A Village Questions Its Share of the Benefits

A patch of forest protected by the village society for six years had resulted in a dense growth of teak, bamboo, and associated tree species. The success of the protection was apparent when contrasted to the bare patch of land on the neighboring hill. Much of the bamboo was large enough to harvest. The villagers had protected the land on the understanding that they would be able to share in the proceeds of periodic harvests. They understood that a sharing arrangement had been legally sanctioned by the government and wanted to know when they could begin harvesting bamboo. When they heard that their share was to be 25 percent, however, they were disappointed. After all, adjacent forest land was still totally degraded; if they hadn't protected this patch, nothing of value would have been on it. The responsible forestry official, on the other hand, was in a difficult position. The villagers had started protecting this land with the help of an NGO and had even undertaken reforestation work on the land without a clear right to do so during the time of his predecessor, before the national order or the state JFM resolution had been passed. Could he ignore the past infractions and make the new resolution retroactive? Could he ignore the villagers' and the NGO's obvious role in regenerating the land? What sort of a precedent would be set by the sharing arrangement? How should it be done? What procedures should be followed? State-level policy does not automatically translate into administrative procedure. Did the expectations villagers had of the bamboo yield and their benefits meet the Forest Department's own estimates?

A village meeting provided an opportunity to discuss these issues openly. The NGO representative stressed that the new government order specifying a 25 percent share in the proceeds from the sale of timber or major forest products (like bamboo) was now official state government policy; whereas previous hopes of sharing had been based purely on speculation. He tried to explain that, as this would be the first time that such sharing would take place under participatory forest management, it was important to proceed in a careful and thorough manner. Although nothing was actually resolved, and the meeting ended with a residue of frustration for everyone involved, the first steps had been taken to tackle this thorny issue, which is at the heart of the JFM program.

Jeffrey Y. Campbell, "Joint Forest Management in India." Social Change, March 1992: Vol. 22, No. 1.

Although the short-term returns from forest protection are attractive for some groups, major problems can arise when longer-term returns, requiring greater investment of labor, become uncertain. Forest protection and management by local people require a large investment of time both for protection and management activities and for attending meetings. The return on this investment becomes a potential area for conflict when local people believe that the government is underpaying them for years of their work. This issue is critical to the future of joint forest management.