logging in or signing up ppt forest policy UpBeat Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINTLite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 1402 Category: Entertainment License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: November 27, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... By: vaibhav.verma (17 month(s) ago) hey u jst ive dat damn thing to me. Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close Premium member Presentation Transcript Forest Policy: Forest Policy Community Stewardship and Management Terracotta Summit Beyond NEP: Institutions, Incentives & Communities Centre for Civil SocietyAs per last assessment (1999): As per last assessment (1999) Forest cover: 63.73mha (19.39% of geographic area) Dense forest: 37.74mha (11.48% of geographic area) Open forest: 25.50 mha (7.76% of geographic area) Mangrove: 0.49 mha (0.15% of geographic area) State wise: Madhya Pradesh has largest forest cover: 20.68% of forest cover Arunachal Pradesh: 10.80% of forest cover Orissa: 7.38% of forest cover Maharashtra: 7.32% of forest cover North east states: 25.70% of forest cover Pre Independence Forest Policy: Pre Independence Forest Policy Ownership by princes and chiefs; unhindered access by locals Claim on royalty rights (teak) by British in 1807 Forest Act of 1878 passed Alienation of communities from forests Colonial government brings large areas under reserve forests for harvesting- selective felling of mature teak trees on rotation basis Forest policy post Independence: Forest policy post Independence Government of India launches intensive commercial forestry Large areas felled through 60s, 70s and 80s National Forest Policy 1988: local communities and forests JFM introduced in 1990 6 circulars by MoEF- settlement, revenue villages, leases, grants, etc Back to Statistics: Back to Statistics Recorded forest area: 76.52 mha Forest cover: 63.72 mha, Of this, 37.74 mha dense (FSI 1999) Degraded forest area as high as 40 percent of the total forest cover Total encroachment in forest areas: 1.25 mha (MoEF, 2002)- 1.9 per cent of the total forest area Joint Forest Management: Joint Forest Management Sustainability of JFM depends on Partnership in rights Legal status Limited scope of JFM Area under JFM: 10.25 mha-16% of forest area (FSI 1999) MP, Chhatisgarh, AP make up 7.43 mha (more than 60%) Property Rights: Property Rights Community ownership: Evolution of intricate rules for access and control; e.g. sacred groves State ownership: Open access, alienation, irresponsible behaviourCAMPFIRE: CAMPFIRE CAMPFIRE involves rural communities in conservation and development by returning to them the stewardship of their natural resources, harmonising the needs of rural people with those of ecosystems. Since it started in 1989, more than a quarter of a million rural Zimbabweans have benefited. CAMPFIRE: CAMPFIRE Hunting Trophy:with a hunting fee of up to US$ 12,000 or more, together with a daily hunting fee of US$ 1,000, one elephant can realise US$ 33, 000 over the course of an average 21 day hunt. Nature Tourism Harvesting natural resources Meat croppingNature Conservancy: Nature Conservancy Total acres protected in the United States: 12, 621, 000 Acres protected outside the United States: Canada, Latin America, Caribbean, Asia and Pacific: 80, 181, 446 Current number of conservancy preserves: 1400 Conservancy members in 1952: 554 in 2001: around 1 million Nature Conservancy: Nature Conservancy Budget for 2001:US$ 692,410,635 Manage the largest systems of private sanctuaries in the world 20,000 species (and counting) under watch $ 1 billion campaign to save 200 of the world’s Last Great Places Community Forestry in Nepal: Community Forestry in Nepal Change in ownership status Rana regime: 1850-1950 Private Forest Nationalisation Act 1957 Forest Act 1961 Dehra Doon forestry model in late 70’s Community Forestry in Nepal: Community Forestry in Nepal Solving deforestation Decentralisation Act 1982 Master Plan 1989 Forest act of 1993 Establishment of FUG New role for Forest DepartmentThe North-East Experience: The North-East Experience Greater Autonomy District Council: Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura clan/ tribe control: Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh Heavy regulation of forests Towards greater uncertainty and insecurity The North-East Experience: The North-East Experience Assam Forest Regulation Land not under legal ownership of a person is state property Conversion into reserve forest Public or private way/ watercourse Penalties Stop cultivation of land Regulate cutting of jhum Duty on forest produce Arrest without warrant Seize and impound cattle/goodsThe North-East Experience: The North-East Experience 1878: Indian Forest Act 2 Establish, create. Demarcate forests for protection Extension of railways Regulate forest use, grazing land The North East Experience : The North East Experience Effect of Paragraph 12-A in Sixth Schedule- Repugnancy Clause ‘ if any provision…by District/ Regional Council…is repugnant to any provision made…by the legislature of the state...then the law…shall… be void and the law made by the legislature…prevailThe Way Ahead: The Way Ahead JFM does not give long term incentives to communities Access to minor forest produce Revenue sharing Lack of legal status- issue of squatters JFM needs to move towards to Community Forestry Management (CFM) The Way Ahead: The Way Ahead CFM endorses Terracotta vision Protection of ecosystem Improvement in livelihood of forest dwellers Communities become stewards of the forests, take decisions for themselves, forest department becomes advisor The Way Ahead: The Way Ahead CFM completely bypasses the identification problem: all existing dwellers are legitimate claimants of stewardship rights Strength in diversity Historical settlement of property rights supports CFM Section 28 of Indian Forest Act- village forestsConclusion: Conclusion Actual Change Desired Change You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.
ppt forest policy UpBeat Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINTLite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 1402 Category: Entertainment License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: November 27, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... By: vaibhav.verma (17 month(s) ago) hey u jst ive dat damn thing to me. Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close Premium member Presentation Transcript Forest Policy: Forest Policy Community Stewardship and Management Terracotta Summit Beyond NEP: Institutions, Incentives & Communities Centre for Civil SocietyAs per last assessment (1999): As per last assessment (1999) Forest cover: 63.73mha (19.39% of geographic area) Dense forest: 37.74mha (11.48% of geographic area) Open forest: 25.50 mha (7.76% of geographic area) Mangrove: 0.49 mha (0.15% of geographic area) State wise: Madhya Pradesh has largest forest cover: 20.68% of forest cover Arunachal Pradesh: 10.80% of forest cover Orissa: 7.38% of forest cover Maharashtra: 7.32% of forest cover North east states: 25.70% of forest cover Pre Independence Forest Policy: Pre Independence Forest Policy Ownership by princes and chiefs; unhindered access by locals Claim on royalty rights (teak) by British in 1807 Forest Act of 1878 passed Alienation of communities from forests Colonial government brings large areas under reserve forests for harvesting- selective felling of mature teak trees on rotation basis Forest policy post Independence: Forest policy post Independence Government of India launches intensive commercial forestry Large areas felled through 60s, 70s and 80s National Forest Policy 1988: local communities and forests JFM introduced in 1990 6 circulars by MoEF- settlement, revenue villages, leases, grants, etc Back to Statistics: Back to Statistics Recorded forest area: 76.52 mha Forest cover: 63.72 mha, Of this, 37.74 mha dense (FSI 1999) Degraded forest area as high as 40 percent of the total forest cover Total encroachment in forest areas: 1.25 mha (MoEF, 2002)- 1.9 per cent of the total forest area Joint Forest Management: Joint Forest Management Sustainability of JFM depends on Partnership in rights Legal status Limited scope of JFM Area under JFM: 10.25 mha-16% of forest area (FSI 1999) MP, Chhatisgarh, AP make up 7.43 mha (more than 60%) Property Rights: Property Rights Community ownership: Evolution of intricate rules for access and control; e.g. sacred groves State ownership: Open access, alienation, irresponsible behaviourCAMPFIRE: CAMPFIRE CAMPFIRE involves rural communities in conservation and development by returning to them the stewardship of their natural resources, harmonising the needs of rural people with those of ecosystems. Since it started in 1989, more than a quarter of a million rural Zimbabweans have benefited. CAMPFIRE: CAMPFIRE Hunting Trophy:with a hunting fee of up to US$ 12,000 or more, together with a daily hunting fee of US$ 1,000, one elephant can realise US$ 33, 000 over the course of an average 21 day hunt. Nature Tourism Harvesting natural resources Meat croppingNature Conservancy: Nature Conservancy Total acres protected in the United States: 12, 621, 000 Acres protected outside the United States: Canada, Latin America, Caribbean, Asia and Pacific: 80, 181, 446 Current number of conservancy preserves: 1400 Conservancy members in 1952: 554 in 2001: around 1 million Nature Conservancy: Nature Conservancy Budget for 2001:US$ 692,410,635 Manage the largest systems of private sanctuaries in the world 20,000 species (and counting) under watch $ 1 billion campaign to save 200 of the world’s Last Great Places Community Forestry in Nepal: Community Forestry in Nepal Change in ownership status Rana regime: 1850-1950 Private Forest Nationalisation Act 1957 Forest Act 1961 Dehra Doon forestry model in late 70’s Community Forestry in Nepal: Community Forestry in Nepal Solving deforestation Decentralisation Act 1982 Master Plan 1989 Forest act of 1993 Establishment of FUG New role for Forest DepartmentThe North-East Experience: The North-East Experience Greater Autonomy District Council: Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura clan/ tribe control: Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh Heavy regulation of forests Towards greater uncertainty and insecurity The North-East Experience: The North-East Experience Assam Forest Regulation Land not under legal ownership of a person is state property Conversion into reserve forest Public or private way/ watercourse Penalties Stop cultivation of land Regulate cutting of jhum Duty on forest produce Arrest without warrant Seize and impound cattle/goodsThe North-East Experience: The North-East Experience 1878: Indian Forest Act 2 Establish, create. Demarcate forests for protection Extension of railways Regulate forest use, grazing land The North East Experience : The North East Experience Effect of Paragraph 12-A in Sixth Schedule- Repugnancy Clause ‘ if any provision…by District/ Regional Council…is repugnant to any provision made…by the legislature of the state...then the law…shall… be void and the law made by the legislature…prevailThe Way Ahead: The Way Ahead JFM does not give long term incentives to communities Access to minor forest produce Revenue sharing Lack of legal status- issue of squatters JFM needs to move towards to Community Forestry Management (CFM) The Way Ahead: The Way Ahead CFM endorses Terracotta vision Protection of ecosystem Improvement in livelihood of forest dwellers Communities become stewards of the forests, take decisions for themselves, forest department becomes advisor The Way Ahead: The Way Ahead CFM completely bypasses the identification problem: all existing dwellers are legitimate claimants of stewardship rights Strength in diversity Historical settlement of property rights supports CFM Section 28 of Indian Forest Act- village forestsConclusion: Conclusion Actual Change Desired Change