Diversity and Flexibility of Approaches 9 In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the political atmosphere in parts of the eastern state of West Bengal was tense. There was tremendous pressure on the state forests. Communities had no alternative but to cut trees to meet their basic needs. The forest department of the state sought police support to protect remaining forests, but they were met with considerable resistance from the local communities. Violent confrontations even resulted in deaths on both sides. The situation was especially volatile in Purulia district, where several tribals died.   At around this time, in the Arabari range of Midnapore district in southwest Bengal, an Indian Forest Service officer had started silviculture experiments on some plots. Local communities often trespassed upon these plots, in their search for fuelwood, and for cattle grazing. The officer, realizing that fences alone would not work, began discussions and negotiations with communities of eleven villages surrounding the Arabari forest experimentation area. An informal agreement was reached which benefitted both the parties. Villagers would have to stop grazing and grass-cutting on the field plots and in nearby areas. In return, they would get 25 per cent of revenues from the sale of timber from these plots and all rights to non-timber forest products.  A comprehensive employment programme was also offered to the communities by involving them in plantation work. This agreement paved the way for natural regeneration, resulting in substantial increase in biomass productivity and enhanced availability of fuel, fodder, fiber and other non-timber forest products. With this, the first forest protection group in West Bengal recognized by the Forest Department was formed. This was in 1972. More such informal arrangements started emerging in other parts of West Bengal in the Arabari, Midnapur, Bankura and Purulia districts. Inspired by these successes, the late 1970s saw several villages in southwest Bengal starting to deal with the forest management crises on their own. They started taking care of small tracts of degraded forest. People cutting trees were stopped by village volunteers. Repeated offenders were fined, and outsiders were not allowed to cut trees. Throughout the1980s the Forest Department informally supported these efforts and encouraged formation of Forest Protection Committees (FPCs). The number of functional FPCs climbed steadily from fewer than 50 in 1985 to around 2,000 in 1990. In 1989, the West Bengal government issued a resolution legitimizing Joint Forest Management (JFM). Drawing on the Arabari experience, the resolution encouraged villagers and the Forest Department to work collaboratively to conserve and sustainably From Conflicts to Collaboration 3 For the Future of Forests Joint forest management
Towards Sustainability: Stories from India 10 use forests. Villagers were entitled to 25 per cent share in sale of timber products, and rights to most non-timber products. This arrangement was made with the objective of conserving and regenerating degraded forest areas. The West Bengal experience was also one of the important inputs for the new National Forest Policy of 1988. The policy views forests not as a source of revenue to the government, but rather as a national asset to be protected for the well being of the people and the nation. It offers state governments a framework for large-scale involvement of communities for the protection, regeneration and development of degraded forest lands. While the forest policy of 1988 recognized the need to involve people in forest protection, the resolution in 1990 moved a step further and provided a formal structure (Village Forest Committees) for community participation. Further, while the forest policy only mentioned sharing profits from forest produce, the 1990 resolution proposed rates for sharing profits from the sale proceeds of timber. This marked the launch of JFM in the country. Subsequent to 1990, several state governments have passed JFM resolutions specifying their terms for JFM partnerships with local communities. After about 10 years of experience with JFM in different states, the Government of India in 2000 circulated a new set of JFM Guidelines, which seek to address some of the problems encountered in the first ten years of participatory management of forests. For sharing of profits, as well as to meet the conservation and development needs of the forest, the 2000 guidelines suggest that at least 25 per cent of the share obtained by the community should be used for forest regeneration activities. A matching grant is to be provided by the Forest Department from its share. The guidelines also recommend that a transparent mechanism be developed to compute the income and benefit-sharing among different stakeholders. Prior to 2000, the Village Forest Committees constituted were not registered bodies. Hence getting legal back-up was a problem. With the new guidelines, the Village Forest Committees and Forest Protection Committees are registered bodies. The 2000 guidelines stress the need for state governments to register them under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The amendments to the 1990 resolution suggested inclusion of women in General and Executive Bodies. The 2000 guidelines seek to provide a framework for increased involvement of women through mandating 33 per cent  representation of women in the Executive Body and 50 per cent in the General Body. Evolution of JFM Policy Forest Land Actual Forest Cover Village Forest Area Total Area under JFM National Parks/ Sanctuaries 9,00,000 8,00,000 7,00,000 6,00,000 5,00,000 4,00,000 3,00,000 2,00,000 1,00,000 0 Extent of JFM Source: JFM   A Decade of Partnership, MoEF
Diversity and Flexibility of Approaches 11 Flexible Approaches Coverage of JFM The Impacts As they are in the form of guidelines rather than rules, the JFM resolutions give a high degree of flexibility to individual states in developing their own resolutions in accordance with their situations and requirements. The scope for flexibility applies over a range of dimensions. For instance, the term of the Village Forest Committee (VFC) ranges from one or two years in most states, to five years in states like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Nagaland. With regard to the share of VFCs in timber produce, the share ranges from 25 per cent to VFC members in Kerala to 100 per cent in Andhra Pradesh. It is 50 per cent in many states including Gujarat, Maharashtra, Orissa and Tripura. In  most of the states, 25 per cent of the timber revenue is to be deposited in the village development fund. For access to NTFPs (Non-Timber Forest Produce), barring a few nationalized products, in most states all NTFPs are available to the people free of royalty. There is a range of specifications for collection and sale of NTFP in different states. In Karnataka, 50 per cent of NTFP, fruits, timber and final harvest are to be sold to local villagers at Forest Department rates, while the remaining may be auctioned and proceeds shared between the government, VFC members and village development fund. In Punjab, all NTFP can be collected for self-consumption except for bhabhar and fodder grasses which are sold to locals at cheap rates. Similarly, different states allow or restrict NTFP collections or sale according to the local requirements.   With regard to grazing, while some states have banned grazing completely, some have rotational grazing which has helped the regeneration of vegetation in forests.   JFM, which begun as an experiment to involve communities in forest protection, has now become a major national programme. Twenty seven states have adopted the 1990 JFM resolution, with suitable changes depending on their particular socio-economic realities and legal frameworks. As on March 1, 2002, there were 63,618 JFM Committees managing over 140,953 sq km. of forests under the JFM programme in these 27 states. To evaluate the impact of the JFM programme, the Government of India conducted a study including a primary A Joint Effort In the district of Sawai Madhopur in Rajasthan lies a forest called Kailadevi. It forms the buffer zone of the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve, one of the 27 tiger reserves in India. In 1983, Kaildevi was declared a Sanctuary. In the 1980s, local villagers came together to prevent the exploitative grazing in the forests by sheep of a migrant grazing community. The movement helped to form inter-village groups which then addressed not only this issue but also larger concerns of forest conservation and management. They formed Forest Protection Committees (FPCs) which operate both at the individual village level and at an apex level consisting of several villages. The village FPCs  protect demarcated forest areas around their villages with their own set of rules. No one is allowed to carry an axe into the forest. Only dry and dead wood is allowed to be removed for fuel requirements and that too, only for personal use. Timber for making ploughs or other domestic uses is allowed only by the consent of the FPC. The limit on the amount of timber is also decided by the FPC. Violators are punished with monetary fines or social boycott. These efforts by the villagers were subsequently synergized with those of the Forest Department. Van Suraksha Samitis (VSS) were constituted by the Forest Department (FD) at the village level. Most often the village FPC also acts as the VSS. Formulation of the VSSs is essentially done by the villagers at the behest of their patels (chiefs). The FD only endorses the decisions. By joining hands,  both have become more effective in protecting the sanctuary. The villagers had always felt the need for a legal status for their committees. This would check forceful transgression of village boundaries and ensure the security of villagers against muscle power of the offenders, as the offenders can be checked by legal provisions. To tackle external pressures of migratory sheep, mining, and large-scale illegal felling, the communities required the intervention of the FD. The FD on the other hand felt ill- equipped to handle the jurisdiction of the entire forest range.  The partnership between the community and the forest department has resulted in successful protection of the Sanctuary.
survey in four states. The study found that the functioning of the Forest Department has undergone change in most states, with the top-down approach being increasingly replaced by the decentralized approach, and with emphasis on capacity building at the grassroots. The VFCs are able to generate substantial village/community funds through their activities. Indicators of the positive impacts of JFM are evident through the condition of the forests as well as in the income flow. In many states, forests under JFM are regenerating with remarkable vigour and diversity. On an average, 40 per cent of the sites across the four study states showed improvement in the regeneration status owing to protection against biotic pressure, fires and illicit felling. Another 20 per cent showed positive trends. The State of Forest Reports (SFR) brought out by the Forest Survey of India indicate an increase in forest cover in several of the JFM-active states, over the past several years.  The SFR, 1999 shows a net increase in the forest cover by 3,896 sq.km from the previous assessment of 1997. JFM is an example of a nationwide initiative which provides the basic framework, with the flexibility to incorporate state level realities and imperatives into the framework. This flexibility is a factor contributing significantly to the success of the initiative. Towards Sustainability: Stories from India 12