J. Env. Bio-Sci., 2015: Vol.

29 (2):353-356
(353) ISSN 0973-6913 (Print), ISSN 0976-3384 (On Line)

MANAGEMENT OF PEOPLE'S FOREST IN THE EASTERN HIMALAYA: A CASE STUDY

OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
G. Pangging¹, A. Arunachalam² and A. K. Das³
1
Department of Forestry, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST), Deemed University, Nirjuli,
Arunachal Pradesh-791109.
2
Principal Scientific Officer to Secretary (DARE) and DG (ICAR), Delhi
3
Department of Botany, Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono hill, Arunachal Pradesh.
[Corresponding author E-mail2: arun70@gmail]

Received: 05-02-2015 Accepted:12-08-2015

This paper analysis the management regime of people's forest viz., community forest and private forest of the Indian eastern
Himalaya (Arunachal Pradesh). It emphasized on the indigenous way of managing the forest resources wherein community is
considered as the custodian of forest resources. The traditional and/or village institutions plays a major role in the regulating and
allotment of natural resources as the communities depend on forest resources for vegetables, medicinal plants, other edible
forest resources, fuel wood, small timber, canes, etc. Even in the transition period of development, indigenous communities are
still respecting and obeying customary law of traditional institution for management purposes. In a village ecosystem, forests are
broadly classified into community forest (village forest, clan forest, etc.) and private forest. The deep rooted nature of traditional
management of forest can be reflected by community control of forest area i.e. ca. 62% of the total forest area of the Arunachal
Pradesh.

Community forest (CF) and private forest (PF) are the indigenous
typologies of indigenous forest management for tribes livelihood
purpose1. This practice of forest management has evolved
through constant interaction and dependence on the forest
resources vis-à-vis the knowledge base acquired by the
indigenous communities2 . It is argued that this indigenous
knowledge includes an intimate and detailed understanding of
plants, animals and natural phenomena, the development and
use of appropriate technologies for hunting, fishing, agriculture
and forestry, and a holistic knowledge parallels the scientific
disciplines of ecology and environmental studies. It also
indicates how indigenous knowledge is embedded in a
dynamic, multidimensional universe in which cultural,
economic, environmental and political factors intersect and
influence one another3. Community and private forests is about
54% of the forest area is under the custody of village council,
communities and private ownership in the north-eastern India4.
In Arunachal Pradesh, the biodiversity hotspot in the Indian
eastern Himalaya, about 62% of the forest area is still under
the control of local people4. And, the role of village council is
significant in the forest management. Like any other
community of eastern Himalaya in the region, `nyishi' tribe of
Papum Pare district in Arunachal Pradesh who is believed a
descendent of Abo-tani (the aboriginal forefather) has
reflections of conserving biodiversity through community
NAAS Rating (2016)-4.20
forestry. Nyel is the name of the village council of the `nyishi'
community headed by the village head locally called `gaon
bura' (GB). The GB looks after all matters of welfare in the
village including natural resource management (NRM).
Although Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRI) acts as the parallel
authoritarian of NRM w.e.f. 1996, the role of traditional
institution is still respected in decision making process. During
colonial and post-colonial era, formal laws were made to enable
and recognize the authority of the village councils and folk
law. Thus, there is a legal pluralism in the state of both the
indigenous laws of traditional institutions and formal law enacted
by centre and state in managing the forests resources5.
STUDY SITE
For the present study, the fringe village of Doimukh forest range
(27° 10' 06N and 093° 45' 41E and 113m asl) has been selected
wherein community and private forest are managed by the
indigenous community. The demography of the selected
villages are given inTable-1.
The study site falls under eastern Himalaya i.e., Arunachal
Pradesh is well known as 18 biodiversity hotspot in view of the
richness of biological and habitat diversity. There are 20 different
forest types present from foot hills to snow clad peaks due to
the difference in the hilly physiography and wide ranging
altitude variation. These are broadly categorized into tropical
 FOREST MANAGEMENT OF PEOPLE’S FOREST (354)

Table-1.Study villages around the Doimukh forest range

Source: Census of India, 2001.

Table-2.Comparison of community forest and private forest.

(355) PANGGING, ARUNACHALAM AND DAS
semi evergreen forest, tropical wet evergreen forest, subtropical
broad leaved, subtropical pine, temperate conifer and Alpine
types6. In Arunachal Pradesh, legally forest have been classified
and notified as reserved forests, protected forests, anchal forest
and village forest, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries under
the provision of Assam Forest Regulation 1891, Anchal and
Village Forest Reserve Act 1978, 1981 and Wildlife Protection
Act 1972. The total forest area is 51,540 km2, out of which
60.08% is comprises of Unclassed Forest7. The unclassed
state forest (USF) is a very ambiguous word and there is not
much departmental control on it8.
METHODOLOGY
Questionnaire survey was done with all stakeholders viz., gaon
bura, villagers, panchayat leaders, various genders, various
age group, etc. in the six selected villages. The questionnaire
comprised of information on traditional forest management
system, role of customary law, etc. that have been used to
understand and analyse the indigenous forest management
practices of the Nyishi tribe.
COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: Community
forestry has been considered as the forestry of the people, for
the people and by the people. The management of community
forest is done by the indigenous people, which are regulated
by the village council. Of the six selected villages, Midpu-II
had the community forest management system, which is
overlapped with the oldest of the Doimukh forest range.
The underlying principle of the community forest management
is based on the restriction regime (i.e., protection) against
illicit felling, encroachment, excessive grazing,
commercialization extraction of fuelwood, small timber, poles,
bamboo, etc. Unlike common property resources, the
community forest has been protected from the above pressure
by stringent customary laws. For instance the offenders are
penalized by the village council, the price equivalent to the
resources extracted are normally paid to the GB. The impound
money may be more based on the degree of offence. The
policy maker of the community forestry is the village council
(Nyel) who makes customary law related to community forest
for its protection, management and conflict resolution
mechanism.
There is restriction in felling of bamboo resources near the
village as it may lower the density resulting in lesser availability
of bamboo for utilizing as pole as well as food. The requirements
for timber and small timber are also meet out of community
forest, however with the consent of the GB. As per traditional
knowledge system, bamboo harvesting during the full moon
days is considered as best as it will lower pest infestation and
results in greater durability of the pole. Generally, selection
felling system is followed by the community. Even there are
certain mechanisms to over come the consequences of
gregarious flowering i.e., increase in rodent, which is controlled
traditionally by laying traditional traps.
There are lots of flexibility found in the provision of change in
landuse in the CF. Even shifting cultivation I permitted to some
extent in the CF. The allocation of the jhum land is done either
personal decision or with the consent of GB. They have made
certain indicators to define jhum land boundaries to minimize
confusion planting bamboo species other than Dendrocalamus
hamiltonii such as Bambusa tulda and B. balcooa during the
tenure period. As D. hamiltonii does not gives higher economic
returns than others. To minimize the damage of agriculture
crops by biotic pressure viz., human interference, free grazing
of Bos frontalis (a semi-domestic animal), etc. there is provision
in the customary law to ask for compensation for any loss.
MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE FOREST: Private forest (PF) is
one of the categories of the traditional forest that is owned by
individuals. In most cases, the existing private forests have
been evolved from the community forest, which is generally
converted through planting seedlings of trees, bamboo species,
etc. in a specific area for their own bonafide use. Such
conversion is commonly found in this region, which is well
recognised among the nyishi community that resulted in
proliferation of private forest in region.
In most cases, private forest has been found at the surrounding
hills of the village. The owners are having the proprietary right
over the resources. The PF has been clearly demarcated
planting economically viable bamboo species viz., Bambus
tulda, Bambusa balcooa, etc. To minimize the conflict, the
boundaries of the private forest are being respected by inter-
as well intra-villages.
The role of village council is very significant in the PF too. The
inter and intra community conflict existed in the villages are
 FOREST MANAGEMENT OF PEOPLE’S FOREST
resolved by the conflict mechanism of village council. In case
of dissatisfaction of judgment, the opponent also goes to high
court. In most of the cases, the village council is decision has
been respected well since time immemorial. The village council
assists in the proper management of PF in eastern Himalaya
as similar to CF and the right of the proprietors over the forest
resources is protected. Some of the existing pressure on the
private forest is grazing, commercial felling, etc. However the
rate of pressure exerted on the private forest is relatively less
than conventional forest areas. The mode of forest management
is based on restriction regime of existing resources from the
existing pressure. None the less, there is some flexibility for
limited NTFP collection from the PF.
The government agencies play an important role in the improving
the forest condition through schemes like state bamboo
mission and national bamboo mission assisting the forest
dependent communities to restore the degraded forest through
bamboo plantation. There are various other schemes adopted
to conserve the existing biodiversity outside the conventional
forest area such as Apna van and VFMC.
CONCLUSION
Over all, CF and PF have played an important role in meeting
the needs of the community living in eastern Himalaya as well
as conservation of rich biodiversity of the region (Table-1).
Nonetheless, the community forests have undertaken common
property resource management approach to meet the
livelihoods of all members of the community, while private forests
have appeared to more protected but still have so much of
restrictions to the public utility and the socially weaker sections
shall not be able to have their hands-on livelihoods out of it per
se. Still management of these aspects of forestry are respecting
and obeying the customary laws of the village council in the
(356)
transition of development also. There should be recognition of
the customary law for the protection of such forestry in eastern
Himalaya.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thanks all the GB's and villagers of fringe
village of Doimukh forest range for their cooperation during
the study.
REFERENCES
1. Arunachalam, A., Sarmah, R., Adhikari, D., Majumdar, M and
Khan, M.L. (2004). Curr. Sci., 87 (4): 447.
2. Mehra, Deepshikha, and Rucha Ghate. (2004). In: Tenth
Conference of the International Association for the Study of
Common Property, Oaxaca, Mexico.
3. Morin-Labatut, G., Shahid Akhtar. (1992). Development (Jour. of
SID) 4:24.
4. Barik, S.K., Darlong , V.T., Palit , S., Poffenberger , M., Roy , I.,
Tiwari, B.K. and Upadhyay, S. (2005). In: Community forestry in
northeast India. Community Forestry International. USA.
5. Pant, R. (2001). Paper prepared for NBSAP.
6. Kalita, S.N and Haridasan, K. (2001). In: Arunachal Pradesh
Forest News. 19 (1&2): 32.
7. Anon. (2001). In: Forest Statistics (2000-2001) Arunachal
Pradesh, Department of Environment and Forests.
8. Hegde, S.N. (2002). In: Arunachal Pradesh State Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan (Final Report). State Forest Research
Institute, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.