Sustainable natural resource management has often been a great challenge for planners, decision-makers and resource managers in the context of economy-driven development paths, and consequent erosion of resources. During the precolonial period, the forests were controlled and managed by village communities resulting in a common property regime with no private claims by individuals, and the forests were accessible to all community members according to their needs^1,2.

The Forest Act 1828, followed by the Forest Act 1928, helped to bring the best forestlands throughout the country under the State control as ‘reserve forests’, and these areas were made inaccessible to local people. A National Forest Policy was formulated in 1894 to guide technical management of forests rather than ecosystem-based approaches in the management. When the National Forest Policy came into existence in 1952, use of forests by adjoining village communities was relatively restricted at the cost of national interests. Managing the forests by giving importance only to larger national interests and overlooking the people’s needs resulted in forest degradation, which further led to ineffective protection of forests by the Forest Department. The twin processes of decline in customary resource management regimes and the acquisitive tendencies of the State, have resulted in higher rates of deforestation and unregulated, with unsustainable use of forest produce. This necessitated active participation of local communities in forest conservation, resulting in a paradigm shift in natural resources management in the late eighties. This conservation approach also focused on decentralized level of governance with participation of the local communities through the Joint Forest Management System by linking socio-economic incentives and forest development, which further harbingered effective and meaningful involvement of local communities. Thus, India has been at the forefront in the global arena of devolving natural resources management to the local community level, particularly in the forestry sector, for more than a decade.

The Indian Forest Policy of 1988 was an important breakthrough in the protection of forests because it mainly recognized the importance of local people’s involvement in forest management for achieving the improvement in community livelihood and protection of forest resources. The concept of livelihood integrates the ecological, economic and social well-being of people. The livelihood framework identifies five core, interlinked asset/capitals, viz. physical, financial, social, natural and human capital. In a follow-up document issued in 1990, the Central Government issued guidelines to all State Governments to implement ‘Joint Forest Management Systems’ by transferring everyday forest use and management rights to the community^3,4. The policy laid stress on environmental protection, conservation and ‘meeting the requirements of fuel-wood, fodder, minor forest produce and small timber of the rural and tribal populations’ and ‘creating a massive people’s movement with the involvement of women for achieving these objectives’ (GOI, 1988). The 1988 Forest Policy of India⁵, articulated the twin objectives of ecological stability and social justice. In order to translate the participatory policy objectives into practice, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt of India on 1 June 1990 issued a circular to Forest Secretaries of all States and Union Territories providing guidelines⁶ for the ‘involvement of village communities and voluntary agencies in the regeneration of degraded forests’. The policy document asserts that local communities should be motivated to identify themselves with the development and protection of the forests from which they derive benefits. Thus, the policy envisages a process of joint management of forests by the State Governments (which have nominal responsibility) and the local people, to share both the responsibility for managing the resources and the benefits that accrue from this management. This led to the adoption of Joint Forest Management (JFM) by several State Departments. Thus, JFM evolved from the conflicts that arose over local use rights, for subsistence, commercial use and preservation of environment and ecology. The major landmarks during the post colonial period are: The Zamindari Abolition Act, 1952; National Commission on Agriculture, 1976; Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the subsequent National Forest Policy, 1988. The various initiatives have led to greater access and control of forest resources by local people, in turn resulting in the improvement in forest protection and management, and reducing pressure on resources. There has been a nationwide implementation of JFM since 1990, covering more than 17.33 mha of forest area being managed through more than 84,000 village forest protection and management committee (VFPMC) groups. The JFM approach is based on mutual trust, defined roles and responsibilities to attain sustainable forest production and regeneration in keeping with the needs and aspirations of all stakeholders. The focus is on empowering locals with livelihood options through local, peoplefriendly forest strategy.

This book consists of two sections with a total of fifteen articles. The first section addresses potential, challenges, multi-sectoral approaches, policies, etc. The second section dwells on the experiences in the implementation of JFM. The book also covers the discussion on JFM’s relevance, challenges, performance, emerging practices and state experiences.

The first chapter by Bhatnagar focuses on the concept, strategies, potential and benefit-sharing in JFM, while addressing the issues involved in it. The role of institutions, communities and NGOs in organizing and implementing JFM has been discussed across different states. The article emphasizes the need for immediate attention on issues like illegal felling, grazing, forest fires and encroachments, apart from the aspects of enhancing productivity, regeneration, gender, equity, sharing of benefits, etc. to ensure the success in JFM programmes. In the second chapter, Pathan examines the scope of linkages of private– public partnerships, while discussing the concept of sustainable forest management and scope for technological innovations. Based on the JFM experiences in Gujarat, the chapter highlights the enormous scope of medicinal plants, non-timber forest products-based private sector, tourism and cottage industries for strong linkages with the public sector for mutual benefits through lateral economy to improve returns to the local communities.

In the next chapter, Upadhyay analyses three national forest policies of the post-independence era (1952, 1984 and 1998) to ascertain the concept of ownership for implementation of JFM. The analysis shows that community-oriented forest management approach aided in the sustainable management of forests. All the three forest policies, by adopting the principle of doctrine of public trust for the management of resources, retain the forest under the trusteeship of the Government. The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Dwellers Act, 2006, is contrary to the principle of doctrine of public trust and its implementation would further fragment and degrade the forest resources apart from posing serious threat to ecological security of the nation.

According to Rao and Kerr, the community- based resource governance is increasingly being recognized as an ability of the local communities in collaborative management of natural resources. Their article also explores opportunities for revitalizing JFM through compensating forest fringe communities for providing environmental services. Hobley examines the implication of benefit accruing to people and institutional responses with ecological changes. A new set of relationship between the forest department and people living in and around forests and woodlands exists due to JFM. The presumption that forest management and associated problems were technical in nature and could be resolved through technical solutions is being successfully challenged. The last article of the first section, by Sowmya et al., argues that community forestry is a better approach, while elucidating the drawbacks of JFM – the present policy fails to issue long-term stakes and rights to the communities in the improvement of forests. Those who cleared forests got titles of land giving them legal status, while those who let forests stand got cleared squatters.

According to Rao and Kerr, the community- based resource governance is increasingly being recognized as an ability of the local communities in collaborative management of natural resources. Their article also explores opportunities for revitalizing JFM through compensating forest fringe communities for providing environmental services. Hobley examines the implication of benefit accruing to people and institutional responses with ecological changes. A new set of relationship between the forest department and people living in and around forests and woodlands exists due to JFM. The presumption that forest management and associated problems were technical in nature and could be resolved through technical solutions is being successfully challenged. The last article of the first section, by Sowmya et al., argues that community forestry is a better approach, while elucidating the drawbacks of JFM – the present policy fails to issue long-term stakes and rights to the communities in the improvement of forests. Those who cleared forests got titles of land giving them legal status, while those who let forests stand got cleared squatters.

Gupta discusses emerging conflicts over forest protection among the user groups and between villages along with the setting up of a conflict-resolution mechanism. The crux of the conflict is the approach of the government to guard natural forest resources, inappropriate use to check exploitation while village communities indulge in activities which are detrimental to the sustenance of forests. Jain analyses the experience of implementation of participatory reforestation programmes, with particular reference to the progress of community institutions towards sustainable management of regenerating forest resources. Responsibility for protection and use of regulation has been taken over by communities in Rajasthan since 1991, while the government provides technical guidance and investment support.

Dasgupta and Roy analyse the problems and difficulties faced by the women and also highlight the gender upsurge in a post-JFM scenario through a series of technological experiments, training and sensitization. Lack of information, attitude of Forest Department staff, irrelevance of women’s views, etc., were cited as factors affecting the active participation of local women. The authors also threw light on the Participatory Forest Management (PFM) endeavour at IIT, Kharagpur. The entrepreneurial quality of women due to PFM has a direct bearing on their changing role in JFM on account of economic and social security, which is being reflected in household and forest-related matters. Griffiths lists the efforts and interventions of World Bank projects on JFM and community forest management project in Andhra Pradesh and also discusses the impact of these interventions on the adivasis, in the penultimate chapter. The author emphasizes the need for re-orientation of the forest policy and administrative system for decentralization of governance.

In a nutshell, this book addresses the processes and circumstances that led to the evolution of JFM in India, as well as the forest polices that facilitated this change. It reviews and analyses the emerging policy issues confronting JFM. Implementation and expansion of JFM throughout the country has raised several issues, such as equity in participation and benefit sharing, institutional impediments that are responsible for the high transaction costs and availability of institutional finance for JFM. The book also provides insights to JFM, required for better implementation and success of the programme. We are slightly disappointed to see a distorted map of India (p. 6). The book would be useful for scholars, researchers, policy-makers, decisionmakers, non-governmental agencies, and the general readers interested in the conservation and regeneration of India’s forest wealth.

1. Agrawal, A. and Ostrom, E., Politics Soc., 2002, 29, 85–514.
2. Ghate, R., South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics, Nepal, Working Paper 3-03, 2003.
3. Kumar, S., World Dev., 2002, 30, 763–782.
4. Saxena, N.C., Forest policy in India, policy and joint forest management series 1. World Wide Fund for Nature, India, 1999.
5. Ministry of Environment and Forests of India (MoEF), Government of India, National Forest Policy (1988). Resolution No. 3-1/86-FP, Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife, New Delhi, 1988.
6. MoEF, Joint Forest Management Resolution, of Environment, Forests and Wildlife, 1990.