Human societies have since their inception been developing mechanisms  of managing the  natural resources  to  meet  their  needs and  greeds  according  to the values  and norms that have grown among the members of society through time. These norms and values get  crystallized in  the form  of institutions  which have been defined  by anthropologists or sociologists  as  established  procedures  of  doing  things  or  getting things   done   with   legitimacy   behind   them.  An  institution is "a  cluster of  roles  and  statuses  designed  to  meet  a  certain  social  need.  It  consists  of  the   resources and  roles  required   to  pass  knowledge  and  cultural  traits  from  one  generation to the  next".  The  family   is,  for   example,  an institution;  it produces and  socializes new  members for the  society  to  follow a set  of  procedures.  Any  collectivity   of  human   beings   that  has  a  more or  less  organized form of living and  acting, i.e., any organization, has thus a certain set of institutions as an in‑built feature of it. Virtually all social theories have made an effort to identify what must be done for a society to survive. These social needs are not met automatically. Organized efforts must be made if they are to be satisfied. These organized efforts are institutions. Economic institutions — including productive units such as factories and markets — are, for instance, organized efforts to satisfy economic needs (Smelser, 1993).

And, when one examines the actual process of management of natural (and other) resources by the members of a human organization, one finds that the access of each member to the resources is governed by the rights granted to the individual. Whenever one speaks of "the rights granted to the individual", one faces the question: granted by whom? There must be some authority — power which is accepted as legitimate — which grants these rights to the individuals. Institutions are human devices designed to channellise the society's resources into stable patterns of interactions that are intended to meet one or more social needs. One essential function of institutions is to stabilize different people's activities into more or less predictable patterns of roles. Herein comes the phenomenon of government. A certain individual or a group of individuals is found exercising authority over others in all human organizations. The power of the individual or individuals who govern is made to appear legitimate through the values and norms prevalent in the organization. The fact, however, remains that a human society shows two segments: (a) the segment of those who govern and (b) the segment of those who  are governed. The act of governance, i.e., deciding who should get what in which proportion at what time and who should or must do what in which manner, in what situations and time, may be accomplished in a formal or informal way or in a way involving both formal and informal elements. But government in some form or the other is a universal feature of human organizations.

Thus one may find that in any human collectivity two sets of institutions: (a) government institution or, more precisely in modern times, bureaucratic institution, and (b) social institution. A little more reflection may, however, raise doubts about the validity of the dichotomy. For, government institutions are a part or product of social institutions. At the same time, the government, defined in the broad sense followed here, has to look after the conformity of the members of a collectivity to its institutions i.e., social institutions.

Further, with the evolution of organisation more and more emphasis has been placed on rationality in the governance of men and materials. The results is bureaucracy, where rules and procedures are followed in a hierarchy of power to ensure the attainment of specific goals with specific means and roles with greatest efficiency (least cost) and utmost effectiveness (greatest approximation to goal). It has come to characterize all the modern societies. Bureaucracy is the institution embodying rational (systematic, scientific and goal-oriented) authority - i.e., power enjoying legitimacy. Its legitimacy derives from impersonal, objective rules and procedures. A high degree of reliability makes it possible for bureaucracy to coordinate a larger number of activities and groups of people. High productivity thus is one reason for the dominance of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy includes the chain of command and the clearly-defined roles and procedures. In other words, the bureaucratic structure imposes discipline and settles disputes (Crozier, 1964). And, its strength emanates from its very impersonality and objectivity and systematic and scientific, cost‑efficient character. Bureaucracy crystallizes more than any other form of government the phenomenon of efficient and effective power. And, those who belong to it or are part of it, seemingly stand out from the rest of the community. As if, a hiatus is created between the bureaucratic institution and the rest of the society and its social institution (defined in the aforesaid manner). So the analytical dichotomy tends to get hardened into a practical dichotomy or chasm between the government departments of bureaucracy on the one hand and the common people or community institutions on the other. It is pronouncedly noticed, for example, in the chasm between the Forest Department (FD) with the attendant bureaucratic institution and Forest Community (FC) with the accompanying social institution in the sphere of management of natural resources like forest in this country as well as elsewhere. This develops a relationship of mistrust between the FD and the FC (Chatterjee and Roy, 1994).

But can any society in modern times survive and work without bureaucracy? Alternatively, can any bureaucracy work effectively without the support and cooperation of social institutions? If yes, what will be the consequences if both the institutions are not adequately appreciated by the people operating in the real world? The bureaucrats (FD) and the Forest Community (FC) move, as it were, in separate worlds, however artificial and superficial the sense of separation may be. Not only that. The FC and the FD find themselves hopelessly locked in conflict and open antagonism.

The foresters of bureaucratic institutions do not believe in the strength of the FC, and the present orientation of many foresters has not equipped them to mix with people, establish the rapport with them, win their confidence, trust people, and submit to the villagers for seeking support by empowering them as partners in solving the problem of deforestation (Chatterjee and Roy, 1994).

In a similar way, the villagers are users of forest produce and get fuel, fodder and other forest produce free from the forest - but have little faith in Government Programmes and FD institutions. How can they forgo their rights to extract forest produces from the reserve forest?

The question is: why this separation ? What makes the FC and the FD come into conflict or harbour antagonism against each other? The answer lies again in the changing nature of actual experiences of the people. Initially, it was the tribal or village community(ies) living in or in the vicinity of the forest which was (were) responsible for using and managing natural resources like forest produce of various kinds according to their needs, and, to get the situation worse confounded, for the satisfaction of their greeds. Their institutions grew and took shape accordingly. Any such community has got prescribed and established procedures determining how each member will use the different species of herbs, shrubs and trees and in which measure (Maciver, 1974). Not only that. Even the pattern of seasonal utilization of the resources was prescribed by the complex of values, norms and procedures, i.e., institutions, of the community and more or less universally accepted by its members. The village and community economy depends on the natural resources, say non-timber forest produce (NTFP), available and the pattern of seasonal utilization (Malhotra et. al., 1992).

Indeed, these norms, values and procedures became embedded in the social structure of each such community and helped its members to manage the natural resources on a sustainable basis. The threat to this milieu however came from the denudation of the forest mainly because of pressures of grazing by an increasing number of cattle, goats, sheep and other graminivorous animals, collection of ever-mounting volumes of wood and timber as well as other forest produce dictated by the needs and greeds of the forest communities and the people with whom they came to interact through time. This becomes a part of culture. The members of the community inherit and pass on this experience to the next generation. The shared experiences derived from the society's primary institutions give rise to the aspects of the culture (Ember and Ember, 1990).

At one stage in the history of the management of forest resources, the bureaucratic institution of the Forest Department emerged as the custodian of these resources. The goal of this institution at its inception during the British period was to earn revenue and manage forest as a sole property of the Govt. Later, even after a sea-change in the Govt. Policy of 1988, in which the people and their needs were considered as prime agenda, the bureaucratic institution remained the same.

But the Forest Community failed to understand the complex of formal rules and regulations embodied in the bureaucratic institution and the rationale behind them. Oftener than not the laws, rules and regulations of the FD interfered with the "traditional" rights of the members of the FC to use the forest resources in the ways they liked and in the manner sanctioned by their social institutions. Hence, the FC found in the FD a countervailing institution in a negative sense.

On the other hand, the FD found in the FC a positive threat to the forest resources because of what the FD perceived as wanton destruction of forest produce through grazing and indiscriminate felling of trees and cutting of grass and collection of herbs and other kinds of forest produce beyond "permissible limits" resorted to by the FC.

The bureaucratic institution had many a time treated the FC very harshly. Obviously, the FC did not like the heavy hand of laws imposed by the FD. The FC felt deprived of their natural right. And, it found the bureaucratic institution of the FD responsible for the disinheritance of its natural right to forests.

Thus, the goal of the FC and the FD remains the same. But the norms and procedures, i.e., institutions, of the FC and the FD come to clash. The FC feels alienated from the FD. It does not understand the language of the FD armed with the knowledge of the latest techniques of forest preservation and forest regeneration. The message of the latter fails to appeal to the FC. For, the FD seems to believe in and practise the policy of "driving away" the FC from the vicinity of the forest.

But can the FC succeed in managing forest resources on a sustainable basis without the knowledge, expertise, resources of the FD? On the other hand, the FD tends to forget that its power becomes authority, i.e., derives legitimacy, when it is accepted by the people. It appears to ignore the traditional ways of the village community of organizing itself for many common goals and the indigenous knowledge of the FC in sustaining the various resources of the community through time. Can it succeed in successfully implementing its measures for conserving and augmenting forest resources without the active cooperation of the members of the community?

The two, FC and FD, come to loggerheads because of the seeming differences in their respective institutions both of which have the common goal. In other words, the differences between the government or bureaucratic institution of the FD and the social institution of the FC emerge because of a lack of proper and adequate communication between the two, more precisely speaking, because of the absence of matching of the two institutions. To remedy the situation bi‑lateral matching institutions are required. That is to say, what is needed is to facilitate free communication between the upholders of the two institutions. And, this will be done when the bureaucratic institution comes to be dovetailed with the social institution in such a manner that the one finds its complement in the other.

The Hypothesis

1. There are two distinct institutions, the village community and the forest bureaucrats, responsible for the protection and management of the forest resources. Unless both the institutions have the same goal (to conserve the forest resources) and an agreed plan of actions, and similar socially and legally sanctioned procedures (institutions), there would be conflict instead of co‑operation for achieving the goal.


2. The present norms and institutions, i.e., the established procedures, of the FC and the FD to protect the forest are not matching. Hence both the community’s and the forester's norms, behaviour, and procedures have to be recast to develop institutions which would be capable of coping with the difficult situation of natural resource management.


3. This needs organisational change. The organisation can be changed only when one (i) understands the organisational behaviour ‑ which includes all the beliefs, prejudices and superstitions; principles, norms, values and ideologies; activities and procedures; rules, moral codes and customs; expectations regarding the ideal man and the ideal woman; methods of rewards and punishment of the people who together form the organisation and aim to achieve the organisational goal. Then the second step will include to (ii) act upon the culturally inherited knowledge, skills, techniques, methods of production and distribution, economic processes through endogenous development methods.

Is Change Possible?

Organisations are dynamic and organisational behaviour does change from time to time, place to place and situation to situation. In the same way, social institutions also change from time to time to bring about social change. But institutions are very seldom stable over time. Keeping this emphasis on institutional variability in mind one has to examine what the causes and consequences of institutional changes are.

Organization or institution may be changed consciously, in a planned way in the form of "Reform". It may be altered systematically, based on studies related to the individual, interpersonal and inter‑group behaviour, procedure, role and status system, reward and punishment system and culture of the organisation. Of the many examples the case of reversed of degraded forest from Arabari of West Bengal sets an example (Roy, 1992).

Factors Responsible for Social/Institutional Change

All organisations, both government and non‑government, are composed of human beings with emotions and feelings — good and bad — frustrations, misunderstandings, heart burnings, jealousies, egos, and complexes. Any change in the institution accompanying the organization needs change in values, feelings and environment.

The Myth, Creating Block to Change

Most of the foresters believe in the myth that unless some material or financial incentive is offered to the villagers, they will never join the programme of forest conservation which necessitates change in their outlook and activities. Moreover, it is observed that in many cases the villagers do not consider themselves capable of being a partner of the forest conservation programme. In general, the villagers consider the foresters to be all‑powerful messiahs and themselves to be poor, deprived, and incapable of solving their own problems, howsoever simple they may be.

Some of the foresters have no clear idea about how to involve the community and how to build a bridge of trust between the Government, the foresters and community members.

Sensitization

The successful community involvement programme would help people to take the initiative in identifying their own problems and finding their solutions (voluntary) and also making effective decisions, setting priorities in such a way that it helps the majority of the community members (mentally matured) in natural resource management on a sustainable basis. The community members will be involved right from planning to execution and monitoring of the programme. They will have the capacity to measure the consequences of their actions. They should be decision‑makers and be empowered to decide their own future with the help of the existing available resources and technology in a pragmatic way (Roy and Chatterjee, 1994).

How to Sensitize?

The researchers from IBRAD have conducted a number of field works aimed at attitudinal change. In the process of field work, the villagers are sensitized. Sensitization is a process of educating the people by feeding them with adequate information and knowledge. Its effect lies in the fact that after sensitization, a person can take decisions based on realistic, dependable and complete information. This helps in strengthening a person's ability to gather, organise and evaluate any information more accurately. It may start with sharing ideas to work together and test the reality for future plans (Roy, 1991).

So the villagers are allowed to venture out, learn what the real world is, and what they want out of it; they are encouraged to envisage what can be done. The participants are allowed to unfreeze and share their views with one another. This helps them in unlearning the (false) beliefs, prejudices and misinformation, learning the new and requisite things and changing their attitudes. They test themselves and the merit of the new programme while conducting field work and getting feed-back. They also feel a sense of achievement while learning something that might find practical application in their life and profession and even help them to improve on it.

Steps in Sensitization

1. Clearly state the objective/purpose of visit to the village, in order to be transparent/authentic.
2. Sit on the same level with the villagers, if needed, on the ground, which helps in proper communication.
3. Recognise the strengths and abilities of the villagers for empowerment.
4. Allow the villagers to think and find options.
5. Assign responsibilities to the villagers.

It transpires from scrutiny of the actual situation that unless the two institutions (community institution and forest bureaucratic institution) join hands and start working together, appreciating each other's problems, strengths and weaknesses, neither of the institutions will be able to protect the forest. Such harmonious, mutually supportive functioning by both the institutions for their common goal, i.e. protection and management of forest, has been termed "bilateral matching institution" (Roy, 1992).

In order to have "bilateral matching institution" the members from both the institutions should be sensitised and be empowered to develop or modify conducive procedures suitable to both organisations. For that there have been some methods. Some of them are discussed in the following pages.

The researchers of IBRAD have also tested PRA methodology (Participatory Rural Appraisal) in the fields and modified it to be used as Resource Management through Group Sensitization, based on five years' field work and experience in more than a hundred training programmes, workshops and meetings. The field works revealed that it was the community members who, when given responsibility and empowered as partners in the programme, provided a solution to the problem. Thus the answer emerged from the villagers themselves; they suggested the means to cope with the problem and address the situation. It was also evident that it is not money alone that can solve the problems and work as the incentive for involvement of the people in forest protection and management. What actually motivates the people is a sense of belonging, their empowerment and institutionalisation of their power (Roy, 1992).

The second method for bilateral matching institution may be sensitising the foresters though orientation. The methodology used for reorientation consists of a process and is not an isolated phenomenon. This training does not mean only class room teaching. It may be in the form of one‑to‑one sittings, readings, meetings, workshops, field works, working together, travelling, interviews and other types of interactions characterising human behaviour. It means intervention in group dynamics, including group/organisational structure, norms, roles, conflicts, achievements, motivation etc. where each participant (forester) has to be treated as an important individual. The faculty draws, as the faculty actually did in the case under discussion, the skills out of each participant to cause self-awareness. Each participant was sensitized to differentiate between facts and opinions. The participants came to learn how to be aware of their own feelings. They tried their best and the result is a noticeable change in the outlook of the foresters as is evinced in scores of reports of positive evaluation of training programmes by the participants in such programmes. Such orientation programmes have resulted in bilateral matching of both the institutions of the FC and the FD. Such results have been witnessed in West Bengal, winner of International Award for forest conservation.

In a similar exercise in connection with Medicinal Plant Conservation Area (MPCA) project in Tamilnadu in April 1994 the author found further confirmation of the hypotheses presented in the paper. Both the members of the target village communities and the trainee foresters participating in the training programme where the author's approach was tried, registered visible changes in their attitude towards each other. Also, there was a change in self-awareness of the villagers as well as of the foresters.

When the author and his team visited the village, Kandampaliam, to take one example, he was struck by the villagers' mistrust and antipathy towards the Forest Department and their abject dependence on the Government for solutions even to the smallest problems they had in mind. They always demanded some benefit, financial or otherwise, from the government. Any visitor to the village was taken for a government officer and greeted with such a demand or expectation. Of course, the villagers were extremely poor. They were restrained by the FD from using the forest. The villagers did not know what to do with the odds in their life. Indeed, eight families of the village left it and migrated to the nearby town of Madras to find their means of livelihood. The situation was so hopeless that the author initially felt perplexed as to how to motivate these villagers who went even without the minimum necessities of life, to protect the reserve forest.

On the other hand, the nine members of the Forest Department who attended the training programme were initially skeptical about the efficacy of the training programme and the approach that might be followed in the programme. They did not have any faith in the strength of the villagers. Indeed, they found in them only incorrigible offenders against the forest laws and illegitimate usurpers of forest produce. Further, since they did not initially view the training programme worthwhile, they agitated over the trifle sum of Rs.100/- as Travelling Allowance for coming to the training programme.

When the exercise was made and the approach of bilateral matching institutions tried, the author felt changes on both the sides. The same villagers who were not at all aware of their strengths in solving their own problems came to form the Forest Protection Committee for protecting the Medicinal plants and other herbs. They came to devise their own plans for controlling grazing on forest land. The same poor villagers could even raise some common fund for constructing the temple for the village goddess, once they could get united to form the village Development Committee. The author has seen that in similar situations people, when they successfully organize for a common cause which "satisfies them" according to their own identity, culture and values, can not only generate resources sacrificing their immediate needs but also put in additional physical labour for attaining the common goal. In this case the villagers got organized and identified themselves as the devotee of the village goddess. The forum of self-governance developed by the villagers for constructing the temple for the village goddess was found useful by the foresters to approach the villagers to ensure their involvement in forest protection. But it is not the money alone which can bring the FC and the FD close to each other, rather in analysing a problem where human factors are involved, a more rigorous research method for multifactorial analysis is required (Roy et. al., 1992).

As far the foresters, they gradually came to discover the strength of the villagers. They came to appreciate the problems of the villagers. And, they became hopeful of involving these villagers in forest protection. Their attitude to the villagers became more humane. And, they promised to contribute liberally from their own pockets to the villagers for construction of the village temple. Not only that, they started for the town forgetting to pay the money to the villagers. They drove back to the village and paid Rs.501/- to the villagers. What is significant is that the same nine foresters who felt perturbed over the meagre sum of Rs.100/- as T.A. per head, contributed Rs.501/- from their own pockets to the fund of the villagers.
Both the villagers and the foresters could see eye to eye with each other because of the change brought about by the success in bilateral matching of the institutions of the FC and the FD.

In other words, the foresters appreciated the villagers' identity and values through their contribution for construction of the temple. And the villagers agreed to support the foresters in protecting the reserve forest, for which they were not going to receive any immediate material benefit. And, this provides an example of matching institutions for securing the common goal of management of natural resources.

Acknowledgement

I express my gratitude to numerous foresters and forest communities who have helped me in understanding the myth and reality of Participatory Forest Management and then developing the concept of bilateral matching.

I thank Professor Swapan Kumar Bhattacharya of Calcutta University and Professor P. C. Paul, Professor H. R. Tiwari, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, I.I.T., Kharagpur for their valuable editorial comments.

References

Chatterjee Mitali and S. B. Roy (1994). Reflections from Training on Gender Issues in Joint Forest Management. IBRAD, Calcutta.

Crozier M. (1964). The bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
Ember Carol R. and Melvin Ember (1990). Anthropology. Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, India.

Kroeber A. (1948). Anthropology. New York : Harcourt Bruce & Co.
Maciver R.M. and H. Page Charles (1974). Society - An Introductory Analysis. Macmillan India Limited.
Malhotra K. C., Debal Deb, M. Dutta, T. S. Vasulu, G. Yadav and M. Adhikari (1992). Role of Non-Timber Forest Produce in Village Economy. IBRAD, Calcutta.

Roy S. B. (1991). Reversal of Deforestation through Group Sensitization : An Anthropological Approach. The Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India, Vol.40, No.1 & 2, March-June.
Roy S. B. (1992). Forest Protection Communities in West Bengal. Economic and Political Weekly, 27(29):1528-30.

Roy S. B., R. Mukherjee and Mitali Chatterjee (1992). Endogenous Development in Joint Forest Management. Journal of Indian Anthropological Society, 27.
Roy S. B. and Mitali Chatterjee (1994). Joint Forest Management - A Training Manual. Inter-India Publications, New Delhi, India.

Smelser Neil J. (1993). Sociology. Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, India.