The Spatial and Temporal Trends of Community-Based Forest Management in Boudh
District of Odisha, India
Kanna K. Siripurapu1,2, Hemanta K. Sahu1, Joshua Wayland2 and Martha E. Geores2
Abstract
An estimated 8,000 to 12,000 villages in the Indian state of Odisha have been engaged in “selfinitiated community-based forest management” (CBFM), protecting and managing more than a
million hectares of forest on the state owned forest land in the state. However, very few studies
were conducted to enumerate the exact number of villages engaged in CBFM in Odisha.
Furthermore, except for a handful of districts, the database of villages engaged in CBFM for most
of the districts in Odisha is unavailable. The lack of data of the villages engaged in CBFM in
Odisha had been a major constrain not only to study the impact of CBFM on forests, biodiversity,
and rural livelihoods but also for policy advocacy. Hence, a survey was conducted to enumerate
the number of villages engaged in CBFM in Boudh, one of the districts in Odisha. The study was
aimed not only to enumerate the number of CBFM villages in Boudh, but also study the reasons
for the emergence of CBFM and the extent of forest area protected under CBFM in Boudh. The
results of the present study suggests that there are 345 villages actively engaged in CBFM in
Boudh. The results suggest that CBFM in Boudh is spread across different land use categories,
covering an area of 31606.88 ha (25%) of the total national forest area in Boudh. The reasons for
the emergence of CBFM in Boudh were found to be the scarcity of fuelwood, scarcity of wood for
making agriculture implements, scarcity of building material, livelihood security, environmental
conservation, and wildlife conservation. Out of all the above reasons the scarcity of fuelwood and
wood for agricultural purpose was reported as the most important reason to initiate CBFM by the
local communities of Boudh.
Keywords
Community-based forest management (CBFM), Participatory Forest Management (PFM),
Commons, Boudh, Odisha.
Introduction
It was estimated that around 8,000 to 12,000 villages in Odisha, one of the states in eastern India,
have been voluntarily protecting nearly a million hectares of forest on the state owned forest and
revenue land in the state (Mohanty, 2011; Vasundhara, 2010; Sarap and Sarangi, 2009; Singh, et
al., 2008; Sarap, 2004; Pattanaik 2002; Jeffery and Sundar, 1999; Khare 1998; Vasundhara 1996;
Sarin 1995; Poffenberger 1995; Sarin 1994). The voluntary participation of the local communities
in Odisha to protect and manage the state owned forest land is also known famously as communitybased forest management (CBFM). Scholars perceive that CBFM in Odisha represents the
antithesis of State forest management, and also referred to as the “self-initiated community-based
1
Vasundhara, Plot No. #1731/C, Das Mohapatra Complex, Opposite of Sai Villa PO: KIIT
Campus, Dist: Khurdha Bhubaneswar, Odisha, KIIT Square, Patia Station Rd, Patia,
Bhubaneshwar, Odisha 751024, India. Email: [email protected]
2
Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, 2181 Samuel J. LeFrak Hall,
College Park, MD 20742. Email: [email protected]
1
forest management” (Singh, et al, 2008). There is no reliable or official statistics available on the
exact number of villages that actively engaged in CBFM in Odisha (Sekhar, 2004). However,
according to the Directorate of Social Forestry survey, there were 2509 CBFM villages in 1999,
informally covering a total area of 186900 ha of state forest land throughout the state (Singh, et
al., 2008). A more recent study was conducted by Singh, et al., (2005) using two stage probability
proportional to size technique to estimate the number of CBFM villages for three districts,
Kandhamal, Mayurbhanj, and Koraput districts of Odisha. Singh, et al., (2005) estimates that there
are 916 villages in Kandhamal, 117 in Mayurbhanj and 92 villages in Koraput district are engaged
in CBFM in Odisha.
Furthermore, existing literature indicates that CBFM villages in Odisha displays diversity in the
reasons for initiation which is not only different from village to village but also specific to
geographic location, context, and situation (Nayak and Berkes, 2008; Khare, 1998). Most of these
inferences about diversity in the reasons for initiation of CBFM in Odisha was based on case
studies (Mohanty, 2011; Sarap and Sarangi, 2009; Singh, et al., 2008; Mishra, 2010; Sekhar, 2004;
Vasundhara, 1997; Pattnaik and Brahmachari, 1996) and anecdotal evidences. Unlike, Singh, et al.,
(2005) large scale studies on CBFM of Odisha are either meagre or non-existent. As a result it is
difficult to know the exact number of villages engaged in CBFM in Oidsha and also understand
the diversity and complexity displayed by the villages engaged in CBFM in Odisha. Hence, a large
scale study was conducted by Vasundhara (a state level NGO) for the district of Boudh, to
enumerate the number of villages that are currently engaged in CBFM; to understand the conditions
that could have motivated the local communities of Boudh to initiate CBFM and to document the
conditions that are perceived to be different from village to village in Boudh.
The results of present study are presented in two sections. The number of villages in Boudh involved
in CBFM, the reasons for the initiation of CBFM by the villages, and the amount of forest area
protected in Boudh under CBFM is presented in the first section. The results in the first section are
presented to show the number of CBFM villages in Boudh, reasons for initiation of CBFM and the
extent of forest land protected under CBFM. The results presented in the second section shows not
only the diversity in the reasons for initiation of CBFM but also the spatial and temporal trends and
variation in the reasons for initiation CBFM, spread of CBFM to different land use categories, and
changes in the extent of area under CBFM both spatially and temporally, to show the diversity
displayed by villages engaged in CBFM in Boudh.
Methods
The administrative District Boudh in Odisha, one of the eastern India states was chosen as the
study site for the present study. Boudh District covers a geographical area of 3444.8 sq km, and
located at 20° 30’ N, 83° 45’ E (Map. 1). Boudh has a population of 441162 and the density is 142
people per sq. km. The average day time temperature is 130C and the average rainfall is 1853 mm.
Boudh has a total forest area of 1277.17 sq. km. The economy of Boudh is supported mainly by a
number of small-scale industries, handloom industry of this employs more than 6000 weavers in
the study region, and large-scale mining industry, the major economic drivers. The rural economy
of Boudh is heavily dependent on the agriculture sector and has a total area of 85000 ha under
cultivation. Paddy crop is predominantly cultivated in an area of approximately 64000 ha in
Boudh. (Govt. of Odisha, 2015).
2
Boudh was selected for the study area as there is a lack of information on the exact number of
villages engaged in CBFM and the presence of a strong district level forest federation network to
support the field activities. The present survey study was conducted during 2010-11. A survey was
conducted at 345 villages which are involved in CBFM in Boudh and a specially designed
questionnaire with close end questions was used for data collection. The survey questionnaire was
translated into the official local language, Odiya, in an effort to enable the participants to follow
the questionnaire more efficiently. The representatives of forest federation of Boudh have been
recruited for conducting the survey in an effort to empower the local communities and make them
equal partners in the study. The recruits were trained on survey and data collection methods; and
collection of data using the survey questionnaire designed for the present study. Key informants
(elderly people at the survey village, resource user groups, and executive committee members of
the forest protection committee) have been interviewed to collect the data pertaining to reasons
and the year of CBFM initiation at the village, extent of area protected under CBFM, local
institutional arrangements to govern CBFM resources, and the socio-economic, and ecological
impacts of CBFM at the survey village. The data thus collected was analyzed using Microsoft
Excel 2013 and descriptive statistics was used to analyze, summarize, and interpret the data.
3
Map 1: Map showing the geographic location of the study area, Boudh District of Odisha
Source: Sahu, et al., 2007.
I. Reasons for initiation of Community-based forest management in Boudh
Number of Community-based Forest Management villages in Boudh
There are 1186 villages in Boudh district of Odisha (Govt. of Odisha, 2015). The latest count of
CBFM villages in Boudh at the end of Feb’ 2011 was 345. It was found that CBFM was first
initiated in Boudh in the year 1975 and only one village has been reported to have initiated CBFM
in the year 1975. Only 4 (1%) villages initiated CBFM in Boudh during 1972-81, however the
number of CBFM villages in Boudh has increased gradually in the following decades with the
addition of 74 (21%), 113 (33%), and 154 (45%) new villages during 1982-91, 1992-01, and 200211, respectively. Thus the number (cumulative) of CBFM villages rose from 4 during 1972-81 to
78 during 1982-91, to 191 during 1992-01 and 345 during 2002-11 (Fig. 1). Singh, et al., (2005)
found a similar trend for three other districts of Khandhamal, Mayurbhanj, and Koraput of Odisha.
4
Fig 1: The growth of CBFM villages in Boudh from the year1972 -2011
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
1972-81
1982-91
1992-01
2002-11
Frequency
4
74
113
154
Cumulative Frequency
4
78
191
345
Frequency
Cumulative Frequency
Linear (Cumulative Frequency)
Reasons for the initiation of CBFM by the local communities
The reasons for initiation of CBFM by the local communities in Boudh have varied from scarcity
of wood for making agriculture implements (Ag), scarcity of fuelwood (Fw), livelihood (L),
scarcity of building material (BM), environmental conservation (EC), and wildlife conservation
(WC). Out of all the reasons mentioned above, scarcity of fuelwood and scarcity of wood for
agriculture purposes were reported as the most important reasons for the initiation of CBFM by
the local communities of Boudh. Out of 345 CBFM villages, 254 (73.6%) of the villages reported
scarcity of fuelwood and scarcity of wood for making agriculture implements (Fw&Ag) as the
main reason for the initiation of CBFM, 30 (8.7 %) villages reported only fuelwood (Fw) and 17
(5%) villages reported only wood for making agriculture implements (Ag) as the main reason for
initiation of CBFM. Interestingly 21 (6%) of the villages reported environmental conservation
(EC) as the reason for initiation of CBFM. Out of the remaining, 7 (2%) villages reported
livelihood (L), 6 (1.7%) reported building material (BM), 5 (1.5%) wildlife conservation (WC), 3
(0.9%) reported fuelwood and building material (Fw & BM) and only 2 (0.6%) reported fuelwood
and livelihood (Fw & L) as the main reason for initiation of CBFM in Boudh (Fig. 2).
5
Fig 2: Reasons for initiation of CBFM at different villages in Boudh
300
254
250
200
150
100
50
0
Number of Villages
17
Ag
17
21
30
2
EC
21
Fw
30
Fw&L
2
3
Fw&Ag Fw&BM
254
3
7
L
7
6
5
BM
6
WC
5
The amount of forest area under community-based forest management
The total forest area of Boudh is 1277.17 sq. km., (Govt. of Odisha, 2015). The results of the study
suggests that 31606.88 ha (25%) of the total forest area of Boudh is now under CBFM (Fig. 3). It
is interesting to notice that CBFM is extended across different land use categories such as
commons, protected forests, khesara jungle1 (deemed protected forests) reserve forests, and village
forests. It is necessary to notice here that commons and revenue forest does not fall under the
national forest category. Only khesara (deemed protected forest), reserve, and village forest fall
under the national forest category with varying degrees of access to the local communities.
1
“Khesara forests were essentially land which was considered as forest, without the stringent provisions of
reservation. There were provisions in the forest rules of the princely states to regulate the use of these landshowever, their conversion into agriculture by tenants were actively encouraged to increase land revenue. In the
Revenue Survey and Settlements carried out before 1980 (before FCA, 1980), in general areas under Khesara forests
taken up for cultivation would be settled in the name of the cultivators. However, in many areas, no proper Revenue
Survey and Settlement was taken up, or the Survey and Settlement was taken up after 1980, and as the Khesara
forests were included in the category of Forest land as per FCA, 1980, these lands were not settled with the
cultivators.” (Kumar, et al., 2007: 12)
6
Fig 3: Total CBFM area (ha) in Boudh under differnt land use
categories
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Area (in Ha)
Commons
Khesara
Jungle
Protected
Forest
Reserve
Forest
1263.15
5992.71
2339.27
8144.13
Reserve &
Village
Forest
526.31
Village
Forest
13341.3
The amount of area protected under CBFM varies among the different land use categories. The
area protected under CBFM is minimum on the commons, 1263.15 (ha) and maximum on the
village forests 13341.3 (ha). Village forests constitute the major portion with 13341.3 ha (42%) of
the area protected under CBFM, followed by reserve forest, 8144.13 ha (26%), khesara jungle,
5992.71 ha (19%), protected forests, 2339.27 (7 %), commons, 1263.15 ha (4%) and few villages
have been protecting both reserve and village forests together and the area covered under such
system is only 526.31 ha (2%) of the total area protected under CBFM in Boudh (Fig. 4).
7
Fig 4: The % of CBFM area under each land use category
4
Commons
19
Khesara Jungle
42
Protected Forest
7
Reserve Forest
Reserve & Village Forest
2
26
Village Forest
II. Trends in the emergence and spread of Community-based forest management in Boudh
The results of the present study show few interesting trends in relation to the emergence of CBFM
in Boudh. CBFM in Boudh shows both spatial and temporal variation in relation to land use
categories, area under CBFM, and reasons for initiation.
Spatial and temporal trends in the reasons for initiation
The reasons for initiation of CBFM by the local communities of Boudh shows variation in relation
to both space and time. The majority of villages (92%) which initiated CBFM on commons
mentioned scarcity of fuelwood and wood for making agricultural implements (Fw&Ag) as the
main reason for initiation of CBFM, while 8% mentioned only environmental conservation (EC)
as the main reason for initiation of CBFM in the commons category in Boudh. The majority of
villages (77%) which initiated CBFM on khesara jungle mentioned Fw&Ag as the main reason for
the initiation of CBFM, while 13% villages on khesara jungle mentioned scarcity of fuelwood
(Fw), 6% villages mentioned scarcity of wood for making agriculture implements (Ag), 3% of
villages mentioned environment conservation (EC) and only 1% villages mentioned livelihoods
(L) as the main reason for initiation of CBFM in the khesara jungles category in Boudh.
The majority of villages (75%) which initiated CBFM on protected forests reported scarcity of
fuelwood and wood for making agricultural implements (Fw&Ag) as the main reason for initiation
of CBFM, 11% villages reported scarcity of fuelwood (Fw) as the main reason, 8% villages
reported environmental conservation (EC), 3% villages mentioned scarcity of wood for making
agriculture implements (Ag) and 3% villages mentioned scarcity of building material (BM) as the
main reason for initiation of CBFM in the protected forests category in Boudh.
The majority of villages (65%) which initiated CBFM on reserve forests mentioned scarcity of
fuelwood and wood for making agricultural implements (Fw&Ag) as the main reason for initiation
8
of CBFM. While 12% of the villages mentioned only scarcity of wood for making agriculture
implements (Ag) as the main reason for initiation of CBFM. Around 11% of villages mentioned
environmental conservation (EC), 5% mentioned scarcity of fuelwood (Fw), 4% mentioned
scarcity of building material (BM) but only 2% of villages mentioned livelihood as the main reason
for initiation of CBFM in the reserve forests category in Boudh.
The majority of villages (72%) which initiated CBFM on village forests mentioned scarcity of
fuelwood and wood for making agricultural implements (FW&Ag) as the main reason for initiation
of CBFM. While 9% of villages on village forests mentioned only scarcity of fuelwood (Fw), 3%
mentioned scarcity of wood for making agriculture implements (Ag), 5% mentioned
environmental conservation (EC), 3% mentioned livelihoods (L), 3% mentioned wildlife
conservation (WC), only 1% mentioned scarcity of building material (BM), only 1% mentioned
scarcity of fuelwood and biomass (Fw&BM) and only 1% scarcity of fuel wood and livelihoods
(Fw&L) as the main reason for initiation of CBFM in the village forest category in Boudh. It is
evident form the results of the present study that scarcity of fuelwood which is the chief source of
energy in the rural areas has been the major driver in motivating local communities of Boudh to
initiate CBFM. The scarcity of wood for making agricultural implements has been the second most
compelling driver which motivated the local communities of Boudh to initiate CBFM. It is
interesting to notice that the percentage of villages that mentioned only scarcity of fuelwood (Fw)
is relatively higher on khesara jungle, protected forests, and village forests compared to the
percentage of villages which initiated CBFM on commons and reserve forests. The percentage of
villages that mentioned environment conservation (EC) as the main reason is relatively higher
among CBFM villages in the reserve forests category when compared to other land use categories.
Furthermore, the percentage of villages that mentioned only scarcity of wood for making
agriculture implements (Ag) as the main reason for initiation of CBFM is relatively higher in the
reserve forests category when compared to the percentage of villages which initiated CBFM on
other land use categories (Fig. 5).
9
Fig 5: The variation in the reasons for initiation of CBFM by local
communities of Boudh in relation to land use categories
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Commons
Ag
0
EC
2
Fw
0
Fw&L
0
Fw&Ag Fw&BM
24
0
L
0
BM
0
WC
0
Khesara Jungle
4
2
9
0
53
Protected Forest
1
3
4
0
27
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
Reserve Forest
7
6
3
0
Reserve & Village Forest
0
0
0
0
35
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
Village Forest
5
8
14
2
114
3
5
2
5
The main reason for initiation of CBFM by local communities of Boudh slightly varies from
decade to decade. Although the number of villages which initiated CBFM during 1972-81 are
meager compared to the number of villages initiated CBFM in the following decades, but 50% of
the villages which initiated CBFM during that period have mentioned scarcity of fuelwood and
wood for making agricultural implements (Fw&Ag) as the main reason for initiation of CBFM.
While 25% villages mentioned only scarcity of wood for making agriculture implements (Ag), and
the remaining 25% mentioned wildlife conservation (WC) as the main reason for initiation of
CBFM during 1972-81. During 1982-91 Fw&Ag was mentioned as the main reason for initiation
of CBFM by majority of villages (70%), followed by EC (9%), only Ag (6.7%), and the other
reasons for initiation of CBFM by villages in Boudh are as follows Fw (5%), WC (4%), Fw&L
(1.3%), Fw&BM (1.3%), and only BM (1.3%).
During 1992-01 majority of the villages (76%) mentioned Fw&Ag as the major reason for
initiation of CBFM, which is slightly more than the number of villages mentioned the same during
the previous decade. During the same period 10% villages mentioned only Fw, 5.3% villages
mentioned only EC, 4.4% villages mentioned, only L, 2% villages mentioned Ag, but only 0.8%
villages mentioned BM and 0.8% villages mentioned Fw&L as the main reason for initiation of
CBFM. During 2002-11 the majority of villages (74%) still mentioned Fw&Ag as the main reason
for initiation of CBFM, followed by only Fw mentioned by 10% villages, only Ag by 5% villages,
EC by 5% villages, BM by 2.5% villages, Fw&BM by 1.2% villages, L by 1.2% villages, and WC
by only 0.6% villages. It is interesting to see that the number of villages that mentioned BM as the
main reason for initiation of CBFM has slightly increased during 2002-11. However, the results
of the present study suggests that Fw&Ag in other words the scarcity of resources to meet the
10
energy and agricultural needs of the local communities has been the main driver of motivation for
the local communities of Boudh to initiate CBFM (Fig. 6).
Fig 6: The temporal variation in the reasons for initiation of CBFM by
local communities of Boudh
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1972-81
Ag
1
EC
0
Fw
0
Fw&L
0
Fw&Ag
2
Fw&BM
0
L
0
BM
0
WC
1
1982-91
5
1992-01
3
7
4
1
52
1
0
1
3
6
11
1
86
0
5
1
0
2002-11
8
8
15
0
114
2
2
4
1
Spatial and temporal trends of the land use categories
Local communities of Boudh initiated CBFM on different land use categories, which comprises of
commons, protected forests, reserve forests, revenue forests and village forests. The results of the
present study shows that out of 345 CBFM villages in Boudh, 26 (7.5%) CBFM villages have
initiated CBFM on commons, 36 (10%) villages initiated CBFM on protected forest land, 69 (20%)
villages initiated CBFM on Khesara Jungle, 54 (16%) initiated CBFM on reserve forest land, only
2 (0.5%) initiated CBFM on both reserve and village forest land and the majority 158 (46%)
villages initiated CBFM on village forest land (Fig. 7). It was noticed that the commons again
show variation in their use, which varies from social forestry (16), grazing (7), and patta/lease land
(3). Although the results of present study supports the findings of Singh, et al., (2008) to some
extent that CBFM in Odisha is widely spread on the protected forests but The results of the present
study also suggests that CBFM in Boudh is more widely spread on the village forests, than the
other land use categories. However, it is necessary to crosscheck the nature of the village forests
on the official land records to confirm the nature of village forests reported in the present study.
This is essential because of the existing conflict both on government records and on ground with
regard to demarcation of forest land. Furthermore, the results of present study also suggests that
the nature of protected forest land in Boudh is not uniform but split into protected forests and
Khesara Jungle (deemed protected forests), which is the result of the existing conflict over the
demarcation of forest lands in India, (Springate-Baginski, et al. 2009; Ghosh et al. 2009; Kumar
et al. 2009; Sarin 2005).
11
Fig 7: The % of CBFM villages in each land use category in Boudh
Commons
7.5
Khesara Jungle
20
Protected Forest
46
Reserve Forest
Reserve & Village Forest
10
Village Forest
16
0.5
It was found that CBFM was initiated in Boudh in the year 1975 and the first village which initiated
CBFM in Boudh initiated it by protecting their village forest. CBFM in Boudh was confined to
the village forests, commons and reserve forests during 1972-81. The number of villages which
initiated CBFM on village forests during 1972-81 were only four, out of which two were initiated
on village forests, and the remaining were initiated on commons and reserve forests with one each
respectively during the same period. The period 1982-91 witnessed the extension of CBFM to
other land use categories such as the protected forests and khesara jungle in addition to commons,
village and reserve forests. The number of CBFM villages increased in all the land use categories
in the following decades. In a more recent trend it was observed that people of Boudh started
protecting two different land use categories together, for instance two villages in Boudh are
protecting both the reserve forest and village forest together, a trend which was not observed in
Boudh in the past (Fig. 8).
12
Fig 8: No. of CBFM villages on different land use categories in Boudh
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Commons
1972-81
1
Khesara
Jungle
0
1982-91
12
10
7
3
0
42
1992-01
4
19
12
20
0
58
2002-11
9
40
17
30
2
56
1972-81
Protected
Forest
0
Reserve
Forest
1
Reserve &
Village Forest
0
Village Forest
1982-91
1992-01
2
2002-11
Spatial and temporal trends of the extent of area under CBFM
Spatially the area under CBFM is divided among commons (1263.15 ha), khesra jungle (5992.71),
protected forests (2339.27 ha), reserve forests (8144.13 ha), reserve and village forest (526.31),
and village forests (13341.3 ha), accounting to a total area of 31606.88 ha (Fig. 3). The total area
under CBFM in Boudh has increased by 6997% for the past thirty six years, since 1975 to 2011.
The total area under CBFM during 1972-81 was only 445.34 ha (1.4%) of the total CBFM area at
the end of the present study during 2002-11. The following decade 1982-91 witnessed a huge leap
with an addition of 7972.87 ha of area (increase by 1690%), which increased the CBFM area from
445.34 ha to 8418.21 ha. During the following decade 1992-01, an additional 10706.48 ha of area
has been added, increasing the CBFM area to 19124.69 ha. An additional 12482.19 ha has been
added during 2002-11, thus pushing the total area under CBFM in Boudh to 31606.88 ha, which
is 25% of the total national forest area in Boudh at the end of present study in 2011 (Fig. 9).
13
Fig 9. The increase in CBFM area (ha) from the year 1972 - 2011
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
CBFM Area (in Ha)
1972-81
445.34
1982-91
8418.21
1992-01
19124.69
2002-11
31606.88
The total forest area under CBFM in Boudh was only 445.34 ha during 1972-81, it was shared
among the commons (60.72 ha), reserve forest (242.91 ha), and village forest (141.7 ha). The
following decade witnessed not only a huge leap in the overall area under CBFM but also the
extension of CBFM to the protected forests and khesara jungle in the district. An additional
8418.21 ha was added to the existing CBFM area during 1982-91. This additional CBFM area was
shared among the commons (893.92 ha), khesara jungle (1425.1 ha), protected forests (580.97 ha),
reserve forests (907.28 ha), village forests (4165.58 ha). The following decade 1992-01 witnessed
further addition of new area to the existing CBFM area, the newly added area was shared among
the commons (121.45 ha), khesara jungle (1182.59 ha), protected forests (804.85 ha), reserve
forests (3093.92 ha), and village forests (5503.64 ha). The following decade 2002-11 witnessed
further addition of area to the CBFM area. The additional area added CBFM area was shared
among commons (187.04 ha), khesara jungle (3385.02 ha), protected forest (953.44 ha), reserve
forests (3900 ha), village forests (3530.3 ha), and a new land use category revenue forest and
village forest (526.31 ha) has been added to CBFM during 2002-11. It was found that the overall
size of area added to CBFM in the village forests has decreased by 36% during 2002-11 (Fig. 10).
14
Fig 10: CBFM area (ha) under different land use categories
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Commons
Khesara
Jungle
0
Protected
Forest
0
Reserve
Forest
242.91
Reserve &
Village Forest
0
Village Forest
1972-81
60.72
1982-91
893.92
1425.1
580.97
907.28
0
4165.58
1992-01
121.45
1182.59
804.85
3093.92
0
5503.64
2002-11
187.04
3385.02
953.44
3900
526.31
3530.36
1972-81
1982-91
1992-01
141.7
2002-11
The average size of forest area under CBFM in Boudh is around 92 ha, however, the average size
of the CBFM area varies both spatially and temporally across the different land use categories. On
a temporal scale the average size of land managed under CBFM in Boudh shows a decline trend,
as it was observed that the average size decreased by 27% from 1975 to 2011. The overall average
size of CBFM area during 1972-81 was 111 ha, but it has decreased to 108 ha (3% decrease) during
the following decade 1982-91. The average size of the CBFM area showed a steady decline during
the following decades with 95 ha during 1992-01 and 81 ha during 2002-11, (Fig. 9). However the
number of CBFM villages as well as the overall size of the area under CBFM in Boudh has
increased considerably since 1975.
15
Fi g 11: Ch an ges i n th e average si ze of CB FM area (h a)
across ti me an d th e overal l average si ze of CB FM area
(h a) i n B ou d h
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Avg CBFM Area (in Ha)
1972-81
1982-91
1992-01
2002-11
111
108
95
81
The size of area protected and managed under CBFM in Boudh varies across the land use
categories. The minimum area under CBFM in Boudh was 1.6 ha and it was in the commons
category. The maximum area was 1518.2 ha and it was in the reserve forests category. The average
size of CBFM area under different land use categories also shows some variation. The average
size of CBFM was found maximum in the category where the villages have been protecting the
reserve and village forests together and minimum in the commons category. The average size of
the CBFM area under reserve and village forest land use category was 263 ha, reserve forest 151
ha, khesara jungle 87 ha, village forest 84.4 ha, protected forest 65 ha, and commons 48 ha, (Fig.
12).
Fig 12. Average size of CBFM area in each land use category
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Avg size of CBFM area in each land use
category
Commo
ns
Khesara
Jungle
Protecte
d Forest
Reserve
Forest
Reserve
&
Village
Forest
Village
Forest
48
87
65
151
263
84.4
16
The total state forest area in Boudh decreased by 25 % since 1972-81. The total state forest area
of Boudh was 169717 ha during 1972-81 and the total state forest area has reduced to 127717 ha
during 2002-11 (Govt. of Odisha, 2015; MoEFCC, 2007). On the contrary the forest area under
CBFM has increased from 445.34 ha (0.2 %) during 1972-81 to 31606.88 ha (25%) of the total
forest area of Boudh during 2002-11. Although the area under CBFM now accounts to 25% of the
total state forest area of the district, it was not the same case during 1972-81, when CBFM was
first initiated in Boudh. The total state forest area in Boudh during 1972-81 was around 169717 ha
but the total forest area under CBFM was only 445.34 ha which is about 0.2 % of the total state
forest area of the district during the same period. The total state forest area of Boudh during 198291 was 142000 ha and the total forest are under CBFM increased to 19489 ha, which was 6% of
the total state forest area of Boudh during the same period. The total state forest are of Boudh
decreased to 128000 ha during 1992-01, but the area under CBFM has increased to 19124.69 ha,
which was 15% of the total state forest are of the district during the same period. Now the official
estimate of the total state forest area of Boudh during 2002-11 is 127717 ha and the total state
forest area protected and managed under CBFM according to the results of the present study is
31606.88 ha, which is almost 25% of the total forest area of Boudh at the end of the present study
in 2011 (Fig. 13).
Fig 13: The increase (in %) of CBFM area in relation to the National
forest area in Boudh from the year 1972 to 2011
0.2
6
1972-81
1982-91
1992-01
2002-11
25
15
Conclusion
One of the major contributions of the present study is the number of CBFM villages in Boudh. The
number of villages actively involved in the CBFM in Boudh were found to be 345 at the end of
this study in 2011. It was found that the reasons for initiation of CBFM by local communities of
Boudh are diverse, which varies from scarcity of fuelwood, scarcity of wood for making
agriculture implements, environmental conservation, livelihood, scarcity of building material, and
wildlife conservation. Although majority of the villages have reported scarcity of fuelwood and
17
wood for making agriculture implements as the main reason for initiation of CBFM, nevertheless
the other reasons have also played a significant role in motivating the local communities of Boudh
to initiate CBFM. It was found that CBFM in Boudh was initiated in the year 1975. CBFM in
Boudh was confined to commons, village and reserve forests during the initial stages (1972-81)
and did not expand to the protected forests and khesara jungles until 1982-91. One of the reasons
for this phenomenon could be the degree of access local communities enjoy over different land
use categories in India in general and Odisha in particular. Local communities usually have more
access to commons, village forests, khesara jungle and protected forests when compared to
reserved forests and revenue lands (forests). The degree of access could have played a role not
only in the initiation of CBFM by the local communities on commons, village forests, and reserve
forests but also the existence of larger number of CBFM villages on village forests. It is not clear
at this point why the CBFM in Boudh was not initiated on khesara jungles and protected forests
during 1972-81 despite of the fact that local communities in India usually enjoy more access to
khesara jungles and protected forests compared to reserve forests (Sekhar, 2004; FSI, 2000; Merns
and Sinha, 1998; Saxena, 1996). It could also be possible that most of the villages that reported to
have been practicing CBFM on village forests could actually be khesara jungle or protected forests
on the government forest and land records. However, further study should be conducted to collect
empirical evidence for confirmation.
It was observed that the number of CBFM villages was quite meagre during 1972-81 but increased
manifold during the following decades. Although it was found that there is a correlation between
the decrease in the extent of forest area and increase in the number of CBFM villages but further
studies are necessary to establish the causation. It would be interesting to study whether the
increase in number of CBFM has any effect on forest cover and health of the forests in Boudh.
The average size of the CBFM areas has shown a decreasing trend especially from 1982-91 to
2002-11. It is not sure at this point of the study why there is a negative trend in relation to the
average size of the CBFM areas. Further studies are necessary to understand whether the trend was
the result of decreasing forest area or some other variable which is responsible for this trend.
Furthermore, the results of the study shows an increase in the demand for fuelwood, wood for
making agriculture implements and building material, it is not clear at this point of the study
whether the demand for energy, wood for making agriculture implements and building material is
acting as the driver for initiation of CBFM or increase in deforestation, or both. Further studies
should be conducted to examine the increase in demand and its relationship with conservation and
deforestation in Boudh. The concern for environment conservation as the main reason for initiation
of CBFM has also shown a negative trend since 1982-91. It is not clear at this point of the study
why there is a decline in the concern for environment as the driver for initiation of CBFM
especially in the current scenario of global climate change.
References
Forest Survey of India (FSI), 2000. State Forest Report 1999. Forest Survey of India, Dehra
Dun, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, India.
Ghosh, S, N., Dutta, H., Yasmin, T., Roy and O., Springate-Baginski, 2009. Commons Lost and
‘Gained’? Forest Tenures in the Jungle Mahals of South West Bengal. (School of International
Development Working Paper: Norwich).
18
Government of Odisha, 2015. District Portal Boudh. Accessed online:
http://ordistricts.nic.in/district_profile/dist_glance.php
Jeffery, R. and N. Sundar (eds.). 1999. A New Moral Economy for India’s Forests? New Delhi:
Sage Publications.
Kumar, R., G., Reddy, 2007. The Evolution of Forest Tenure in Andhra Pradesh: An Historical
Analysis. University of East Anglia Working Paper Series: Norwich.
Kumar, K., P., Choudhary, S. Sarangi, S. Behera, P., Mishra. 2007. Contested landscapes,
dispossessed people: Land, forests, and tribals in Orissa. MoRDiWorld Bank workshop on "Land
Policies for Accelerated Growth and Poverty Reduction in India", Jan. 5 and 6, 2006.
Khare, A. 1998. Community based conservation in India. In: Kothari et al. (eds.) Communities and
Conservation. Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia. Sage Publications. New
Delhi. ISBN: 81-7036-739-5.
Mearns, R. and Sinha, S. 1998. Social Exclusion and Land Administration in Orissa, India. Rural
Development Sector, Washington, D.C. World Bank.
Mishra, S. 2010. Green Warriors: Conserving Local Biodiversity through Community
Conservation Initiatives in Orissa, India. Exploring the Right to Diversity in Conservation Law,
Policy, and Practice. Theme II: Initiatives of Rights-holders. Policy Matters.
Mohanty, M. 2011. Conservation Reserve and Community Reserve in Odisha: A Study on the
Potentials and Initiatives Taken so far. Regional Centre for Development Cooperation (RCDC),
Odisha, India.
Nayak, P. K and Berkes, F. 2008. Politics of Co-Optation: Community Forest Management Versus
Joint Forest Management in Orissa, India. Environmental Management (2008) 41:707–718.
Pattanaik, M. 2002. Community Forest Management in Orissa. Community Forestry / Volume1 /
Issue 1&2. Regional Centre for Development Cooperation (RCDC), Odisha, India.
Pattanaik B. K. and Brahmachari, A.1996. Community-Based Forest Management Practices: Field
Observations from Orissa. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 31, No. 15, pp. 968-975
Poffenberger, M. 1995. India’s Forest Keepers. Wasteland News XI (1) Aug – Oct. New Delhi.
Sahu, S. C., Dhal, N. K., Reddy, S., Pattanaik, C., and Brahmam, M. 2007. Phytosociological study
of Tropical Dry Deciduous Forest of Boudh District, Orissa, India. Research Journal of Forestry
1 (2): 66-72.
Sarap, K. 2004. Participatory Forest Management in Orissa: A Review of Policies and
Implementation. In Springate-Baginski, O (eds) Understanding Livelihood Impacts of
Participatory Forest Management Implementation in India & Nepal. University of East Anglia,
UK.
19
Sarap, K. and Sarangi, T.K. 2009. Malfunctioning of Forest Institutions in Orissa. Economic &
Political Weekly, Vol XLIV no 37.
Sarin, M. 2005. ‘Laws, Lore and Logjams: Critical Issues in Indian Forest Conservation’
Gatekeeper series, 116. IIED, London.
Sarin, M. 1995. Joint Forest Management in India: Achievements and Unaddressed Challenges.
Unasylva 46: 30-36.
Sarin, M. 1994. Regenerating India’s Forests: Reconciling Gender Equity with JFM. Paper
presented at the International Workshop on India’s Forest Management and Ecological Revival,
organized by the University of Florida and TERI, New Delhi 10-12 February.
Saxena, N. C. 1996. Forest under people’s management in Orissa. Social Change 26 (1): 68-83.
Sekhar, M., 2004. Indigenous institutions and forest conservation: User-groups self-initiatives in
India. Working paper 140. Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, India.
Singh, K. D., Singh, J. P., and Sinha, B. 2008. Trends in forest ownership, forest resources tenure
and institutional arrangements: are they contributing to better forest management and poverty
reduction? Case studies from Orissa, India. Understanding forest tenure in South and Southeast
Asia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Springate-Baginski, O., Sarin, M., Ghosh, S., Dasgupta, P., Bose, I., Banerjee, A., Sarap, K.,
Misra, P., Behra, S., Reddy, M. G., and Rao, P. T., 2009. Redressing ‘historical injustice’ through
the Indian Forest Rights Act 2006 - A Historical Institutional analysis of contemporary forest rights
reform. Discussion Paper Series, 27. IPPG Programme Office, IDPM, University of Manchester,
UK.
Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MoEFCC), 2007. State of the
Environment
Report
Orissa,
2007.
MoEFCC,
India.
Accessed
online:
http://www.moef.nic.in/soer/state/SoE-orissa.pdf
Vasundhara, 2010. Impact of Forest Development Agency on CFM systems in Orissa, (Draft
Working Paper), Vasundhara, Bhubaneswar p-9.
Vasundhara, 1997. Ecological, Institutional and Economic Assessment of Community Forest
Management Village: Gadabanikilo Orissa. Vasundhara, India
Vasundhara, 1996. Community Forest Management in Transition: Role of the Forest Department
and Need for Organizational Change. Mimeo. Bhubaneswar.
20
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Ford Foundation, New Delhi, India, for funding the present
study. Many thanks to the forest federation of Boudh, Odisha and representatives of the forest
federation of Boudh, Odisha, for extending support and helping in data collection for the present
study. Many thanks to the villagers who participated in the study and very patiently shared the
details and experiences with us. Thanks to Dr. Architesh Panda, International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI), Los Banos, Philippines, for his valuable inputs which helped to write this article.
Thanks to Ms. Ranjitha Pattanik, Vasundhara, India, for translating the questionnaires from the
local language Odiya to English and also organizing the data. Last but not the least, many thanks
to the anonymous reviewers of this article for their valuable comments.
21