Kashwan, P. 2003. Conflicts in Joint Forest Management: Cases from South Rajasthan. Community Forestry 2(4): 12–17.

PULSE

Conf lict s in J oint For est M a na gement
Ca ses from S out h Ra ja st ha n

J

oint forest management (JFM) is arguably the

future. This article seeks to find answers to some

most important step that has been taken up

major questions thrown up by JFM in its present

since independence for improving management

format.

and governance of forests in India. Efforts have
P r a ka s h Ka s h wa n

been made to promote ‘joint’ management of

Which patch of forest to protect?

forests by the forest department (FD) and the

While JFM had initially been allowed by the

communities. While a lot of thinking has gone

FD only in degraded forest areas, subsequently,

into the nuances of the theory and practice of

some of the states also included good forest areas

JFM, a lot more work needs to be done. Conflicts

under the ambit of JFM. Before that, it was

and conflict resolution arrangements in the JFM

common to hear practitioners asking if the

framework is one such area where there is urgent

communities had to actively pursue degradation

need to pay a great deal of attention. This article

of forests before they could become eligible for

aims at bringing out some of the major areas of

participating in JFM. It has been observed that

conflict in the arena of join forest management

in addition to the present state of the concerned

based on the experience of the author while

forest patch, communities also take into

working with Seva M andir, U daipur on

consideration several other factors (like the

i mplemen t at i o n o f J FM pro j ect s an d

threat perception as a result of neighbouring

participating in inter-agency discussions over

villages eying the forest land for encroachments)

Pr
Pr a
a ka

ka s
sh
h Ka
Ka s
s hwa
hwa n
n

the issue of JFM in the South Rajasthan districts

before deciding to protect a particular forest

is
is pr
pr es
es ent
ent ly
ly

of Udaipur and Rajsamand.

patch through JFM. However, such factors do
not seem to fit into the scheme of things for

wor
wor king
king a
as
s P
Prr ogr
ogr a
am
m
A
As
ss
s ocia
ocia tt e
e in
in tt he

he

JFM was seen as a panacea for all the maladies

forest department officials. People of Mohan

a
a rr ea
ea s
s of
of

affecting the health of forests and its poor

Dungri village of Udaipur district got a taste

Com
Comm
munit
unit y

y B
Ba
as
s ed
ed

dependents. Unfortunately, though, such was

of this when senior forest department officials

N
N RM
RM (( CB
CB N
N RM
RM )) a
a nd
nd

the euphoria generated by JFM that not much

visited the village amid great fanfare only to

E
Envir
nvir onment
onment a
a ll

attention has been given to specific measures to

reject their demand for allotting a particular

J
J us
us tt ic
ice
e a
a nd
nd E

Equit
quit y
y

actively work out conflict resolution mechanisms

patch of forest and suggested another site.

wit
wit h
h The
The F
F or
or d
d

in JFM.

Needless to say, having put in huge efforts in
brining the forest department people to the

F
F ound
ounda
a tt ion,
ion, N
N ew
ew
D
Delhi.
elhi. Views
Views

Anybody seriously involved with the issues

village, neither the villagers nor the NGO could

expr
expr es
es s

s ed
ed in
in tt he
he

concerning community-forest relation would

say no to the proposed alternative site even if it

a
a rr tt icle
icle a
a rr e
e ba
ba s
s ed
ed

know that communities always had serious stakes

was riddled with a number of problems. Taking

on
on his
his ha
ha nd
nd s
s -- on
on

in the management and upkeep of the forest

up JFM on this alternate patch of forestland led

exper
exper ienc
ience
e of
of

resources - especially in areas that have been

to several conflicts between the village and the

wor
wor king
king on
on CB
CB N
N RM
RM

marginalized from mainstream development.

neighbouring hamlet that had been using a

wit
wit h
h S
S eva
eva M
Ma
a nd
ndir
ir ,,

Hence, it was only natural that anything that

pathway passing through this site.

Ud
Uda
a ipur
ipur ,, but
but ma
ma y
y

affected the community-forest interaction would

not
not be
be s
s ha
ha rr ed
ed by
by

be contested in many ways. On the other hand,

There is one more angle to this issue. Statistical

eit
eit her
her his
his pr
pr es
es ent
ent

allowing increased participation of communities

analysis taken up as part of studies conducted

or
or pa
pa s
s tt em
employer
ployer ..

in forest management would hurt vested

in U daipur under Ecological Economics

H
He
e ca
ca n
n be
be

interests. Here, we take a cursory look at some

Research Network (EERN) suggested that the

cont
cont a
a ct
ct ed
ed a
a tt

serious conflicts that have been witnessed so far

patches of forests allotted to the communities

p.kashwan@fordfound.org
p.kashwan@fordfound.org

and some that may be in the offing in the near

working in tandem with NGOs were invariably

11 22

/ Communit y For est r y / Volume2 / Issue 4 / M ay 2003

much more degraded compared to the sites

it is almost impossible to decide on the

where the FD itself was instrumental in

genuineness of the rights, concessions and usage

motivating the communities without any NGO

being practiced by these neighbouring villages.

playing the role of intermediary. In this scenario

Since the complex and elaborate customary use

the question arises: who should decide on the

patterns are seldom mapped and addressed

patch of forest that is to be protected?

adequately before a patch of forest is brought

PULSE

under the ambit of JFM, it upsets some villages/

W ho se fo rest is t his?

hamlets or communities. Since forest protection

Boundary conflicts between neighbouring

and management systems definitely involve one

villages/communities are the most commonly

of the fencing practices (stone wall, vegetative

ff led
ledged
ged minis
minis tt rr y
y

cited conflicts in JFM. This can be attributed

fencing or social fencing in some cases), they

a
a nd
nd d
depa
epa rr tt ment
ment in
in

to poor implementation of land settlement and

disrupt number of non-consumptive usage like

tt he
he gover
gover nment
nment of
of

demarcation of forest boundaries. It is not

using forestland for passage.

uncommon to see the same piece of land placed

Deves
Devestt ha
ha n
n -- A
A ff ullull-

Ra
Ra ja
ja s
s tt ha
ha n
n tt ha
ha tt
over
over s
sees
ees

in different categories in the records of various

In case of the Mohan Dungri village, after the

ma
ma na
na gement
gement a
a nd
nd

government departments concerned with the

forest bordering another neighbouring hamlet

cont
cont rr ol
ol a
a ll
ll tt he
he

management of land e.g. Revenue department,

Thurkudi was fenced off by constructing a stone

rr eligious
eligious

Devesth an depart m en t , FD an d lo cal

boundary wall, it was damaged repeatedly. Only

pr
pr oper
oper tt ies
ies ,, tt em
emple
ple

government bodies like Panchayats etc. With

after long deliberations and fact-finding was it

a
a ff ff a
a ir
ir s
s a
a nd
nd income
income

the settlement and demarcation of village

realised that the households located close to the

ff rr om
om a
a ll
ll s
s uch
uch

boundaries in disarray, such issues can proliferate

boundary wall had to get their cattle through

pr
pr oper
oper tt ies
ies

into very complicated affairs. This was illustrated

the forest area to the source of water. This was

in case of the Kojon Ka Guda (KKG) JFM, one

so mixed-up with a lot of other issues of

of the most complicated cases of conflicts in

customary usage of forest enjoyed by the people

JFM involving three neighbouring villages. The

of neighbouring hamlets that it proved too

JFM project had to be stalled for more than

complicated to be handled by the Forest

seven years before the communities could sort

Protection Committee (FPC).

out their differences. The issue was triggered
when the FD maintained that only one of the

Although the idea of honouring customary

three villages had ‘rights and concessions’ in

rights sounds very interesting, it has serious

the concerned forest patch while the other two

implications on the ground. There can’t be any

neighbouring villages also staked claims for equal

predefined criteria or checklist of possible

rights in the forest. Ego tussles among the three

customary rights, the validity of which depend

villages did not make things any easier. The

on a complicated set of factors that could

ensuing process showed how complicated the

include resource use, availability of resources

business of forest management could get. The

with various stakeholders and their general

process of deciding on who had the customary

socio-economic status. For example, herdsmen

rights to a particular patch of forest saw an

from western Rajasthan migrate all the way to

exploration of the lineage record dating back

the Malwa plateau of Madhya Pradesh when

to a number of generations, reading land

faced with annual dry season scarcity of well-

records that dated back to the British times and

stocked grazing grounds in their own region.

calling for a traditional Jati Panchayat.

This migration has been in practice for the last
several generations but with the introduction

H o w are the rights defined?

of JFM and protected area management in large

JFM is an attempt towards formalizing access

areas in southern and southeast Rajasthan, the

and management systems for forest areas that

routes of the migrating herdsmen have been

were freely accessed by several villages for

severely disrupted and availability of free grazing

deriving a plethora of benefits. But such

space significantly reduced. In the context of

formalisation invariably runs into problems, as

differential regional development and its impact
Communit y For est r y / Volume 2 / Issue 4 / M ay 2003/ 11 33

PULSE

on communities, how could one neglect the

seldom does anyone reveal such conflicts because

rights to passage of these herdsmen and their

it could threaten the entire partnership.

herds? Could our regeneration and management
plans account for such resource use rights?

In case of Kojon Ka Guda, where the conflict
originated as an intra-village problem, the process

Similarly, in case of villages that do not have

of resolution of the conflict took much longer

any forest in their close proximity, the people

than expected because whenever the forest

are left high and dry when the forest areas they

department officials were approached, their stock

A s of now, t he

had been using for extracting basic requirements

reply was- “What do we do if the villagers fight

t hr ee

like fuel wood, leaf fodder etc., are enclosed.

amongst themselves? Moreover, the NGO is

s t a kehold er s d o

The village of Ramaj in Girwa Block of Udaipur

supposed to take care of all these problems”.

not per f ec t ly

district is an interesting case. The people of the

How could the FD that was so much a part of

s ha r e t he

village used to access the forest area known as

whatever went on in the woods, wash it hands

objec t ives of J F M

Magret forest, located at a distance of about six

off suddenly? Even when the whole conflict was

a nd t he wa ys a nd

kilometres from their village. Prior to 1996, the

resolved by the efforts of the villagers and the

m ea ns t o a c hieve

FD employees protected the Magret forest.

NGO functionaries, it took one more year after

t hem

People visiting the forest for collecting firewood

the DFO in-charge had a meeting with the

or wood for making agricultural implements

villagers to actually start the work. What would

had to bribe the cattle guard appointed by the

justify further delay of a project that had already

FD. The forest of Magret was brought under

been stalled for six years? It was only through

JFM in 1996. Nobody then thought of Ramaj

the good contacts of one of our colleagues with

that was dependent entirely on the Magret forest

the personal assistant of the DFO that we came

for its fuel wood and small timber requirements.

to know that the DFO wanted the FD to work

It only meant that now, it was the FPC /guard

on the particular JFM project without involving

appointed by the committee who had to be

the NGO. These rumours were confirmed when

bribed by Ramaj people to get an entry into

the department sanctioned another JFM project

the forest for collecting dry and dead firewood.

on the patch of forest adjacent to this JFM site.
Isn’t it ironical that JFM has to be implemented

In this case, one might debate whether JFM

by two different agencies in the same forest area

arrangements should have honoured their

with the same set of villages?

‘customary rights’, especially considering the fact
that this was the only forest patch the people of

Once work started on the site, villagers decided

Ramaj could access?

to deal with the issue of encroachment made by
a family in the designated forest area. The initial

11 44

F D , N GO an d C o m m un it ies:
Who do es what?

encroachment made by this family was very old

There are three major players in the arena of

maps. However, the family kept expanding the

JFM, viz. FD, Communities and the NGOs. The

area encroached by them and added more forest

role played by different NGOs involved in JFM

area after the conflict broke-out. This time, the

also varies from a mere facilitation of the process

villagers decided that only that part of the

to actually working with the communities on

encroachment recorded with FD would be kept

forest regeneration and management. As of now,

out of the JFM enclosure and whatever

the three stakeholders do not perfectly share

additional forestland had been encroached by

the objectives of JFM and the ways and means

the family would be declared illegal and deemed

to achieve them. This being the case, conflicts

as forest area. However, the family maintained

often surface amongst these players. However,

that the entire area of encroachment was marked

it is quite tricky to trace conflicts in this arena

in the forest records. In order to resolve the

because they are mostly latent in nature and

conflict, a forest official from the range was

/ Communit y For est r y / Volume2 / Issue 4 / M ay 2003

and it was recorded in the forest department

called along with the concerned maps. As soon

o rder o f the go vern men t o f R aj asthan ,

as discussion started on the issue, the official

communities would get a 90% share in the final

declared that the entire patch encroached by

harvesting. The forester and the range forest

the family was recorded on the FD maps. Village

officer present in the meeting simply refused

elders and FPC members, who had sounded very

to accept that there was any such provision in

confident of getting the extended encroachment

the government order. Fortunately, we were

vacated, accepted the official’s statement without

carrying a copy of the government order and

any further questions. If the forest official

were able to show it to them in black and white.

supported the encroachment, who would

One doubts whether this issue would remain a

oppose him?

‘latent’ conflict if ambiguities like this are

PULSE

maintained by the FD when it comes to final

H o w is the pie divided in JF M ?

harvesting!!

Another major flashpoint between the forest
come up in future could be on the issue of

Are the partners in JF M equally
acco untable to o ne ano ther?

sh ari n g o f ben ef i t s f ro m t h e f o rest s.

The subtitle of this para is a little over-ambitious

Communities are at a disadvantage in marginal

as we are still talking about very basic kind of

and highly degraded arid, semi-arid regions like

accountability in JFM. To cite an example, the

Rajasthan where it takes at least a decade before

FD registered Jhabla FPC in 1994 but formal

operations like thinning etc. are conducted. The

permi ssi o n f o r wo rki n g t o wards f o rest

communities have little to gain from the forests

regeneration and forest development came only

in the short run as compared to states like

in December 2001. For all these years, the

Madhya Pradesh where such benefits are available

villagers as well as the NGO functionaries

to the communities in a comparatively shorter

continued doing the rounds of the offices of

time frame. On top of that, FD officials do not

the FD. Ironically, the Jhabla-JFM was ‘ongoing’

attach any great importance to the signing of a

during all these years as per FD records. Finally,

formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)

when a young probationer forest officer visited

with the FPCs as per the provisions of JFM.

the site, he accepted that it was unjust to hold

Even when the MoUs are signed, rather than

back permission for forest conservation work

clearly men t i o n i n g t h e ben ef i t sh ari n g

in such remote areas where the forest officials

arrangements, the memorandum only states that

would not even reach, if it were not for the

benefits from intermediary operations and final

efforts of the communities and the NGO. This

harvests would be shared with the FPC as per

episode throws up the question: who is

the state government orders. The frequency of

accountable and answerable to the villagers who

government orders issued by the government

waited for more than six years?

department and the communities that could

of Rajasthan only adds to the confusion and

The F D r egis t er ed
J ha bla F PC in

doubts amongst the communities regarding the

These questions are important because they

19 9 4 but f or ma l

state of things to come by the time final

affect JFM in many ways. For example, Mohan

per mis s ion f or

harvesting is conducted. What then are the

D un gri F PC f aced pro b l em s i n f o rest

wor king t owa r d s

incentives for the communities to protect forests,

protection, as some households within the

if they are not sure of the benefits that they

village did not cooperate. When a formal

would get after say, two decades of hard work?

complaint was lodged with the range forest

Indications of possible future problems on this

officials, they used it as an opportunity to extract

d evelopm ent c a m e

front were visible during a meeting where we

offerings of chicken and Ghee from the erring

only in D ecem ber

invited range level staff of the FD for explaining

families. In this case, however, the NGO

20 0 1

the provisions of JFM to the members of Jhabla

conveyed the villagers’ complaint to the DFO

FPC. We explained to the people that since the

but we did not know if any action was taken

community had mobilized funds with the help

against the erring forest officials. Mohan Dungri

of an NGO, as per the provisions of the latest

JFM eventually faced serious problems and

f or es t
r egener a t ion a nd
f or es t

Communit y For est r y / Volume 2 / Issue 4 / M ay 2003/ 11 55

PULSE

whenever the opportunity arose, the DFO used

national highway passing their village. When

Mohan Dungri as an example to prove that

FPC members tried to convince these people

NGOs were not necessarily good at community

not to indulge in timber trade, these relatively

organisation.

powerful households threatened the committee
members and continued with their business. In

In yet another village, Kaliwas, the FD had

such a situation, there is very little the NGOs

involved communities in JFM by asking them

or the communities can achieve without the

to work as labourers and contribute to a

help of the FD. Once the option of mutual

maintenance fund. The villagers were joint

negotiation is exhausted, the only way out would

signatories in the bank account, but they never

be a strict enforcement of the rules by the

saw the passbook after putting their signatures

co n cern ed

at the time of opening of the account. There

enforcement seems a far-fetched dream in case

were conflicting reports as to how much of

of JFM. The Gram Panchayat could also act.

money was actually deposited in the maintenance

But very often clash of interests is witnessed

account indicating a possible misappropriation

between the FPC and the Panchayat leadership

of the funds. Irrespective of whether the

that often sees the FPC being entrusted with

allegation was true or not, the very fact that

the mandate of forest management as a challenge

people talked of this meant that they nurtured

and threat to its authority. In our much-referred

feelings of mistrust against the concerned forest

to case of KKG JFM, after the conflict was

officials, but could not discuss this issue with

resolved, FPC was asked by FD to seek approval

the FD without inviting the ire of the officials.

of Gram Panchayat before undertaking any

All these instances are examples of the conflict

work on the forest. The Sarpanch refused to

of faith that exists between the communities

sign the papers and demanded that he, along

and the FD. It may, of course, lead to serious

with the concerned Ward Panch, be included

aut h o ri t y.

H o wever,

such

problems once the communities muster

in the executive committee of the FPC .

B ut ver y of t en

co n f i den ce to ask so me un co mf o rtable

Ultimately, FPC members had to use their

cla s h of int er es t s

questions. While that is in the future, the lack

‘connections’ to get the Sarpanch to sign on

is wit nes s ed

of people’s faith in the forest establishment and

the no-objection letter. Rumours doing the

bet ween t he F PC

consequently the belief that forest protection is

rounds indicated that the family that had

a nd t he

not the real agenda of some of the officials does

encroached forestland had befriended the

Pa ncha ya t

encourage the delinquent elements within the

Sarpanch. If the powers conferred upon the

lea d er s hip t ha t

community to carry on with their anti-

Gram Panchayat are used in such discretionary

of t en s ees t he

conservation activities.

fashion against the majority of people working
to improve the resource base of the village, how

F PC being
ent r us t ed wit h

Who runs the sho w in a village?

t he m a nd a t e of

Having talked about the conflict between the

f or es t

department and the communities, it would be

Conflicts have also been witnessed between

m a na gem ent a s a

sensible to talk of contradictions within the

communities within a village that were affected

cha llenge a nd

co mmun i ti es. C o n f li ct between vari o us

differentially by introduction of JFM. In an

t hr ea t t o it s

segments of a village community is an intrinsic

exploratory study across a number of JFM sites

a ut hor it y

part of the village dynamics. The reasons for

and other Protected Silvi-Pasture Arrangements,

conflict that may seem to be related with issues

it was revealed that permanent enclosure of forest

of forest at first sight may actually lie somewhere

areas for prevention of free grazing and cut

else. However, in many cases, the conflicts are

and carry systems of fodder management

related directly to the issue of forest protection.

favoured large ruminants like cows and buffalo

In Jhabla, some families had traditionally been

that could be stall-fed. However, it adversely

in the business of transporting large quantities

affected the communities that depended on

of fuel wood on the back of their camels to the

rearing small ruminants used to browsing in

nearby town and hotels and restaurants on the

the open forest. Such observations were made

11 66

/ Communit y For est r y / Volume2 / Issue 4 / M ay 2003

are we to achieve self-sufficiency?

in case of JFM initiatives of Bada Bhilwada and

those promoted by the FD have come together

Salukheda villages. The signs of conflict were

in the form of this block level federation. It has

much more visible in Salukheda where tribals

been observed that many initiatives taken up

seriously resented the fact that it was the upper

by the Federation have got much better

castes like Rajputs and Gayaris who benefited

response from the FD as compared to those

from JFM. However, some of those involved in

taken by NGO s or the individual FPC s

the post-research, discussions challenged this on

supported by NGOs.

PULSE

the ground that these people had actively
A beginning could

supported JFM when they were consulted prior

v

to taking up JFM. Their volte-face could then

be m a d e by

be explained in terms of the trade-offs that these

und er s t a nd ing a nd

communities saw in easy availability of wage

a r t icula t ing t he

labour within their village, income from their

RE FE RE NC E S

r ea lit ies of
f r a gm ent a t ion

share of fodder collected during annual

Kashwan, P. (2000) Case Study 3: A study of

harvesting from the JFM area versus any possible

Bada Bhilwada Joint Forest Management in Jain,

wit hin t he

losses that they might face in terms of increased

N. et al. (2000) Silvipasture Management Case

communit ies , t he

difficulties and reduced income from rearing

Studies by Seva Mandir. BAIF/NRI Goat Re-

ha r d ened

small ruminants.

search Project Report Number 5. Natural Re-

a t t it ud es of
va r ious la yer s of

source Institute(UK)

f or es t bur ea ucr a cy

Way ahead
Looking at the variety of conflicts that are

Jain, N. et al. (2000) Silvipasture Management

a nd t heir

afflicting JFM, it seems very unlikely that the

Case Studies by Seva Mandir. BAIF/NRI Goat

r es pect ive

issues involved could be addressed in one go.

Research Project Report Number 5. Natural Re-

int er a ct ions wit h

H owever, a beginning could be made by

source Institute(UK)

t he f or es t s t ha t
a r e t o be

understanding and articulating the realities of
fragmentation within the communities, the

Vardhan, M. (2001)”Joint Forest Management

t r a ns f or med f r om

hardened attitudes of various layers of forest

on Marginal Lands- of Promises and Real re-

being a n open

bureaucracy and their respective interactions

turns”. Seva Mandir Newsletter, March 2001.

a cces s r es our ce
int o a common

with the forests that are to be transformed from
being an open access resource into a common

Vardhan, M. and Negi, N. K. (1999)Implement-

property resource. The basic philosophy that

ing JFM: Experiences of Seva Mandir. Mimeo.

should govern the progress towards conflict-

Udaipur: Seva Mandir.

pr oper t y r es our ce

free joint management strategy would be based
on ‘Domain-Consensus’, which would mean that

Kashwan, P and Patel, P. (2001) “The Neighbours

every party is clear about and in agreement with

who refused to be excluded!! An inter-village

the roles the other players would play in the

conflict arising from exclusion of traditional

whole arrangement. Unless there is a shared

users of forests from JFM in Udaipur district,

understanding on ‘who-does-what’, difficulties

Rajasthan” In: Pastakia, Astad ed. (2001)AKF Case

as mentioned above would continue cropping

Studies : Conflicts over land, water and forests;

up. Another major initiative could be that of

Aga Khan Foundation, New Delhi (Unpub-

bringing communities to the centre stage of

lished)

the whole movement of forest conservation so
that ego problems between the FD and the

Lobo, Viren (2002) The Wastelands, editorial

NGOs could be avoided. Evidence of the success

in Humanscape, VOL IX ISSUE VI JUNE 2002;

of these initiatives are available in the form of

Foundation for Humanisation, Mumbai.

successful functioning of the Van Uthhan Sangh
in Jhadol block of Udaipur district where the
FPCs supported by various NGOs as well as

u
Communit y For est r y / Volume 2 / Issue 4 / M ay 2003/ 11 77