Landscape approach and the art of 'muddling through'
As can be seen from the somewhat ambivalent results of various ‘integrated’ approaches in the past, implementation of the Green India Mission, GIM (or the forest landscape approach, FLR, in general) can be expected to be less than perfect. Given the predilection of academic researchers to judge the results against very exacting standards of equity and process integrity, the ultimate results are bound to fall short. However, state actors (e.g. forest departments) are answerable, based on a completely different set of expectations, to the state organs (Parliaments, statutory auditors, courts, etc.): that expenditures result in measurable physical outputs. Processes are seen only as one component of the means to the ends, and there is no excuse for failure to produce physical output merely on the plea that the people are not ready, or the process did not throw up a consensus, etc.
(A pdf file of the entire article is available at https://www.academia.edu/21490696/Forest_Landscape_Restoration_in_India_Antecedents_experience_and_prognoses)
In a world where the official environment requires clear-cut physical results, certain precautions are essential in taking up projects or activities that are strong on the rhetoric of process-orientation. A basic precaution is to ensure that the project has a core of sure-fire physical outputs that will be achieved through the normal working systems of the departments concerned, regardless of the success, failure or quality of the processes prescribed. No government department will even think of getting into any considerable expenditure programme unless there were some physical output guaranteed, especially a land-based department like the forest, where obviously some sort of crop has to remain at the end of the day. Because the process component is by definition bound to be a disappointment (especially with the constant changing of objectives and redefining of measuring scales by social scientists), the implementing agency will be able to justify the expenditures only if there is a physical resource left at the close of project. That is why, in past project interventions, the forest departments (at least in India) have held almost fanatically to the crop development targets, much to the chagrin of the social analysts. This is also the reason why programmes like the social forestry (SF) projects, the DFID-funded Western Ghats Forestry Project (WGFP), and the joint forest management (JFM) programme, are seen as successes by the department, even though they are almost complete deemed failures from the sociologists’ viewpoint. Physical targets are the safety nets of the forest department, which operates in a remorseless world where inputs have to match with some concrete physical result. Indeed, if any substantial incremental (extra) expenditure is to be incurred, say for special project staff and project directorate and planning/management units, then it would be foolhardy for the department to ignore physical outputs (otherwise the extra expenditure cannot be justified, and will probably be recovered from the officials responsible, or disciplinary action initiated against them).
This is also the reason why exact synchronization of process with physical operations cannot be maintained: the plantations will be raised even if the committees are not formally present (which has been touted as a major deficiency), and communities may have to play catch-up with the physical progress at times. Sometimes, no doubt, believing is seeing (the thought precedes the reality), but most of the time in the real world, in fact people wait to adapt to a changing physical reality brought in by outside forces: seeing is believing. On the other hand, if a purely process-centered project is being pushed by policy makers (in our experience mainly the international donors and consultants, to which JICA is perhaps an honorable exception), then local counterparts in the recipient countries would be wise to rigorously eliminate all extra expenditure, all special staff and directorates, for example (which may end in zero physical output, but lots of workshops, and overseas consultants, whether paid for by the implementing agency or directly by the donor through the technical cooperation component). They should rather attach the additional work relentlessly to existing positions and agencies. In the Green India Mission (GIM), for instance, national coordination was entrusted to the existing National Afforestation and Eco-development Board (NAEB) at the ministry of environment and forests; in the states, the existing State Forest Development Agency (SFDA) and the district FDAs are to be entrusted the new responsibility, and the operations in the field also will be handled by existing structures; this is as well, since there is no guaranteed funding for the field operations.
The dilemma with such ambitious, over-arching, all-embracing, holistic, integrated, process-priority interventions like the landscape approach is that they want to bring together all players to indulge in exhaustive discussions and consultations before embarking on action, but the catch-22 situation is that they will not be able to pull in collateral actors unless they hold out carrots in the form of financial resources, infrastructure investment, perks like foreign visits or at least buildings, vehicles and computers, and so on. But the paradox is that money for such components can rarely be garnered (whether from government budgets or from international aid agencies) on any large scale unless there is a guaranteed physical result of appropriate magnitude. To incorporate such physical results, many decisions will have to be taken at the time of presenting the project proposal itself, thereby pre-empting the process activities. If communities feel that the department may have some substantial money in its hampers, they may deign to come to consultations; if they know that the department has still not got the funding, they may not be interested in mere talk.
Even with committed funding and guaranteed physical outputs, the state auditors may well pull up the departments if there is a mis-match between targets shown in the project document and the actual outcome on the ground, as may well happen if processes are permitted to dictate in-course corrections and modifications in operations. Thus the deviation from the model-wise plantation targets in the approved project document was made a big issue in the audit of the WGFP described previously, because the donor agency’s stand against pre-determined models and targets (this was supposed to be a process project) was limited to oral and personal communications, and could not be put up to the audit authorities, who only recognized the cabinet-approved final project documents (FPDs). Based on such unpleasant experiences, the author strove to incorporate in the GIM document a paragraph especially to the effect that being a process-based programme, actual achievements may not conform exactly to the model-wise areas indicated in the document. Whether audit will understand this during the inevitable post-mortem analyses is of course left to the future. In any case, if there are mid-corse deviations, implementing agencies should not neglect getting such changes approved or ratified at the highest required levels. Thus, if the original document was approved at the cabinet level, it should be ensured that all major deviations are also got approved by the donor and the state government at the Cabinet level.
One of the recurring dissatisfactions expressed by social analysts, with projects implemented by the forest departments, is their unwillingness to let go the control of the forest areas to the community. Social environmentalists want JFM and forest governance to go to the next level, where communities will be the sole masters rather than mere participants (see, e.g. Lele & Menon, 2014). The donor agency, DfID, was especially disappointed with the pace of this type of institutional change in the WGFP in Karnataka, which was probably the reason for not extending the project to a second phase after 2000. However, social environmentalists and aid agencies must understand that their interventions are usually short-lived (three to five years for a Ph.D. scholar, five to ten years for an externally aided project), and the financial contribution is usually miniscule in proportion to the national budget; obviously it has to fit into the existing departmental set-up, and not vice versa. While the integrated approach looks good in theory, words come cheap, and if all these aspects are actually to be covered by action on the ground, there will probably be not enough resources for even one landscape, let alone for a national programme like the GIM. This does not mean that departments and communities should fold their hands in their laps and sit quiescent; it means, instead, that they will probably plan and keep on the shelf a series of smaller interventions, and opportunistically fulfill whichever are possible depending on the funds and personnel available from different sources. This calls for a time horizon much longer than the five to ten years of an average externally aided project. At the end of the project, the forest department (or whichever is the main implementing agency) is still in place, and has to take care of things just as if the project never existed; not the least of the responsibilities being the continuing salaries of the staff added for the project, and further protection and tending of the plantations and community institutions set up during the project . Thus, the implementing departments have to be pardoned if they do not fall in with the more extreme urgings of the aid agencies and social experts to abdicate their role and position with alacrity.
The danger in over-arching concepts like ‘integrated’ or ‘holistic’ or ‘landscape’ or ‘national’ or ‘global’ is that they may lull the user into a sense of omniscience and omnipotence that is not justified. It is because of this fatal attraction of big words that many well-intentioned schemes and projects that have over-weening ambitions of social engineering do not work, as demonstrated by James C.Scott in his book Seeing Like a State (Scott, 1999) on ‘high moderrnism’ and its relevance to large projects (the sub-title being How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed). In this context, Lindblom’s contrast between ‘synoptic’ and ‘incremental’ programs and the option of “muddling through” rather than claiming some perfect solution is surely pertinent and cautionary to landscape approach enthusiasts (Lindblom, 1959, 1979).
In conclusion, is submitted this statement made by the author, as DG Forests of India at the Roundtable on “Forests and People”, during the High Level Segment of the UN Forum for Forests, 2 February 2011:
“Forestry in modern India has, over the past one and a half centuries, built on two major foundations: firstly, giving protection to the resource itself by legal and administrative measures to identify and notify forest reserves, and secondly, working with the communities to maintain over the long term the productivity of services and materials from the forests, in support of their agricultural needs and livelihood occupations… It has been our experience that all the different strands of the polity are important in ensuring the long-term survival and sustainable management of this precious resource: well-thought out legislation, a strong and independent judiciary, strong community and civil society participation, and a professional state forester cadre and other administrative personnel and apparatus”.
(A pdf file of the entire article is available at https://www.academia.edu/21490696/Forest_Landscape_Restoration_in_India_Antecedents_experience_and_prognoses)
References (for all sections)
Barnes, Douglas F., Julia C.Allen, William Ramsay. 1982. Social Forestry in Developing Nations. (Unpublished). The Centre for Energy Policy Research. Resources For the Future, Washington, D.C. April 1982. Available at pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAY447.pdf
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brandis, Dietrich. 1897. Forestry in India. Origins and Early Developments. Reprinted 1994 by Natraj Publishers, Dehradun.
CPS. 2011. The Story of Modern Forestry in India. Centre for Policy Studies, India. http://cpsindia.org/index.php/art/114-science-sustainability-and-indian-national-resurgence/d-science-and-technology-under-the-british-rule/159-2-the-story-of-modern-forestry-in-india#_edn1
Dilip Kumar, P.J. 1994. Joint Forest Management and the Organisational Response. Van Vigyan. Journal of the Society of Indian Foresters, Vol.32, No.3, Nov 1994. Available at https://www.academia.edu/13098515/Joint_Forest_Management_and_the_Organisational_Response
Dilip Kumar, P.J. 2013. Village Communities and Their Common Property Forests. Economic & Political Weekly, 31 Aug 2013, Vol.XLVIII, No.35, pp.33-36.
Dilip Kumar, P.J. 2014. Managing India’s Forests: Village Communities, Panchayati Raj Institutions and the State. Monograph No.32. Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore. Available at http://www.academia.edu/9235210/Managing_India_s_Forests_Village_Communities_Panchayati_Raj_Institutions_and_the_State
Dilip Kumar, P.J. 2014b. Climate Change,
Forest Carbon Sequestration and REDD-Plus. The Context of
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol.
XLIX, No.22, May 24, 2014, p.22-25. www.academia.edu/11102870/... India
Dilip Kumar, P.J. 2015. Forestry in the 12th plan. No tears for the Planning Commission India. Self-published as Forest Matters, No.7-9, February 2015. Available as a pdf at https://www.academia.edu/10833350/Forestry_in_the_12th_Plan_No_tears_for_the_Planning_Commission_India, and in blog postings at http://forestmatters.blogspot.com/2015/02/08-forestry-and-planning-commission-ii.html
Dilip Kumar, P.J. 2016. Green India Mission. Letters, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol.LI, No.5, Jan 30, 2016, p.4.
Dutta, Sumana. 2016. Continuing the Forest Conservation Debate: Rhetoric and Reality of Green India Mission. Economic & Political Weekly, 23 Jan 2016, Vol.LI, No.4, pp.49-55.
Equations. 2011. Green India Mission: India’s REDD+ Action Plan to disempower and evict forest communities from their own homelands. Equations, December 2011. Author Souparna Lahiri? Available at http://forestindustries.eu/sites/default/files/userfiles/1file/fileDocuments1131_uid18.pdf
Equitable Tourism Organisation (website). Forests, Communities and the “Green India Mission”: Promises and Failures of Ecotourism. (By Equations). Available at http://www.equitabletourism.org/files/fileDocuments1385_uid20.pdf
Evans, Kate.2013. Video Q&A. Scientist Terry Sunderland describes the ‘landscape approach’. http://blog.cifor.org/19628/qa-scientist-terry-sunderland-describes-the-landscapes-approach?fnl=en (datelined 22 Oct 2013, accessed 30 Dec 2015).
(The) Forest Rights Act (website). (No date?). Dangers of the Green India Mission: A formula for more land and resource grabbing. Available at http://www.forestrightsact.com/statements-and-news/90-dangers-of-the-green-india-mission
FRI. 1961. One Hundred Years of Indian Forestry, Vol. I and II. Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, India.
Government of India. 1894. Resolution No.22.F dated 19th October, 1894. (Available as Appendix IV, The Old Forest Policy, in the publication 100 Years of Indian Forestry, FRI, 1961).
Government of India. 1952. (National Forest Policy). Resolution dated 12th May, 1952. (Available as Appendix III in the publication 100 Years of Indian Forestry, FRI, 1961).
Government of India. 1976. Report of the National Commission on Agriculture. Part IX, Forestry. Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. New Delhi. Available at http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/2041449/1/CCS323.pdf
Government of India. 1988. National Forest Policy. Resolution No.3-1/86-FP dated 7 Dec 1988, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi. Available at the ministry website, http://www.moef.gov.in/sites/default/files/introduction-nfp.pdf
Government of India. 2010. National Mission for a Green India. National Consultations. Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi. Available at http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/green-india-mission.pdf
Government of India. 2011. Green India Mission Brochure dated 26 March 2011 available at the ministry website, http://naeb.nic.in/documents/GIM_Brochure_26March.pdf
Government of India. 2015. Guidelines for convergence of MGNREGS with GIM. Memo .F.No.9-5/2015/GIM/MGNREGS dated 3 March 2015 of the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, New Delhi. Available at http://envfor.nic.in/sites/default/files/MGNREGS-GIM_0.pdf
GPFLR.2013. Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration. Ten Principles. capability (www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/tool/our-approach-landscape-approach). Accessed Dec. 2015.
Guha, Ramachandra. 2012. The Past and Future of Indian Forestry. Chapter I in Deeper Roots of Historical Injustice: Trends and Challenges in the Forests of India. Published by Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, D.C. Available at www.rightsandresources.org/documents/files/doc_5589.pdf
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-48.
Hobley, Mary and Dermot Shields. 2000. The Reality of Trying to Transform Structures and Processes: Forestry in Rural Livelihoods. Working paper 132, February 2000. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London. Available at http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/2742.pdf
ICFRE. 2008. Mid-Term Evaluation of the National Afforestation Programme. Published by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, Dehradun, on behalf of Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India , New Delhi. Available at http://naeb.nic.in/MTE-Complete_Report.pdf
ICFRE. 2012. Forest Sector Report India -2010. (Lead author Devendra Pandey). Published by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, Dehradun, on behalf of Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India , New Delhi. Available at http://www.icfre.org/FSRI-REPORT_English.pdf
ITTO. 2002. Guidelines for the Restoration, Rehabilitation and Management of Degraded and Secondary Tropical Forests. ITTO Policy Development Series No.13. International Tropical Timber Organization in collaboration with CIFOR FAO, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), and WWF International. Available at http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/sites/default/files/resource/17._itto_2002_guidelines_for_restoration.pdf
ITTO. 2005. Restoring Forest Landscapes. An introduction to the art and science of forest landscape restoration. Technical Series 23. International Tropical Timber Organization and the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Available at http://www.itto.int/news_releases/id=10640000
ITTO. 2009. ITTO and Forest Landscape Restoration. Workshop on Forest Landscape Restoration, Bali Prana Dewi, 12-15 May 2009. Available at http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/sites/default/files/resource/10._itto_guidelines.pdf
Jha, Sourish. 2011?. The Green India Mission (GIM): A Roadmap for Neo-liberal Exploitation in Forest. http://www.iss.nl/fileadmin/ASSETS/iss/Documents/Conference_presentations/NatureInc_Sourish_Jha.pdf
Lele, Sharachchandra. 2003. Participatory Forest management in Karnataka: At the Crossroads. Community Forestry, Vol.2, Issue 4, May 2003, p.4-11. Available at: http://www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/sahyadri_enews/newsletter/issue21/pdfs/PFM%20in%20Karnataka.pdf
Lele, Sharachchandra and Ajit Menon. 2014. Democratizing Forest Governance in India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. The Science of “Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review, Spring 1959, vol.19, No.2, pp.79-88.
Lindblom, Charles E. Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. Public Administration Review, November/December 1979, pp.517-526.
Myrdal, Gunnar. 1968. Asian Drama. An Inquiry Into the Poverty of Nations. Twentieth Century Fund, inc. Reprinted in India 1982, 2004, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi.
Nadkarni, M.V., with S.A.Pasha and L.S.Prabhakar. 1989. The Political Economy of
and Management. Institute for Social and Economic Change, . Sage Publications, Bangalore New Delhi and . London
NAEB. 2008. Mid term Evaluation of the National Afforestation Programme (NAP) schemes implemented through Forest Development Agencies (FDAs). Final report submitted by Directorate of Extension, ICFRE Dehradun to the National Afforestation and Eco-Development Board, Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi. Available at naeb.nic.in/MTE-Complete_Report.pdf
NAEB. 2009. National Afforestation Programme Revised Operational Guidelines – 2009. National Afforestation and Eco-Development Board, Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi. Available at http://naeb.nic.in/NAP_revised%20Guidelines%20English.pdf
NCA. 1976. Report of the National Commission on Agriculture. Part IX, Forestry. National Commission on Agriculture. Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Government of India, New Delhi. (Available at http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/2041449/1/CCS323.pdf)
ODA. 1990. Karnataka Social Forestry Project (KSFP), India. Evaluation (summary).Overseas Development Agency, UK. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/.../ev503s.pdf
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge Universities Press, Cambridge.
Saigal, Sushil and Divya Kashyap. 2002. The second green revolution: analysis of farm forestry experience in western Tarai region of Uttar Pradesh and coastal Andhra Pradesh. Sub-study of the India country study of the international collaborative research project; instruments for sustainable private sector forestry. India Country Sub-Study. Ecotech Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, and International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London. Available at http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/9185IIED.pdf.
Saxena, N.C. 1994. India’s Eucalyptus Craze: the God That Failed. Sage Publications, New Delhi.
Saxena, N.C. 1997. The Saga of Participatory Forest Management in India. CIFOR Special Publication. Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia. Available at www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/SP-Saga.pdf
Sayer J.A., Sunderland, T.C.H., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.L., Sheil, D., Meijard, E., Venter, M., Boedhihartono A.K., Day, M., García, C., Van Oosten, C. and Buck, L.E. 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Special Feature: Perspective. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Vol. 110, No.21, 21 May 2013, p.8349-8356. http://www.cifor.org/library/4136/ten-principles-for-a-landscape-approach-to-reconciling-agriculture-conservation-and-other-competing-land-uses/?pub=4136 (accessed 30 Dec 2015), download link http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/ASunderland1302.pdf. Also at reference in paper, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210595110)
Scott, James C. 1999.Seeing Like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press.
Shyamsunder, S. and S.Parameshwarappa. 2014. Forest Conservation Concerns in India. Bio-Green Books. (Review by Ullas karanth, available at http://www.deccanherald.com/content/438364/forests-india-balancing-ecological-human.html)
Stebbing, E.P. 1922. The Forests of India. (Vol.I to III). London. Available at https://archive.org/download/ForestsIndia1/IndFor1.pdf (Accessed Dec. 2015).
Sunderland, Terry. 2014. Analysis. ‘Landscape approach’ defies simple definition – and that’s good. http://blog.cifor.org/23834/landscape-approach-defies-simple-definition-and-thats-good?fnl=en (datelined 27 Aug 2014, accessed 30 Dec 2015).
Tucker, Richard P. and J.F.Richards. 1983. Global Deforestation and the Nineteenth-Century World Economy. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C.
UNEP. Green India: The World’s Second Most Populous Country Combats Deforestation. Available at http://www.unep.org/forests/Portals/142/docs/our_vision/Green_India.pdf
UNFF. 2012. Forests for People. International Year of Forests-2011. Published by Tudor Rose, England, on behalf of United nations Forest Forum. Director, Jan McAlpin.
Voelcker, John Augustus. 1893. Report on the Improvement of Indian Agriculture. London. Available at http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924001039324.