. and Lutze, J.A. 2013. Restoring forest resilience: from reference spatial patterns to silvicultural prescriptions and monitoring. Forest Ecology and Management, 291, 442-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.11.007
Coleman, E.A. 2009. Institutional factors affecting biophysical outcomes in forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(2), 122-146. www.jstor.org/stable/29738989
Curtis, J.T. and McIntosh, R.P. 1950. The inter-relations of certain analytic and synthetic phytosociological characters. Ecology, 32, 434-55. https://doi.org/10.2307/1931497
Dahal, G.R. and Capistrano, D. 2006. Forest governance and institutional structure: an ignored dimension of community based forest management in the Philippines. International Forestry Review, 8(4), 377-395. https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.8.4.377
Deb, P. and Sundriyal, R.C. 2008. Tree regeneration and seedling survival patterns in old-growth lowland tropical rainforest in Namdapha National Park, north-east India. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 3995-4006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.03.046
Duncker, P.S., Barreiro, S.M., Hengeveld, G.M., Lind, T., Mason, W.L., Ambrozy, S. and Spiecker, H. 2012. Classification of forest management approaches: a new conceptual framework and its applicability to European forestry. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 51. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05262-170451
Gautam, A.P. 2007. Group size, heterogeneity and collective action outcomes: evidence from community forestry in Nepal. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14, 574-583. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469756
Germain, R., Ghosh, C. and Jayasuriya, M. 2018. Community Forestry in the State of Uttarakhand, India: Not Meeting the Needs of the Villagers. Small-scale Forestry, 17, 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-017-9384-z
Gibson, C.C., Williams, J.T. and Ostrom, E. 2005. Local enforcement and better forests. World Development, 33, 273-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.013
Gibson, C.C., Dodds, D. and Tuner, P. 2007. Explaining community-level forest outcomes: salience, scarcity and rules in Eastern Guatemala. Conservation and Society, 5(3), 361-381.
Gilmour, D. 2016. Forty Years of Community-Based Forestry: A Review of its Extent and Effectiveness. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Guha, R. 1989. The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Guha, R. 2001. The prehistory of community forestry in India. Environmental History, 6(4), 213-238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3985085
Gupta, D. Lele, S. and Sahu, G. 2020. Promoting a responsive state: The role of NGOs in decentralized forest governance in India. Forest Policy and Economics, 111, 102066. https://doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102066
Hohbein, R.R. and Abrams, J.B. 2022. Conservation, human-wildlife conflict, and decentralised governance: complexities beyond incomplete devolution. Conservation & Society, 20, 293-303.
Joshi, G. and Negi, G.C.S. 2011. Quantification and valuation of forest ecosystem services in the western Himalayan region of India. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, 7(1), 2-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.598134
Klooster, D. and Masera, O. 2000. Community forest management in Mexico: carbon mitigation and biodiversity conservation through rural development. Global Environmental Change, 10, 259-272. https://doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00033-9
Lookingbill, T.R., Gardner, R.H., Ferrari, J.R. and Keller, C.E. 2010. Combining a dispersal model with network theory to assess habitat connectivity. Ecological Application, 20, 427-441. https://doi:10.1890/09-0073.1
Lund, J.F., Rutt, R.L. and Ribot, J. 2018. Trends in research on forestry decentralization policies. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 32, 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.02.003
Meninzen-Dick, R. 2007. Beyond panaceas in water institutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 104(39), 15200-15206. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702296104
Mueller-Dombois, D. and Ellenberg, H. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Nagendra, H. 2007. Drivers of reforestation in human-dominated forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104, 15218-15223. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702319104
Negi, B., Chauhan, D.S. and Todaria, N.P. 2012. Administrative and policy bottlenecks in effective management of van panchayats in Uttarakhand, India. Law, Environment and Development Journal, 8(1), 141-148.
Negi, G.C.S. 2022. The Central Himalayan case of forest ecosystem services. Trees, Forests and People, 8, 100222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100222
Pant, G.B. 1922. The Forest Problem in Kumaun. Gyanodaya Prakashan, Nainital, India.
Pielou. E.C. 1969. An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. Wiley, New York. https://doi:10.1126/science.169. 3940.43-a
Rawat, Y.S. and Singh, J.S. 1988. Structure and function of oak forest in Central Himalaya. I. Dry matter dynamics. Annals of Botany, 62, 397-411. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03053301
Samant, S.S., Dhar, U. and Rawal, R.S. 2000. Assessment of fuel resource diversity and utilization patterns in Askot Wildlife Sanctuary in Kumaun Himalaya, India, for conservation and management. Environmental Conservation, 27(1), 5-13. https://doi: 10.1017/S037689 2900000023
Samii, C., Lisiecki, M., Kulkarni, P., Paler, L. and Chavis, L. 2015. Effects of decentralized forest management (DFM) on deforestation and poverty in lowand middleincome countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1-88. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2014.10
Saxena, A.K, and Singh, J.S. 1984. Tree population structure of certain Himalayan forest associations and implications concerning their future composition. Vegetatio, 58, 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00044928
Shahabuddin, G. and Rao, M. 2010. Do community conserved areas effectively conserve biological diversity? Global insights and the Indian context. Biological Conservation, 143, 2926-2936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.040
Shannon, C.E. and Wiener, W. 1963. The Mathematical Theory of Communities. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.
Singh, J.S, and Singh, S.P. 1992. Forests of Himalaya: Structure, Functioning and Impact of Man. Gyanodaya Prakashan, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India.
Singh, G., Rawat, G.S. and Verma, D. 2010. Comparative study of fuelwood consumption by villagers and seasonal dabha owners in the tourist affected regions of Garhwal Himalaya, India. Energy Policy, 38, 1895-1899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.069
Sinha, B. 2002. Pining for more. Down to Earth, 15, 25-27.
Somanathan, E. 1991. Deforestation, property rights and incentives in central Himalaya. Economic and Political Weekly, 26, 37-46.
Somanathan, E., Prabhakar, R. and Mehta, B.S. 2009. Decentralization for cost-effective conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 106, 4143-4147. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.081004910
Sundriyal, R.C. and Bisht, N.S. 1988. Tree structure, regeneration and survival of seedling and sprouts in high montane forests of the Garhwal Himalayas, India. Vegetatio, 75, 87-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00044630
Sundriyal, R.C. and Sharma, E. 1996. Anthropogenic pressure on tree structure and biomass in the temperate forest of Mamlay watershed in Sikkim. Forest Ecology and Management, 81, 113-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(95)03657-1
Vedelt, T. 2000. Village politics: heterogeneity, leadership and collective action. Journal of Development Studies, 36(5), 105-134. https://doi: 10.1080/00220380008422648
Vijge, M.J. and Gupta, A. 2014. Framing REDD+ in India: Carbonizing and centralizing Indian forest governance? Environmental Science & Policy, 38, 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.012
Whittaker, R.H., Niering, W.A. and Crisp, M.D. 1979. Structure, pattern and diversity of Mallee community in New South Wales. Vegetatio, 39, 65-76.
Zhang, S., Wang, H. and Huang, W. 2017. Two-stage plant species recognition by local mean clustering and weighted sparse representation classification. Cluster Computing, 20, 1517-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-017-0859-7.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Prakash Singh, R C Sundriyal, Akshay Saini, Rekha Rana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
