community forestry and sustainable livelihood in rural india

Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management Studies XISS, Ranchi, Vol, 9, No.2, June 2011, pp. 4339-4351

COMMUNITY FORESTRY AND SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD IN RURAL INDIA: A CRITICAL REVIEW Bijayashree Satpathy* & Bidu Bhusan Dash** Concepts such as community forestry, sustainable livelihood and rural India are funneled into the construct, entitled 'Community Forestry and Sustainable Livelihood in Rural India: A Critical Review' through review of related literature. The paper is divided into four main sections. First part briefly focuses on rural India and its forest resources. The second focuses on the concept of community forestry including joint management of state and the forest dependent communities, group dynamics and decentralization from history to present. The third does on the concept of sustainable livelihood including its approaches and strategies. The fourth shows how community forestry enriches to sustain the livelihood of forest dwellers with challenges followed with a brief conclusion in case of India.

Introduction Concepts such as community forestry, sustainable livelihood and rural India are funneled into the construct, entitled 'Community Forestry and Sustainable Livelihood in Rural India: A Critical Review' through review of related literature. Community forestry addresses the problem of environmental degradation and enhances livelihood opportunities among the forest dwellers. In spite of industrialization and the various alternative employment options available in the twenty-first century, natural resources provide the biggest livelihood opportunities to a large population in the world and in India. In underdeveloped and developing countries, three out of every four people live in rural areas and is dependent on the.forest and land for their livelihoods. India's Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 ensures forest dwellers their livelihoods and food security. Community manages and conserves the forest ecosystem and in lieu it gets its survival in a sustainable way with the help of community forestry. Hence, we have to understand the conceptual frameworks of community forestry and sustainable livelihoods before establishing the correlation between them. Nevertheless, we have to understand rural India in relation to forestry as livelihood. *

Presently the author is temporarily assisting a research project in CIMMYT India, New Delhi. Email: [email protected].

**

Doctoral Scholar. Tata Email: [email protected].

Institute

4339

of

Social

Sciences,

Mumbai.

4.-S40

Satpathy & Dash

Rural India & Forest Resources India lives in its villages. According to Census 2001, Around 72.2 per cent population of India lives in 638588 villages and employed in primary sector. It is estimated that one-third of the world's poor live in India, and there are more poor people in India alone than in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa (Saxena, Deshingkar and Farrington, 2006). Major poor populations are living in rural India. Rural India is the land of multiple deprivations linked to poverty, gender and caste, is a deeply rooted reality. Dalits are socially excluded, tribals are geographically isolated and women are deprived even within their families from the decision-making process. Literacy rate is also very low among these three social groups in rural India. Their participation is also very negligible commencing from traditional rituals to state mechanized institutions such as gram sabha and so on. Reality is also clearly visible from community services - schools, health centers, public hand pumps, public retailer shop in the countryside and social services (Saxena, Deshingkar and Farrington, 2006; Carney, 1999). Rural people still suffer from inadequate public services, underdeveloped markets, poor communications infrastructure and poor health and education (Carney, 1999). In India, 175000 villages are located in and around forests and the predominantly tribal population consisting of about 350 million people has a symbiotic relationship with the forests. They are substantially dependant on the nearby forests for their livelihood requirements. Though 19.27 percent of the landmass in India is under forests, only 11 percent is under good forest cover (Sim, Appanah and Hooda, 2003). Indian rural economy mainly depends on forest resources. Forests have a significant potential of alleviating poverty through providing livelihood and food security in the rural areas. The vast majority of the people in rural India are engaged in natural resources for their livelihood primarily based on agriculture, animal husbandry, forest-based art, crafts and industry (including bamboo and cane products) and collection and processing of forest fruits, gums and medicinal plants (Saxena, Deshingkar and Farrington, 2006; Bhatt, 2003). The rural dependence on forests is so much that over two-thirds of the rural population use fuelwood for cooking purposes. About a quarter of India's livestock population is almost totally dependent on forest lands. Nearly 70 percent of India's population uses traditional medicine which comes from the forests. Forest based activities are often an important source of cash income for the poor especially during lean season (Singh, 2003). Over the years, more than half of India's 76.53 million hectares of forests have become degraded resulting in ecological crisis and

Community Forestry and Sustainable Livelihood in Rural India:

4341

immense hardships for the forest-dependent people in and around the forest areas. Livelihood pattern is also changing and diversifying throughout the years among the rural poor unlike the rich due to insecurity. As a result the forest-dependent communities are compelled to depend upon the untraditional livelihood alternatives. This diversification is a necessary response to under-employment, for the vulnerable communities, to cope with the everyday shocks and stresses. Their vulnerability affect them in two ways: it will limit their capacity and willingness to undertake entrepreneurial risk, and lack of capacity to withstand shocks or stresses will put them onto downward trajectories which may reinforce intergenerational poverty. The poorest do not have enough available work or assets either to meet their basic needs, or to search for multiple additional income streams (Deshingkar, Start and Farrington, 2006). Agriculture has always been a major source of livelihood but it has reached a stage of saturation with no further scope for expansion. Forest resources therefore become the second largest source that together with agriculture and annual husbandry can provide major livelihood opportunities to the rural communities (Bhatt, 2003). There are 68434,000 hectare forest areas which is 23 per cent of total land area of the country. Area per 1000 people is 58 ha. Annual change rate has increased 304,000 ha i.e. 0.5 per cent in 2000-2010 comparing to 145,000 ha i.e. 0.2 per cent in 1990-2000 (FAO, 2011). In India, there are 53.6 million hectares public forests are administered by government which is 76.1 per cent of country's total forests and 11.6 million hectares are reserved for community and indigenous people. In case of private forests, there is no forest with the community or indigenous people and 5.2 million hectares are firm or with individual which is 7.4 per cent of the total forest area. The flaw of this situation is that natural resources are not being utilized in a development-oriented manner for providing livelihood strategies. Natural resource removal is not able to foster the socio-economic progress in an effective manner. The land available for natural resources is limited. In India, out of 65.2 million hectares recognized by the government as public forests, over 10 million are co-managed with forest user groups. The evidence from India indicates that forest cover and government forest departments have benefited from joint forest management, but the impact of communities has been mixed (White and Martin, 2002). Community Forestry in the Conceptual Framework Forests have always been of natural growth and so they have been enjoyed by the people. Forests have indispensable role in the survival of forest-dependent communities. Agriculturists have acute dependency on the produce of forests and other common lands. This dependence was even more acute among the communities of hunter-

4.-S40

Satpathy & Dash

gatherers, swidden agriculturists and charcoal iron makers in the tribal regions of middle India. In the olden days small landholders who could not subsist on cultivation alone used to eat wild fruits like figs and jamun and sell the leaves and flowers of the flame of the forest and the mahuatree. Since 1853, many forest bills, which serve as the model for the British colonies, were passed and adopted. For instance, the tribals of Himalaya get victimized by the state forest management when there was the gradual replacement of the banj oak, a tree much prized by villagers as a source of fuel, fodder and leaf manure, by chil pine, a species more valued commercially as a source of timber and resin. The region witnessed the recurrent of conflicts between the villagers and forest department of the struggle for existence (Guha, 2001). The denial of communities' involvement in forest protection and management provoked the communities including peasants, tribals, small landholders, to protest countrywide. Finally, in 1930 van panchayats came into existence in Kumaun and Garwal. An official report of 1960 remarked that many of these village forest councils had done exemplary work in connection with forest protection and development. The 1970s were marked by a series of forest movements in different parts of India i.e. in the Himalaya, in the Western Ghats, and, above all, in the vast tribal belt extending across the heart of peninsular India. In the Chotanagpur plateau, forest protests by tribals demolished the State's plantation of teak, a highly, prized furniture wood that was coming up on land previously under the sal tree, a species of far greater benefit to the local economy (Guha, 2001). Again, the success of Joint Forest Management (JFM) in West Bengal has encouraged its replication in other parts of India. But, it too has lacunae as it allows the constitution of village forest committees only on forestland with less than 40 per cent crown cover. Thus, in the Uttar Pradesh hills, the old established panchayat forests, managed by villagers, are sought to be brought under the JFM system. A new Indian Forest Act is called for, which allows both for areas to be managed under state-village partnerships as well as by self-generated, autonomous community regimes. Thus, from many responses it is evident that there should be amicable adjustment between forest management and tribal needs and this could only be possible when forest dependent communities get participation in the forestry activities with due rights. As quoted by Ostrom (1990), 'commons could be successfully managed by groups using it'.


4341

Recent years have seen greater official recognition and support for community-based natural resource management in hillside systems globally. In the Middle Hills of Nepal, this has led to adoption of Community Forestry with communities keen to conserve forest resources through greater control of access to forest resources. Over the last 15 years several governments have begun to set aside public lands for indigenous communities. India has also devolved limited rights to local communities to manage and get benefit from forests that are still officially considered public land (White and Martin, 2002). The objectives of community forestry are to create jobs and generate income in rural areas, improving the living conditions of the people and ensure the sustainable management of the environment while meeting the basic needs of rural communities (Cuny et al., 2006). In India where Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) has been developing for a long time, tangible benefits such as resources, infrastructures are being realized which contribute directly to poverty alleviation by creating sustainable livelihood opportunities. Sustainable Livelihood in the Conceptual Framework Sustainable livelihood is a way of thinking about the objectives, scope and priorities for development, in order to enhance progress in poverty elimination. Sustainable livelihood approaches rest on core principles that stress people-centered, responsive and multi-level approaches to development. Contrary to the commitments to poverty reduction by donor agencies and government, sustainable livelihood approaches place people firmly at the centre; the benchmark for their success is whether sustainable improvements in people's livelihoods have taken place. It is anticipated that this refocusing on the poor will make a significant difference to the achievement of poverty elimination goals. Sustainable livelihood approach addresses the concerns like many activities are unsustainable (environmentally and in other ways); isolated sectoral initiatives have limited value while complex cross-sectoral programmes become unmanageable; and thereby to improve the effectiveness of development spending (DFID, 1999). Chambers and Conway (1991) put forth that livelihood comprises of capability of people, equity in their means of living and environmental & social sustainability. Capability, as referred by Amartya Sen, is a subset of livelihood capabilities that include being able to cope with stress and shocks, and being able to find and make use of livelihood opportunities. Equity implies a less unequal distribution of assets, capabilities and opportunities and especially enhancement of those of the most deprived. The term sustainable livelihood implies that livelihoods are stable, durable, resilient and robust in the face of both external shocks and internal stresses (Scoones, 2009). A livelihood is

4.-S40

Satpathy & Dash

environmentally sustainable when it maintains or enhances the local and global assets on which livelihoods depend, and has net beneficial effects on other livelihoods. A livelihood is socially sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, and provide for future generations. Livelihood is considered as a composite of entitlements and capabilities that determine the existence of a household and explored the constraints acting upon both these aspects of poor households, in order to generate options for promoting sustainable livelihoods. Livelihood is not necessarily the same as having a job or does not necessarily even have anything to do with working. Moreover, although obtaining a monetary income is an important part of livelihood, it is not the only aspect that matters (Haan, 2000). So-called livelihood approaches work with people, supporting them to build appropriate livelihood strategies, upon their own strengths and realize their potential, while at the same time acknowledging the effects of policies and institutions, external shocks and trends (Carney, 1999). A livelihood strategy is sustainable if it does not lead to an irreversible deterioration of natural resources and it is able to overcome the effect of sudden changes (Aravali, 2004). Moreover, it is sustainable if it is adequate to satisfy self-defined basic needs and resilient to shocks and stress. If livelihood is sustainable, it is synonymous with social inclusion; if not, it equates with social exclusion (Haan, op. cit.). Rather than looking only at land and other classic wealth indicators, the sustainable livelihoods framework suggests consideration of an asset portfolio of five different types of assets: natural, physical, financial, human and social capital (Carney, op. cit.). The 1987 Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) must be regarded as the foundation of sustainable livelihood and the direct processors of the works done by other scholars. DFID formally adopted a sustainable livelihoods approach following its 1997 white paper on international development, which affirmed DFID's goal of eliminating poverty in poorer countries and the promotion of sustainable livelihoods as one means of reaching that goal. Many international organizations including United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Oxfam, the Society for International Development (SID) and CARE also adopted the concept of sustainable livelihoods. Significant work on sustainable livelihoods was continued in Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and Overseas Development Institute (ODI). Livelihood approaches have little to say about distributional issues, though there is an implicit assumption that the emphasis will be on the poorest. It will be important to ensure that this focus is maintained by the incorporating broader lessons about reaching the poor into livelihood analysis.


4341

Community Forestry for Sustainable Livelihood Common property resources are often a major source of livelihood for the rural poor (Chambers, 1995). Particularly, community forestry has immense potential for sustainable livelihood generation among the rural people in general and the poor forest dwellers in particular. Forestdependent communities collect minor forest produce such as all nontimber forest produce of plant origin including bamboo, brushwood, stumps, cane, tussar, cocoons, honey, wax, lac, tendu or kendu leaves, medicinal plants or herb, roots, tubers (FRA, 2006), in a sustainable manner. The collection of forest products would be so that, that it does not lead to the long-term decline of the biological diversity thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations (The Biological Diversity Act, 2002). It means the involvement of community in managing forestry activities for sustainable livelihood while conserving the environment. Community forestry is a group activity supported by government as an external agency. The International Year of Forests- 2011 considers the theme 'Changing pathways, changing lives: forests as multiple pathways to sustainable development'. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2011) mentioned that it takes a holistic view of the multiple ways in which forests support livelihoods. Regional trends on forest resources, the dependence of sustainable forest industries, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and the local values of forests provide insights on the true contribution of forests to the creation of sustainable livelihoods and alleviation of poverty. Even many studies have found that community forestry can facilitate the process of livelihood among the rural people, especially the poor with capital assets. Many of the studies have only partially documented the relationship between local forest users and the forests they use or depend upon. Even fewer have considered that relationship's future. From policy perspectives, we have to understand the change over time in peopleforest relationships, particularly in livelihood contexts. It is even more important to develop a deeper understanding of the relationships and the dynamics. From a large household survey, it was found that roughly 15 million people, about 4 per cent of the rural population obtain some of their income from forest products in Africa south of the Sahara. As there is generally one or two members of household engaged in these activities, this could mean that 60 to 70 million people are living in households that could benefit from this income (Byron and Arnold, 1997). A very large share of rural populations, in developing countries still include one or more forest or tree foods in their diets, cook their food using wood fuels, and rely on traditional medicines from plant and animal products (Ibid.). For instance, rural landless households in

4.-S40

Satpathy & Dash

Jharkhand earn 30 per cent income from collection of non-timber forest produce, which is a major portion from their subsistence activities to sustain their livelihoods (Mahajan, Dikshit and Rao, 2008). Access to Forests Natural capital such as forest is communally owned. It is accessed, when it is wanted and needed. The importance of forests and of NonTimber Forest Products (NTFPs) to enhance the quality of life and even survival of very large numbers of poor rural people in tropical developing countries now seems indisputable {ibid.). Cuny et al. (2006) cited that the Cameroon forestry law of 1994 gives rural communities access rights to forest resources in and around their villages. It helps the villagers to enhance their livelihoods development and reduce poverty. The majority of rural households in developing countries depend on plant and animal products of forests to meet some part of their nutritional, cooking and/or health needs. For majority of the rural people, forest foods add variety to diets, improve palatability, and provide essential vitamins, minerals, protein and calories. The qualities consumed may not be great in comparison to the main food staples, but they often from an essential part of people's diets (Byron and Arnold, op. cit.). Therefore, access to forestry is very much necessary for their lives and livelihoods, whereas there are many constraints of rural communities limited access to forest resources (Cuny et al., op. cit.). Toufique and Turton (2002) found that access to common property resources such as forests is becoming more difficult in Bangladesh, as better-off households seek de facto long-term leases of them. The restrictions in the access to forest resources through legal means had forced to adopt illegal means (Shahabaz, 2007). Management of Forestry Inadequate handling ofthe resources is one of the basic constraints in managing the locally available resources for the development of forest dependant communities. The bulk of tribal people in large parts of Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Orissa, Maharastra and Jharkhand, who are without 'patta' to their land and who work on other people's lands, do not show any affinity to sustainable use of resources (Ramnath, 2008). Taking into account these facts, The Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, puts forth that secure tenurial rights for land is known to encourage sustainable management of the land. Though management of the Congo community forest is not perfect, has led to an improvement in the living conditions of the rural population in Cameroon village (Cuny et al., 2006). Forests around


4341

villages practising community forestry in Mayurbhanj, Orissa are in far better state than those managed by the state. Sacred groves in several parts of tribal India have been traditionally protected by the communities themselves (Ramnath, 2008). Groups are not a panacea, but an alternative way to support sustainable rural livelihoods if the conditions are supportive, the activities are appropriate and the time frame is realistic (Lyon, 2003). Groups forming an institution had positive impact on the natural capital (forests) and it had raised the awareness of local people regarding forest protection and conservation. Regarding social assets, the trust and relationship of the respondents of project villages increased through interaction within these institutions. It indicates positive impact of participatory forest management (Shahabaz, 2007). Entrepreneurship of Forests Forest is a safety net and source of market-oriented production (Ros-Tonen and Wiersum, 2003). Whereas communities encounter serious problems in marketing their forest products due to the absence of marketing culture, lack of skills and logistics. Therefore, they need to strengthen their technical and managerial capacities, which will lead to sustain their livelihoods and reduce the degree of their poverty. Warner (2006) emphasized that the demand for forest products is increasing. Therefore there are new opportunities for improving livelihoods based on the sustainable use of natural resources. Domestic markets for forest products may provide more stable avenues for development. The large component of forest products activities in the rural sector reflects the size of rural markets for these products (Byron and Arnold, 1997). Baumann and Sinha (2001) cited that woman's association in the local community plays a inevitable role in the processing and marketing the minor forest products in Kantikunda village of Orissa with the support of Agragamee, a local NGO. The forest resources contributed towards the subsistence (or non-cash) oriented livelihoods of the local people (Shahabaz, 2007). Asymmetric Communication Information on rights and the way government functions is notably lacking in rural areas. This makes it hard for rural people to exert pressure for change in systems which have repeatedly actively discriminated against them both in the allocation of resources and in pricing policies for their produce (Carney, 1999). Deprived and vulnerable sections are often cut out of communication channels and may not even be aware of the formation of forest user groups (FUGs) or the roles they could play therein (Upadhyay, 2005).

4.-S40

Satpathy & Dash

People's Participation and Governance A social responsible forestry programme should promote participation, gender equity and social justice in addition to sustainable use and management of natural resources. As rural women rely heavily on natural resources for the survival of their families, the deterioration in the natural resource base is threatening rural livelihoods. As men in rural areas become extremely vulnerable to outmigration in search of alternative livelihoods then feminization of natural resource management is increasingly becoming a common phenomenon in south Asia. Hence, women's involvement in natural resource management is significantly increasing. Community forestry affects the collection of forest products; often severely impact the livelihoods of both women and men in rural areas. Special consideration should be given to ensure that women have access to common resources to support their livelihoods. Women's participation in common property management committees will ensure sustainable management of forest resources to support their livelihoods. Women's participation in common property management committees will ensure sustainable management of forest resources without compromising livelihood opportunities and gender equity (Upadhyay, 2005). When community people are excluded from the process of decision making by the government authorities, women are excluded by men at the same time. Decentralisation has considerable promise in improving development projects and making them more flexible and more sustainable. Decentralisation does seem to have a positive impact upon livelihoods (Goldman, 1998). The community participation in forest management had partially increased natural and social capital and reduces some factors of vulnerability. It can be argued that the improvement of the natural capital (forests) as an outcome of the institutional changes can ensure the partial livelihood security of the local people in the future. The participatory approach in managing the forest had reduced the factors of vulnerability related to the natural (forests) and some social assets (Shahabaz, 2007). People and Policies Rights-based and sustainable livelihood perspectives are complementary to each other (Farrington et al., 1999). Although the distribution of rights between government and community is different in almost every country, invariably governments retain strong authority to extract and manage forest resources. Example of this category includes the joint-forest management schemes in India (White and Martin, 2002).


4341

Farrington et al. (1999) also cited that rights to natural resource assets in India is weak, though a number of changes to state-level legislation concerning access to and sale of minor forest products are being taken care in some states like Odisha. Another crucial area of policy is related to natural resource access, remain difficult to change. The focus of previous rural development policies on natural resources and their use has failed to maximize rural opportunities (Carney, 1999). Baumann and Sinha (2001) cited that some political capital with legislation obstruct access by poor people to enhanced financial benefit. Whereas community values determine how and under which conditions forest resources should be used, and how the rights to these resources are embedded in culturally defined relationship (Carney, 1999). Therefore, government should promote sustainable livelihood by nurturing local initiatives, reinforcing civil rights, enlarging social capital and reinforcing the incomes of poor households (Haan, 2000), giving the resource rights for collection, storage, processing and marketing of forest produce and to stop exploitation by middleman. The potentiality of forestry has, however, not been fully harnessed on account of inadequate inputs and low level of funds provided for forestry development (Sharma, 1980). Conclusion The local communities are depending on the forest- the land, the water bodies and the grazing areas, use for their 'nistar', are extremely vulnerable. Acquiring these forestlands for afforestation purposes would deprive forest dwellers and tribals of some or all of their lands and adversely affect their livelihoods and basic needs. A holistic approach should follow to give the right to a way of life and livelihood, and acknowledgement of the knowledge of forest dependent communities and increase the capacities to nurture the forests and ecosystem. Adequate awareness programmes should be held on benefits of community forestry at the local levels to encourage continuous participation in the practices. REFERENCES Aravali. (2004). Aajeevika - Livelihoods in Rajasthan: Status, Constraints and Strategies for Sustainable Change, New Delhi: UNDP India. Baumann, P. and Sinha, S. (2001). Linking Development with Democratic Process in India: Political Capital and Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis, Natural Resource Perspectives 68, London: ODI. Bhatt, C.P. (2003). 'In forestry lies the prospect of economic progress1, Proceedings of the workshop in Dehradun, India, RAP Publication 2005/19, FAO, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. Byron, N. and Arnold, M. (1997). What Futures for the People of the Tropical Forests?, Working Paper No. 19, Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research. Carney, D. (1999). Approaches to Sustainable Livelihoods for the Rural Poor, Poverty Briefing 2, London: ODI.

4.-S40

Satpathy & Dash

Chambers, R. (1995). Poverty and Livelihoods: Whose Reality Counts? Environment and Urbanization, 7 (1), 173-204. Chambers, R. and Conway, R. G. (1991). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: IDS. Cuny, P., Ango, A.A. and Ondoa, Z.A. (2006). Local and Decentralized Forest Management in Cameroon: The Case of the Kongo Community Forest, International Conference on Managing Forests for Poverty Reduction: Capturing Opportunities in Forest Harvesting and Wood Processing for the Benefit of the Poor, Ho Chi Minn City, Viet Nam, October, 3-6. Deshingkar, P. Start, D. and Farrington, J. (2006). 'Changing Livelihood Contexts in the Study Locations'. In J. Farrington, P. Deshingkar, C. Johnson and D. Start (Eds.) Policy Windows and Livelihood Futures: Prospects for Poverty Reduction in Rural India, 53-73. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. FAO. (2011). State of the World's Forests 2011, Rome. Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C. and Turton, C. (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice: Early Applications of Concepts in Rural Areas, Natural Resource Perspectives 42, London: ODI. Goldman, I. (1998). 'Decentralisation and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods', In Carney, D. (Ed) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make?, London: DFID. Government of India. (2002). The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, New Delhi: Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice. Government of India. (2006). The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, New Delhi: Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice. Guha, R. (2001). The Prehistory of Community Forestry in India, Environmental History, 6(2), 213-238. Haan, L. J. (2000). Globalization, Localization and Sustainable Livelihood, Sociologia Ruralis, 40(3), 339-365. Lyon, F. (2003). Community Groups and Livelihoods in Remote Rural Areas of Ghana: How Small-Scale Farmers Sustain Collective Action, Community Development Journal, 38 (4), 323-331. Mahajan, V., Dikshit, M. and Rao, K. (2008). Overview. In S. Datta and V. Sharma (Eds.) State of India's Livelihoods: The 4 P Report, New Delhi: ACCESS Development Services. Ostrom, E. and Calvert, R. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. and Wiersum, K.F. (2003). The Importance of Non-Timber Forest Products for Forest-Based Rural Livelihoods: An Evolving Reseach Agenda. Paper presented at The International Conference on 'Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity', Bonn, Germany, 19-23 May. Saxena, N.C., Deshingkar, P. and Farrington, J. (2006). 'Who Are The Poor, Anyway?'. In J. Farrington, P. Deshingkar, C. Johnson and D. Start (Eds.) Policy Windows and. Livelihood. Futures: Prospects for Poverty Reduction in Rural India, 24-27. New Delhi: Oxford University Press/ Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods Perspectives and Rural Development, Journal of Peasant Studies, 36 (1), 171-196. Shahbaz, B. (2007). Analysis of Institutional Changes in Forest Management and Their Impact on Rural Livelihood Strategies in NWFP, Pakistan, PhD Thesis, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Sim, H.C., Appanah, S. and Hooda, N. (2003). 'Forests for poverty reduction: Changing role for research, development and training institutions', Proceedings of the workshop in Dehradun, India, RAP Publication 2005/19, FAO, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. Singh, M.K. (2003). 'JFM and poverty alleviation: an analysis', Proceedings of the workshop in Dehradun, India, RAP Publication 2005/19, FAO, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. Toufique, K.A. and Turton, C. (2002). Hands not Land: How Livelihoods are Changing in Rural Bangladesh, Dhaka: BIDS.


4341

Upadhyay, B. (2005). Women and Natural Resource Management: Illustrations from India and Nepal, Natural Resources Forum, 29, 224-232. Warner, K. (2006). Big Trees for Little People: Managing Forests for Poverty Reduction, International Conference on Managing Forests for Poverty Reduction: Capturing Opportunities in Forest Harvesting and Wood Processing for the Benefit of the Poor, Ho Chi Minn City, Viet Nam, October, 3-6. WCED (1987). Sustainable Development. A Guide to Our Common Future (The Bruntland Report), Geneva: World Commission on Environment and Development. White, A. and Martin, A. (2002). Who Owns the World's Forests?: Forest Tenure and Public Forests in Transition, Washington, D.C.: Forest Trends.