Continued from Part-1:
With the help of a concatenated rope of ten metres, the group moves along the periphery of the plot, measuring it by the rope and marking the contours by implanting a stone at every turn. The stones are then brushed with a dash of slaked lime (chuna) for easy sighting later on. Quite a bit of discussion (at times, even heated exchange of words) takes place among the men during this activity. The discussion and decision on how wide an area must be left out for bullock-cart roads and for purposes of human and livestock movement, is fairly smooth and relatively quick. Discussions regarding the contour line of the inner area are often more involved and take up time. Here's a live example from the village of Kalijaman:
In the morning of October 19, 1994, the second day of the meeting, the people (only males) of Kalijaman were doing their "transect" of the potential JFM land. When the rope-holding boundary markers approached a particular patch of forest land that had been cultivated (illegally) by one of the villagers, the farmer asked them to have the patch skirted out of JFM; the whole group quickly closed in at the spot and almost every one spoke up in varying pitches and volume, some in support of the farmer and others opposing his demand. After about twenty minutes or so, the group resumed its boundary-marking task, having "granted" about half the portion of the land the farmer had cultivated. None of the outsiders, who were present (the NGO staff and the author), intervened.
In Kalijaman, for instance, there were five species of trees found common in the two lists, produced independently by the men and the women. When both the groups got together to draw up a single list of preference, the women quite readily went along with the men's choices, saying, "Achha, kari nahko" (okay, chop it off), when the men suggested dropping of a tree. The result was that, of the 11 finally chosen species, four were common, six were exclusively from the men's list and only one (namely, Neem) from the women's list. Tree species such as Khakra, Pipal, Mango, Tanach and Banyan from the women's list were given short shrift in the discussion and the women acquiesced. (The NGO staff did not intervene.)
When the common preference list was ready, the Programme Organiser (PO) acknowledged the "good work" of the groups and took leave of the village. While leaving, the PO reminded the people to think about formation of a GVM and told them that he would return in a fortnight.
|January-February||Raising of nursery|
|March - May||Trenches, gradonies, pits|
and gully plugs
|August||First soil works|
|September||Second soil works|
|Oct.-November||PRA and GVM|
|December||Fire lines; nursery training.|
To have its JFM officially recognised by the Forest Department (FD), the GVM applies, through the NGO, to the FD for an adhikar patra (a certificate of rights). Many of the GVMs also get themselves registered (as societies), in response to the FD's expressed preference for dealing with a legally recognised entity.
Pits for plantation are dug in April-May, under the supervision of EVs. Plantation begins immediately after the first rains, when seedlings are transferred from the nursery to the plantation site. Protection of the JFM plot is the responsibility of the GVM. Many of the GVMs arrange for a voluntary protection by members in turns. Some of the GVMs appoint and pay a watchman for the task. About six weeks after the plantation, soil-moisture conservation work around the trees is taken up. Since the survival rate of the planted trees is hardly ever one hundred per cent, replacements or gap-filling in the second and third years is considered beneficial. Currently, however, such gap-filling is not taken up in all cases.
Having taken a cursory look at the various on-site activities that were observed in a joint forest management project of an NGO, we now turn our attention to certain incidents and issues that emerged in the process:
1.1 Some people in Jhank, for example, insist on paying a fine on their own for their encroachment and preserve the receipts as proof of having cultivated the land for so long and as basis for their demand of ownership.
1.2 Eight persons of Almavadi village had illegally cultivated selected plots of Pomlapada's forest land. When questioned by Pomlapada's GVM, the encroachers claimed that they had paid the required fine and the RFO had allowed them and that the Department's Head Office at Gandhinagar also knew it. The GVM wrote a petition on August 17, 1994 to the nearby police station, with copies to the Forest Department and the NGO. When the chairman was drafting the petition, in which he included the names of the cultivators, members advised him not to mention that these people had been cultivating the land, for that would strengthen the encroachers' claim for eventual ownership of the land. It was, therefore, written that these people had illegally cut many trees and plowed the land. When the petition was being sent, the GVM members and the chairman spoke out that if the petition turned out ineffective, they would themselves start cultivating the land, too. They said, "The forest is ours. If outsiders are permitted to cultivate it, why not we?"
At the end of the meeting the chairman told the researcher, "Look at how foolish the government can be! When people do illegal cultivation, it (the government) collects a penalty from eac offender and issues an official receipt. Then it makes the culprits owners of the land -- on the basis of the receipts!"
"We were protecting the forest from 1991. The degraded forest grew well under our protection and the bamboos were excellent. When we approached the FD for an adhikar patra, we were told that only degraded forests could be given for JFM; since our forest was not degraded, it would not be given! We felt foolish having protected the forest and gave up protecting it, in 1993. Now protection is done by the forest guards, who are susceptible to bribes: one bottle of wine easily relaxes the guard's protection".
5.1 On April 20, 1994, the people of Pingot rounded up three forest offenders from Koylimandvi. Two of the offenders escaped; one was apprehended and brought to Pingot's GVM office. There in the office, the culprit was beaten up, before a meeting was arranged between the people of the two villages. The people of Koylimandvi cried revenge and would not allow anyone from Pingot to enter Koylimandvi, where the Pingoters have to go to pour their milk. Some of the Koylimandvians were also heard admonishing the Pingoters: "The NGO will go away in a few years, but we, you and us, are here to stay; so don't be so arrogant. ...". Pingot filed a case against the offenders and the case is pending with the police.
5.2 On July 1, 1994, three members of Kakadkui's GVM were on their protection round. On the adjoining forest land of Motiya, plantation work was in progress. Certain Abhesingh of Motiya (who was said to be enjoying the reputation of having murdered his wife and, consequently, spent six months in jail) drove his cattle into Kakadkui's protected forest area for grazing. The three protection volunteers of Kakadkui (all in their early twenties) drove the cattle back to Motiya's plot. After a few successive back-and-forth cattle drives across the two adjoining plots, Abhesingh called out to his villagers, who were at plantation. The people left their work and rushed to the spot, with spades and other implements in hand. Buttressed by this rushing show of strength, Abhesingh dislodged a stick from the nearest eucalyptus tree/bush and beat up the three youngsters, injuring them on their legs and shoulders.
In an attempt to resolve the above issue, the chairman of Kakadkui's GVM sent for Abhesingh, who refused to comply. The GVM members are now hesitant to volunteer for protection. Kakadkui has filed a police case against Abhesingh of Motiya; the case is pending.
5.3 At about 6:00 in the morning of September 9, 1994, Motiya caught five Kakadkuiwallas, cutting grass on Motiya's protected forest land. The chairman of Motiya told the researcher, "Had it been at night, we would have neatly finished off (killed) these fellows; because it is day, they are saved". Such a reaction, when read with 5.2 above, reflects the intensity of the inter-village animosity that obtains there.
5.4 As part of 5.3 above, one member of Motiya contacted the NGO by telephone, asking them to send one of their officers to the village to help resolve the problem. It was raining and the NGO officer responded, saying that it wouldn't be necessary for him to be there and suggested that they handle the case themselves by levying a suitable fine on the offenders. Dissatisfied with the response, the chairman contacted the RFO by phone and asked him to intervene. The RFO agreed and soon left for the village and the NGO officer joined him en route. In the meantime, some of the people waiting in the village for the RFO's arrival were heard saying, "If these people (the NGO) do not support us in times like this, we will open out the forest for all; why do protection at all?"
5.5 In continuation of 5.3 & 5.4 above: The RFO arrived and was in chair, along with the NGO representative. After a long haggling on the amount of fine to be levied on the five offenders, the RFO finally proposed a total fine of Rs.400/- and most people agreed. The problem was thus "settled" by Kakadkui's payment of the fine. The next day, an exodus of about 70 Kakadkuiwallas landed in Motiya, demanding a fine of Rs.1551/- from them for the wrong they had committed earlier. Motiya refused to pay them any fine. Now, although the public road from Motiya passes through Kakadkui, the Motiyans are scared of taking the road.
In Garda, people say that their chairman controls them by virtue of his being three-in-one (Deputy Sarpanch, Watchman and Chairman), but is a bad man. "He stops us", they say, "from cutting any tree, but he himself cuts many. Further, when there is a lot of work on the forest land, he employs us; other times he employs only his family members. At the time of payment, his family members invariably have a record of more mandays than other people of the village. Even the material recovered by the Beat-guard from the offenders is taken away by the chairman". The researcher himself caught sight of more than 70 poles of bamboos and logs of other species, lying at the chairman's house.
Similar complaints were heard from people of many other villages, too. Here is a summary of the complaints:
The committee confiscates the material from the encroachers and also collects money as fines. The material is then put to personal use by the committee members and so is the money; no proper accounts are maintained. Though we know of these misdeeds, we normally do not speak up for fear of the chairman and the secretary. The GVM does not meet regularly. The NGO knows all this and so does the FD, but they do not say anything, either.
A process documentation research is not supposed to be evaluative. And yet the recorded processes must help the implementors to reflect critically on whatever has happened. It is in order to facilitate such reflection that I venture to identify certain pertinent questions and concerns, which, in my opinion, deserve attention. The questions and concerns raised below are with reference to the points presented in the section on emerging issues, above.Issue set 1.0:
Is the government mixed up about the goal of JFM, general development and and vested interests? This "benevolence" of the government engenders dysfunctional psycho-social dynamics in the people. Would it not be proper for the government to take a clear-cut stand on the issue of illegal cultivation and have it communicated to the people unequivocally, so that people stop cherishing the hope of: "It happened and so it will happen again"?Issue 2:
The Forest Department (FD) cannot be taken for granted. The NGO/GVM must keep the FD posted well in time of the activities undertaken by the villagers under JFM.Issue 3:
Would it not be possible to have a stipulated time period, within which to respond to JFM proposals? Wouldn't it be appropriate to make the FD accountable in this regard?Issue 4:
The Forest Department could realign forest boundaries to villages whose neighbourhood is endowed with forest lands, but the villagers as yet lack legal access to them under the antiquated demarcations. Such a move by the Department would obviate compulsive encroachments by people.Issue set 5.0:
Several questions arise here: JFM for what? Is harmony (social as well as ecological) an integral part of development or is it antithetical to it? Are people being made more and more dependent on outsiders? Who do they think they are protecting the forests for? Could there be something in the NGO's operational style that inadvertently fosters such thoughts and attitudes in the people? It may be well in order for developmental agencies to undertake an examination of conscience on this.Issue set 6.0:
Irrespective of their veracity, it is a fact that these complaints are aired, frequently and intensely, by the people who are members of JFM. The process by which the committee members are chosen, therefore, seems to merit attention. Even the decision to employ a watchman calls for serious thought.Issue 7.0:
JFM is a strategy which is based on a philosophy of empowerment. The efficacy of the strategy, therefore, cannot survive indifference to, or divorce from, the philosophy. Education, indoctrination or conversion of every one may be utopian in the obtaining ambience, but care must needs be taken to avoid posting in JFM ranges officers whose views, assumptions, beliefs and attitudes are diametric to the philosophy of empowerment. Alternatively, the officers could be reoriented.
People who have been deprived for long are prone to fatalistic attitudes and dependency syndromes. Attempts to help these people develop must necessarily, therefore, employ empowering strategies.
Participatory development approaches can indeed empower people, if the approaches arise from a clear vision and perspective of a well-knit community, capable of taking charge of their own lives in the future.
Given the necessity of (temporary) external support for development of deprived people, the role of NGOs becomes crucial. As agents of human development, the NGOs ought to have an appropriate vision and work towards it with a moral imperative of accountability to the communities they choose to help. They owe it to the people whose lives they touch, to educate them -- over and above the material assistance and technical skills they normally provide. It well behoves the NGOs to examine their development strategy and processes periodically to check for discrepancies in their intention and outcome so as to be back on track, before any psycho-social damages could occur. They would do well to ask themselves this question, off and on: Are we empowering the people?
Bagadion, B.U. and Frances F. Korten (1985). Developing irrigators' organizations: A learning process approach. In Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. Michael Cernea (Ed.). Pp. 52-90. Oxford University Press, London.
Berkes, F. (1989). Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community Based Sustainable Development. Belhaven, London.
Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22, 1253-1268.
Malhotra, K.C. and Debal Deb (1992). Forest regeneration and plantation in Midnapore district. Wasteland News, VII (3).
Manju, S.R. and Raju N. Vagehla (1993). Joint Forest Management: Institutional Processes in Solia. VIKSAT-Nehru Foundation for Development, Ahmedabad.
Palit, S. (1991). Participatory management of forests in West Bengal. Indian Forester, 117 (5).
------------. (1990). Tribals and conservation of forests. Indian Forester, 116 (2).
------------. (1993). The future of Indian Forest Management: Into the 21st century. Working Paper No. 15, The Ford Foundation, New Delhi.
Pezzey, J. (1992). Sustainable Development Concepts: An Economic Analysis. World Bank, Washington.