community based forest and wildlife conservation in...

471

state

chap

ter - o

rissa

Community based forest and wildlife conservation in Orissa

1. Background1.1 Location and biogeography

Orissa is located between 17°50' and 22°30' N latitudes and 81°24' and 87°28' E longitudes, on the east coast of India. It covers an area 1,55,707 sq km. The average minimum temperature is 2.6°C and the maximum temperature is 49.6°C. The state has a 482 km-long coastline with the Bay of Bengal on its east. It receives an average rainfall of 127.98 cm.

The state is drained by major rivers like Mahanadi, Brahmani, Indravati and Kolab with a river basin catchment of 20,000 sq km and above. The area is characterised by discontinuous hill ranges extending from the Similipal hill ranges in the north and the Eastern Ghats in the south, and interspersed with rivers flowing in the eastward direction in the central tableland and coastal plains region.

According to the 2003 Forest Survey of India records, the total recorded forest area is 5.81 million hectares, which constitutes 37.34 per cent of the geographic area of the state1.

The state can be divided into four distinct physiographic regions: Northern Plateau, Eastern Hills (Ghats), Central Tableland and Coastal Plains. The northern plateau is undulating with masses of hills with steep slopes to east and north. The Eastern Ghats stretch in NE to SW direction south of the Mahanadi River. The central tableland is intersected by the river valleys of the Baitarani, Bramhani and Mahanadi rivers. The coastal plains are very narrow along the Bay of Bengal, which stretch for about 482 km out of the country’s coastline of 7,516 km. The waters of Bay of Bengal along the coastline create a network of estuaries and lagoons.

As in other states in peninsular India, in Orissa too forests are now mostly relegated to the hills, with the plains and flat grounds having been put under plough for agriculture and other non-forestry practices. The forests broadly fall under five out of the 16 groups differentiated by Champion & Seth: i) tropical semi-evergreen, ii) tropical moist deciduous, iii) tropical dry deciduous, vi) subtropical broad-leaved hill, and v) littoral and swamp.

1.2 BiodiversityThe number of plant species occurring in Orissa has been estimated at 2754. In all 86 mammals,

473 birds, 110 reptiles and 1119 amphibians have been reported. Out of these 23 species of mammals, 16 species of birds and 17 species of reptiles are considered threatened. The important mammals in the state are spotted deer, nilgai, blackbuck, four-horned antelope, sloth bear, elephant, tiger, leopard, gaur, sambar, barking deer, wild buffalo, among others. The notable aquatic fauna in the state are saltwater crocodile, olive ridley turtle, fresh- and brackishwater terrapins, a diversity of waterfowl, king crab, and marine mammals like dolphins. The state has an important population of the endangered Irrawaddy dolphin.

1.3 Socio-economic profileThe population of Orissa is 36,804,660 (2001 Census), accounting for 3.57 per cent of the

population of the country.2 Scheduled castes (SCs) and scheduled tribes (STs) constitute 16.5 per cent and 22 per cent respectively of the total population of the state. Scheduled areas cover nearly 45 per cent of the total geographical area. Orissa’s tribal population comprises 62 different ethnic communities, classified into six groups according to their traditional practices: hunting, collecting and gathering; pastoralism and cattle-herding; artisanal occupations like basketry and blacksmithry; shifting cultivation, terrace farming; and settled cultivation. Agriculture continues to be the main occupation along with others like fishing, livestock rearing, and small-scale and cottage industries.

The total livestock population in the state was 250.20 lakh (25.02 million) as per the livestock census of 1995. The state is endowed with vast mineral deposits like coal, iron ore, manganese ore, bauxite, chromite, etc. Other important mineral resources of the state are limestone, china

472 Community Conserved Areas in India - a directory

clay, quartz, precious and semi-precious stones, copper, vanadium, etc.

Orissa occupies the tenth position in the country both in terms of territory and population. The state is divided into three revenue divisions and 30 districts. Parts of Orissa state (the predominantly tribal areas) are under Schedule V of the Constitution. Seven districts, six tahsils and three blocks are Schedule V Areas, covering 69,613.8 sq km, with a population of 88,70,884. The Tribal Sub-Plan approach was adopted in the Fifth Plan of the state and the Special Component Plan for SCs was adopted in the Sixth Plan.

1.4 ConservationDemographic changes, urbanization, vehicular traffic, and

industrial and mining activities are reported to be causing depletion of natural resources in the state. 24,124.20 hectares of forestland have been diverted to non-forest use as on 31 January 2000, for a variety of reasons.

The state has two national parks (NP) (parts of Bhitarkanika and the core of Similipal) and 18 wildlife sanctuaries (WLS), covering a total area of 7,959.85 sq km. Similipal, in Mayurbhanj district, has been declared a biosphere reserve. Similipal was also till very recently the lone tiger reserve in the state, while parts of Mayurbhanj, Mahanadi and Sambalpur have been declared elephant reserves.3 Other relevant projects and programmes in Orissa are wetlands, mangroves and coral reefs conservation (WMCC), joint forest management (JFM), eco-development in and around national parks and sanctuaries, project turtle, and biodiversity conservation.

Chilika is Asia’s biggest brackishwater lake. A narrow isthmus separates Chilika from the waters of the Bay of Bengal. Spread over an area of about 1100 sq km, the lagoon is an internationally important wetland and Ramsar site4. It is also a hotspot of biodiversity including phytoplankton (43 species), algae (22 species), vascular plants (150 species), protozoa (61 species), nematode (37 species), platyhelminthes (29 species), polychactes (31 species), brachyura (28 species), decapoda (30 species),

mollusca (136 species), fish (225 species), amphibians and reptiles (37 species), birds (156 species) and mammals (18 species). The lagoon is also identified as a priority site for conservation and management by the National Wetlands, Mangroves and Coral Reef Committee (NWMCC) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India. The Chilika Development Authority (CDA) received the Ramsar Wetland Conservation Award in 2002 for the efforts to revive the lake, which had begun to die in the 1980s as a result of several factors.5

The other Ramsar site in the state is Bhitarkanika, spread over 65,000 ha. It harbours 63 species of mangroves and is classed as a reptilian paradise. It is home to the world’s largest saltwater crocodile (upto 6.8 metres length) whose population stands at more than 1200. It also holds sizeable populations of smooth-coated otters and fishing cats. More than 190 species of birds have been recorded. The area is internationally famous for harbouring the largest rookery of olive ridley turtles, on the seashore flanking the Gahirmatha marine sanctuary.

Four additional Ramsar sites are proposed in the state.6 There are also seven Important Bird Areas (IBAs) recognized by the Indian Bird Conservation Network (IBCN).7

2. Community-based conservation8

Orissa has a long tradition of community conservation, as also a number of more recent community initiatives. These range from forest conservation to the protection of specific wildlife populations.

2.1 Community forestry9 Traditional practices, some of which continue, include the protection of sacred sites (see Box 1),

and a number of spiritual and cultural beliefs that help in conserving nature across the landscape (see Box 2).

Statue of a fisherwoman, Humma temple, Sambalpur district Photo: Smita Ranjane

Orissa 473 sta

te ch

ap

ter - o

rissa

Box 1

Sacred groves10

The institution of sacred groves in the state is recognized by various names like jahera, thakurnama, etc. Ecologists believe that these groves are repository of gene pools and act as reservoir of biological diversity because these are protected since ancient times, and act as “climax forest”, which harbour variety of flora. Such islands of climax vegetation amidst a degraded landscape can be seen in many parts of Koraput and Kalahandi districts. The maximum number, 322 sacred groves, were recorded from Semiliguda block of Koraput district.

The concept of sarna dharma originates from the common traditional religious institution of “sacred grove” found in the tribal villages, which is regarded as the seat of one or more than one important village level deities including the village tutelary designated differently among various Mundari-speaking and Dravidian tribes of Chhotanagpur and surrounding regions, comprising a large contiguous tribal belt covering parts of the states of West Bengal, Jharkhand, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. Literally, the term sarna is a Mundari word meaning sacred grove and the term dharma is an Indo-Aryan linguistic term, ordinarily meaning religion. A tree in a sarna may not be damaged or felled without the leave of the pahan (village priest) who however, would first offer a sacrifice in the sarna where the trees stand.

Noted ethnographer S.C Roy observed that every Oraon (a tribe) village has the supernatural institution of sarna or grove of sal trees dedicated to their mighty tutelary deity Chhala Pacchho (or the old lady of the grove) who is also known by other names such as sarna burhia and jhakra burhia.

The munda, an important Kolarian-speaking major tribe of Orissa, who are also the immediate neighbours of oraons, share the common institution of sarna with the latter, though there are differences in their nature of religious beliefs, rituals as well as orientations. The Munda pantheon is composed of their supreme deity, Sing Bonga (The Sun God) at the apex, followed by the nature gods, ancestral spirits, village deities, etc. These deities or gods save the village from diseases and calamities and bring prosperity.

The concept and practice of sarna extends to another major and important Mundari-speaking tribe the santal, living in the same habitat and eco-cultural region as those of the oraon and munda. This holy institution in a santal village is called jaherthan, or jahera in short (holy grove). The santals believe that deities residing in the holy grove do welfare for the santal villages.

Despite carrying a great tradition behind them sacred groves today are facing various threats. Change in the values, change in the living styles and certain economic forces have greatly contributed to the decline in the status of the sacred groves, particularly in tribal areas of Orissa. Large-scale land conversion is seen in many sacred groves. Even though the sacred groves have established their virtue as a rich repository of ecological, cultural and sociological information they are not being given enough attention by the government agencies.11

Orissa stands apart from other states for providing numerous examples of community-based and self-initiated institutional arrangements for protection and management of forest resources. Popularly known as community forest management (CFM), such initiatives are found in almost all the districts of the state, with higher concentration in Nayagarh, Bolangir, Mayurbhanj, Koraput, Dhenkanal, Nabarangpur and Phulbani districts. Thus, a large forest area in Orissa is now de facto a common property managed by communities, though these are de jure state property.12 Community forestry initiatives are manifestations of rural communities’ response to forest denudation. Usually, the leading role is played by the poorer and marginalised sections of society, whose lives and livelihoods are embedded in forests. Besides livelihood concerns, ecological effects of forest degradation—loss of soil fertility at the foothills, erratic rainfall and drying-up of streams—have also played a significant role in inducing forest protection by local communities. CFM initiatives have brought recognition and pride to many villages and have been a strong driving force motivating the non-protecting villages in the neighbourhood to undertake protection and regeneration of degraded forest patches. CFM has thus resulted from a desire to save forest patches for posterity and also quite strikingly from an urge to assert the villagers’ control over the forest patch that is otherwise open to all.13

The existence of about 10,000 forest protecting communities protecting around 10-12 per cent of the total forest area in the state is strong evidence of extensive spread of CFM which has evolved over a period of time. The factors that played a key role in facilitating CFM in the state are:14

• Presence of strong informal village organizations


• Ambiguous status of protected forests

• Regeneration of forests being a ‘gain-gain’ situation (i.e., all stand to gain) for all the sections of the community.

Box 2

Nature and tribal spiritual beliefs15

“‘…Most tribes believe that the sun god is the creator and master of the universe and call it by many names. The Juangs and Bhuyans call it Dharam Devta, the Kohla and Santals Sing Bonga. Other tribes worship other deities from nature as the creators of the universe. The worships of the earth is common. Called the Basumata by Santals, Bhuyans and Juangs, Dharani by Kandhs, and Basuki Thakurani by Kolhas, the worship of the earth goddess acquires special significance, for a good harvest starts every cultivation.

‘Food for the tribals consists of roots, leaves, flowers and fruits that they get from the forests. They therefore, not only worship the forests, but also revel in religious ceremonies and festivals connected with it. Bhinjals and Parajas call their forest god Danger Devta, Bandas call it Uga and Remngbori, Kolhas call it Bura Bonga, Khandhs call it Laipenu and so on. Considering nature as their creator, sustainer and provider, the tribals have imbibed a deep love for nature that is primeval and instinctive….

‘….Sal, neem and asan trees are considered sacred, Zahira by both Santals and Kolhas, because their village deities dwell in it. Rivers, streams and hills are also the objects of tribal worship. Bandas call their stream deities Kapur Chuan and Doliang, and Kandhs Gungipenu. The deity is variously called Buru Borga by Santals, Vinding by the Bandas, and Bhinapenu by the Kandhs.

Karma is a beautiful example of tree worship among the tribal people in central and eastern India. Karma festival, though it is more a tribal festival, is well within the fold of the Sambalpur folk tradition. The numerous tribes of the states, namely, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal celebrate the festival. The adorable deity of Karma festival is Karamsani who is represented by a branch called Karma Dal. This type of personification of a branch as devi is not surprising as trees have held a special place in the spiritual tradition of ancient India. Karam Sani has been regarded as the goddess of vegetation, fertility and destiny. It may be noted here that Karam Sani can be identified with a twig branch of different trees in the same or different places. For example, in Sambalpur, a branch of the sal tree represents the deity. The Nagesia from Chhattisgarh and the Oraons, Mundas and Santals of various places worship Adina cordifolia (kurum).

‘Forests are not only one of the major sources of their subsistence, but are also significantly related to their religion and mythology. The Kandhs of Ganjam claim descent from a woman, whose body parts are supposed to be made of bel fruit, sandalwood and kawal mushrooms. Tribals of Kalahandi believe that their ancestors survived by drinking the juice of “Salap” tree after a catastrophe of “Ban Devta” the forest as a god to be appeased ensures the renewal of the species while working as a self-imposed law against the destruction of forest….

‘…But there are also some aspects of tribal culture which adversely impact biodiversity – tribal annual hunt (Sandrakarka) and podu cultivation. In the past when there was immense forest coverage and unlimited wild forest animals, these did little harm. But in the present context these aspects of tribal culture are to be restrained, maybe through persuasion and awareness-raising.

‘The symbiotic relation between the tribals and natural environment is disappearing fast due to the loss of beliefs, change in crop as well as food patterns. Tribals were well acquainted with medicinal plants in forests and were depending on these herbal medicines for treatment of all kind of ailments. But with rapid change in their behaviour and attitude they moved from indigenous herbal practices to modern medicines; hence those indigenous practices as well as the list of priceless ethnomedicinal plants have been lost. In addition to that, weakening of religious beliefs and the changing attitude of the communities are adversely affecting the traditional ways and means of effective conservation practices. That leads to extinction of more rare and endangered flora and fauna.”

A historical trail (see also Box 3): The history of forest protection by local communities dates back to the pre-independence period in Orissa. In fact, in some of the tribal-dominated areas, such as Nabarangpur and Keonjhar, forest protection initiatives have been reported in the pre-1900 and

Orissa 475 sta

te ch

ap

ter - o

rissa

1900-1930 periods respectively.16 Further, the oldest recorded CFM case—Lapanga in Sambalpur district—exhibiting strong traditions of forest protection has been in existence since 1936. By the 60s, as a spontaneous response to forest degradation, many villages in Western Orissa took to forest protection on their own. The 1970s and 80s experienced extensive spread of community forestry efforts in different parts in the state. The forested regions, which witnessed degradation and the resulting implications earlier, were the first to take to CFM. Over the period, the communities in the neighbourhood of forest protection villages, moved by the gains of protection, joined in the movement. Another factor which triggered the movement has been increasing hardships faced by the local communities in meeting their subsistence needs (such as firewood and small timber) because of declining forest resource as well as due to curtailment of access to community protected forest areas.

Box 3

Timeline of CFM in Orissa17

1900-40 Initiation of forest protection by communities in Sambalpur and Nowrangpur

1941-50 Forest Protection initiatives in Koraput, Keonjhar and Mayurbhanj regions

1951-60 Forest Protection initiatives in Nayagarh, Cuttack, Bolangir

1970-80 Initiation of forest protection initiatives in massive scale in Dhenkanal, Keonjhar, Mayurbhanj, Phulbani, Deogarh and Sundergarh regions

Diverse institutions and practices: CFM embraces creativity, flexibility and diversity in institutional arrangements and protection and management practices. The local institutions engaged in forest protection include village councils, youth groups, women groups, etc. Protection system(s) comprise one or a combination of arrangements, such as merely keeping an eye on the forests, thengapalli (i.e., voluntary patrolling on rotation basis) or paid watchmen. The customary practices of thengapalli and household contribution facilitated involvement of all the people in protection efforts. This popular patrolling practice of thengapalli has received accolades at the international level. thengapalli has been introduced as an innovative method for forest protection and social mobilisation in the cross-cultural curriculum for the students of the 6th standard under the new education policy in Britian in the year 1988.18

Similarly, punitive measures also vary, such as social pressure or monetary punishment, and are decided taking into account the nature of the offence. Elaborate rules and regulations based on local experiences and common prudence are evolved, addressing a wide range of issues such as forestry conflicts, benefit sharing, protection systems, management, equity, and social capital. These characteristics are evidence of the participatory and democratic spirit of CFM. The CFM movement is, thus, driven by the basic philosophy outlined below:19

• Draw a balance between conservation and livelihoods

• Forest needs to be sustainably managed for succeeding generations

• No timber harvesting

• Stress on minor forest products for livelihoods

Over time, CFM has evolved as a socio-cultural movement and is not restricted to forest protection alone. In certain areas communities engaged in forest protection named themselves as ‘forest caste’ to strengthen the relationship existing with the forest. CFM in many cases also helped the local communities in establishing new relationships through marriage. Some communities prohibited marriage of their children in non-protecting villages. An interesting practice is followed in some CFM villages, particularly in Nayagarh district, where every newly wedded couple during marriage goes for planting trees to mark the beginning of their conjugal life.20

Perspective of forest management – Moving towards self-sustenance: CFM groups have different views and thoughts about policy contours and principles of forestry policy for the state. In this context, at a state-wide consultation process during the period 1997-99 facilitated by the NGO Vasundhara and the NGO network Sanhati, CFM groups designed an alternate policy framework for community forest management.

This people’s charter on forestry contained the following principles:

1. Give primacy to local needs over national needs; and seek to take steps in the direction of establishing forests as a local resource.


2. Environmental stability and services and local needs fulfilment should be the primary objectives of forest management; revenue objectives for the State should take a back seat.

3. Local communities should be the basic unit for management of forests. Most forest areas should be brought under community-based management, including Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks.

4. Conceptually, local communities that take up protection and management responsibility should be viewed as trustees for managing the forests on behalf of the larger human community. Local communities should however have clear management rights over the forests they are entrusted with managing.

5. The local rural population depends critically on forests for subsistence and livelihood needs. This dependence becomes especially critical in case of NTFP. NTFP policies should be guided by welfare considerations and should seek to maximize gains to primary gatherers instead of being guided by revenue considerations.

6. While pursuing the goals of social justice and equity, mechanisms to safeguard the interests of weaker sections, including women, in forest management have to develop. Community institutions that take up management of forests should have representation of all sections and should have mechanisms to ensure that interests of all sections are reflected in forest management after a fair negotiation process.

Combining the twin objectives of resource sustainability and livelihood security: In most of the areas forests had reached a denuded condition and were left with only root-stock when protection was initiated. The collective actions of local communities have resulted in regeneration of good forest stock leading to revival of the lost biodiversity. According to a study undertaken by Ashoka Trust for Research on Ecology and Environment (a national-level NGO) on impacts of CFM in Kandhamal district which comes under Schedule V area (consisting of high tribal population), forest cover shows an increase from 53.7 per cent to 67.2 per cent in the study area between 1991 and 2001. The study findings attribute the increase in forest cover to protection of forests by local communities. A similar observation has also been made in the State of Forest Report (1999) published by the Forest Survey of India showing a remarkable increase in forest areas in Mayurbhanj and Balangir districts to the tune of 90 sq km and 10 sq km respectively between 1997 and 1999 because of existence of protection efforts by the villagers. Besides improvement in forest conditions, it has led to improvement of water regimes, enrichment of soil nutrients, reduced soil erosion, and ensured regularity in rainfall, thus contributing to strengthening of forest-agriculture ecological linkages.

Strengthening collective power through networking and alliance building: Community forestry institutions operate at different scales in terms of their spatial dimensions. These operations can be found in the form of individual efforts or collective efforts by federating together at different levels. Federation building emerges out of the need of building up collective strength, enhancing cross-learning, improving resilience to deal with externalities, resolving intra- and inter-community conflicts and, more importantly, to act as a pressure group for establishing community rights over forests.21 In Orissa, such federations have evolved over the years and a state-level federation named Orissa Jungle Manch has been formed since 1999 (see Box 4).

Box 4

Community forests in Ranpur block22

In the Ranpur block of Nayagarh district itself there are 180 villages protecting several sq km of contiguous patches of forests. Gadabanikilo, situated in Khairpalli Gram Panchayat, started protection in 1940. This village has today developed a scientific management system, including zoning to serve different purposes. Years of protection has resulted in well-stocked forests and excellent plant diversity. In Gundrubari and Degajheri villages, women have formed little patrolling groups to regularly check any illegal activities in their forests. Interestingly, many forest protecting villages in Ranpur are now reporting the presence of elephants in their forests. There is a possibility that with disruption of elephant corridors in other parts of Orissa, elephants are now turning towards the regenerating or old-growth community forestry sites.

Today all 180 villages, some with multi-caste and -class composition and some homogenous, have come together to form a block-level federation. The federation provides technical support, a forum for discussions, facilitation of dialogue with politicians and government agencies, and conflict resolution.

Orissa 477 sta

te ch

ap

ter - o

rissa

Impacts of joint forest management: The Orissa state government introduced joint forest management in 1993, as part of its commitment to move towards participatory forestry. Theoretically, the JFM resolution looked upon the local communities as equal partners with the FD in protection and management of forests and seemed to be more progressive in comparison to earlier policies.

The period following 1993 witnessed the constitution of van samrakshan samitis (VSS) as one of the main activities of the FD. A close look into the JFM trend in the state reveals a sudden increase in number of VSSs in the year 1999. As a result of mounting pressure from the ground for legal recognition to the protection efforts, the then Chief Minister made a commitment to constitute VSSs in all the forest-protecting villages. Following this, the VSS formation process was carried out hastily by the FD in different parts of the state. The FD claims to have constituted 9,606 VSSs, undertaking protection of 8,518 sq km of forest areas in the state till September 2005.23

These forest management systems were meant to include and empower the community but the nature of empowerment remained very limited.24 Joint forest management has been in the state for more than a decade but it has simply refused to take off. JFM is facing strong opposition from community forest management groups in the state. This is primarily because of the fact that in reality JFM has failed to yield ‘devolution’ in forest governance. Furthermore, JFM has reportedly been used as a strategy to co-opt CFM and to enable the FD establish and expand its control over the forest areas which are under the de facto control of local communities. In this context, a basic question arises: where does JFM stand in terms of devolution?

JFM has not been successful in achieving the stated objectives of decentralisation and democratisation of forest governance. JFM was supposedly to be a ‘process’, but it has been implemented in a programmatic mode, placing the FD as a donor and the people as beneficiaries. This hardly makes for a relationship of equality and trust between the two partners.25 This has been one of the major factors leading to emerging tensions between JFM and CFM. As a result, in many instances CFM communities have simply rejected JFM.Some of the major disjuncts between CFM and JFM are described as under:

• Uniform organizational structure vs. diverse local institutional arrangements: The recently enacted JFM resolution of 2000 by GOI talks about facilitating a uniform structure for JFM committees: formation as a society in all the states and registration of all JFM committees under the Society Registration Act, 1860. This is in contrast to diverse institutions and organizational arrangements under CFM, which undergo changes in response to internal dynamics, local situations and context. Moreover, local communities also find the limit of forest area to be allocated to a joint forest management committee unacceptable.

• Unequal power relationship: JFM, though it professes to treat local communities as equal partners, structures an unequal power relationship, putting the authority of decision-making in the hands of the FD. Forest officials have done very little to address equity and gender issues. On the contrary, in certain cases forest officials’ support to the elite sections has resulted in appropriation of benefits by the latter. JFM has also failed to promote equitable and democratic participation of all sections. Despite the provision for 33 per cent representation of women in the Executive Committee, this hardly takes place. These processes have resulted in marginalisation of forest-dependent people, particularly women.

• Benefit sharing – Local needs vs. timber orientation: The most contentious issue in JFM has been that of benefit sharing. This system reflects the ‘timber/revenue-oriented’ attitude of the FD, whereas local communities have initiated forest protection with the primary objective of ensuring a sustained flow of forest products (especially NTFPs) and commercialisation of forest resources has never been in their protection agenda.

Recent state government moves: In 1996, the Orissa Ministry of Forest and Environment came out with another resolution seeking to declare community-protected forests as ‘Village Forest’. The resolution provided for considering the village as the unit for management of forest resources. This has been considered a progressive resolution as it talked about the tenurial rights of the forest-protecting communities. The implementation of the resolution however, witnessed lack of political will and interest on the part of forest officials, and it remained as a dead letter in

Villagers meet with NGOs at Dengajhari village, Nayagarh Photo: Ashish Kothari


the official records.

In contrast, the Orissa Forest (Amendment) Bill 2000 came as a result of advocacy by the FD for stringent laws and enhanced penal powers by bringing in necessary amendments in the Orissa Forest Act 1972. However, the introduction of this bill was carried out without undertaking any public debate or consultation with forest-protecting communities. This evoked strong criticism from CFM groups and they argued that legal recognition to their protection efforts and tenurial rights was necessary for ensuring sustainability of ongoing protection efforts.

Another response to the forest crisis was the central government’s National Afforestation Programme (NAP). Despite good intentions of promoting decentralization and enhancing people’s participation in forest governance, the NAP has failed to achieve desired results. This has been primarily due to the approach and the process of implementation, which continues to be centralized in nature. The new institutional structures created under the NAP—the forest development agency (FDA) at a divisional level and van suraksha samitis at the village level—were implemented in a top-down manner.

The implementation of the FDA programme has adversely affected the locally evolved processes established for ensuring transparency in CFM. The local CFM groups were accountable to the public for giving details of local contribution collected for development of forests. However, following the conversion of CFM to VSS under FDA, these processes were disrupted. Under the changed situation, community members were generally not kept informed about financial matters.

The FDA has emerged as a classic example of co-opting community forest management groups and bringing them under JFM. The communities were promised tenurial rights over protected forest patches and huge funds for developmental activities in return for constituting VSSs. This led to a rush among the local communities to form VSSs, even at the cost of the disintegration of the self-initiated institutional structure. The selective approach of the programme and funding to limited groups promoted friction within the local communities and resulted in breakdown of collective protection efforts going on for a long period.

The self-initiated community forest protection arrangements thrive upon equal participation, equity, transparency, accountability, etc. The community-based forest protection arrangements ensured participation of all sections through adopting thengapalli (voluntary patrolling) and token household financial contribution for protection and management of forests. This upheld the collective spirit of the community. These processes however, suffered a heavy setback following the implementation of FDA programme. The flow of FDA funds resulted in abandonment of the thengapalli system and there was an increased preference by VSS members to replace the voluntary patrolling system with a watcher appointed on FDA money. Further, the FDA programme showed a marked departure from the processes of democratic participation by nurturing the leadership of powerful vested interest groups. The implementation of FDA also affected the established processes of transparency maintained in CFM practices. These processes, along with the conflicts perpetuated by inequity and lack of transparency, severely undermined the ownership of communities over the forest protection initiatives. This is best illustrated by the feelings of an old man from a Gadabanikilo village in Nayagarh district that represents a case of old CFM converted to VSS under FDA. ‘We had been protecting forest for years but there were never any differences among the people. Our village was a model village. People of all religions, Hindu, Muslim, collectively observed the local religious functions. However, formation of VSS along with flow of money skilfully divided the village into factions.’26

Furthermore, policy-level processes—such as the Orissa Forestry Sector Vision process with Winrock International India, and the Orissa Forestry Sector Development Project seeking a loan from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), have taken place without any consultation with CFM groups. For these reasons CFM groups under the banner of Orissa Jungle Manch protested against the JBIC loan. Despite this, the proposal got approved in the state legislature in May 2006.

2.2 Coastal and marine conservation Orissa’s coastline of 480 sq km supports amongst the world’s largest turtle nesting and waterfowl

wintering grounds, along with considerable other wildlife. Community efforts are visible at various points here too.

Mangalajodi is one of the many villages located along the banks of the Chilika Lagoon. Thousands of migratory waterfowl visit or breed in the wetlands around this village. Till the year 1996-97, killing the birds and selling in nearby areas was one of the major sources of income for the villagers.

Orissa 479 sta

te ch

ap

ter - o

rissa

A proficient poacher would earn up to Rs 40,000 in a month! Members of an NGO called Wild Orissa got involved with the village since the year 1996 and began to talk to the villagers about protection of birds. Initially they faced serious difficulties but eventually, with the help of enthusiastic and knowledgeable individuals in the village, the Sri Mahavir Pakshi Suraksha Samiti (Bird Protection Committee) was constituted in 2000. Its efforts have almost completely eliminated bird poaching here, and some of the ex-hunters have become die-hard conservationists. In 2007, the state government awarded the Pakshi Bandhu Award to the committee.

Olive Ridley turtles nest in tens of thousands on the Rushikulya, Gahirmatha and Bitarkanika beaches. While the latter two are under official protection, Rushikulya is protected by the local community. This site was unknown to the scientific community before 1994. At that time, fisherfolk from Purunabandha, Palibandha, Gokhurkuda and Nuagaon, who are entirely dependent on the estuary and the offshore waters for their livelihood, used to collect and eat or sell the turtle eggs. It was through the involvement of researchers from the Wildlife Institute of India during the early 90s that some youth from Purunabandha became aware of the threatened status of the turtles and the need for their protection. In 1998-99 the youth formed a group of their own (Rushikulya Sea Turtle Conservation Committee) and started creating awareness about turtle conservation in the area. The Committee has built an interpretation centre with support from the Vasant Sheth Memorial Foundation, and they are now trying to earn a livelihood through regulated tourism in the nesting/hatching season. Similar initiatives have now been taken up by the youth in Gokharkuda, Pallibandha and Nuagaon villages. Gokharkuda village has constituted the Matsyajivi Kaincha Suraksha Sanghathan (Fisherfolk Turtle Protection Committee). These villagers not only protect the turtles on land but have special fishing norms during the mating and nesting times to avoid turtle deaths in sea. These norms, about the kind of nets and fishing boats used and the fishing zones, have been developed with the help of outside experts.

2.3 Conservation of other species Most of Orissa’s public probably first heard the

name of Buguda village when it was awarded the first Biju Patnaik award for wildlife conservation. Located in Ganjam district, this village has been traditionally protecting a large population of blackbuck. Documentary evidence traces this protection at least as far back as 1918. However, in the last fifty years the protection measures have been further strengthened as the population of this animal was dwindling because of poaching and other reasons. As a result, villagers report that the number has risen from about 100 to over 500. Reportedly about 60 per cent of the village has been left fallow due to lack of water, and crop damage by blackbuck. Yet anyone found hunting the animals is apprehended by the villagers. The protecting villagers believe that these antelopes are devotees of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna and that it is a sin to kill them.

2.4 Government-initiated community-based initiatives Orissa has also witnessed the substantial spread of government-initiated participatory processes

such as joint forest management. As of early 2000, there were 6,686 van samrakshan samitis, involving 6,346sq km forest land. Similarly, 4,928 village forest protection committees (VFPC) had been formed, who now protect 10,077.05 sq km of degraded forests, mostly secondary natural forests of coppice origin. The wave started in 1988 and picked up momentum in 1993 because of government facilitation (see Table 1). The growth of secondary forests through protection from felling, fire and grazing resulted not only in generation of adequate biomass (fuel and fodder) for the villagers, but also contributed to increasing the diversity of plants and animals. Village doctors throughout the state’s tribal belt have testified that medicinal plants which were thought to have been wiped out from their areas have reappeared after such protection.

However, civil society organizations have pointed to two serious problems with JFM and other participatory forestry initiatives by the government. First, these initiatives retain substantial control and power in the hands of the FD. Second, they have often led to the undermining of existing self-initiated community forestry initiatives (see next section).

Blackbuck conservation in Buguda village, Ganjam District Photo: Ashish Kothari


2.5 Threats faced by CCAsDespite occasional awards, a majority of community conservation efforts in the state remain

unrecognised by the state government. They find no place in laws, policies, administrative programmes or budget allocations. Although many of the initiatives exist on government lands, villages often find it difficult to solicit support from the government while discharging their duties. For example, women in Dengajjheri village have expressed disappointment that when culprits are apprehended, they keep waiting for forest officials to turn up to carry out the necessary procedures. Such lack of support dampens the spirit of the communities.

On the contrary, at times governmental intervention has disrupted community initiatives.27 There is no learning from the community forestry initiatives in the state-run JFM scheme, which continues to be top-down. JFM functions with pre-prescribed, strait-jacketed and rigid institutional set-up and decision-making processes. This conflicts with the self-initiated adaptive management system. Institutions formed under JFM create new centres of political powers in the village which often have vested interest and clash with the traditional forest protection mechanisms in these villages. A number of NGOs in the state have been demanding that community forestry initiatives should be recognised as a system of forest governance, and financial and other support should be extended to them as and when required rather than them having to convert to JFM. There has been widespread protest against the government taking loans from donors like the JBIC (Japan Bank for International Cooperation) within the current institutional framework. Under such loans, the government is under greater pressure to show successful JFM sites, leading to more and more community forestry sites getting converted to JFM.

Often community conservation sites are threatened by ‘development’ projects imposed by the government. For example, the proposed Utkal Coal Project at Raijharan for open cast coal mining is in an area densely covered with sal forests, under protection of Raijharan, Nandijhor, Goalgadia and Similisahi villages. In fact these villages were even brought under the official JFM programme. In a public hearing held in September 2005, more than 1500 people from 22 villages gathered and strongly opposed the project as it would destroy the forests that they have worked hard to save. Similar leases are currently under consideration in Sundergarh, Sambalpur, Jharsuguda, Koraput, Malkanagiri and Raygada districts at the time of going to the press.

In many instances internal politics and local dynamics itself threatens the initiatives. Some initiatives are quite resistant to such changes and keep switching from low-protection phases to high-protection phases. Appropriate external guidance and support in these cases can help. Such help can come in the form of self-evolved federations as exist in Ranpur Block, or sensitive governmental or NGO interventions.

Some sensitive interventions have indeed helped. The Chilika Development Authority, for instance, has built a walkway and watchtower at Mangalajodi, which would help in generating some tourism revenue for the village. NGOs like Vasundhara, Wildlife Society of Orissa, Wild Orissa, and forums like the Orissa Marine Resources Conservation Consortium initiated by ATREE and others are providing critical support.

3. ConclusionClearly villagers are doing much for biodiversity conservation in Orissa, even if unrecognised.

But they need urgent help, especially if they are to survive the current phase of destructive industrialisation that Orissa is going through. Many community initiatives are struggling trying to create livelihood options linked to their conservation efforts. For example, youth in Rushikulya region as also in Mangalajodi are hoping for ecotourism-based livelihoods. In Buguda village, villagers could do with some help towards water harvesting to irrigate the fields they still cultivate. In many community forestry initiatives, villagers are seeking help in creating some natural resource-based enterprises or increase in agricultural productivity. Appropriate help at the right time and in consultation with the local villagers will help create a long-term stake in conservation of biodiversity in the state.

The fact that many of these conservation efforts have held on for so long against all odds is enough to indicate what they can achieve given an appropriate policy environment. Equally important, they could provide critical lessons for how to manage the official wildlife sanctuaries and national parks of the state, in a way that integrates the livelihood requirements and rights of

Orissa 481 sta

te ch

ap

ter - o

rissa

local people with the needs of wildlife conservation.

Table 1: Information about formation of VSSs, VFPCs and unregistered groups in forest management in Orissa

Sr. No.

Forest Division No. of VSSs

Area protected (in ha)

No. of VFPCs formed


No. of unregistered groups


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)Angul circle1. Angul 256 37586.18 98 17751 28 NA2. Athamalik 84 7017.36 155 26254 0 03. Athagarh 77 7349.59 76 7207 0 04. Dhenkanal 112 13774.98 148 30550 68 39965. Keonjhar 201 16322.14 197 20697 4 0

Total: 730 82050.25 674 102459 100 3996Berhampur circle6. Puri 28 5580.0 83 17507 10 20037. Nayagarh 5 585.0 55 10824 44 70498. Ghumsar

North22 702.0 55 28617 0 0

9. Ghumsar South

85 13489.3 160 35058 0 0

10. Parlakhemundi 518 46639.0 106 10237 0 011. Phulbani 473 29504.0 214 54237 143 510212. Baliguda 206 10378.0 56 34280 0 013. Boudh 162 52222.6 150 5260 10 760

Total: 1499 159099.9 879 196020 207 14914Sambalpur circle14. Sambalpur 423 58941 11 1615 0 015. Rairakhol 97 9676 111 45986 11 42516. Deogarh 62 3103.96 222 34477 188 3030817. Bamra 256 22396.66 138 26349 0 018. Sundargarh 437 48110.17 59 11715 10 48919. Bonei 119 8496.452 145 32016 0 0

Total 1394 150724.24 686 152158 209 31222Koraput circle20. Jeypore 466 27628.24 139 10058 196 5849321. Nawarangpur 371 31995.06 503 115796 0 022. Rayagada. 748 48133.55 586 105464 0 023. Balangir 325 36882.31 457 98351 38 621624. Kalahandi 669 52840.00 551 164115 12 025. Khariar 270 21268.00 81 8276 0 0 Total 2849 218747.16 2317 502060 246 64709S.T.R. Baripada26. Karanjia 22 2164.2 220 36729 7 027. Baripada 191 21822.37 152 19372 0 0

Total 213 23986.57 372 56101 7 0Grand Total: 6685 634608.12 4928 1008798 769 114841

Source: State Level Steering Committee (SLSC) and Nature & Wildlife Conservation Society of Orissa(NWCSO).2003. Orissa Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Prepared under National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Ministry of Environment and Forests (Government of India).

Put together by Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh; Information for Section 1 compiled by Saili S. Palande, Kalpavriksh. More information on community conservation initiatives in Orissa is available in a brochure “Surakshya se Samrakshan: Few Unacknowledged Struggles for Nature Conservation in Orissa”, produced by Vasundhara (see www.cciori.org; contact: Y. Giri Rao, [email protected]).


Endnotes1 http://www.fsi.nic.in/sfr2003/orissa.pdf

2 The source for figures in this paragraph is Primary Census Abstract: Census of India 2001 (www.censusindia.net/t_00_005.html)

3 Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, Annual Report 2002-2003 (New Delhi, MOEF, 2003). In early 2008, a new tiger reserve (Satkosia) was declared, over an area of 963.87 sq km, with a Critical Tiger Habitat of 523.61 sq km.

4 An international category assigned to wetlands of global biodiversity significance.

5 A. Kothari, Birds in our Lives (Hyderabad, Universities Press, 2007).

6 M.Z. Islam and A.R. Rahmani, Potential Ramsar Sites in India (Mumbai, IBCN/BNHS and Birdlife International, UK, 2006).

7 M.Z. Islam and A.R. Rahmani, Important Bird Areas of India: Priorities of Conservation (Mumbai, IBCN/BNHS and BirdLife International, UK, 2004).

8 The section (other than the sub-section on Community Forestry) is based on N. Pathak, A. Kothari, S. Misra, and Y. Giri Rao, ‘Surviving against all odds: Community conservation initiatives in Orissa’, Hindu Survey of Environment, 2006. The sub-section on Community Forestry is based on R. Panigrahi, ‘Democratization of Forest Governance: Myths and Realities (An analysis of implications of decentralized forest policies and processes in Orissa, India)’, Paper presented at the Eleventh Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, 19–23 June 2006, Bali, Indonesia (Bhubaneshwar, Vasundhara, 2006).

9 Largely based on Panigrahi, 2006, as above. See also Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, No. 42, June 2000. Inputs also received from Neera Singh, Vasundhara.

10 Paraphrased from: State Level Steering Committee (SLSC) and Nature & Wildlife Conservation Society of Orissa (NWCSO), 2003, as above; and K.C. Malhotra, Y. Gokhale, S. Chatterjee and S. Srivastava, Sacred Groves in India: An Overview (Bhopal, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, 2000).

11 Largely based on Panigrahi, 2006, as above. See also Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, No. 42, June 2000. Inputs also received from Neera Singh, Vasundhara.

12 Sashi Kant, Neera M. Singh and Kundan K. Singh, Community Based Forest Management Systems (Case Studies from Orissa) (New Delhi, IIFM, SIDA and ISO/Swedforest, 1991).

13 Neera M. Singh and Kundan K. Singh, ‘Saving Forests for Posterity’, Down To Earth, May 1993.

14 Kant et al. (As above).

15 State Level Steering Committee (SLSC) and Nature & Wildlife Conservation Society of Orissa (NWCSO), 2003. (As above).

16 Community Forestry, RCDC, Vol. 1/Issues 1 & 2, January 2002; Vol.1/Issue 5, September 2002; Vol. 2/Issue 3, February 2003; Vol. 2/Issue 4, May 2003; Vol. 3/Issue 3, February 2004.

17 Source: State Level Workshop on “CFM: Ways Forward”, Bhubaneswar, 22nd December 2005.

18 Kant et al., Community Based Forest Management Systems.

19 RCDC, ‘Community Forest Management: Agenda for the Future’, Background note shared in state-level workshop on ‘CFM: Ways Forward’, 2005.

20 RCDC, ‘Community Forest Management: Agenda for the Future’. (As above).

21 Neera Singh, Federations of community forest management groups in Orissa: Crafting new institutions to assert local rights Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, 46, September 2002, pp. 35-45.

22 Pathak et al., 2006. (As above).

23 Website of forest department, Government of Orissa.

24 Madhu Sarin, Neera M. Singh, Nandini Sundar and Ranu Bhogal, ‘Devolution as a threat to democratic decision-making in forestry? Findings from three states in India’, in D. Edmunds and E. Wollenberg (eds), Local Forest Management: The Impacts of Devolution Policies (London, Earthscan Publications, 2003).

25 Community Forestry, RCDC. (As above).

26 Vasundhara, ‘Development Policies and Rural Poverty in Orissa: Macro-analysis and Case studies’, Unpublished report (Bhubaneshwar, Vasundhara, 2005).

community based forest and wildlife conservation in...

Documents