Forest protection in Central India: do differences in monitoring by state and local institutions result in diverse social and ecological impacts?
Protection of forests and wildlife outside protected areas (PAs) is necessary for the conservation of wildlife. Extension of conservation efforts outside the existing PA may result in restrictions on local forest resource use. Such situations arise due to differences in understanding of forest as a resource for communities and as a conservation space for endangered species. A clearer focus is needed on the functionality and socio-ecological outcomes of different forest management institutions to address such issues. We conducted a study in a forest landscape connecting Pench and Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserves (TRs) in Central India. The two main forest management institutions were the Forest Department (FD) and local communities managing forest resources. We conducted vegetation surveys and focus group discussions in 15 villages selected based on presence or absence of active protection and monitoring of forest resources by either FD or local people. We found that forests with monitoring had significantly higher tree density and vegetation species richness compared to forests without monitoring. Tree density was observed to be higher in sites monitored by villagers rather than those monitored by FD. Self-regulation and resource sharing in locally monitored forests were more acceptable to local communities. In forests monitored by the FD, local communities indicated a feeling of alienation from the forest that weakened their motivation to protect the forest and wildlife. Recognition of local community rights is essential to achieve conservation goals and reduce social conflicts outside PAs, requiring collaboration between state and local institutions.
KeywordsForest institutions People participation Forest Department Bureaucracy Biodiversity
- Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2012) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (2011). R package version 0.999375-42Google Scholar
- Das S (2010) The strange valuation of forests in India. Econ Polit Wkly 45(9):16–18Google Scholar
- ENVIS Centre on Wildlife and Protected Areas (2016). http://www.wiienvis.nic.in/Database/Protected_Area_854.aspx. Accessed 4 Jan 2017
- Fleischman F (2009) Informal institutions and enforcement of forest rules. POLS Y673: Networks and InstitutionsGoogle Scholar
- Ghate R, Nagendra H (2005) Role of monitoring in institutional performance: forest management in Maharashtra, India. Conserv Soc 3(2):509–532Google Scholar
- Ghate R, Ghate S, Ostrom E (2013a) Can communities plan, grow and sustainably harvest from forests? Econ Polit Wkly 48(8):59–67Google Scholar
- Guha R (1983) Forestry in British and post-British India: a historical analysis. Econ Polit Wkly 18(44):1882–1896Google Scholar
- Hayes T, Ostrom E (2005) Conserving the world’s forests: are protected areas the only way? Ind L Rev 38:595–617Google Scholar
- Ravindranath N, Srivastava N, Murthy IK, Malaviya S, Munsi M, Sharma N (2012) Deforestation and forest degradation in India: implications for REDD+. Curr Sci 102(8):1117–1125Google Scholar
- Sarin M, Singh NM, Sundar N, Bhogal RK (2003) Devolution as a threat to democratlxic decision-making in forestry? Findings from three states in India. In: Edmunds D, Wollenberg E (eds) Local forest management: the impacts of devolution policies. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Torri MC (2011) Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives. Int J Environ Sci 1(5):871–883Google Scholar
- United Nations list of Protected Areas (2014). https://protectedplanet.net/c/united-nations-list-of-protected-areas/united-nations-list-of-protected-areas-2014. Accessed 4 Jan 2017
- Vasan S (2002) Ethnography of the forest guard: contrasting discourses, conflicting roles and policy implementation. Econ Polit Wkly 37(40):4125–4133Google Scholar