Policy Implications and Governance in Common pool resources

Inferences from Area Closures in Tigray and Joint Forest Management in

Gujarat.

Paper presented at the workshop “A Comparative Analysis of Common Pool Resources (CPR)
management in Ethiopia & India”, Anand 2-3 March 2001.

Institute of Rural Management, Anand (IRMA)

&
Sadguru Water & Development Foundation (SWDF)

Ravi Shanker
Dr. Rakesh Saxena

March-2001

Triangular Institutional Co-operation between Ethiopia, India and Norway

South South Links in management of Natural Resources in Semi-arid Areas.
Abstract:

This paper briefly examines the existing policy environment governing common pool resources
(Forest and natural regeneration) in the regions i.e., Tigray and Gujarat as part of the project:
Triangular Institutional Cooperation between Ethiopia India and Norway; fostering South -South
Links in management of natural resources in semi-arid areas. During the fieldwork between
1998-2000 in both the countries, the team has studied various aspects of existing policies, their
adaptation by communities and resultant impact over the resource system. It has considered
essential outcome over the years from the three ‘field reports’ presented during the study period.

While dealing with policy issues, this paper briefly referred to existing legal and political
environment, relationship between user, state and civic organisations, property regimes, and
livelihoods of communities. Even though the existing CPR policies are strongly influenced by
“downward spiral” theories on environmental degradation, orthodox approaches are fast loosing
grounds to the ‘environmental entitlements’ (Sen 1981) as alternative approach in understanding
poverty-environment linkages (Leach etal 1997). The shift clearly observed from resource
availability to resource access, control and management.

Both the country policies expressed considerable amount of understanding in this direction,
however needs further clarity in execution to break the impasse that exist between communities,
civic organisations and State at large. CPR (forest and natural regeneration) management is in
need of enabled policy environment at this juncture.

Ravi Shanker Dr. Rakesh Saxena

NM Sadguru Water & Development Foundation. Institute of Rural Management, Anand
P.box.71. Dahod 389151. P.box.60 Anand. 388001

1
CONTENTS:

1. Introduction 3

2. Emerging views 3

3. Tigray 4

3.1. Legal and political environment 4

3.2. Relationship between user, state & facilitator 5

3.3. Uncertainty of use rights and property regims 5

3.4. Livelihoods and sustainability 6

4. Gujarat 6

4.1. Legal and political environment 7

4.2. Relationship between user, state & facilitator 7

4.3. Uncertainty of use rights and property regims 8

4.4. Livelihoods and sustainability 9

5. Concluding Remarks 9

References 11

2
1. Introduction:

Triangular Cooperation:
This paper is resulted from the field studies conducted in Tigray and Gujarat in last three years
between year 1998 and 2000 as part of “Triangular Institutional Cooperation”-A comparative
study of common pool resources management with respect to forest and natural regeneration in
Ethiopia and India. NM Sadguru Water & Development Foundation (SWDF) in Gujarat and
Relief Society of Tigrey(REST) were involved in CPR management for last couple of decades.
Both the organisations have substantially worked with communities and state in facilitating
community management of common pool resources.

Multi-disciplinary teams for Mekelle University, NORAGIC, IRMA, REST and SWDF have
collectively shared the responsibility to study, review and learn from sharing during the course of
three years. Workshops conducted in both the countries with regional partners in the endeavor
and all the stakeholders were consulted during the project.

The project progress reports documented the details in three consecutive years of 1999, 2000 and
2001. Based on the community interviews, workshops, Key interviews with policy makers and
stakeholders and reference to policy documents have resulted in the form of this document.

2. Emerging Views:
While broadly reviewing the existing policy frameworks governing Area Closures (AC) in
Tigray and Joint Forest Management (JFM) in India, where the Indian national JFM policy
enjoyed a decade (formulated in 1990) of existence to Ethiopia’s Environmental Policy (1997).
The Area Closures however was in practice long before the policy formulation. Both the policies
have emphasised on ecological processes-balance to local communities’ participation-
empowerment. There are however differences in further articulating respective concerns by
administrators, facilitators and communities themselves.

Broadly understanding ‘A written or unwritten intent with related incentives and disincentives
designed to achieve some stated societal goals’ (Hoon, Singh and Wanmali 1997). As it appears
that the Area Closures having largely emerged out of local action, JFM policy could largely be

3
attributed to state initiative whether it is of West Bengal or other parts. However civic
organisations have significantly influenced the respective policies in both the countries. The
team has discussed links between policy, sustainable livelihoods and environmental entitlements.
Patterns of entitlements and distribution of assets are embedded in a macro structure of policy. A
variety of policies affect local adaptive strategies governing commons and other resources
(ibid.). The policy commitments towards Area Closures and JFM in state administration (in
allocate role) and among NGOs (facilitators) make significant impact over the community and its
resource management practice.

If the community finds that the state changes its approach to communal resources, it may rapidly
changes its own commitment and effort to protect and conserve commons.

3. TIGRAY
In Tigray people are involved in conservation activities and management of hillsides
communally with the help of Bureau of Agriculture (BoANRD) and other NGOs. The Tigray
Regional Conservation Strategy has come into existence (1999) which follows up the National
conservation Strategy drawn from the national Environmental Policy (FDRE 1997).

Large chunk of land allocated under area closures, plantation sites and grazing lands. These land
once affected by severe degradation are now managed by local communities. The local Tabia
Baito (governance) is empowered to decide the conservation and management of CPRs and the
systems is also fairly established with clear roles and responsibilities. Bureau of Agriculture and
NGOs act as facilitators in the process.

3.1. Legal and political environment:

The state has assigned lot of weightage to people’s involvement in conservation, giving major
decision making power to Tabia Baito (local government at village level). The political will to
rehabilitate degraded hillsides, communal grazing lands, and afforestation sites is apparent and
visible (CPR Study field report, Feb 2000). Yet, economic incentives to resource users through
‘rights to end-use’ have not been clarified so far at any level. The current governance has been
enjoying immense faith of local communities in its policies. Vise-a versa local communities also

4
willingly adopted the policy directives of government in conserving forest and natural
regeneration. In absence of written policies in end-use, the future resource endowment could get
threatened.

3.2. Relationship between User, State and Facilitator (NGO):

The state has provided a framework which has a flow (structural and legal) from local (Tabia),
district (Woreda) to regional state level. Important decisions are made often at Woreda level in
consultation with Tabia Baito representatives. BoNARD and NGOs both extend technical and
financial support to different communities involved in conservation. A strong and
complementary relationship between NGOs and state, where the Tabia Baito empowered to
design rules and regulations (Serit) make decisions towards communal interest. The institutional
arrangements and roles of different committees at Woreda, Tabia and Kushat level in
conservation were clearly visible.

Advocating commercial forestry, privatisation and involving forest industry to make hillsides
productive needs careful consideration in light of how they affect livelihood strategies and
overall bundle of environmental resources available to poor households. A prominent
academician commented that ‘industry’ would prefer ‘good’ (fertile) sites leaving highly
degraded sites for village commons’. Such initiatives should not be mixed up with CPRs as both
relate to different school of thought and communities land up in uncertainty over what they
believed for all these years.

3.3. Uncertainty of use-rights and property regimes:

In spite of ‘co-management arrangements, the dichotomy of ‘state versus community exists.
While some policy-decision-makers view Area Closures primarily as conservation strategy under
proper land use plan and protected against further degradation. The more specific policy
instruments and rules towards ‘utilization’ appear not be in place. This has created considerable
ambiguity at local level where state experimenting on commercially viable plantations
(Hageresalam plantation sites managed by REST-Commercial Forestry Unit) to which Area
Closures dominated by local shrubs useful as firewood and for honey production. Privatization
being on cards (experiments in Negash, Sinkata sites where degraded hillsides distributed to

5
landless), where communal v/s commercial and equity v/s productivity repeatedly threatening
existing CPR regimes in Tigray. The national environment policy and regional experiments on
hill sides does not fall on same line and sending mutually contradictory implications to
communities at large.

3.4. Livelihoods and sustainability:

The balance between resource availability, livelihood patterns is fast changing with the
occurrence of Area Closures and new CPR regimes. The changing resource entitlements forcing
households to re-define their livelihood strategies to new resource management systems and thus
demand for new set of entitlements. Here State need to intervene by extending support services
like live stock improvement, fodder management, agriculture development and also through
enabling institutions and organisations. Instances of local level participatory planning approach
(LLPPA in Dibdibo micro dam site) has however observed. But further extension of services was
missing either from BoANRD or NGO involved.

Similarly commercial plantations in existing mode may not meet the subsistence needs of people
like birds, honey, fodder grass etc., and leave less power to decide on resource system. These
environmental entitlements which finally lead to food self sufficiency and reduction in poverty
should not be ignored by policy directives while executing area closures or encouraging
privatization.

4. GUJARAT:
In India the forestland is essentially belongs to State and people can have usufruct rights to the
specified forest produce. The Government of India has issued guidelines (1990) to all states to
take steps for the involvement of communities and voluntary organisations in regeneration of
degraded forestlands. Successively, Government of Gujarat successively issued circulars (FCA-
1-90-125-V3/13.03.1991) towards promoting JFM related investments, resultant benefit sharing
and signing contract (Karar patra) with communities to this effect.

These initiatives came into existence after the review of Indian forest policy in late 80s. The
successful experiment in West Bengal and other initiatives by Foresters in other states, resulted

6
in JFM guidelines. However, the complexities existing in the forest management, and need for
considerable administrative reforms to this effect along with strong political will took the activity
over a decade to shape up. However, the Panchayti Raj amendment added further uncertainty to
existing policies. A State Level Working Group actively involved in shaping up the JFM
guidelines and finding out ways and means to resolve emerging complexities from time to time.
Gujarat being known for voluntary action, people’s networks are active in policy advocacy and
governance of resources.

4.1. Legal and political environment:

Time to time the SLWG meets and discusses the JFM progress. However, to what extent the
JFM has constitutional back up and political commitment is a question even many foresters also
wonder. The Karar Patra (agreement between forest department and communities) should be a
clearly written document specifying the use rights to non-timber forest produce (NTFP), share in
final felling, responsibilities of communities and roles of state and forest protection committee
(FPC). Apart from this state forest department also administers Adhikar Patra, which provides
only conservation rights to the community.

Communities could benefit fodder grass, firewood with state permission but not entitled to
benefits enjoyed under Karar Patra. The number of instances where state signed ‘contract’ is
limited. State expressed apprehension towards loosing rights over the resource under ‘contract’,
if communities (vested interests in society) adopt passage of law to gain total control (and not
just usufruct rights). And hence, the application of clear entitlements is not endorsed and widely
practiced in Gujarat (reff. CPR Study report 2000).

4.2. Relationship between User, State and Facilitator:

The relationship between User, State and Facilitator has witnessed several leaps and bounce,
where the ‘State Level Working Group’ as a platform resolved many issues related to policy,
management and livelihood issues in JFM. Forest Protection Committees like in Chanasar share
a sense of disillusion over joint forest management, where issuance of Adhikar Patra has
prolonged so much (more than 3 years), where local power dynamics in the mean time
influenced the collective interest of community. The differentiation between NGO promoted and

7
Department promoted JFM has created a conflicting attitude between external actors adversely
influencing the scale of CPRs. The newly formed ‘JFM cell’ has great role to play in networking
and coordinating. These initiatives however should emerge out of mutual trust and commitment.
Currently the un-compromising attitude has dominated the scenario where state and facilitators
need to work towards more cooperation rather competition.

4.3. Uncertainty of Use rights and property regimes:

In the midst, Panchayat Raj (local government) institutions have not played considerable role in
managing CPRs even though powers delegated (by 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act 1996) to
independently manage non-timber forest produce. In fact both FPCs and PRIs have assigned
rights over NTFPs by separate policy instruments. But neither has so far enabled to apply these
rights (in Mathwa village the community failed to access fodder grass from degraded forest
under protection neither as Panchayat body nor as Forest Protection Committee). This was
mainly due to lack of Karar patra or a clear agreement between State and Community.
Secondly, the existing policies have not adequately addressed the needs of local communities,
instead assumed uniform needs of communities from forest produce across the state (region).

At the same time Kheda as FPC with Karar Patra, fully accessed the fodder grass as well as
firewood. It has also revived its ‘committee’ in drought years with adaptive strategies. The FPC
has expressed remarkable commitment towards conservation by willing to forgo livestock to
trees. These divergence examples clearly establishes the ‘power’ of clear use rights and property
regimes that benefit the resource system and livelihoods of poor. Indeed, the forest sector
provides an extreme case of centralisation: Forest Officers not only have very substantial
discretionary powers for which they are answerable only at the state-level, but they also have
been given police powers (Lele 1998). The policy environment should create enabling
institutions where the State, NGOs and Users invest mutual trust and coordinate with each other.
In the entire sequence, as communities often put last, they should have clear use rights
undeterred. Constant changes in entitlements, puts the communities in uncertainty and they
finally withdraw from conservation in rare cases.

8
4.4. Livelihoods and sustainability:
In Kheda people were willing to abandon their cattle in drought with out compromising on
cutting trees to purchase fodder grass. And in Chanasar, people managed to grow forage grass
with the help of lift irrigation system. Here in both the case studies, people have had options to
cope with drought as a result of ‘services’ available through NRM interventions by NGO.
However, the plantations in Chanasar (on 50 hectare forestland carried out by forest department)
less likely to survive due to non-involvement of local communities. As they termed it ‘same fate’
(of what happened in past). The collective pressure for equitable distribution of benefits resulting
customary rights in Chanasar, has greater chances if the FPC gets Karar Patra under JFM in time.
The new set of policy instruments should have power to address current inequalities in
entitlements and endowment access leading to sustainable use of resource.

The jointness must be allowed to evolve naturally (Lele 1998), so that communities could have
better control over the resource system where they are governed by procedural law rather
substantive.

5. Concluding Remarks:
• Contrary to the general points of view that, ‘communal resource systems degraded to the
short term coping strategies of locals residing in close vicinity’, experiences both in Tigray
and Gujarat revealed that people with new statutory organisations have chosen long term
adaptive strategies. In Tigray people have repeatedly stress the long-term adaptive strategies
for land rehabilitation, and Area Closures associated to agriculture and food production. In
Gujarat communities were willing to abandon live stock to conservation of trees and CPRs
while coping with drought.

• This necessitates a clear policy regime to leberalise ‘State owned endowments’ to community
governance where the communities have established clear concern to long term conservation
by re-defining livelihood strategies and coping mechanisms. For example, Kheda FPC
reviewed its ‘organisation’ and benefit distribution in light of drought and changing
biophysical characteristics of CPRs. Similar the case with Adiha in Tigray, where predation

9
 parameters paramount in light of huge livestock depended on rich grazing sites, where new
Area Closures emerging (CPR Study Field report 2000).

• Both the governments in Gujarat and Tigray see conservation measures in JFM and AC
under transition phase, in the process of environmental rehabilitation. However, to realise
end-results at a point in time the policy instruments should clearly address specific variables
like economics, management of sites, community rights to future produce and visible
institutional support. Currently most of the existing state of affairs is attributed to the nature
of CPR regimes rather taking clear / robust stand in enabling communities. The non-clarity
about uttilisation rights in Tigray and ‘engineered delays’ in issuance of Adhikar Patras in
Gujarat, creates greater ambiguity among communities and civic organisations.

• The framework of ‘state claimed ownership to land’ (similar to that of JFM land in India) in
Tigray, opened different avenues for NGOs to support village organisations. NGOs provided
material support, technical advice, follow-up and advocacy of community interests there-by
facilitating co-management of village commons in Tigray. State policy instruments should
encourage the role of civic organisations in sustained manner as it is observed in ‘watershed
programme’ in Gujarat or food for work programme in Tigray. This is something ‘looking
beyond’ the meager role of community mobilisation. Here NGOs actually share the ‘burden’
of development with the State.

• Watershed, livelihoods and CPR lands are inseparable entities operating in complex local
institutional interactions, local knowledge and social differentiation. Hence the CPR land
rehabilitation must be viewed in totality where CPR rehabilitation plans under JFM or AC
must address the total treatment under micro-watershed approach. This only would ensure
sustainable bio-physical changes in environmental rehabilitation process. Currently the JFM
and AC are adopted in fragmented manner, where the physical measures fall apart.

• It is one of the most worthwhile investments in a welfare state, where equal rights of
(marketable) poor households to the resources are negotiated towards ‘most favored
practices’. Whether it is in case of grass distribution, firewood collection, bee keeping. And

10
 formalisation of rights to local communities by way of AC or JFM approaches is also a way
to redress serious inequalities emerging out of ‘mainstream development’. The greater
livelihood opportunities in Area Closures (where people are confident and willing) to
Commercial Forestry (where people have less bargaining power) in Tigray; irrigation
cooperatives in Chanasar fighting local power complex to equal share in fodder from land
CPRs with the help of central JFM policy are striking examples.

• State predominant thinking based on ‘tragedy of commons’ theory or ‘downward spiral’

theory of environmental degradation and poverty need to be changed in both the contexts.
Individual entitlements need to be respected and understood where “A person refer to the
capability to command goods and services with in a given legal and political-economic
context where capabilities dependent on resource endowments (labor, capital, land)
knowledge and skills” (Sen 1987; Derze and Sen 1990). The new perspectives and approach
of ‘State policies’ could only bring in some change.

• The existing tenure policy dilemmas both in Gujarat and Tigray could well be addressed by
procedural law governing CPR land resources. Both state and communities legitimately put
forward their claims to (customary and statutory) certain resources, under specific enabling
institutional framework. Here “local law” (outcome of encounter between state law and
customary law) instead of State’s continuous ‘participatory process’ (top down and
authoritarian) should preside over in rehabilitating CPR resources. The local customary
organisations should be delegated adequate autonomy to manage the resource system within
local complexities. To this effect the existing policy guidelines could be modified.

11
 References:
BoNAR (1998): Guideline for development and uttilitation of hill sides. Tigray Bureau of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Development, Regional government of Tigrey. Mekelle.
BoNAR (1999) Tigray Regional Conservation Strategy, Bureau of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, Tigray.
CDEF(1999): Annual Progress Report for the year 1999; Conservation and Development for
Environment Fourm, Environment and Forestry Department SWDF.
Council of National State of Tigray(1997): The National State of Tigray Rural Land
Proclamation No. 23/1997. 6th year. Negarit Gazetta (Translation/not official)Mekelle.
CPR Team(1999): Progress Report 1998: A comparative study of common pool resources
management with respect to forest and natural regeneration in Ethiopia and India.(un
published) IRMA, MU, NORAGIRC,REST & SWDF. Dahod, Mekelle.
CPR Team(2000): Progress Report 1999: A comparative study of common pool resources
management with respect to forest and natural regeneration in Ethiopia and India.(un
published) IRMA, MU, NORAGIRC,REST & SWDF. Dahod, Mekelle.
CPR Team(2001): Progress Report 2000: A comparative study of common pool resources
management with respect to forest and natural regeneration in Ethiopia and India.(un
published) IRMA, MU, NORAGIRC,REST & SWDF. Dahod, Mekelle.
EFPA (1994): Ethiopian Forestry Action Programme, EFPA Secretariat. Addis Ababa.
FDRE(1994): The Constitution of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, December 8, 1994.
FDRE(1997) Environmental policy, by The Federal Democratic Government of Ethiopia,
Environmental Protection Authority in Collaboration with the Ministry of Economic
Development and Cooperation. Addis Ababa April -1997.
Government of Gujarat(1994): Government Resolution no. FCA-1090-125-V3 (Scheme for
involving community and voluntary organisations in conservation development and
administration of forestlands) Forest & Environment department Gandhinagar 27 June 1994.
Government of India (1991): Letter from Ministry of Environment and Forests on Involvement
of village communities and voluntary agencies for regeneration of degraded forest lands. 1
June 1991. New Delhi.
Hoon, Paekh, SinghNaresh, Wanmali, Samir S (1997) Sustainable Livelihoods: Concepts,
Principles and Approaches to Indicator Development (draft paaper) UNDP NewYork.1997.

12
Leach Melissa, Mearns Robin, Scooners Ian (1997) Environmental Entitlements: A framework
for understanding institutional dymamics in enviromental change: IDS359 Susex.
MehtaLyla, Leach Melissa, Newell Peter, Scoones Ian, Sivaramakrishnan K Way Sally-
Anne(1999) Exploring understanding of institutions and uncertainty: New directions in
natural resource management IDS 372, Susex.
Shanker Ravi (2000): JFM Experiences for Kheda village: A process Documentation.
SWDF.Dahod.
Tim Forsyth, Melissa Leach, Ian Scoones (1998): Poverty and environment: Priorities for
research and policy. IDS Susex.

13