Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 179–186 | Cite as

Institutional arrangement and typology of community forests of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland of North-East India

  • B. K. Tiwari
  • H. Tynsong
  • M. M. Lynrah
  • E. Lapasam
  • S. Deb
  • D. Sharma
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

sustainable natural resources community institution: tribal 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agarwal A, Chhatre A. 2007. State involvement and forest co-governance: evidence from the Indian Himalayas. St Comp Int Dev, 42: 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Ostrom E. 2001. Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politic Soc, 29: 485–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Brockington D. 2007. Forests, community conservation, and local government performance: the village forest reserves of Tanzania. Soc Nat Res, 20: 835–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chakraborty RN. 2001. Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: evidence from the Terai region of Nepal. Ecol Econ, 36: 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. Edmonds EV. 2002. Government tnitiated community resource management and local resource extraction from Nepal’s Forests. J Develop Econ, 68: 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FSI (Forest Survey of India). 2009. State of the Forest Report. Dehradun: FSI.Google Scholar
  11. 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.
  12. Gokhale Y. 2004. Reviving traditional forest management in western Ghats study in Karnataka. Economic and Political Weekly, 39: 3556–3559.Google Scholar
  13. Goswami MC, Majumder DN. 1972. Social institutions of the Garo of Calcutta, Meghalaya: an analytical study. Calcutta: Nababharat Publishers, p. 142.Google Scholar
  14. Gurdon PR. 1975. The Native Races of India. New Delhi: The Khasis, Cosme Publication, p. 227.Google Scholar
  15. Jodha NS. 2002. Natural resource management and poverty alleviation in mountain areas: approaches and efforts. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD, p. 27.Google Scholar
  16. Karmakar KG, Banerjee GD. 2009. Village Development Boards (VDBs) in Nagaland. eSocial Science. Available at: http://www.esocialsciences.org.
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.
  19. Lucy and Jehol KK. 2009. The legendary of Naga village-A reader. Nagaland: Heritage publishing house, p. 115.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403: 853–858.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mukherjee N. 1998. Participatory Rural Appraisal-Methodology and Applications. New Delhi: Concept publication company, p. 160.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Nongkynrih AK. 2001. Ka Shnong: the microcosm of Hynniewtrep society. Ind Horizon, 48:121–151.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Ribot JC, Agrawal A, Larson AM. 2006. Recentralizing while decentralizing: How national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Develop, 34: 1864–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. White A, Martín A. 2002. Who owns the world’s forests? Washington DC: Forest Trends publication, p. 30.Google Scholar
  35. Xu JC, Ribot J. 2004. Decentralization and accountability in forest management: case from Yunnan, Southwest China. Eur J Dev Res, 14: 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. K. Tiwari
    • 1
  • H. Tynsong
    • 1
  • M. M. Lynrah
    • 1
  • E. Lapasam
    • 1
  • S. Deb
    • 2
  • D. Sharma
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental StudiesNorth-Eastern Hill UniversityShillongIndia
  2. 2.Regional Centre, National Afforestation and Eco-Development BoardNorth-Eastern Hill UniversityShillongIndia

Personalised recommendations