Transcript Tenure and forest management in India – how should we

Tenure and forest management
in India – how should we assess
the JFM reform?
Gunnar Köhlin and colleagues…
Book workshop – Lake View Hotel
Land Reforms in Asia and Africa:
Impacts on Poverty and Natural
Resource Management
Papers drawn upon
• Woodfuels, Livelihoods, and Policy Interventions:
Changing Perspectives, Arnold, M., G. Köhlin and R. Persson
(2006), World Development, Vol. 34/3 pp 596-611.
• Welfare Implications of Community Forestry Plantations
in Developing Countries: The Orissa Social Forestry
Project, Köhlin, G. and G.S. Amacher (2005), American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, Vol. 87/4, pp 855-869.
• Fuelwood, forests and community management –
evidence from household studies, Cooke, P., G. Köhlin, and
W.F. Hyde (2008), Environment and Development Economics.
• Spatial Variability and Disincentives to Harvest:
Deforestation and Fuelwood Collection in South Asia,
Köhlin, G. and P. J. Parks (2001), Land Economics, 77 (2): 206-218.
'The Other Energy Crisis: Fuelwood'
Eckholm (1975):
"for more than a third of the world's people, the
real energy crisis is a daily scramble to find the
wood they need to cook dinner".
Application of “gap models”
(forest growth-consumption=deforestation)
Fuelwood collection => deforestation
Predictions/expectations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Massive deforestation
Scarcity of energy
Increased time collecting
Reduced production/leisure
Inferior fuels
Reduced nutrition and health
Increasing part of household budget to fuel
Implications
• Large scale investments in community
plantations (e.g. village woodlots)
• Dissemination of seedlings to private
households – farm forestry.
• Rehabilitation of government forests.
• Dissemination of improved stoves, biogas etc.
• Division of the country between donors (Sida,
ODA, ADB etc) Sida took Tamil Nadu, Orissa
and Bihar1 billion SEK over 10 years
The emergence of JFM in Orissa
– Forest Department, parastatal/paramilitary/
corrupt/inefficient in managing forests.
– Donor supported Social Forestry Wing
– 100 000 ha of community plantations
– (reduced tension against informal protection?)
– Informal protection committees established
– JFM established in West Bengal
– Great majority positive to JFM in Orissa sample
– Widespread adoption
JFM
• Early experiences from West Bengal in the
1970’s
• Supportive legislation in 1988 and 1990.
• Wide coverage in 1990’s
• In 2003: 17 Mha, managed by 85 000 forest
protection committees covering 170 000
villages in 27 states.
• Important tool to reach long-term forest cover
objectives.
Institutional issues
• Shift from social forestry to local management
of natural forests.
– More conservation than basic needs.
– Constrained fuelwood collection.
– Efficiency vs equity.
– Women and landless negatively affected
• Does devolution of power really mean less
government control?
Concerns of constrained collection
• Displacement effect?
– Collection in neighboring areas
• Replacement effect?
– Own plantation of fuelwood trees
– Market purchase
– Fuel switching
• Reduced consumption?
• Increased time allocation?
Review: impact on forests
• Ostwald et al. 2000. Indicating local protection efforts
in forest vegetation change in Orissa, India using NOAA
AVHRR data. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 12:778793
• Somanathan et al. 2009. Decentralization for costeffective conservation. PNAS 106(11).
• Baland et al. 2008. Forests to the People:
Decentralization and Forest Degradation in the Indian
Himalayas, draft.
• Ravindranath and Sudha. 2004. Joint Forest
Management in India: Spread, Performance and Impact
Review: impact on collection
- Agarwal, B. (2001), ‘Participatory exclusion,
community forestry, and gender: an analysis for
South Asia and a conceptual framework’, World
Development 29: 1623–1648.
+ Bandyopadhyay and Shyamsundar, Fuelwood
consumption and participation in community
forestry in India, WBPRWP, 2004.
+ Ravindranath and Sudha. 2004. Joint Forest
Management in India: Spread, Performance and
Impact
Review: impact on equity
• Agarwal, B. (2001), ‘Participatory exclusion, community
forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a
conceptual framework’, World Development 29: 1623–
1648.
• Adhikari, B. (2003), ‘Property rights and natural resources:
socio-economic heterogeneity and distributional
implications of common property resource management’,
Working Paper 1-03, South Asian Network for Development
and Environmental Economics, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• Kumar, S. (2002), ‘Does “participation” in common pool
resource management help the poor? A social cost–benefit
analysis of Joint Forest Management in Jharkhand, India’,
World Development 30: 763–782.
• Ravindranath and Sudha. 2004. Joint Forest Management in
India: Spread, Performance and Impact
Potential welfare impacts of SF
• Aggregate individual WTP (CVM on additional
community plantation – in Environment and
Dev’t Economics)
• Impact on deforestation (Köhlin and Parks in
Land Economics)
• Impact on fuel consumption (thesis)
• Impact on collection time (Köhlin and
Amacher in American Journal of Agricultural
Economics)
And colleagues?
• Somanathan, Indian Statistical Institute, New
Delhi
– Ashokankur Datta
• Ravindranath, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore
– Indu K Murthy
– Madelene Ostwald, Gothenburg
• Gundimeda, IIT Bombay
Potential data
• NSSO, 54th round, 1998, special section on
commons;
• Standard NSSO rounds
• EERN data from six states during 2001-2002
(1421 JFMC)
• Forest Department records
• Remote sensing
Potential research issues
• Environment: The impact on forest quality
and effectiveness in arresting forest
degradation (incl. spillover effects).
• Equity: The distribution of cost and benefits of
the program on different segments of village
population. (over time?) Links to participation
in FUGs.
• Efficiency: the returns from alternative forest
management
Potential strategy I
• Identify villages in NSSO special round
• Combine with general village level data
• Combine with Forest Department data on year
of JFM establishment, land use etc etc.
• Combine with remote sensing data on
vegetation
Potential strategy II
• Start with EERN data;
• Combine with general village level data
• Combine with Forest Department data on year
of JFM establishment, land use etc etc.
• Combine with remote sensing data on
vegetation
Other alternatives
• Review existing literature on devolution of
forest management in India;
• Do original data collection, eg follow-up
surveys based on EERN or Orissa data
• Tree planting on private lands (farm forestry)
• Social forestry (community plantations)