For 2/28, please read the Guha and Rangan articles (both in the mywebspace folder.)
Williams will provide some helpful background information on the British role in Indian forest history: Michael Williams, Deforesting the Earth, 326-348.
Compare and contrast the two scholars' perspectives on the role of the state versus the role of the community in Indian forestry.
Scientific forestry regimes seem to be fundamentally at odds with traditional forest uses. Since its advent in Germany in the eighteenth century, scientific forestry has been used to advance state interests in controlling woodlands and managing them to assure sustained yields and optimum profits. Meanwhile, villagers’ very lives have long depended on access to fuel wood, building materials, fodder for cattle, swidden lands, medicinal plants, and other vital forest resources. In his article on the India Himalaya, Haripriya Rangan shows how the British Raj and the post-independence state exerted increasing control over forests, sparking resistance by local communities, including the celebrated grassroots Chipko movement.
ReplyDeleteRamachandra Guha, in his article on community forestry in India, reveals an interesting twist to the standard narrative of inevitable conflict between scientific forestry and community interests: namely, that it wasn’t necessarily scientific expertise so much as a failure to apply a broad vision of it that alienated local villagers, while contributing to the decimation of forests. The pivotal figure in this novel reading is Dietrich Brandis, the German tapped by the British in the 1860s to serve as Inspector General of Forests. While Brandis shared the “creedal faith in the scientific status of sustained-yield forestry” he was also a “prophet of community forestry,” expressing appreciation for traditional communities’ long-standing practices of sustainable forest use. Accordingly, he advocated establishing a system that blended state reserves and village forests, giving local communities substantial control over resources. The Forest Act of 1878 largely eschewed his “democratic” vision, giving the state a near monopoly over forests and setting the stage for more than a century of popular resistance.
If Brandis, the scientific forester par excellence had been heeded, some of the conflict may have been averted.
-John
Rangan and Guha both advocate that some combination of state and local interaction and management is needed in order to manage Indian forests, and explore this idea in the context of history. Indian forest management has tended to take the approach of the state mandating various use categories permitted on state-owned lands, which did not necessarily align with the traditional uses of those lands by local communities. Because the local use literally sustains the communities in many places, this inevitably led to conflict with the state. Guha approaches from the perspective of the local communities' concerns, while Rangan uses the perspective of the state and its concerns.
ReplyDeleteGuha takes the approach of arguing that local communities, left to their own devices and the knowledge that the forests they're in charge of won't be subject to use outside of those outside the community, will use forests sustainably by default. Guha draws on historical arguments as support, claiming that this historical push toward joint management of forests indicates its workability in India. Today (or in 2001), Guha still sees in the JFM model an inequity which permits the local community only forest plots with <40% tree cover, meaning a community could potentially manage so successfully that its plot is removed from JFM for having too many trees on it. As a solution, Guha suggests a structure in which the state “listens to and learns from the community” and the community recognizes and self-manages its own inequalities.
Rangan takes a different approach to the idea of 'state property,' arguing that the difference between 'possession' and 'property' can create a wide range of situations in which the state may or may not be exercising rights over forests. She argues that the state's complete withdrawal from forest management policy is unachievable, because the state is still expected to intervene in police, mediation, and market regulation roles which require it to exercise its authority over the forests.
In Guha I found it interesting that in his end description of the ideal forest management structure the state was in a purely 'listening and learning role.' I'm not clear on what that's supposed to encompass, or what role the state is supposed to play at all in these locally controlled areas. While I agree that in an ideal world the local community would be able to manage its own resources, I think Rangan is more realistic when she says that power groups within the local community would tend to overexploit the resources for their own profit and marginalize poorer households' forest use.
Another thing that neither article directly mentioned, I don't think, but that came up for me when I was reading the interview with Bachani, was the potential for an additional level of complexity/conflict today. Bachani had to defy her husband to become involved in the Chipko movement because her husband was a forester who had a contract to cut down the trees. While Bachani's husband is by definition a member of the local community, he was actually a participant in more state/corporate-level activities, meaning that whatever stance he took in regards to the forest he was working against his self-interest, either in endangering his job by saving them or by losing access to them for subsistence purposes in cutting them down.
-Erin
Both Rangan and Guha advocate the need for both local and state control of forests. Yet they both clearly pick a side. Rangan goes against current assumptions that state control is ultimately a detriment to the conservation of forests and states that they can be a major force in the preservation of ecosystems, especially when local forests are being exploited by wealthier villagers. Rangan discusses the differences between property versus control and uses them as the central theme to his argument that there are many different types of state control that can eventually lead to degradation or preservation depending on how they work with or against the local people. One example of this is that many of the forests controlled by the Revenue Department were degraded by their right to sell products from the forest. Yet after the forests were depleted, they were then allowed to sell the land to be cultivated, which completely defeats the purpose of having the state conserve the forest.
ReplyDeleteGuya was on the side of the indigenous people who often felt that their restricted access to the state controlled forests were unfair and robbed them of their fundamental rights. I agree that this often happens, but that some government controlled forests are needed to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem health of more pristine forests. In the end population growth, especially in India, will lead to destruction of forests even with the best intentions of local peoples.
I agree with John in that Brandis was a key figure in this argument. He came from a background of scientific forestry but also learned from local people of their needs and expectations. This shifted his view to believe that forests could be properly conserved by local people, especially with their local knowledge and customs guiding them, but also that scientific forestry needed to be applied to make sure that this stayed true.
As a side note, I wonder how much of a difference the order in which we read these two articles makes on how we view the control of forests by state vs. local people.
Mallory Berrey
This is a difficult post for me to write because after reading these two articles I have become aware of how little I understand about this subject. Therefore, my argument may be overly simplified here...
ReplyDeleteA couple sentences in the Rangan article struck me as being very important but not adequately addressed: "The Company's administration in India feared that this level of extraction would lead to severe shortages in timber supply...An obvious example of such a problem was England itself, where forested areas were depleted of timber or converted to farmlands and meadows." (76) We are talking about a colonial government whose very reason for being in India is that it needs (or wants) more resources because it over exploited it’s own. When the advantages and disadvantages of state control of forests are being addressed, we need to consider what the government's true motives are. In the case of a colonial power, the welfare of the indigenous people and land are always at least secondary if they are considered at all. What role should the [British] state have had in the protection of the Indian forests? It shouldn’t have had a role at all because it shouldn’t have been in India, and judging by its need for colonies in the first place, it didn’t know what it was doing in regards to maintaining land.
Today’s capitalism is a continuation of yesterday’s colonialism. The affairs of the state used to be wrapped up in prospects of imperialism, and now it has shifted slightly to being wrapped up in the schemes of corporations.
I think that the state should have an active role in maintaining the forests, but only when the state can be open and honest about where it’s interests lie, and only when it seeks the input of those who are most dependent on the forest for survival, not those in the position to most profit. Also, a government needs to reward those who are good stewards of the land. Erin mentioned the part in the Guhu article that today the JFM model does not allow the village forest committees to have rights to land with more than 40% tree cover. (232) This does not encourage people to be good stewards of the land. If they are too good, the land can be taken away from them.
-Emily
The “scientific expertise” claimed by the Indian Forest Department has collided with the native community goals for over a century. I found the statistic of 27,000 offences against villagers in the years of 1933 and 1934 for violations of the department’s restrictions on forest access a telling sign that the “forest regulations ran counter to the needs of the tribesmen...”
ReplyDeleteIn India, scientific forestry was initially, and often enough continues to be, an economically driven discipline that lead to oppression of villagers and tribesmen. The classification of the most hearty and profitable forests as reserved and protected forests for the state left the villagers with small parcels of forested land within village limits as the source for all livelihoods, housing and fuel. It created an environment were violating the laws was the only way to survive.
The heavy fines and strict surveillance administered by local Department authorities created strong feelings of distrust from the villagers, because they saw the forests deteriorating. Local customs of preservation and conservations were forgotten because it was known that if they didn’t cut the trees to use them, someone else would and they would be lost anyway.
The Forest Department still continues to conflict with community goals, I too see the JFM as a half hearted attempt to provide villages with the resources needed to be a functioning and healthy society. It does not promote conservation management by community members and still requires permission to use the resources.
The point that stuck out the most to me within these readings was in the Guha reading, that "An official report of 1960 remarked that many of these village forest councils had done exemplary work in connection with forest protection and development (229)" This was referring to the van panchayats in the hill districts of the United Provinces. This was evidence of the success of control by villages in managing and sustaining their forest resources. These of course were not without connection to the Forest Department, which claimed 40% of any commercial exploitation revenue.
ReplyDeleteThe article went on to say that this type of management was not to be replicated anywhere else. In some cases this may be a poor decision, as other villages would have been capable of successfully replicating this form of management. This could have lead to even more successes and a better relationship between state and citizens. It seems that this was not suggested by the state for fear of losing more control of the forests as well as lack of trust in community management. I also understand why, in many cases, it would not be a good idea to replicate the van panchayas. Ecologically and politically speaking, there is never one solution that can be expanded to every situation. There has to be a case by case evaluation of each area in order to produce a plausible management strategy for that specific area. Perhaps, in many areas, the van panchaya system would fail due to differences in the community structure and varying roles and ideas of individuals in each community. Although, after proof the the successes in the hills, I do not see reason to not attempt to allow more control to the villagers themselves. This brought me back to the idea within the Rangan article, "State control is necessary, even for its critics, for regulating, reforming and setting the parameters of social and economic actions that relate to forests or other natural resources (75)."
When it comes to common resources and their use by many, there will always be controversy. I do believe that there should be a partnership between the state and communities as Guha mentions near the end of the article in order to work towards environmental stability, social equality, and economic prosperity. The biggest question is how do we find the balance among these issues?
--Amanda Rudie
I agree with Mallory for the most part on her comparison. The first article I read was Rangan’s Property vs. Control: The State and Forest Management in the Indian Himalaya. This article really focused in on the issue of how property (form) and control (function) interact in order to create a forest management system in India. The assumption that Rangan was arguing against is that ownership automatically determines the way in which a forest will be managed. The Indian Forest Act of 1865 aimed to distribute responsibility of management to different agencies. Overtime, forested areas would be reclassified so that more and more areas were under the control of the Forest Service. By examining the function of the Indian State Forest Service throughout history, Rangan makes the case that the State does have the potential to create effective conservation management systems through a diverse set of management regimes and forest classifications.
ReplyDeleteIn Guha’s article, The Prehistory of Community Forestry in India, the history of state forests is examined through the perspective of peasant protesters, tribal peoples, and social reformers who believed that restricted access to the forests for indigenous peoples was a violation of their fundamental rights, and that cooperation between the local people and the state could result in an effective conservation management plan for forests. One point that was made by Verrier Elwin really stood out to me, he said that “even where commercial forest operation became necessary… these should be undertaken by tribal cooperatives and not by powerful private contractors. (p. 220)” The arguments being made in Guha’s article did not only include the issue of allowing local people to retain access to forests for subsistence – but to also include them to benefit from the economy of ‘necessary commercial operations’.
Although both articles addressed forest management through different perspectives, they both made the point that forests management is very complicated – it is necessary to have diverse management regimes in place that function together to create a whole sustainable system that works for both the local people and the state.
One common theme present in both the Guha and Rangan papers was Joint Forest Management (JFM). Those three little letters are present in over half of the blogs so far, so I would like to look into JFM with a little more detail. Guha describes the regional variations in Indian forestry as a successive movement through three and possibly four phases. Some regions are stuck in the “politics of blame”, while others have moved to the “politics of negotiation,” and the most advanced have moved onto the “politics of collaboration,” made possible “through the creation of JFM regimes.” Guha later envisions a fourth phase in Indian forestry, the “politics of partnership.”
ReplyDeleteBoth articles discuss JFM, overall, as a positive movement. From this I gather that it is good for both the state and the communities and if JFM fosters collaboration, as Guha suggests, how could it not be good for both sides? So, the question becomes how both sides will view the “politics of partnership?” Guha envisions this as a positive, almost final step, for forestry in India, but I believe both sides will fight it, at least at first.
JFM has formed the basis for collaboration and from the readings it seems like it is catching on quickly. So, moving on to this final phase seems like the logical next step, where communities and the state work as partners in Indian forestry. At first, I didn’t think it seemed like much of a leap from collaboration, but to share jointly, equally in something so important to both sides – as partners – is a long way from simply discussing it through collaboration.
The way I read Guha, it seemed like communities may accept this transition, but I saw nothing of the sort in Rangan, so it seems logical that the state will fight a transition of this sort more than the communities. I believe that “partnership” would be the logical next and most likely final step, the idea is so simple, yet would be so powerful in forest management. Serving everyone’s interests in a collective partnership seems like the best way to manage a forest, as long as the forest is part of that partnership.
-Hanna Engevold
It seems Guha has the more intelligible approach over Rangan in providing a comprehensive history of local attempts to secure forestry management for community-based goals in India, stressing the importance of agriculturists' dependence on produce of forests, local ecological knowledge and the need for benefit-sharing to minimize conflict between the community and the state. However, Rangan, too, provides an important point (though harder to grasp in his lack of fully incorporating local histories and community angles into his argument)--state ownership and forestry management is not monolithic but an ensemble of access and management regimes, all with varying, but justified aims. In the end, Rangan does point out that despite all the good intentions of the state in managing forests, that certainly "blanket prescriptions for privatization or transferral of state forests to 'communities' are more likely to contribute to increased marginalization of poorer households, and also place the long-term sustainability of forests at immense risk" (91). He suggests instead, that perhaps JFM is a more flexible approach--one in which state control is not given up, but rather incorporated into an individual regime per forest that involves more community participation. Guha seems a bit more hesitant in supporting JFM due to its potential to further gender and caste discrimination, but rather supports restriction of state control to vast tracts of land far from people, and community-controlled forests as a complement to those state-run entities.
ReplyDeleteBoth authors make valid points, but I feel Rangan fails to bring an accurate history into his equation and basis for future strategy. It's impossible to ignore the voices of the local communities affected by years of state policies (regardless of the nature of the state's attempts) in planning for future management schemes. Rangan seems too caught up in how the state means no harm and has always honorable intentions (whether for maintaining watersheds, or maximizing commercial extraction for example); he disregards the impacts those feasibly honorable goals have on the entire population--particularly those more marginalized groups.
-Stevie
Although I was not fully convinced by Rangan's argument that state's involvement is completely necessary at some level to achieve sustainability/the conservation of the Indian forests, I do agree that a system in which the state and the local villages' needs and actions are harmonious could potentially be very successful in preserving the forests. Do I think they can achieve this, given the greater power of the government and the general animosity among the locals? I'm not sure. A lot would have to change. Trust (through human capital, potentially) would need to be built up between the two general parties, but if current mentality of property vs. control described by Rangan continues to dominate the Indian state's intentions/actions, then I don't see much change happening in the near future (unless another grassroots movement pops up).
ReplyDeleteGuha's article was a bit of an easier read. He made it pretty clear that although joint forest management has proven to be somewhat successful in the few regions where it is practiced, its implementation does have certain flaws. This system can promote inequity of control and access to resources for lower caste members as well as women, and often do not fully incorporate the deep knowledge of the forests that the villagers hold. He and the political and social players that he discusses advocate much more for village-owned forests and the rights of the locals who used the land sustainably (most often). I see his points, but I do believe his underlying aversion and pessimism toward a partnership between the state and the locals is a tad unrealistic.
When two groups have different interests in the same thing, conflicts are bound to arise. This concept is covered by Guha in regard to the forests of India. The state had interests in maintaining forests to get the most out of them fiscally, and to protect their future gains. The local people had interest in using the forests for sustaining day to day life, as they had done for generations. I agree with Emily in that you have to look at a group’s motivation. The State had little to no interest in the needs of the local people; their concern was how much they could get out of it. I thought that the debate we had in class between the state and the local people was a mute point, because the state does not care. They will hear the local people’s arguments, and whether they are founded or not they will still do what they want. The state will not listen to the local people unless they are given a reason, or if the state has something to lose. One example of this was in the Himalayas. In this region the state did concede to some local control of forests, because the area was a good reserve of men to fight in wars, and the Kumaun hills bordered both Nepal and Tibet with which Britain had strong trading and political interests.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I noticed while reading Guha is that it is easy to get emotionally invested in the plight of the local people. I feel that human tendency is to root for the underdog. I think your view can become skewed against the state in this article if you become too emotionally invested. Even though the local people were being denied the use of the forests, the state still does need to have a role. It still needs to be able to limit extraction, protect biodiversity, and apply science.