Professor S. B. Roy

Humans have diverse needs, desires, interests and ends which need to be fulfilled for their survival with satisfaction. The humans living in an around forest land use the forest produces for their various needs. There may be different ways of getting the forest produces for their own needs. Let me classify them. One may have three ways of fulfilling one's needs. Firstly, one may act independently in his own way without bothering about others. This is unsocial and has its own limitations. Secondly, one may seek to meet the needs through conflicts with another. One may clash with another or others to snatch things or objects which one wants from others. Finally, one may try to fulfil one's need through co-operation and mutual assistance. On the basis of this co-operative effort each individual will be contributing to the needs of his fellow men. This co-operative pursuit has a reference to association. When a group or collection of individuals organises itself explicitly for the purpose of pursuing certain of its interests together in a co-operative way, an association is said to be born. Joint Forest Management programme as a system has evolved to meet the needs of the people living in and around the forests. The genesis of Joint Forest Management (JFM) can be related to the birth of human association, which ultimately takes the shape of a social system. If we consider JFM as a system, it will have a process. As a manager if one desires to improve the system, one has to monitor the process through measurable, simple, practical and cost-effective indicators. It has been a challenging yet exciting task to develop indicators to monitor the activities of the human society, vis-à-vis ecological and economic aspects. The author will emphasize the indicators of the process of human society.

No human society is imaginable without institutions (established rules, regulations and procedures sanctioned by society) and in every society some individuals are authorised to assume the responsibilities for supervising the observance of the norms, values and institutions. Gradually, they become the governors and the rest are governed. With the passage of time the values, norms and procedures of the former develop into bureaucratic institutions. Simultaneously, the values and procedures of the latter crystallize into social institutions. The two sets of institutions diverge sometimes over how to achieve similar ends, resulting in conflicts. When the conflict is converted into cooperation between the foresters and the community members by setting a common goal and an agreed plan of action of forest conservation, it is the symptom of the success of Joint Forest Management (JFM).

Systemic approach

The sustainability of the JFM programme can only be maintained, ultimately, at the level of the interaction between the entire complex of human systems and all directly implicated environmental systems. To understand sustainability therefore requires some understanding of the behaviour of systems in general and of social and ecological systems in particular. The more we study the problem of society or ecology, the more we come to realize that they cannot be understood in isolation (Capra, 1996). They are systemic problems, which means they are interconnected and interdependent. The problems are not merely intellectual but also emotional which influence the political and economic domain and ultimately the ecological domain.

The principles of systemic approach can be listed in the following manner -

• The first of these principles is interdependence. All members of an ecological community are interconnected in vast and intricate network of relationships, the web of life.
• Success of whole community depends on the success of its individual members, while the success of each member depends on the success of the community as a whole.
• Understanding ecological interdependence means understanding relationships. It requires the shifts of perception that are characteristic of systems thinking - from the parts to the whole, from objects to relationships, from contents to patterns (Capra, 1996). A sustainable human community is aware of the multiple relationships among its members.
• Linear chains of cause and effect exist very rarely in ecosystems (Clayton and Radcliffe, 1996). Thus a disturbance will not be limited to a single effect but is likely to spread out in ever-widening patterns. It may even be amplified by interdependent feedback loops, which may completely obscure the original source of the disturbance.

The forest has both living organisms (biotic community) of a habitat and its non-living environment (abiotic component such as air, water, soil) function together as one unit called the ecosystem. Forest ecosystem falls under category of open systems, which exchange both matter and energy with their environment. Open systems are not thermodynamically in equilibrium but are in a dynamic steady state. In these systems the rate of formation of a given component is counterbalanced by an equal rate of removal or breakdown. The members of the human society living in and around forest interact with its part and harvest its produces causing removal and breakdown, alternatively contribute in maintaining balance through protection and regeneration, some sort of homeostatic mechanism (Dash 1993). Participatory Forest Management ideally should contribute to ecological balance through homeostatic mechanism.

Joint Forest Management involves management of a complex system where cultural, ecological and economic elements form a web of human and environment interaction. This web provides checks and balances of cultural values with ecological and economic implications governed by state bureaucratic and people institutions. Each system has components, which are interdependent and interrelated. Each component, say, social/bureaucratic, ecological and economic, is interwoven with the other in such a fashion that isolation of any hampers sustainable development. If we address ourselves separately to the problems of forest ecology, cultural and economic system, the solutions of forest conservation, improvement in economic condition of people and positive change in behaviour pattern of society become more difficult, and the scope for improvement narrows down.

The problem of deforestation and what is called the socioeconomic growth should be tackled through systemic approach. Any kind of intervention through physical activity (such as plantation, soil work, pit making, thinning, pruning, harvesting) to improve forest conditions will not yield the required result unless the desired behaviour of individuals in society is monitored and controlled as social norms and institutions. Same way, any kind of new behaviour by an individual forester will not have sustained action unless organisation as a whole changes its philosophy, policy and operational plan. No doubt, cultural, ecological and economic systems form a complex whole of Participatory Forest Management, where villagers as community and foresters as government institutions try to achieve the common goal of forest conservation. Both the institutions have their own perception, belief, norms, procedures and behaviours, which need to be matched.

Based on the research findings actions have to be taken at (a) community level and (b) government bureaucratic department level.

Monitoring

Monitoring is a continuous process of record keeping and analysing it periodically to assess at various stages the impact of any programme being implemented. The objective of any programme or project is to transform a set of resources into desired results or outcomes. Understanding the nature, objectives and scope of the development project and the responsiveness of target groups is an imperative for development personnel / specialists, economists and policy makers to recommend improvements.

In order to monitor the complexities of Joint Forest Management programme one has to understand the concept of process monitoring of a system.

Now the question in the mind of reader would raise how to monitor the process of a system? What would be the criteria and indicators?

In order to monitor the process of a system one has to know the principle and theory behind the process for reasoning or actions. Here since three sub-systems namely, institutional / social system, ecological system and economic system, are involved, the principle for the functioning of all three sub-systems has to be understood in order to develop indicators. All such indicators will not merely act as information, rather they would help to infer the status of a particular state of affairs. The indicators should convey a single meaningful message. Normally indicators represent an aggregate of one or more data elements with certain established relationship.

Criteria are the standard a thing is judged by.

Keeping this in mind for monitoring of the Joint Forest Management programme, the principles of social system, ecological system and economic system together with sustainability as a whole would help developing criteria and indicators.

Monitoring of Social Institutions at the Community Level

For the community level one has to study and intervene at the social system following sequential steps (Roy, Mukhopadhyay, Das 2001) such as identifying the

• i)   perception, identity and belongingness of the community towards public forest and other natural resources around their village and how they foresee the benefit.
• ii)   communication mechanism within FPC and between FC and FD,
• iii)   the group formation and dynamics,
• iv)   social institutions in favour of forest conservation,
• v)   clarity in roles and responsibilities related to gender and equity,
• vi)   effective leadership,
• vii)   values and norms through which community actions are integrated,
• viii)   symbols and rituals practised by the community relating to natural resource management,
• ix)   socialisation of the children to see how the parents interact and value natural resources and social capital through formal and informal orientation.

Once the community institutions and government departments institutional procedures are matched, popularly known as Bilateral Matching Institutions, it is expected that the members of the community will follow the set rules of forest conservation which would facilitate the growth of plant and animal species. The members of the community could then also set norms of harvesting Non Timber Forest Produces (NTFP) and timber, based on sustainability. Any kind of economic activity such as harvesting of forest produces, value addition, distribution, marketing will be successful only when (1) Bilateral Matching Institutions continue and (2) ecological activities such as forest protection, enrichment Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR), thinning, pruning, harvesting, etc., are carried out following the rules of sustainability.

One would agree with the author that managing forest, under Joint Forest Management programme, involves management of a complex system where cultural, ecological and economic elements form a web. This web provides checks and balances of cultural values with ecological and economic implications governed by state bureaucratic and community institutions. Each system (institutional, ecological and economic) has components, which are interdependent and are interwoven in such a fashion that isolation of any hampers sustainable development. If we try to understand and address ourselves the problems of forest ecology in isolation, without valuing the institutional and economic system, we will not reach any conclusion and find solutions. Therefore, the problem of deforestation and what is called the socioeconomic growth should be tackled through systemic approach. Any kind of ecological intervention, through physical activity (such as plantation, soil work, pit making, thinning, pruning, harvesting) to improve forest conditions will not yield the desired result unless the desired behaviour of individuals in the society is regulated as social norms and institutions. Likewise, any kind of new behaviour by individual forester will not have sustained action unless organisation as a whole changes its philosophy, policy and operational plan. Therefore, in order to understand the process of Joint Forest Management one has to understand the social process and the institutions which control action and give direction for ecological activity which in turn will reflect upon the economic process of resource management. The aspects of Joint Forest Management, thus, envisage the social institutions are related to the activities of the communities at one hand and the organisational behaviour of the forest department on the other along with its ecological and economic activities.

One will appreciate that the success of Joint Forest Management depends upon functioning of three interrelated sub-systems, namely Institutional (which includes both the community as well as the functioning of forest department organisation), Ecological system (which includes the geophysical activity together with forestry activity) and finally the economic system as a complex whole.

If we present the entire plan of activities it would appear diagrammatically in the following manner -

Systemic Approach - Bilateral Matching Institutions For Joint Forest Management

Institutional Aspects Forest Community Political will & support

• perception, identity and belongingness of the community towards public forest and other natural resources around their village and how they foresee the benefit.
• communication mechanism within FPC and between FC and FD,
• the group formation and dynamics,
• social institutions in favour of forest conservation,
• clarity in roles and responsibilities related to gender and equity,
• effective leadership,
• values and norms through which community actions are integrated,
• symbols and rituals practised by the community relating to natural resource management,
• socialisation of the children to see how the parents interact and value natural resources and social capital through formal and informal orientation.

FD as organization

Clear objective - Forest & People sustainability Changing Organisation Culture Constant Human Resource Development - Dynamic Process

Ecological

What helps in productivity?

• What helps in Biodiversity Conservation.
• What kind of seeds / veg. would help in better growth.
• What kind of thinning / pruning
• How to conserve soil and moisture.
• How to plan for better Nursery.
• What kind of plantation methods can help.
• Control of fire.
• Control of pest and weeds.
• Controlled grazing mechanism.

Economic Policy

Plan for judicious NTFP flow / extraction. Equitable distribution / value addition. Income Generation Activity. Marketing. Self Help Group / Cooperative / Bank account

The qualitative information, collected here for understanding the indications of social and foresters' organisational change, involve observation of some activities or observed traits such as how villagers enter forest now (after JFM) and how they used to do that earlier (before JFM), how do they talk to the foresters, how do they feel now when they collect their allotted share of fuel wood in contrast to their earlier way of collection of fuel wood (perceived offender) before JFM, how do the foresters sit with villagers on the same level to conduct micro-planning exercise or they are invited by the villagers to mediate in some village conflict even if it is not related to forestry activity, how do villagers patrol/ watch the forest and so on. The initial observations may be converted into approximate numeric values for comparison.

The method of collection of qualitative information focuses more carefully on how questions are framed. The measurements are introduced into the information collection and field observation with structured questioning, mostly in the form of `close probe'. Subjectivity can be reduced converting qualitative information to quantitative.

The author has experience in involving people in forest protection and management in different states of India, namely in reserve forests in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Chattishgarh, Maharastra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. It has been possible to learn the institutional process of changing people and further use of this learning in involving people at other sites.

Although there have been changes in the organisational behaviour of both the Forest Communities (FC) and Forest Department (FD), how can one examine and predict changes in the institutions: What are the parameters? Have there been any method of examining the parameters and testing the indications of change?

Let me site examples how social indicators can be developed based on following questions

1. Perception of people about Forest
1. Why forest should be conserved?
2. How should it be conserved?
3. Who protects it?
4. Why do you protect these trees?
2. Forest Protection Committee (FPC) as an organisation
1. How was the FPC formed?
2. Presently who are the people who play vital role in FPC activities?
3. Who protects it?
4. Why do you protect these trees?
3. Role of Forest Department / Beat Officer
1. Why forest should be conserved?
2. How should it be conserved?
3. Who protects it?
4. Why do you protect these trees?
4. Goal setting
1. Why forest should be conserved?
2. How should it be conserved?
3. Who protects it?
4. Why do you protect these trees?
5. Communication pattern/information Exchange
1. Why forest should be conserved?
2. How should it be conserved?
3. Who protects it?
4. Why do you protect these trees?
6. Role of Panchyat
1. Why forest should be conserved?
2. How should it be conserved?
3. Who protects it?
4. Why do you protect these trees?
7. Benefit sharing
1. Why forest should be conserved?
2. How should it be conserved?
3. Who protects it?
4. Why do you protect these trees?
8. Conflict resolution
1. Why forest should be conserved?
2. How should it be conserved?
3. Who protects it?
4. Why do you protect these trees?
9. Voluntarism
1. Why forest should be conserved?
2. How should it be conserved?
3. Who protects it?
4. Why do you protect these trees?
10. Rituals related to forest conservation.
1. Why forest should be conserved?
2. How should it be conserved?
3. Who protects it?
4. Why do you protect these trees?
11. Ecological indicators
1. Why forest should be conserved?
2. How should it be conserved?
3. Who protects it?
4. Why do you protect these trees?
12. Economic / market information
1. Benefit flows to the FPCs (From forest area)

1. From usufruct) Quantity	Cash value (Approximate)

   Benefit flows to the FPCs from other activities -

1. From usufruct) Quantity	Cash value (Approximate)

   Cash paid against services provided by FPC

2. Is there any FPC fund - (Y/N),
   (a) If Yes (Pl. Specify), source of fund (b) Amount in fund (Rs.)
3. Any activity for value addition on forest produces?

Developing criteria and indicators for the social process to measure the ecological changes has been important, challenging and not yet implemented universally. Different international organisations like CIFOR and national organisation IIFM have been working in the field but field-tested result from different parts of our country are yet to be seen. It is obvious that all the indicators may not be found useful at all levels, universally. It is also important to note that unless the users and practitioners of JFM are involved as partners of monitoring, and they do not appreciate its usefulness it may remain an academic exercise only.

The philosophy, concept and implementation of monitoring of JFM programme should be laid on the foundation of participatory method of socio-ecological process supported by a strong will, capacity and practical mechanism of Forest Department bureaucratic culture. This needs a clear policy and a transparent forum such as working group at different levels. Since the JFM programme essentially constitutes community as one of the partners, how could the partner be kept away from the monitoring process? How can the forest resources assessment be confidential? How can the institutional process of the community be a ‘fact of isolated’ action? If that be so, the process of monitoring and assessment be developed as a joint institutional mechanism which would not only be a ‘data base file’ but some sort of an encouraging forum to share the essence of success and failure of JFM programme. This would build trust between people and they would share to develop a course of action for forest conservation. This would also instill ‘self esteem’ both in FC (Forest Community) and FD (Forest Department) which one would be proud of.

Acknowledgement

The author is grateful to the Ford Foundation for supporting the project on Participatory Forest Management and giving opportunity for developing criteria and indicators in Joint Forest Management.

The author acknowledges Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India’s cooperation for assigning the task to test criteria and indicators of success of Joint Forest Management in different states of India.

Thanks go to Mr. Ganesh Yadav, Ms. Raktima Mukherjee and Ms. Damayanti Mukhopadhyay for going through the paper and providing necessary inputs.

References

Capra, Fritjof, (1996), The Web of Life, HarperCollinsPublishers, Hammersmith, London.

Clayton, Anthony M H and Nicholas J Radcliffe, 1996, Sustainability – A Systemic Approach, EARTHSCAN Publication Limited, London.

Dash M. C., (1993), Fundamentals of Ecology, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.

Guillermo A. et. al. Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Assessment of Criteria and Indicators; the Criteria & Indicator Toolbox Series 9; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

Guidelines for Developing Criteria and Indicators for Joint Forest Management 2000; Bhopal-India Process; Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal.

Iswantaro Heru; Developing Criteria Indicator for Participatory Forest Management; unpublished work submitted for Ph.D. degree.

Raju. G., R. Vaghela and M. S. Raju (1993). Development of People’s Institutions for Management of Forests. VIKSAT, Nehru Foundation for Development, Ahmedabad (a report)

Roy S. B. (1992). Bilateral Matching Institutions: An illustration in forest conservation, Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society 27: 253-262.

Roy S. B. (1996). Social Indications towards institutionalization of Development Programme: A case study from Joint Forest Management. South Asian Anthropologist 17 (2): 81-87

Roy S. B, G. Yadav, and D. Mukhopadhyay. (2000). The question of Social Change and Joint Forest Management: Case studies from Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, Journal Indian Anthropological Society 35:271-279.

Roy S. B., D. Mukhopadhyay and S. Das. (2001). Strengthening Institutions in Joint Forest Management : Systemic Approach to Forest Conservation, Journal of Social Science, New Delhi.