Institutional arrangement and typology of community forests of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland of North-East India
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Most community forests in hill regions of northeast India have been managed by traditional local institutions for centuries and most of these institutions remain functional even today. Higher forest coverage on private and community lands as compared to government land indicates that traditional institutions effectively manage community forests in the region. The present study was conducted through a survey of literature and field work using participatory research tools viz., PRA exercises, group discussions and questionnaire interviews with key informants in northeast India. We categorized the institutions involved in conservation and management of forests into three major types: traditional, quasi-traditional and modern. Traditional institutions with hierarchal structure were found in all states and are intact and functional in the state of Meghalaya. Quasi-traditional institutions, a blend of traditional and modern institutions were prevalent in Nagaland while modern institutions have almost replaced traditional institutions in Mizoram. We recorded at least eleven types of community forests viz., group of village forest, village forest, restricted forest, sacred forest, clan forest, cemetery forest, regeneration forest, bamboo forest, recreation forest, village reserved forest and medicinal plantation in villages of three states. The tribal people, through long-term trial and error experiments, have developed an elaborate, functional and generally democratic system of conservation and management of forests and associated natural ecosystems. Several forest and natural resource management lessons can be learnt from the institutional structure and decision making system of the evolving and dynamic institutions of tribal communities of the region.
- Agarwal A, Chhatre A. 2007. State involvement and forest co-governance: evidence from the Indian Himalayas. St Comp Int Dev, 42: 67–86. CrossRef
- Agrawal A, Ostrom E. 2001. Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politic Soc, 29: 485–514. CrossRef
- Arnold JEM, Campbell JG. 1986. Collective management of hill forests in Nepal: the community forestry development project. In: Proceeding of the conference on common property resource management. Washington DC: National Academy Press, pp. 425–454.
- Barik SK, Tiwari BK. 2004. Forest policies and schemes. In: Malhotra KC, Barik SK, Tiwari BK, and Tripathi RS (Eds), Joint Forest Management in North-East India-A Trainer’s Resource Book. Bhubaneswar: Graftek Pvt. Ltd, p. 22–108.
- Brockington D. 2007. Forests, community conservation, and local government performance: the village forest reserves of Tanzania. Soc Nat Res, 20: 835–848. CrossRef
- Chakraborty RN. 2001. Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: evidence from the Terai region of Nepal. Ecol Econ, 36: 341–353. CrossRef
- Chatterjee S, Dey S, Rana RS, Sastry ARK. 2000. Conservation and Sustainable use of natural bioresources: A case study on Apanati in Arunachal Pradesh. New Delhi: World Wide Fund for Nature-India, pp. 19–32.
- Dasgupta S, Ahmed FU. 1998. Natural Resources Management by Tribal Community: a Case Study of Bangladesh, The World Bank/WBI″s CBNRM. Available at: http://srdis.ciesin.columbia.edu/cases/bangladesh-002.html, accessed on 12 January 2006.
- Edmonds EV. 2002. Government tnitiated community resource management and local resource extraction from Nepal’s Forests. J Develop Econ, 68: 89–115. CrossRef
- FSI (Forest Survey of India). 2009. State of the Forest Report. Dehradun: FSI.
- Gautam KH. 1991. Indigenous Forest Management Systems in the Hills of Nepal. Thesis submitted to Australian National University. Available at: http://www.mtnforum.org/resources.
- Gokhale Y. 2004. Reviving traditional forest management in western Ghats study in Karnataka. Economic and Political Weekly, 39: 3556–3559.
- Goswami MC, Majumder DN. 1972. Social institutions of the Garo of Calcutta, Meghalaya: an analytical study. Calcutta: Nababharat Publishers, p. 142.
- Gurdon PR. 1975. The Native Races of India. New Delhi: The Khasis, Cosme Publication, p. 227.
- Jodha NS. 2002. Natural resource management and poverty alleviation in mountain areas: approaches and efforts. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD, p. 27.
- Karmakar KG, Banerjee GD. 2009. Village Development Boards (VDBs) in Nagaland. eSocial Science. Available at: http://www.esocialsciences.org.
- Khatri-Chhetri JB. 1993. Indigenous management of forest resources: a case study of Jomson VDC in Mustang District, from indigenous management of natural resources in Nepal. In: D. Tamang, G.J Gill, C.B. Thapa (Eds.). Indigenous Management of Natural Resources in Nepal. Dhulikhel, Nepal: Proc Workshop Indigenous Managed Agriculture WIIAD, pp. 569–576.
- Kumar C. 2008. Institutional dissonance in forest management in Meghalaya, India. Paper prepared for Twelfth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, July 14–18, Cheltenham, England. Available at: http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00003879/01/Kumar_101901.
- Lucy and Jehol KK. 2009. The legendary of Naga village-A reader. Nagaland: Heritage publishing house, p. 115.
- Malhotra KC. 1990. Village supply and safety forest in Mizoram: a traditional practice of protecting ecosystems. In: Abstracts of the Fifth International Congress of Ecology, Yokohama, p. 439.
- Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403: 853–858. CrossRef
- Mukherjee N. 1998. Participatory Rural Appraisal-Methodology and Applications. New Delhi: Concept publication company, p. 160.
- Nanang M, Inoue M. 2000. Local forest management in Indonesia: a contradiction between national forest policy and reality. Int Rev Environ Strat, 1: 175–191.
- Nongkynrih AK. 2001. Ka Shnong: the microcosm of Hynniewtrep society. Ind Horizon, 48:121–151.
- Pandit BH, Albano A, Kumar C. 2008. Improving forest benefits for the poor: Learning from community-based forest enterprises in Nepal. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research, p. 47.
- Ribot JC, Agrawal A, Larson AM. 2006. Recentralizing while decentralizing: How national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Develop, 34: 1864–1886. CrossRef
- Schulte A, Sah S. 2000. Historic shift towards silviculture by people in Asia: A review and country case studies on community based forest management from Nepal, the Philippines and Indonesia. Die Bodenkultur, 51: 291–298.
- Sudha P, Malhotra KC, Palit S, Rao KK, Srinivas N, Negi NK, Tiwari BK, Mishra TK, Jagannatha RR, Bhat PR, Murthy IK, Ravindranath NH. 2004. Joint forest management: synthesis of its spread, performance and impact in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Tripura and West Bengal. In: Ravindranath NH et al (eds), Joint Forest Management in India: Spread, Performance and Impact. Hyderabad: Universities Press, pp. 196–219.
- Tiwari BK, Barik SK, Tripathi RS. 1998. Biodiversity value, status, and strategies for conservation of sacred groves of Meghalaya, India. Ecosystem Health, 4: 20–32. CrossRef
- Tiwari BK, Shahi K. 1995. Land ownership pattern in Meghalaya. In: Tiwari BK, Singh S (eds.), Ecorestoration of degraded hills. Kaushal Publication, Shillong, pp. 61–78.
- Tiwari BK, Tynsong H, Lynser MB. 2010. Forest management practices of the tribal people of Meghalaya, North-East India. J Trop For Sci, 22: 329–342.
- Tripathi RS, Barik SK. 2004. Concept and evolution of joint forest management. In: Malhotra KC, Barik SK, Tiwari BK and Tripathi RS (eds), Joint Forest Management in North-East India-A trainer’s Resource Book. Graftek Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar. p. 22–108.
- Webb EL, Gautam AP. 2001. Effects of community forest management on the structure and diversity of a successional broadleaf forest in Nepal. Int Forestry Rev, 3(2): 146–157.
- White A, Martín A. 2002. Who owns the world’s forests? Washington DC: Forest Trends publication, p. 30.
- Xu JC, Ribot J. 2004. Decentralization and accountability in forest management: case from Yunnan, Southwest China. Eur J Dev Res, 14: 153–173. CrossRef
- Institutional arrangement and typology of community forests of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland of North-East India
Journal of Forestry Research
Volume 24, Issue 1 , pp 179-186
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Northeast Forestry University
- Additional Links
- natural resources
- community institution: tribal
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Environmental Studies, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, 793022, India
- 2. Regional Centre, National Afforestation and Eco-Development Board, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, 793022, India