|
|
|
Previous
Next
|
| Trends in tenure arrangements for forest, and their implications for sustainable forest management: the need for a more unified regime: A Case Study from Meghalaya, India. |
|
Reference |
| Dasgupta, Joy, and H. J Symlieh. 2006. "Trends in Tenure Arrangements for Forest, and their Implications for Sustainable Forest Management: The Need for a More Unified Regime: A Case Study from Meghalaya, India." Presented at "Survival of the Commons: Mounting Challenges and New Realities," the Eleventh Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bali, Indonesia, June 19-23, 2006. Link: http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00001872/ |
|
Introduction to the Institution |
| Meghalaya had a long history of community forest management throughout the pre-colonial period and, although some of its best forest lands were annexed by the colonists, a substantial part of its forest estate remained in the hands of different communities. The process of changing forest management and tenure started after Indian independence, when tribal communities’ calls for independence led to the creation of autonomous district councils and the codification of customary forest laws. For all practical purposes, community-controlled forest land started to be managed by the autonomous district councils. |
|
Rules for Management
of the Institution |
|
(a) Boundary Rules |
| Spacial Boundaries: In Khasi and Jaintia hills of Meghalaya common property resources include community forests which are known as Law Kyntang, Law Adong, Law Lyngdoh, Law Shnong, Law Raij, Law Sumar, Law Kur, etc., denoting the usages to which they are supposed to be put.Social Boundaries: Different communities like Khasi, Garo manage their community forests in Meghalaya which are restricted to only the members of those communities. |
|
(b) Governance
rules |
| In Khasi hills, Khasis have been managing their own social, economic and political affairs through Syiems (chiefs). Khasi politics are state- rather than village-based, and there are 25 Khasi states. The Syiem is the head of the state and runs day-to-day administration with a cabinet, which administers markets, collects fines, etc. The Syiem and cabinet also act as the judge and jury in judicial cases, according to the functions assigned to them by the district council. Syiems are hereditary positions, have no power to make laws and their authority over the departments assigned to them is clearly defined. In the Garo hills, most land is forested and belongs to a specific clan. These lands are known as A’king lands and are theoretically controlled by the community through the Nokma. However, the Nokma is a woman, and actual control of A’king land falls to her husband. |
|
(c) Resource Allocation |
| Community forests are known as Law Kyntang, Law Adong, Law Lyngdoh, Law Shnong, Law Raij, Law Sumar, Law Kur, etc., denoting the usages to which they are supposed to be put. Law Kyntang, Law Lyngdoh and Law Niam are used for carrying out local or village religious ceremonies and are managed by Lyngdoh (religious head). Law Shnong and Law Adong were defined as village forests for conserving water etc.; they are used by the villagers and managed by the Sirdar or head with the help of the village durbar. Law Raij are looked after by the heads of the Raij or commune under the management of the local administrative head. Law Ri Sumar belong to individual clans. |
|
Conflict Resolution Mechanism |
| Conflicts are arising between district councils and local communities due to the fact that the current legal regime grants district council control over much of the forest estate, but in reality the land is owned by local communities and people, who see forests as a resource to be mined for economic benefits. |
|
Problems Faced by Institution |
| 1) With the onset of the Sixth Schedule and the establishment of the district councils, continuation of the political, social and economic roles of traditional chiefs has created contradictions and conflicts, even though the Sixth Schedule was set up to safeguard customs and traditions. 2) The management by district councils is very poor and there is almost no control of tree felling. This has lead to very high timber extraction from the forests 3) Local communities do not receive economic returns for forest preservation from the district councils, and so they have little interest in sustainable forest management.4) District councils have also tended to rely too much on revenues from timber and transit fees, while paying insufficient attention to the long-term implications of such forest exploitation. |
|
Changes in the Institution over time |
| Attitudes of the pople in khasi and Jaintia hills have gradually been transforming, and less value is now attached to forests and sacred groves. As a result, tenure is also changing. There is move from traditional community (collective) systems to unknown private systems which is unlikely to strengthen communities, and may create problems in the future. It is also important to note that changes in tenure are likely to lead to changes in society’s value system. The transition to a district council based management system was in many ways the main change in forest management. Timber extraction suddenly became very lucrative because there was a substantial market for timber in the plains to the north. In 1996 |
|
Purpose |
| Community forest management |
|
Country |
| India |
|
Region |
| Khasi and Jaintia hills, Meghalaya |
|
Date Of Publication |
| RS-19-23/06/2006 |
|
| |
