Background
Creating a massive peoples
movement including women to achieve the objective of a holistic and balanced forest
management was for the first time emphasized in National Forest Policy in 1988. The
landmark Government of India Resolution came in June 1990, to formalize the concept
referred to as Joint Forest Management in which government wanted people to become
partners in the process of managing the forest. It was expected that the forests will be
protected and regenerated by the active support and involvement of the people who in turn
will get usufructory rights over commonly and locally used forest produce such as
fuelwood, fodder, fruits, medicines etc. The state forest departments were also asked to
examine the feasibility of such an arrangement in their respective states. State
Resolutions from different states followed, defining the intensity of "joint"
and "partnership" and also with various formulae of benefit-sharing mechanism
depending upon the benefits accruing from the respective forests. Almost all the states
except a few in the North East have set-up forest management committees. While the
government forest departments became engrossed in following this new dictum, forming
village level institutions, deciding the modus operandi of the give and take with their
new partners, the policy as well as resolution was hailed in the non-government sector as
a unique, radical and pro-people leap. Madhya Pradesh, the largest state and also having
the largest area under forest cover of 1,31,195 sq.kms. (State of Forest Report 1997) came
out with its Resolution in 1991. This was eventually modified in 1995, which is presently
in vogue, though another one drafted in 1998 is yet to be finalized.
Fact-Sheet: JFM in
Madhya Pradesh.
Establishment of M.P. Forest Department -1862
Total Forest area -1,31,195 sq.kms.
Percentage of Forest Area to the geographical area - 29.6%
- Total number of territorial circles - 22
- Total number of territorial Divisions - 85
- First JFM Resolution - 1991 Second Modified Resolution - 1995
- M.P. Forestry Project - 1995
- Total number of VFC - 6556 Total No. of FPC - 5121
- Total Area of Forest under Committees - 3.4 million hectares
Genesis of the Legal Framework
State seeking co-operation from
the collective energies of the local community for various forest bound activities and
giving in turn the benefit of forests and forest produce to them, as a philosophy remained
present in its incipient stage in our country since long ago. The very idea of Joint
Forest Management (JFM) originated from social forestry experiments done in the Arabari
region in West Bengal. Even much before that in Orissa, the non-formal groups or
committees of people in village used to protect the forest and get the benefits out of it.
If we trace back to the 1894 Forest Policy, the first ever forest policy in this country,
plenty of benefits were given to the people that can be seen noticeably. Out of four
categories of forests i.e. forest to be preserved on climatic and physical ground, forest
which afford to supply valuable timber for commercial purposes, minor forests and
pasturelands, the second one essentially meant for revenue generating for the nation that
also allowed small wood, fuelwood, fodder for animals, thorns for fencing to the local
communities for their utilization. Policy clearly puts the forest income below the
satisfaction of the local community in the line, "It should be distinctly understood
that considerations of forest income are to be subordinated to their satisfaction"
(Resolution No. 22 F 1894).
Indian Forest Act, the primary body of Forest
Laws in India in 1927 classified government forests into three i.e. Reserved Forest,
Protected Forest and Village Forest out of which the last one is of invaluable
consequences. The Village Forests were government forests to be given to the communities
for management wherein any revenue coming out of the same would not be going to the
government exchequer but to the village communities. Possession of such forests will
remain with the community whereas ownership with the government, was the concept which
enjoys close relationship with the present ideology of Joint Forest Management.
However in Forest Policy, 1952, first in
independent India, latitude given to the people through earlier policies was strictly
wiped out. A probable reason for the same could be for making the country industrially
productive, for reviving the economy, accepting several compromises were thought
inevitable.
Drafted after Forest Conservation Act 1980,
National Forest policy of 1988 was expectedly conservation oriented. It identified,
increasing demand of fuelwood, fodder and timber, inadequacy of protection measures,
diversion of forest land for non-forestry uses without ensuring compensatory afforestation
and essential ecological safeguards and tendency to look upon forests as revenue earning
resource as the chief reasons for depletion of forests. Among others like Environmental
stability, conservation of bio-diversity, soil and water, meeting rural needs, it
emphasizes the importance of involving people in minimizing the pressure on the existing
forests and also for achieving the other objectives. Certain informal village level
committees in West Bengal were already involved in protecting and regenerating the forest
actively. West Bengal government in its resolution in 1989 formalized those efforts
(Poffenberger and Singh 1992). The Government of India Resolution for JFM followed in
1990.
Committees and their
role
In the resolution of JFM, in M.P.
two types of committees have been envisaged i.e. VFC (Village Forest Committee) in the
degraded forest areas (density below 0.4) and FPC (Forest Protection Committee) in the
forests having better stocking (density more than 0.4). Conceptualizing two types of
committees at the strata of implementation makes Madhya Pradesh strikingly different from
the neighboring states like Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and others.
Procedure for the formation of the Committee
is the same in both the cases. After the preliminary meetings in which the concept of JFM
is to be explained, a meeting under the Chairmanship of the Panch/Sarpanch will be
convened where in DFO or his authorized Officer will represent the department. In case 50%
of the adult residents of the village attend the meeting and pass the proposal, VFC or FPC
as the case may be, will be constituted. In this entire process it is interesting to note
that no mention what so ever is made to 'register' the Committees under Societies
Registration Act or others, has been made, through registration is done in divisional
forest office.
DFO, on the basis of population and the
demand of the same for the forest produce will select a degraded forest block for VFC and
forests prone to illicit grazing, felling, fire etc for FPC to allocate to the committees,
where villagers are willing to participate in the process of management. In other words
this is a process of understanding or agreement between governmnent Forest Deptt.
represented by the DFO and the village level institution in the shape of a committee. But
the resolution, on such an occasion does not mention about a Memorandum of Understanding,
(MOU) as present in other states -eg. Maharastra in the absence of which any extreme
possibility, people denying the possession of forest or forest deptt. denying the
distribution of benefits, can not be ruled out.
In the roles and duties formulated for the
committee, it has been clarified that
(i) VFC shall assist the deptt. in the
control of grazing.
(ii) Apprehending the culprits and ensure the
safety of the produce involved in offence.
(iii) They should immediately hand over the
apprehended persons and forest produce concerned to the forest office.
(iv) They will assist the deptt. in
investigation of the offence and prosecution in the judicial court.
In case of FPC the protective role is further
clarified as.
(v) It will prevent any attempt of illegal
cutting, encroachments, illegal grazing, fire and theft of forest produce or damage to
forest.
It is noteworthy that Indian Forest Act of
1927 empowers a forest officer for - Seizure of the forest property (Section 52),
Confiscation of forest produce and tools etc. (Section 55), Power to arrest without
warrant (Section 64) Power to compound offence (Section 68). In the absence of such an
empowerment for the 'Committees' (as an institution) the authenticity of these deeds comes
under a legal question mark and verdict becomes highly subjective as can be seen from
cases one, two and three reproduced below:
Case : 1 Burhanpur.
During January,98 in the Bhilaikheda Village
of Amulla range of Burhanpur Division a group of Rathia tribals tried to encroach the
forest land. Forest Protection Committee (FPC) constituted of Rathia tribals, sensing the
offence, became alert and resisted the act. It was a major show down of power in which FPC
members as well as the accused encroachers used bows and arrows injuring several persons
on both the sides. FIR invariably was lodged against the FPC. DFO in his statement
defended the FPC by saying that they were trying to protect the forest, which was their
'duty'. No arrest of FPC members was made though the other group was arrested (Personal
Communication, reproduced with permission)
Case: 2 Hoshangabad.
FPC in village Tangna (Itarsi
range) was actively participating in the process of forest protection and management since
long and helped the forest deptt, in apprehending and arrest of the offenders many a times
in the past. Some ten members of the same FPC along with one forester and two forest
guards were busy in patrolling forest area allocated to them on 10th June 1993.
They got information regarding an anticipated forest offence related to illicit felling
and at around 9pm were vigilantly waiting besides the river bed of Gohandoh river. At
around 9.30pm they could see five bullock carts loaded with forest produce being
transported. They got involved in the process of chasing and charging the persons carrying
the materials. Out of five, four bullock carts along with forest produce were seized and
three persons could be arrested. Rest ran away and one of them even had the audacity to
threaten the committees members and forest staff with dire consequences as death. On
12/6/93 however it was known that one of the offenders whose bullock cart was seized but
the person in it could not be arrested, expired in Seoni-Malwa hospital. After Police
inquiry no case was registered against forest staff as they were not found guilty. After
two years on the request and petition of Scheduled Caste Welfare Cell, accusing the FPC
members and forest staff for holding them responsible for the death of the accused, the
case was reopened and they were all arrested immediately. However the concerned forest
deptt. staff was requested to surrender. They surrendered and were released on bail. The
Chief Conservator of Forest (Conservation) and the Collector, Hoshangabad, had been
requested to withdraw the case which according to Hoshangabad division is a falsely framed
case. The present status of the case is not known (Personal Communication, reproduced with
permission).
Case: 3 Panna.
On 13th August 1999, at
Manki village, 18 kms from Panna, ninteen people from Devari village had gone to cut Khair
trees and two of them were caught red-handed with the wood by the patrolling group that
comprised of village Manki and Amjhiriya's Beatguards as also the members of the VFC of
Amjiriya and FPC of Manki village. The other offenders who smelt trouble absconded from
that end of the forest which had a steep descent to disrupt the chase. On 14/08/99 at
around 6am, six persons of Devari village reported to the Beatguard of Manki that while
the patrolling group at Manki was giving a wild chase to nab the offenders the previous
night, one person from the escaping group succumbed to a fall and had died. The Beatguard
immediately notified this matter to the Panna Forest Range Office. The problem worsened
and became complex when another death was reported from the same place at the same time of
the previous incident. The villagers of Devari thus filed a case against the forest
personnel and also the committee members who were involved in the incident, under CrPC
304/34 i.e. charge of causing death due to negligence. This case is in the magisterial
court for further inquiry. Meanwhile the forest personnel were released on bail
immediately owing to their status of being government servants. However the same became a
matter of intensive scrutiny for the committee members when they were made to prove their
legal sanctity of such an operation which allegedly led to a death. Their integrity, their
powers as an authority to make such arrests while guarding etc were all put to scrutiny
and it was a bad scene for a committee to prove themselves, after the Samiti records were
verified. Ultimately the Range Officer Panna had to submit in writing that the committee
members belonged to the forestry wing. (Personal Communication, reproduced with
permission)
It is apparent that divisional forest officer
of Burhanpur successfully defended the FPC members to the extent that no arrest had been
made wherein the same was not the result in Hoshangabad and Panna divisions. It can also
be seen that the verdict which went in favor of the committee members in the first case
was not so in the latter two cases which basically resulted from the personal rapport of
the concerned officers and also probably the difference in the intensity of the complaints
against the members. Death incidents in cases 2 and 3 also made these cases more
vulnerable and complicated for the committee members and staff who were involved in the
duty of protection of forest. During the prosecution the authority of the committee
members chasing, charging, arresting or seizing the forest produce from the offenders were
repeatedly questioned.
These cases also prove that the forest deptt.
Staff who are duty bound to protect the forest are not above the ambit of charges even if
at times the charges are falsely framed with malafide intentions. All these are stark
cases of non-recognition as also a lack of legal statute to the committees. This also
underlines the lack of legal support to the forest staff and the existing overlappings in
the jurisdiction and power of forest, police and also revenue department.
For both VFC and FPC members, involved in
forest offence themselves, the resolution stipulates punishment as desired by the
committee which may include termination of the membership of the offender. The question,
which does not find answer in the resolution, is whether the penal procedure of the fine,
compensation, imprisonment etc. suggested in the Indian Forest Act is applicable or
otherwise. It will be not out of context to mention here that Resolution of 1991 asked for
punishment of Committee members in case they are involved in forest offence or violate the
IFA though in 1995 Resolution, the clause of violating the same Act has not been
mentioned.
Though not mentioned within resolution, but
in vogue in the field situation, many committees presently working in the state have their
own receipt system for accounting the compensation they recover from the offender. In
Kolukhedha Samiti in West Chhindwara division, to name one, who feel that giving receipt
is their proud privilege and those who are not giving it are committing a legal mistake.
It will not be out of context also to mention that at the time of compounding a case under
Section 19 of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, valuation of the forest
produce, many a times is done on a reduced scale. The balance money has to be paid to the
committee fund.
Legal Issues
From the analysis above it is
evident that the entire gamut of works in JFM might have been grossly based on positive
intention of the government though arguably not on the sound footing of the legal norms.
Question that comes automatically in mind, whether we at all require a strict legal
structure to formalize JFM and more precisely the committees formed under JFM. A
comprehensive legal structure makes a system mechanically easy, less subjective and less
dependent on personal value addition or priorities. On the other hand it also makes a
system rigid and less accommodative for site specific situational problems. Considering
the fact JFM is a concept which continuously draws inspiration from flexibility and also
the fact that its success is largely dependent upon designing site-specific sustainable
systems, having a stringent legal structure might prove to be counter productive. However
creating thousands of village level institutions in terms of committees allotting certain
administrative function to perform cannot be justified in the absence of any empowerment
of the committees. The very fact that JFM is yet to be enacted and is only based on
government resolution or executive orders makes it standing rather unstable in a deeper
analysis and also in the court of law.
Case: 4 Sarguja.
On even a conservative scale,
Surguja circle in M.P. annually produces around 6000 tonnes of Mahul leaves (Bauhinia)
used for making dona (leaf cups). A few contractors used to get it collected by engaging
villagers as laborers from whom they used to get the leaves at the rate of Rs.3.50 to
4.50/kg. Contractors used to sell it in turn, mostly to Andhra Pradesh and also Tamil Nadu
at the rate of Rs.6.00/kg. Thus making a profit of about Rs.2.00/kg. amounting to a
massive collection of Rs.1,20,00,000 for the entire circle.
M.P. Govt. resolution dt. 4.1.95 states that
FPC will have full rights over the non-nationalized minor forest produce in the state. On
the basis of this resolution, CF Surguja, passed an order reserving the Mahul leaves for
the FPC members only ie. they will collect and sell the same to the contractors as per the
tender received. Tenders were called for sale and considerably good offers were received
in CF Surguja's office which was facilitating the process of collection and sale by FPC.
However being aggrieved by the order of CF,
the interested parties or the contractors have filed petition in Jabalpur Court. The
Hon'ble judge held that, as per the definition state has no right over non-nationalized
minor forest produce (such as Mahul). Under the above circumstances the order of CF can
not be upheld as legal. The judge also concluded, that the order though based on a Govt.
resolution the latter only reflects the intention of the Govt. and does not provide the
legal base for reserving Mahul leaves of the circle for FPC members.
Similarly, the CF, whose order of reserving
Mahul leaves to be collected and sold by FPC members was targeted towards - providing a
considerably sound financial base so the village level institutions, had to quash his
order and had to publish a communiqué accordingly. The instant case doesn't only raise a
question regarding the sanctity of the government resolution but also opens an avenue for
the debate whether government should nationalize other forest produce. If yes on what cost
and if no repetition of such incidents can not be outrightly rejected.(Personal
Communication, reproduced with permission)
A piecemeal effort to address
multi-dimensional problems is an issue in itself that results in an incoherent
administrative approach, which is affecting the JFM activities in the state.
There are several parallel bodies created for
the similar work of the same level generating confusion in the work. According to JFM
resolution VFC's will organize collection and delivery of all Nationalized Minor forest
produces, produced in the allocated area. VFC members will be entitled to only such
collection, charges, incentives, remuneration bonus etc as declared by government from
time to time. However with the constitutional amendment for Panchayat Raj, Gram Sabha has
been created at village level body in the three-tier Panchayat Raj System which has been
given the ownership right. The third dimension comes from the administrative order of M.P.
Government which categorizes "Primary Minor Forest Produce Co-operative
Committees" to collect the Minor Forest Produce. In case all these bodies, acting at
the village level, are not the same then a conflict is bound to take place. Chances of the
primary MFP co-operative committee and VFC being the same are also rare because the former
may be constituted for a cluster of village whereas VFC is mostly for one village. This
problem is anticipated to have far fetching effects in the long run particularly after
PESA 1996 {Panchayat (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act} which empowers Gram Sabha
with ownership rights. This when viewed against the perspective of usufructory rights
being enjoyed by the village level JFM committees as per JFM resolution. One thing that
surfaces is, a conflict between the ownership right and usufructory right in which the
former will always be having an upper hand, This anomaly is not fortunately being felt
severely because JFM in the state of M.P. is still at an infant stage and benefit sharing
of the JFM activities has not yet started in mass scale.
Epilogue
Several legal issues including the
ones addressed above, leaves one with an imposing question regarding the feeble legal
skeleton of JFM and its committees in the state. The large size of the state, with diverse
forest cover, largest tribal population, intense dependence of them on forest would have
been a causative factor for not having an uniform and homogenous solution to the forest
related problems particularly in terms of what benefit is to be given to the people.
Target oriented approach towards JFM in the state could have also resulted in overlooking
the finer legal gaps in the process. Philosophy of JFM presumed that if the poverty at
village level or dependence of villagers on forest produce is addressed as an issue then
the problem of sustaining people within the realm of limited resources will be resolved.
However in practice the problem that surfaced was found to be more multi-facetted than
expected. These to some extent or other are present in the other states also and that is
probably the reason why legal problems of this magnitude are not uncommon elsewhere too.
In fact in the state of M.P. the lacunae regarding the legislative support given to the
village level institutions in JFM emerging to the surface and being challenged at the
court of law is a healthy sign because ultimately such cases will form the sources of
feedback for the refinement and rectification in the policy.
It is heartening to know that in the proposed
JFM resolution of 1998 some of the dichotomies felt to be present are being addressed.
'Memorandum of Understanding' (MOU), with the committees is being a given a thought.
However enactment of JFM and formal registration of village level institution are not
being seriously thought of. Empowering the committee members atleast partially with that
of the forest personnel like seizure, confiscation, compounding and arrest etc has been
discussed at length but not accepted now till now. Though certain radical changes are
being actively considered such as addition of third committee i.e. Eco-Development
Committee (EDC). in the protected areas, 10% of the net revenue of the forest produce from
the final felling of the coupes to the FPC which was wiped off in the 1995 resolution and
50% of compensation to be paid to the committee and rest would be for government
exchequer. Rights over the MFP are to be retained in accordance with the Panchayat Act of
1996.
JFM is not yet even a decade old in M.P.
Considering the forest crops that have a very long gestation period, forest management
systems which are quite traditional and Forest Establishment which is more than hundred
years old, commenting on the success of a new system before a decade is over is too early.
The system i.e. the legislative support given to village level bodies (Institutions) is a
process i.e. not over yet. It has been taken care to see that the points raised here are
used in a constructive manner to act as a feedback to the system. The process of legal
support and administration of JFM can be reviewed on the basis of questions raised above
and anecdotes framed in between, to further strengthen it so that it can function smoothly
on a sound legal footing.
References
Jindal, M. L. (1993) Forest Laws
in M.P. Rajkamal Publications, Indore.
M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam,
1969.
M.P. Forest Resolution No 16/4/10/2/91 of
1991Bhopal Dated 10th December 1991.
M.P. Forest Resolution No. F 16-4-10-2-91
Bhopal Dated 4th January 1995.
Madhya Pradesh Forestry Project - A Profile
M.P. Forest Department 1995.
M.P. Government Order No. F 26/8/97/10-3
Dated 15th May 1998.
National Forest Policy 1894, No. 22 F. 19th
October 1894.
National Forest Policy Resolution. 1952 No.
13 -1/52 F Dated 12th May 1952.
Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
National Forest Policy No. 3-1/86-FP: Dated 7th
December 1988. Ministry of Environment and Forest.
Poffenberger, Mark and Singh, Chhatrapati
(1992) Emerging directions in Indian Forest Policy: Legal Framework for joint Management,
Wasteland News, Feb-April 1992.
State of Forest Report 1997: Forest Survey of
India, Dehradun.
Authors desire to express their deep
gratitude to the Forest Officers of Madhya Pradesh for sparing their valuable time and for
sharing information.
