Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

A Review on the Evolution and Status of Joint Forest Management

in India with special focus on West Bengal
Dr. Nityananda Patra1 and Ananya Mazumder2

1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, Bankura Zilla Saradamani Mahila Mahavidyapith, Bankura -722101.
2
Research Scholar, Visvabharati University.

Abstract:

West Bengal is one of the Indian states where state of forest resources is somehow gloomy. As per current
assessment, 11879 sq.km or 13.38% of total geographical area of the state is recorded forest area which is
comparatively lower against national level of 23.38%. This analytical study is an elaborative analysis about the
success and failures of the JFM in West Bengal and in particular in the economically backward district of Bankura.
From the outcome perspective, the program has provided many village communities with genuine access to
significant livelihood sources. In West Bengal, for instance, after the implementation of the program, the member
households have been able to receive a sustained income from final yielding of timber, while in certain areas
employment opportunities have gone up. In addition, with free access of some forest products, the women,
especially, the poor women in many FPC-managed forests have got back a certain amount of dignity.

Keywords: JFM, FPC, Common Property Resources, Forest Resources, NTFPs.

1. Introduction

Since time immemorial, forests have been looked upon as a significant source of livelihoods of
the people residing in or on the periphery of forests. Apart from providing livelihood means,
forests supply a wide range of subsistence needs, including fuel wood for energy, fodder for
livestock, small timber for domestic use, raw materials for industrial requirements and various
non-timber forest products for medicinal and other purposes. Forests also play a major role in
mitigating environmental degradation, developing watershed, conserving bio-diversity etc.

Being one of the Common Property Resources (CPRs) on earth, forests have two crucial
features: firstly, exclusion of users of such resources is difficult, and secondly, each user is
capable to subtract from the welfare of all other users. Thus, being vulnerable to the “tragedy of
commons”, forest resources often suffer from overexploitation which in turn leads to degradation
of these resources. The situation becomes worse when there exists the lack of effective
institutions to govern and manage the resources in a sustainable, efficient and equitable manner.

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1165

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

In this context, it is of paramount significance to protect and manage the world‟s existing forest
resources properly. Decentralization of natural resource management and access rights from state
to local communities and user group has been an important tool in developing countries over the
last few decades. In 1972, the United Nation‟s conference on Human Environment at Stockholm
drew the attention towards community participation in protection and improvement of
environment and related issues, which was reiterated by the World Commission on Environment
and Development in 1987 through its report titled „Our Common Future‟. Accordingly, in
forestry sector, many countries adopted a statement of principles, known as “forest principles”
for management, conservation and sustainable development of forests, which suggested
provision for participation of local communities, indigenous people, forest dwellers, NGOs in
the development, implementation and planning of forest management strategies.((Ostrom‟1999,
Behera & Engel‟2006, Vemuri‟2008, Pratap‟2010)

India had been at the forefront of adopting community-based forest management on a national
scale.During1980s, the growing depletion of India's forest resources had brought into focus the
insufficiency of traditional forest management system in sustaining the forest resource base
against increasing pressure of human as well as livestock population along with rapid
industrialization, urbanization and economic development. To check further depletion of forest
resources a radical shift in Indian forest policy occurred in 1988 which opened up opportunities
for the local communities in the process of forest management. Accordingly, in 1990 the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, India issued a circular requesting all the states to adopt
Joint Forest Management(JFM), an initiative towards sustainable forestry with the aim to
establish a relationship between the state forest departments and local communities on the basis
of sharing responsibilities and benefits. The country has, at present, 1,18,213 JFM committees
managing about 2,29,38,814 ha of forest area and involving about 1,45,18,219 members. (MoEF,
GoI; Godbole‟2002, Behera‟ 2003, Behera& Engel‟2006, Kant & Cooke‟ undated, Forest
Research Institute, Dehradun‟2011.)

As an Indian state, West Bengal played an impressive role in implementing JFM. Followed by a
major success in rejuvenating degraded Sal forests(in collaboration with local villagers) at
Arabari forest range, Midnapore district, the first state wide policy supporting the JFM program
was issued on July 12, 1989 encouraging the formation of Forest Protection Committees (FPCs)

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1166

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

to protect the state forest lands along with the profit sharing scheme. Accordingly, by now, 4394
FPCs have been formed in the state managing about 592243.7ha. of forest land and involving
about 493713 members.(Sate Forest Report)

2. State of Forest Resources in India

As per current estimate, about 4 billion hectares, or about 31 percent of the world‟s land area, is
covered with forests. Of this, around 2% is found in India. According to data, the country has, at
present, 764,566 sq. km of recorded forest area1covering 23.26% of geographical area of the
country with majority of the area being reserved forest (424,985 sq.km or 12.93% of country‟s
geographical area) followed by protected forest (209,440 sq.km or 6.37% of country‟s
geographical area) and un-classed state forest & others (130,141 sq.km or 3.96% of country‟s
geographical area). (ISFR‟2015)

Figure 2.1. Recorded Forest Area in India

Protected Forest
Reserved Forest
6%
13%
Un-classed State
forest
4%

Total Geographical
Area
77%

Source: India State of Forest Report‟ 2015

1
By definition, Recorded Forest Area refers to all the geographical lands recorded as „Forests‟ in government
records which largely consists of Reserved Forests and Protected Forests which have been constituted under the
provisions of Indian Forest Act 1927; besides Reserved Forests and Protected Forests, it may also include all such
areas which have been recorded as forests in the revenue records or have been constituted so under any state act or
local law.

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1167

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

In terms of tree canopy density, however, the country owns 701,673 sq.km of forest cover area2
which constitutes 21.34% of country‟s geographical area. Of this, area covered by very dense
forest is 85,904 sq.km(2.61% of country‟s geographical area),that with moderately dense forest
is 315374 sq.km(9.59% of country‟s geographical area) and open forest is 300,395 sq.km(9.14%
of country‟s geographical area).Thus, majority of the forest covers found in the country are either
moderately dense or open.(ISFR‟ 2015)

Figure 2.2. Forest Cover in India

Very Dense Forest Moderately Dense
3% Forest
9%
Open Forest
9%

Total Geographical
Area
79%

Source: India State of Forest Report‟ 2015

Among state/UTs, percentage of forest area (w.r.t. total geographical area) is maximum in
Andaman & Nicobor Islands (86.93%) followed by Sikkim (82.31%), Manipur (78.01%),
Uttarakhand (71.05%) Himachal Pradesh (66.52%), Arunachal Pradesh (61.39%) and Tripura

2
Forest Cover refers to all lands more than one hectare in area with a tree canopy of more than 10% irrespective of
land use, ownership and legal status and thus all areas bearing tree species including bamboos, orchards, coconut,
palm etc. within recorded forest, private, community or institutional lands meeting the above defined criteria are
termed as Forest Cover. The Forest Cover, further, consists of Very Dense Forest (area with tree canopy density of
70% and above), Moderately Dense Forest (area with tree canopy density and 40% and more but less than 70%) and
Open Forest (area with tree canopy density of 10% and more but less than 40%).

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1168

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

(60.02%). In terms of forest cover, however, majority is found in Mizoram(88.93%) followed by

Lakshadweep(84.56%), Andaman & Nicobor Islands(81.84%), Arunachal Pradesh(80.30%),
Nagaland(78.21%), Meghalaya(76.76%), Manipur (76.11%) and Tripura (74.49%).(World
Bank‟2013, ISFR‟2015)

Figure 2.3. State and UT wise Recorded Forest Area and Forest Cover in India

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Delhi
Goa

Orissa
Kerala

Punjab

Daman& Diu
Karnataka

Manipur

Nagaland
Bihar
Chhattisgarh

Jharkhand

Tamilnadu

Uttarakhand
West Bengal
Arunachal Pradesh

Gujarat

Puducherry
Haryana

Jammu & Kashmir

Mizoram

Sikkim

Uttar Pradesh
Maharashtra

Meghalaya

Telengana
Tripura

Chandigarh
Assam

Himachal Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh

Rajasthan

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Lakshadweep
Andhra Pradesh

Andaman & Nicobor Islands

% of Recorded Forest Area % of Forest Cover

Source: India State of Forest Report‟ 2015

3. State of Forest Resources in West Bengal

West Bengal is one of the Indian states where state of forest resources is somehow gloomy. As
per current assessment, 11879 sq.km or 13.38% of total geographical area of the state is recorded
forest area which is comparatively lower against national level of 23.38%. Based on tree canopy

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1169

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

density, the state owns a (forest cover) area of 16828 sq.km which constitutes 18.96% of the
state‟s total geographical area. A major portion (59.38%) of the state‟s forest area is reserved
while in terms of forest covers of the state the majority (57.69%) is open.(ISFR‟ 2015)

Figure 3.1. Recorded Forest Area in West Bengal

Reserved Forest
Protected Forest
8%
4%
Unclassed State
Forest & others
1%

Total Geographical
Area
87%

Figure 3.2. Forest Cover in West Bengal Moderately Dense

Forest
Very Dense Forest 5%
3%
Open Forest
11%

Total Geographical
Area
81%

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1170

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

Among districts, maximum forest area (in percentage term w.r.t to total geographical area) is
found in South 24 Parganas(42.37%) followed by Darjeeling(38.23%), Jalpaiguri(28.75%) and
Bankura(21.53%);while in terms of forest covers, Darjeeling (75.52%) has the majority
followed by Jalpaiguri (45.86%), South 24 Parganas (27.93%) and Medinipur
(2126%).(WBSFR‟2011-12, ISFR‟2015)

Figure 3.3. District-wise Recorded Forest Area and Forest Cover in West Bengal

80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00

% of Recorded Forest Area % of Forest Cover

Source: WBSFR‟2011-12 &India State of Forest Report‟ 2015

4. Evolution and Status of JFM in India

The initiative of Joint Forest Management is the latest in the history of Indian forest policies as it
emerged after the country went through different stages of forestry. During colonial era sole
motive of forest administration directed towards the promotion of State interests through
commercial forestry. The first legislation on forest during this era was adopted through the
Forest Act of 1865 where provisions were made to protect trees, to prevent fire and to restrict
cultivation and grazing in forest areas. The act, however, was replaced by a more comprehensive
forest legislation through Forest Act of 1878 which enabled the government's sole right over
forests. The first formal forest policy in India was issued in 1894 in the form of Forest Policy of

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1171

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

1894 .The policy was centrally influenced by the Volcker Commission Report, where forests
were considered to be the biomass provider for the agricultural sector. In the policy, forests were
divided into four classes: 1) forests, those generally situated on hill slopes to protect plains from
damage caused by landslides and hill torrents; 2) forests, as the reservoir of valuable timber
trees; 3) forests, as the supplier of inferior timber, fuel wood, or fodder to fulfill people‟s needs
and 4) forests, those included 'pastures and grazing grounds '. In general, the sole objective of the
policy was administration of state forests with restriction of rights and privileges of inhabitants
staying within or adjacent to the forests. In order to strengthen forest laws, a new forest act was
formulated in 1927 succeeding the 1878 Act, though the act was adopted by Indian states in
1947, that is, after independence. The 1927 Act made a provision for the transfer of a reserved
forest to a village forest which led to greater dissociation of forest- fringe communities and
turned forests into open access regions. The act also showed a positive attitude towards people's
role in the forest management process but this was overshadowed by the State‟s intension of
revenue generation. After independence, a new forest policy was adopted by the government of
India in the year 1952 in which forests were classified into protection forests, national forests,
village forests and tree lands. In the policy, recommendations were made to wean tribes from
shifting cultivation practices and to control grazing and other activities in forest areas. To
accommodate and endorse the heavy demand on forests the policy encouraged industrial
expansion which, in turn, left a negative effect on forest-dependent communities leading to
several people's movements against State policy. Accordingly, a string of forest development
corporations was set up in the late 1970s to „corporatize‟ the process of production forestry in the
country. In the context of allowing people‟s involvement in forestry, the 1952 Policy laid down
that „it would be the duty of the forester to awaken the interest of the people in the development,
extension and establishment of tree lands wherever possible, and to make them tree-minded'.
But, unfortunately, the policy could not provide any strategy of how to bring about public
participation in forest management and ultimately up to late 1980s Indian forest policies were
guided by the so-called British directions. (Damodaran & Engel‟2003; Balooni & Innoue‟2009;
Pratap‟2010)

After a long journey, the 1988 forest policy became a landmark in the history of Indian forest
policies which not only laid the foundation for the preponderance of conservation over
commercial forestry but also recognized the importance of people‟s involvement in the

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1172

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

management of forest resources. The policy aimed to fulfill some key objectives: a) maintenance
of environmental stability through preservation and restoration of the ecological balance of the
country; b) conserving the natural heritage of the country by preserving the remaining natural
forests with the vast variety of flora and fauna; c) meeting the requirements of fuel-wood, fodder,
minor forest produce and small timber of the rural and tribal populations; d) increasing the
productivity of forests to meet essential national needs by encouraging efficient utilization of
forest produce and maximizing substitution of wood and e) creating a massive people‟s
movement with the involvement of women, for achieving these objectives and to minimize
pressure on existing forests. To pursue 1988 policy, the Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Govt. of India, in June‟ 1990 outlined the framework for involving village communities and
voluntary agencies for the protection and regeneration of degraded forest lands and the
development of forest lands situated in the vicinity of the villages. Thus, JFM emerged in the
country attempting to create a new relationship between „state‟ and „community‟. As per 1990
JFM guidelines of central govt. of India, all the states in the country have resolved to implement
JFM making it one of the largest community- based natural resource management program in the
world with the aim to reach the national goal of 33% of the forest cover. (Behera‟2003,
Vemuri‟2008, Pratap‟2010)

Presently, the country has 1,18,213 JFM committees (across twenty eight states and one union
territory) managing about 2,29,38,814 ha of forest area and involving about 1,45,18,219
members Among states/UTs, Madhya Pradesh has the maximum number of JFMCs followed by
Uttarakhand, Maharashtra and Orissa .(FRI-Dehradun‟2011).

Table 4.1.State/UT wise Status of JFM Committees and Area under JFM in India

No. of families
States/UTs No. of JFMCs Area under JFM(ha)
involved
Andhra Pradesh 7,718 1519000 1438000

Arunachal Pradesh 1,013 100377 33048

Assam 1,184 52499 294834

Bihar 682 462333 211674
Chhattisgarh 7,887 3319000 1117000
Goa 26 10000 336

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1173

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

Gujarat 3,067 414151 417032

Haryana 2,487 41188 66036

Himachal Pradesh 1,023 205056 263024

Jammu and Kashmir 4,173 38736 429796

Jharkhand 9,926 1721700 429796

Karnataka 3,848 808020 272805

Kerala 576 107404 78501

Madhya Pradesh 15,228 6687390 1700000

Maharashtra 12,665 2403344 2708597

Manipur 665 166767 24102

Meghalaya 285 17245 39210

Mizoram 613 55990 80685

Nagaland 951 42929 159587

Orissa 12,494 1148676 1642982

Punjab 1,224 178333 91850

Rajasthan 5,316 858614 571051

Sikkim 219 88518 46000

Tamil Nadu 3,487 756446 482269
Tripura 920 241138 79445

Uttar Pradesh 3,426 183393 706050

Uttarakhand 12,738 564221 629000

West Bengal 4,368 646084 505149

A & N Islands 4 262 360
Total 1,18,213 2,29,38,814 1,45,18,219
Source: National Workshop on JFM 27-28 June 2011, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun

5. Evolution and Status of JFM-the West Bengal Context

West Bengal is one of the Indian states where Joint Forest Management (JFM) inlaid, brought up
and developed as a successful model of forest conservation through active participation of local
people. The concept has its origin in the innovative experiment (regarding rejuvenation of
degraded „Sal‟ forests) in early 70s in Arabari range of Midnapore district in South West Bengal.

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1174

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

During the experiment, Ajit Kumar Banerjee, a renowned forest officer as well as silviculturist,
found it difficult to study the growth and regeneration of trees in the research area due to the
disruptions coming from local villagers. In order to stop these disruptions, when Banerjee visited
local villagers to discuss about the problem he realized that, collaboration of those villagers is
essential in rehabilitating the forests in the area and it is too necessary to assure them some
benefits as rewards of their efforts. With this realization, a strategy was adopted by the forest
officials of Arabari range, where 618 families of 11 villages were motivated towards the
rejuvenation of 1,186 ha. of degraded Sal forests of the area by roping in their participation. In
lieu of their active participation, the villagers were promised to earn perpetual entitlement of
their family needs of firewood, small timber and NTFPs along with 25% of the net income
earned through final felling of the timber. In addition, they were provided 50,000 person-days of
employment annually through productive investment. The strategy proved successful and was
applied on a large scale in other parts of the state. Thus, participatory forest management evolved
in West Bengal. However, it took almost 20 years to implement the program officially. After the
national forest policy of 1988 came into existence in India, the first state wide policy supporting
participatory forest management (popularly known as Joint Forest Management in Indian term)
was issued on July 12, 1989 encouraging the formation of Forest Protection Committees (FPC)
to protect the state forest lands along with the profit sharing scheme. (Pattnayak & Dutta‟1997,
Joshi‟ 1998-99, Banerjee‟2004, Vemuri‟2008, Balooni& Innoue‟2009, State Forest Report‟2011-
12)

By 1989, when JFM was formally issued in West Bengal, there were already 1200 FPCs in the
state managing about 1,52,000 ha of forest lands on voluntary basis. Within next year there were
added another 522 FPCs managing about 69442 ha of forest lands. Thus, by 1990 (the year of
formal existence of JFM program on national scale), the state owned 1722 FPCs which covered
about 2,21,442 ha. of state‟s forest land. The number, by 2014, has increased to 4394 to FPCs
covering about 5,92,244ha. of forest land. A major part of these FPCs are located in the districts
of Southern West Bengal, namely, Bankura, Medinipur, Purulia, Bardhaman and Birbhum. (State
Forest Report)

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1175

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

Table 5.1. FPCs in West Bengal as on 31st March’2014

Total No of members
Area
Zone Division no of
protected(ha)
FPC Male Female Total SC ST Others
Darjeeling 75 14456.99 3890 433 4323 139 1025 3159

Kalingpong 64 26237.86 3582 195 3777 204 875 2698

Hilly
Kurseong 46 13287.62 1165 1643 2808 431 1198 1179
Wildlife 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jalpaiguri 62 20148.16 10701 601 11302 4818 3526 2958

Baikunthpur 66 14023.78 6192 131 6323 4529 790 1004

Duars-
Terai Coochbihar 25 4102.9 2932 209 3141 1497 517 1127

Wildlife 3 25 7020.79 4360 180 4540 727 2483 1330

B.T.R(E) 17 9331.09 3340 103 3443 1548 1334 561
B.T.R(W) 33 25595.8 4064 489 4553 768 2563 1222

North Raigunj 21 1162.6 1727 74 1801 864 412 525

Bengal
plains Malda 3 103.368 381 47 428 240 180 8

Midnapur 364 45956.45 48038 2801 50839 10131 9186 31522

Jhargram 474 52179.31 38254 2449 40703 9135 14906 16662

Kharagpur 248 31401.04 29025 1586 30611 7028 8952 14631

Rupnarayan 213 26397.78 26331 1343 27674 6419 7814 13441

Bankura(N) 543 53102.54 50845 2094 52939 19947 7917 25075

Bankura(S) 642 44460.37 55761 4763 60524 14599 18651 27274

South
Bengal Panchet 231 28466.18 27328 1562 28890 10952 4706 13232
Purulia 213 30845.22 20812 898 21710 7035 5913 8762

Kangsabati(N) 244 17641.2 23578 851 24429 5677 8089 10663

Kangsabati(S) 305 25446 29561 569 30130 4293 10899 14938

Burdwan 73 17758.05 16582 3086 19668 7818 5349 6501

Durgapur 24 2436.439 1957 1964 3921 1112 1405 1404
Birbhum 198 9008.23 16869 352 17221 6095 5586 5540
Howrah 4 479.08 815 319 1134 537 238 359

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1176

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

Nadia-Msd 111 1648.71 913 44 957 246 254 457

PurbaMedinipur 19 1813.11 4760 1097 5857 1256 50 4551

S.T.R 11 25199 7951 597 8548 7689 362 497

Estuarine
24-Pgs(S) 40 42534 10801 10718 21519 11830 514 9175

Total 4394 592243.7 452515 41198 493713 147564 125694 220455

Source: Principal Chief Conservator of forests, Govt of West Bengal

6. Outcomes of JFM

India‟s Joint Forest Management (JFM) program is one of the largest co-management regimes
for conservation of natural resources in the world. Originating in small experiments in few states
like West Bengal, the initiative of JFM represents a major effort in the country over the last few
decades to make policy work for both forests and people. (Joshi‟ 1997-98, Khare et al’2000,
Vemuri‟2008)

Khareet al (2000) in a study has shown that, though JFM represents a positive step towards well-
established forest management with the potential to empower and increase livelihood security
among the forest-dependent communities, it remains institutionally fragile.

Behera& Engel (2006) in a study based in Andhra Pradesh, India have tried to analyze the
evolution of JFM institution in India in the light of the New Institutional Economics using
Williamson‟s „four levels of institutional analysis‟ framework. The study reveals that, although
co-management of forests is certainly a right movement, the uncertainty regarding transfer of
property rights to local communities causes disincentives among the FPCs in considering effects
of their actions. Moreover, the lack of accountability and the prevalence of asymmetry both in
the FPC leaders and forest department bureaucrats raise rent-seeking activities. In this context,
the study suggests that, transformation of administrative rights into legal rights would be helpful
for the improvement of the security of community rights and an independent vigilance system to
organize the JFM activities may be one potential way to improve accountability.

Another study by Behera (2009) based in Andhra Pradesh, India has tried to identify and analyze
the factors determining differential outcomes of JFM. The study shows that, those JFM

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1177

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

committees which are smaller in size, have scarce forest resources and initiated by NGOs are
more likely to perform well.

Bhattacharya et al (2010), in a study based on a preliminary assessment of the status of JFMCs in

the forest tracts of central and central-eastern parts of India have shown that, although in most of
the states, JFM policies were designed to secure the forest livelihoods and to mitigate poverty
along with forest conservation and rejuvenation, but due to lack of proper mechanism for conflict
resolution and accountability, lack of collaboration between the forest departments and local
communities, improper allocation of resources and benefits the program has suffered. Moreover,
the forest department‟s autonomy over distribution and delimitation of forest lands, micro-
planning has left minimal place for the communities. In this context, the study suggests that,
local communities should be given the freedom to manage and protect the forests without undue
influence of the forest department in their decision-making process; shift in policy need to be
developed to secure the rights of the JFMCs; direct market channels for the forest products need
to be evolved.

The West Bengal context: Early after formal existence in 1989, JFM led to reckonable success
in rejuvenating the degraded forests of West Bengal. To acknowledge this success, the FPCs of
the state were rewarded with the Paul Getty award in 1993. (Deb‟2010) Apart from this, the state
achieved success on the grounds of increasing timber production as well as decreasing illegal
extraction of timber, increasing flow of NTFPs, decreasing conflicts among stakeholders etc.
Joshi (1998-99) has clearly stated about the various achievements of JFM in the state:

“Forest cover has increased, timber production has increased, conflict between foresters and
communities has decreased and the yield of NTFPs has increased. According to satellite surveys,
the forest cover in West Bengal increased by 4.5% between 1988 and 1991. Of this increase in
forest cover, 67% has occurred in South West Bengal, the region that contains the largest
number of FPCs, although it has only 37% of forest land. Although only a minor portion of the
total timber production comes from the South West region (4%), the total timber extracted has
increased from a low of 72,590 m3 in 1989-90 to 84,903 m3 in 1994-95. The number of forest
personnel assaulted is another broad indicator – this has decreased from a high of 60 in 1982-83
to 18 in 1994-95. Similarly the number of forest offences (cases of illegal extraction) of timber
has decreased.”

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1178

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

Pattnaik & Dutta (1997), based on a case study of six villages in Bankura district, West Bengal,
has revealed the success of JFM on various grounds: a. There has observed a significant decline
in the seasonal out migration of the villagers which clearly indicates the growing income
generation opportunities provided by the JFM to the villagers. b. The patrolling activities carried
out by both men and women on rotation basis, have helped to diminish forest loots and illegal
feelings, on a large scale. c. The area has been ecologically improved. Local people have
themselves observed improvement in soil preservation, rainfall as well as temperature, which
clearly indicates the improvement in environment of the villages; in certain areas, along with
reappearance of some plant species wildlife has been gradually rejuvenated.

Banerjee (2004) has, however, described JFM as “a two-way street, one of which can lead to
great heights in respect of ecological resurrection and livelihood improvements, and the other to
ecological and livelihood downturns.” With regard to the positive aspects of JFM in West
Bengal, the author has highlighted some facts: a. The women and the poor in many FPC-
managed forests have got back a certain amount of dignity as they are now free to collect forest
produces (except few). b. A friendly relationship has been established between the FD and the
FPC members. c. FPCs households are receiving a sustained income from felling activities, while
in certain areas employment opportunities have gone up. d. Some improvements in biodiversity
and forest quality have also taken place in certain forests areas of South West Bengal.

There are some negative aspects also: a. The West Bengal JFM orders have not fully reflected
the objectives of 1988 National Forest Policy. For example, the state has limited the operation of
JFM to degraded forests only, while 1988 National Forest Policy emphasized on conservation of
natural forests. b. The FD has failed to (technically and socially) manage the forests. For
example, no initiative has been taken to improve the productivity of NTFPs, which are a
significant source of livelihoods to the poorer sections of the community. It has been seen that,
where the local forester is in charge of a large forest area (with more than 10 FPCs), he is
generally not available to assemble and attend the FPC-meetings, which in turn results in many
FPCs meetings not being called for months. c.No compensation has been given to those who
sacrificed their subsistence for the sake of ecological improvement in post-JFM period. d. From
the view that, FPC are mainly responsible for JFM activities, there has existed lack of interest of

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1179

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

many forest officials in promotion of JFM . e. The role of poor, particularly, that of poor women
has remained minimal in such program.

Das and Sarkar (2008), in a study based in Bankura district, West Bengal, has revealed that, due
to the strict dominant cooperative strategy of community under the program, both of the
communities and government have been economically benefited. The coordinated action by the
community, belonged to marginal landholding, small landholding and landless agricultural
households, has helped them to generate a substantial increase in forest income after JFM. The
program has also provided higher economic outcome to the government, which they failed to
achieve before the execution of the program. However, the authors have drawn the fact that: the
policy JFM would not be able to retain the poor households (who are mainly dependent on forest
resource for their livelihood security and that live below poverty line) from illegal extraction of
timber products until and unless a considerable income from legal forest sources meet their
subsistence.

Another study by Das & Sarkar (2008) based in Bankura district, West Bengal, reflecting the
comparison between JFM and non-JFM households in terms of distributional aspects of forest
income, has shown that, after JFM situation forest income has increased for all JFM households
with a decrease in non-forest income, whereas in the non-JFM villages non-forest income has
marked a higher rate of increase than their forest income. However, this improvement has been
mainly limited within lower income groups.

7. Conclusion

India‟s Joint Forest Management (JFM) program, with the aim to establish a relationship
between the state forest departments and local villagers on the basis of sharing responsibilities
and benefits, has been one of the largest co-management regimes regarding forest protection and
management in the world. From the outcome perspective, the program has provided many
village communities with genuine access to significant livelihood sources. In West Bengal, for
instance, after the implementation of the program, the member households have been able to
receive a sustained income from final yielding of timber, while in certain areas employment
opportunities have gone up. In addition, with free access of some forest products, the women,
especially, the poor women in many FPC-managed forests have got back a certain amount of
dignity. (Khareet al’ 2000, Banerjee‟ 2004, Vemuri‟2008)

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1180

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

8. References:

Agarwal, Bina (2009)-“Rule Making in Community Forestry Institutions: The Difference

Women Make”-Ecological Economics 68(2009) 2296-2308

Balooni, Kulbhushan; Inoue, Makoto (2009)-“Joint Forest Management in India: The

Management Change Process”- IIMB Management Review

Banerjee, Ajit (2004)-“Participatory Forest Management in West Bengal: A Review of

Policies and Implementation”-Understanding Livelihood Impacts of Participatory Forest
Management Implementation in India and Nepal: Working Paper No: 3

Behera, Bhagirath; Engel, Stefanie (2006)-“Institutional Analysis of Evolution of Joint Forest

Management in India: A New Institutional Economics Approach”-Forest Policy and Economics
8(2006) 350-362

Behera, Bhagirath (2009)-“Explaining the Performance of State-Community Joint Forest

Management in India”-Ecological Economics 69 (2009) 177-185

Behera, Minakant (2011) “Gender Issues in Joint Forest Management: The Orissa Scenario”-
Journal of Economic and Social Development, Vol. VII, No. 2, 2011

Bhattachrya, Pradyut; Pradhan, Lalita; Yadav Ganesh (2010)-“Joint Forest Management in

India: Experience of two decades”-Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54(2010)-469-480

Bingeman, Kristin (2003)-“Women‟s Participation in Forest Management Decisions in the

Upper Kullu Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India”-Himalaya Research Bulletin XXI (2)2003

Chattapadhyaya, R.N; DuttaDebajit (2010)-“Criteria and Indicators for Assessment of

Functioning of Forest Protection Committees in the Dry Deciduous Forests of West Bengal,
India.”-Ecological Indicator 10(2010) 687-695

Das, Nimai; SarkarDebnarayana (2006) - “Towards A Sustainable Joint Forest Management

Programme: Evidence from Western Midnapore Division in West Bengal”-South Asia Research
Vol 26 (3)

Das, Nimai; SarkarDebnarayana (2006) - “Does Gender Sensitive Joint Forest Management
Programme Increase Women‟s Contribution on Household‟s Income? Evidence from West

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1181

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

Bengal in Indian context”-Anadolu University Journal of Social SciencesCilt/Vol: 12 - Sayı/No:

1 (117-130)

Das, Nimai; SarkarDebnarayana (2008)-“Distributional Aspect of Forest Income: A Study on

JFM and Non-JFM Forest Dependent Households”-Working Paper No. 06 (2008)

Das, Nimai; SarkarDebnarayana (2008)-“A Study of Economic Outcome of Joint Forest

Management Programme in West Bengal: The Strategic Decisions between Government and
Forest Fringe Community”- Indian Economic Review, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 1, 2008, Pp. 17-45

Das, Nimai (2011)-“Women‟s Dependence on Forest and Participation in Forestry: A Case

Study of Joint Forest Management Programme in West Bengal”-Journal of Forest Economics 17
(2011) 67-89

Data Base on Environment and Forestry Statistics of West Bengal 2015-Buero of Applied
Economics and Statistics-Department of Statistics and Program Implementation-Government of
West Bengal

District Census Handbook: Bankura, West Bengal -Census of India 2011

Deb SudeepBudhaditya (2010) – unpublished

Gera, Prema (2002) -Women‟s Role and Contribution to Forest-Based Livelihoods-Human

Resource Development Resource Centre

Ghosh, A.K. (2008)-“Joint Forest Management”-Status of Environment in West Bengal: A

Citizen’s Report.ENDV.Kolkata

Godbole, Girija (2002)-“Joint Forest Management and Gender”-Working Paper No 4 for the
Engendering Eden Project1

India State of Forest Report 2015

Joshi, Anuradha (98-99)-“Progressive Bureaucracy: An Oxymoron? The Case of Joint Forest

Management in India”-Rural Development Forestry Network: Paper 24 A Winter 98/99

Kant, Shashi; Cooke, Roshan (undated)-“Conflict Resolution: A Critical Factor in the

Success of Joint Forest Management in India”

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1182

Suraj Punj Journal For Multidisciplinary Research ISSN NO: 2394-2886

Khare, Arvind; Sarin, Madhu; Saxena, N.C; Palit, Subhabrata; Bathla, Seema; Vania, Farhad;
Satyanarayan, M(2000)-“Joint Forest Management”: Policy, Practice And Prospects”-Policy
That Works For Forests And People Series No: 3

Maksimowski, Sophie: “Joint Forest Management in India: Implications and Opportunities

for Women‟s Participation in Community Resource Management”-Studies by Undergraduate
Researchers at Guelph Vol. 4, No. 2, Winter 2011, 23-37

Ostrom, Elinor (1990)-“Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action”-E Cambridge University Press 1990

Pattnaik, Bijay Kumar; Dutta, Sumana (1997)-“JFM in South-West Bengal: A Study in

Participatory Development”-Economic and Political Weekly December 13, 1997

Pratap, Dinesh (2010)-“Community Participation and Forest Policies in India: An

Overview”-Social Change, 40, 3(2010):235-256

Resolution on JFM Committees in the Districts of South West Bengal: Government of West
Bengal Forest Department -Forest Branch-No. 5971-For Dated: 03.10.2008

Sundar, Nandini (2000)-“Unpacking the „Joint‟ in Joint Forest Management”-Development

and Change Vol. 31 (2000), 255±279. # Institute of Social Studies 2000. Published By Blackwell
Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK

Vemuri, Anuradha (2008)-“Joint Forest Management in India: An Unavoidable and

Conflicting Common Property Regime in Natural Resource Management”-Journal of
Development and Social Transformation-Volume 5, November 2008

West Bengal State Forest Report 2011-12

WWF Report 2012-Forest Management and Gender

Volume 9, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 1183