|Location||Ecosystem Type||Conservation Type||Area(hectare)||Legal status|
|Sundargarh, Odisha||Forest||Ecosystem Conservation||120||Reserved Forest|
- About Us
- Our Work
- Documentation & Outreach
- Contact Us
- Our Store
|Location||Ecosystem Type||Conservation Type||Area(hectare)||Legal status|
|Sundargarh, Odisha||Forest||Ecosystem Conservation||120||Reserved Forest|
Suruguda, a nondescript village of Orissa, was awarded the national Indira Priyadarshini Brikshaya Mitra Award in 1989 for efficient forest management. This tiny village, which consists of 155 households under 6 hamlets (padas), has become a source of inspiration for adjacent villages and the entire district. The village consists of a mixed community of Agharias, Brahmins, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The village is located about 23 km from the district headquarters. Agriculture, agricultural labour, service, sale of milk, carpentry and bamboo weaving are some of the major occupations in the village. Floristically, the forests are dominated by sal and bamboo.
Until 1960, the khesra forest (revenue forest) was under the direct supervision of the landlord. The villagers could extract dry wood, NTFP like leaves, fruits and flowers from the forest with the permission of the landlord. These forests were popular hunting grounds of the king and the landlord, and punishment for offences was therefore severe. It was the fear of such punishments that resulted in the preservation of the forests in this region. However after 1960, as the landlord system was abolished in India, the degradation of the forest began.
It was around this time that the government of India also started coupe-felling in forests for timber extraction. Large parts of the forests were leased out to contractors. This led to considerable degradation of forests between 1970 and 1985. The degradation was further accelerated because of unrestricted cattle grazing, excessive extraction of wood (especially by the dominant Agharia community), indiscriminate forest fires and stone quarrying. The adjoining villages were equally responsible for the depletion of the forest. For the lower income groups in the village, particularly the scheduled castes, the forest became a quick source of money. By 1980, the forest had reduced to a barren patch. Although this affected every villager, it was the economically poor, largely the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes, who were hit the hardest. The affluent villagers, i.e., the higher castes, were not much affected, as they could afford to buy fuelwood and agricultural tools from outside.
With the end of the landlord system, many community institutions emerged in the village. The agharia community, which was strong in the times of the landlord, continued to play an important role in these village administration institutions. The village constituted a number of committees to deal with education, religious functions, etc. However, decisions relating to the village as a whole or inter-/intra-village conflicts are collectively discussed in a village meeting. One male member from each family has to participate in the village meetings. Conflicts are taken to the civil administration if not resolved at this stage.
Interestingly, it was a conflict between Suruguda and the neighbouring village of Jhariapali that led to forest protection. It happened when the villagers of Jhariapali did not allow the harijan community of Suruguda village to purchase rice from their market any longer. To teach the Jhariapalis a lesson, it was decided to prevent Jhariapalli villagers from entering the forests that they accessed for their firewood and fencing-material needs. Initially the decision to protect the forests was taken by two padas in the village: harijan pada and bhuiyan pada. A forest protection committee was formed and a letter was sent to the forest department to seek permission for protecting a part of reserved forest. A few months later the entire village joined in and a village meeting was called. In this meeting an executive forest protection committee was formed with representation from each hamlet (pada). Though the incident with Jhariapalli was the immediate trigger for forest protection, the other concerns that influenced the decision were acute scarcity of fuelwood and wood for house construction, agricultural implements, etc. Soon the villagers were protecting 80 ha of reserved forest and 40 ha of revenue (khesra) forests.
The first informal forest protection committee (FPC) was formed in 1985. FPC members were selected from within the general body with representatives of all caste groups. The people who had taken the initiative for protection were included in the committee. At this stage there was a dominance of the scheduled caste communities. However, changes in the committee came when it was formalized later, first as the van forest protection committee (VFPC) in 1989 and then as the van samrakshyan samiti (VSS) in 1994 under the forest department’s joint forest management programme. The initial effort was informal and the leadership was more committed to forest protection, whereas in the more formal set-up the leadership is more for power and resources.
For the protection of the forests, initially thengapalli1 was practiced. After a couple of years, as the pressures on the forests reduced, the number of people going for patrolling was reduced from six to two. The nearby villagers gradually became aware of the protected status of these forests and the penalties to be paid by offenders. The committee members regularly monitored the protection arrangement and rectified its faults. A strict set of rules was formulated, which evolved over a period of time, depending on the changing circumstances. An informal set of rules started in 1985, with a complete ban on entering the protected forests. In the initial periods, night patrolling was also done, which subsequently stopped with the reduction in the number of offences. In 1988, different rates of penalties were introduced for different kinds of offences. In 1990, the amounts were further increased to put greater pressure on the offenders. In 1994, because of JFM the forest committee was formalized and a formal set of rules and regulations were worked out.
There are specified rules for regular thinning of the forests under the FD-promoted silvicultural practice. The thinning operations are performed with the objective of promoting the growth of valuable species. The other rules for protection include:
• Wood-cutting instruments are prohibited from being taken into the forests.
• A differential penalty for different kinds of offences has been worked out.
• With the permission of the committee, free collection of firewood is allowed on Sundays.
• Bamboo-shoot collection is prohibited.
• Strong restriction on cutting sal, mahua and bija.
• Entry of cattle to the forests is allowed only in the pre-monsoon season. For the rest of the period a patch of grazing land has been specified.
• Entry of neighbouring villages is restricted.
• Strict penalty against those who fail in patrolling duty.
• Individuals helping the committee in catching the offenders shall get 50 per cent of the seized produce.
In addition to setting up these rules and regulations, the villagers also strictly monitored the spread of fires for the first few years and took measures to put out fires quickly.
The rules, frequency and dates of thinning, efficacy of management, offences, etc. are all discussed in the meetings of the committee. The periodicity of meetings is not strictly fixed. In the initial period, meetings of the executive body took place once a week. Gradually the frequency decreased to once a month. Whenever required and or whenever an offender is caught, meetings are immediately called. The committee appoints a person from the village itself for intimating committee members and the villagers. The person who gives the message is called a katuala. While executive committee meetings are restricted to executive committee members, in the general body meeting participation of at least one person per family is mandatory. Mostly men attend these meetings. In the executive committee as well as general body, there are women members; however, they only attend the meeting if it is being called by the FD or some visitors have come to the village.
For forest protection, each household contributes voluntary labour for patrolling, irrespective of the family’s financial condition and other constraints. Keeping in mind the economic conditions of the NTFP gatherers, the committee has not put any restrictions on NTFP gatherers from nearby villages.
The initial problems were to find ways to deal with the pressure from forest-dependent villages. A lot of effort had to be put in to convince the villagers to protect the forest for their livelihood and the future generations.
Strict protection seems to have helped improve the vegetation growth in these forests. A field study conducted by Vasundhara in 2001 indicated that there is a good regeneration of commercially valuable species such as sal and bamboo. The quality of bamboo boles indicates a good harvesting technique and good regeneration. The frequency distribution pattern of tree species indicated that most of the species are regaining their vigour through safeguarding their regeneration stands. However, some NTFP species such as beheda and hirada do not seem to be regenerating as well and could do with better protection.
Information on the status of fauna is not available.
Although the regeneration of NTFP species was recorded to be low, the production of NTFP has improved ever since the protection started. Protection has also ensured higher concentration of medicinal plants, which are an addition to the local income.
After years of protection, the villagers have started getting benefits of the protection. In 1990 the villagers extracted 266 cartloads of fuelwood, and in 1997 around 3,600 pieces of bamboo were harvested. The increase in NTFP has contributed to the incomes of people belonging to the marginalised sections of the village. In addition the villagers will be getting 50 per cent of the benefits from harvest of valuable timber under JFM.
JFM has also enhanced institutional capacities. The villagers now have greater confidence in dealing with the FD and other outsiders. Since it is the first village in the locality to start forest protection, it has been a model for the neighbouring villages.
To protect trees and reduce their dependence on them for fuelwood, chullahs (a locally developed stove which uses paddy husk as fuel) were adopted by the Suruguda households. Now the villagers also have various other forms of fuel like gobar gas and electric heaters. The VSS identified 50 households for a 50 per cent discount on alternative cooking equipment.
Role of the FD
In the initial stage of the joint forest management process, the forest department (FD) was very supportive, but this support gradually declined. In fact the FD helped the upper-caste community gain a position of prominence in the protection process, which had been dominated by the disprivileged sections when the initiative was informal. In addition, there was little or no involvement of the villagers in formulation of the micro-plan; in fact many villagers are not aware of its existence. The micro-plan has not been implemented effectively. It is apparent that the FD is yet to internalise the concept of people’s participation.
Equity in decision-making and benefit sharing
Participation of women in forest protection is only nominal, to meet the requirements of the JFM resolution. The male leadership of the initiative has not felt a need for involving women in decision-making.
The distribution of benefits from forest protection among the villagers was largely equitable in the initial years. Of late, however, elite sections are appropriating higher benefits: for example, in some cleaning operations the benefits have been grabbed by a few influential people. While on the one hand powerful people often get higher benefits, the poor end up paying a much higher cost for forest protection. For example, each family has to contribute an equal amount for forest protection activities. There is little sensitivity towards those, such as old people and widows, who may not be in a position to pay the contribution. According to some people from the disprivileged sections, the interim needs of the community are also being addressed inconsistently and with a strong caste bias. However, considering that a number of poor families and women from the village as well as neighbouring villages depend upon NTFP sale for livelihood, there is no restriction in the collection of NTFP.
Presently the van samrakshyan samiti is facing a crisis with the emergence of factional politics. Initially all sections had an equal say in the decision-making process; now the power is mainly concentrated in the hands of the upper caste group. The committee now lacks a strong leadership. Since regeneration and the consequent rise in the value of the resource, positions in the forest management committee are viewed as positions of power and the committee has been reshuffled and important seats occupied by inexperienced young people belonging to the dominant caste.
Encroachment of the common grazing land and its subsequent conversion to agricultural land is causing tension between two castes of the village.
Local politics, differential penalty for powerful sections and weaker sections (with weaker sections playing a higher cost), ineffective action in some cases of tree felling, etc. are among the things that have caused resentment within the community. This has also affected the overall unity of the village, threatening the long-term sustainability of the initiative.
Realising these problems, in 2001 the village committee decided to meet and take corrective action. This reflects the maturity of the village and a desire to bring about positive change. Information on subsequent developments could not be ascertained.
This case study has been compiled from two documents, references for which follow. We are grateful to Vasundhara, a Bhubaneshwar based NGO for further clarifications and comments on the case study.
Satyasundar Barik, ‘A small green village in Orissa’, Humanscape, December 2001.
Vasundhara, ‘Devolution of Forest Management: Creating Spaces for Community Action for Forest Management – A case study of Suruguda Village, Sundargarh District, Orissa’ (Bhubaneshwar, Vasundhara, 2001).
1 A rotational system of forest protection, where the patrolling party carries sticks (thenga) with them. After finishing the patrol the thengas are placed near the doors of the people who are expected to go patrolling the next day.
To provide more information, please click on the link at the top right corner of the page.