How Van Panchayat Rule Systems and Resource Use Influence People’s Participation in Forest Commons in the Indian Himalayas

Abstract

Van Panchayats (VPs) are self-initiated forest management groups institutionalized since 1931 in the Himalayan Uttarakhand state of North India. VPs are considered to be successful case of Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) despite an observed decline in VP practice around the 1990s. This study clarifies CBFM in the context of local rules, forest resource use and people’s participation. It reveals the possible factors behind better resource management of forest commons use from four VPs in Uttarakhand. A multi-dimensional research approach was followed comprising a literature review of the state forest department data, forest inventory, interviews with village leaders as snowball samplings in several villages, and semi-structured interviews with villagers/house-holders. Results showed that local rules are different depending on the villages expect for prohibited timber logging. The most useful tree species for local people was Banji oak (Quercus leucotrichophora) and every village had an oak forest which was utilized for fuelwood and fodder for daily livelihoods. VP forest size and the basal area of trees also influenced people’s participation in forest management. Much larger size of the VP forest land is declining due to the people’s de-motivation for forest management. Furthermore, a higher education of the householder increased the level of participation. Transparency of Management Committee (MC) for the VP members is an important aspect. To summarize, availability and utilization of the valuable forest resources and its management by villagers following local rules and the VP system was considered to influence people’s participation in the forest commons.

Many mountain paths: Perceiving change in the management of community forests in the Hindu Kush Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India

“…The good governance model differs meaningfully as its proponents argue that merely reducing forest dependence cannot address environmental degradation without robust environmental management institutions. Here, we do find parallels with the forest governance literature, including emphases on effective enforcement mechanisms, community involvement, and efforts to address corruption and mismanagement (Ballabh et al, 2002; Gupta, 2014; Nagahama et al, 2019). The views of these local stewards diverge from academic discourse, though, in arguing that community involvement in governance is not contingent upon continued forest-based livelihoods, but can persist where good governance and environmental awareness remain socially valued.…”

Critical Aspects of People’s Participation in Community-Based Forest Management from the Case of Van Panchayat in Indian Himalaya

“…The members are collectively referred to as the general body, which selects the Management Committee (hereafter, MC) members through a democratic process. Nagahama [37,38] has been researching the VPs (in the field, in India) over the past 10 years and she summarized previous research on VPs, including their history and evolution, and presented some preliminary case studies on VPs, especially in regard to the MCs and oak forests.…”

“…As a modification of Yamauchi [44], we propose a reexamination of the typology of PFM. The process by which the government hands over the land customarily used by local people for their livelihood and security to the local people as a VP converting it into designated forest land follows the process of the establishment of the VP in 1932 [38]. Thus, the VPs are considered "development" organizations structured by the government.…”

Routledge Handbook of Community Forestry

“…Several regulatory changes have contributed to the legal erosion of community authority over VPs, including amendments to rules that govern VPs in 1976(Ballabh et al, 2002Mukherjee, 2014;Negi et al, 2012). The passage of the UP Village Joint Forest Management Act in 1997, framed as a turn towards more participatory forest governance, reportedly led to elite capture of forest benefits and negative consequences on gender equity in VPs (Nagahama et al, 2019). Unlike in other states, where JFM was implemented in Reserve Forests by involving those in dependent neighbouring villages, in Uttarakhand the JFM programme was undertaken in VP forests, co-opting an existing institution.…”