Social Capital and Joint Forest Management: People, Forest Conservation and Participatory Development: Three Case Studies from Karnataka, India

The main focus of this work was to observe and record different ways and means in which people participate in the Joint Forest Management and how peoples’ participation contributes to the programme. Joint Forest Management is a collaborative arrangement between the state through the Forest Department with forest dependent/fringe communities to manage and conserve the forest resources. We concentrated on two major aspects of the programme, i.e., forest conservation and development. As part of the programme, the participating communities are given a small financial grant under a scheme known as the Entry-Point Activity. The grant can be utilised by the community for any developmental activities in the village, which the community decides is important. The research hunch was whether there is a correlation between conservation and development activities. The theory of social capital was applied to understand different forms and levels of participation in conservation and development activities in three Village Forest Committees, which were selected on the basis of 5 criteria against the objectives of the PhD study. The research initially concentrated on how the three different communities (multicultural at different levels) utilised their bonding, bridging and linking social capital in promoting forest conservation and how or whether the programme also contributed to the development of the village? The research further probed into how these three communities invested their bonding, bridging and linking social capital differently in conservation and development activities. Research Methodology: The research was carried out in two phases over 9 months. In the first phase a household survey of all the three villages was conducted to gather the quantitative data and to record individual member household’s opinion regarding the conservation and development activities. In the second phase, ethnographic study through participatory observation was carried out in the three villages to record the actual happenings in the field and obtain qualitative data. As part of the second phase, Focus Group Discussions, personal interviews and informal discussions were conducted. Discussions were also held with forest department officials and the NGO activities to verify the facts. The outcomes from both the phases were then combined to develop individual case studies. Research Findings/Outcomes: The three case studies present interesting findings. These findings are given in points. •The researcher found limited link between the results of the quantitative and the qualitative data. In a few cases the findings from household survey differed from the findings of the qualitative study. These were mainly related to questions on corruption and the relationship between different actors involved in the programme. It was noticed that when answering sensitive questions, the respondents choose to be on the safer side, by either opting not to answer the questions or provide a positive response, without bothering to verify or the actual knowledge of the happenings on the ground. It was a limitation on the part of the research and these questions were merely considered as individual opinions. •The household survey provided a strong material to probe deeper into the happenings as far as the programme was concerned. Based on the questionnaire, cross questions were raised during focus group discussions and personal interviews. It was noted at this stage, that the respondents answered safely in sensitive cases to avoid any animosity in the village, but there was some truth in their responses. •There is indeed a correlation between development and conservation activities. The levels of success of the conservation activities depended to a large extent on the levels and types of development carried out in the village as part of the programme, though not proportionally. •Interestingly, the three different communities considered the concept of ‘development’ differently. While for the community which was rated (based on quantitative and qualitative data) the highest on the conservation activities had spent the development grant on community hall, and other basic infrastructures in the village, the community rated the lowest spent more than 90% of the development grant on the renovation of the village temple. The village rated in-between the two had spent its development grant on renovating a small stream in the midst of a reserve forest. •The findings cannot be generalised, i.e., a general theory cannot be drawn as each of the communities are unique in their own ways, but many of the published research findings on social capital and participation is challenged based on the findings of the present study. One, that peoples’ participation in a programme does not depend on one or two factors, be it social, political, economical or cultural. It depends on a combination of many or all of the factors. Two, the theory of social capital without any modification to suit the local conditions cannot explain the local phenomenon. Mere attributing success of a phenomena to the accumulation of social capital in the community or the failure to the lack of it leads the research nowhere, especially in a complex and multicultural society like India. Three, in the Indian context, and a programme involving multiple-stakeholders, different aspects of social capital, i.e., bonding, bridging and linking social cannot be viewed independent of each other. Success or failure of a programme cannot be attributed to any one of the aspects of social capital, it needs the combination of all the three aspects. •It was noted that the most common factor that contributed to the success or failure of the programme in all the three villages was the role of leadership. Thus, it is important to locate the role of leadership in the wider context of social capital and record the significance of the character in bonding, bridging and linking different stakeholders and thus contribute to the accumulation of social capital. •The findings suggest that the extent of collaborative arrangement or the ‘jointness’ of the programme also depended on how much leverage the community as ‘beneficiary’ could have with the Forest Department Officials as ‘benefactors’. •The three different village communities witnessed different levels of ‘Jointness’ with the forest department. On decisions related to the technical and financial aspects, it was recorded, that there was limited interaction between the community and the forest department. Here again, the levels of cooperation depended on the extent of conservation and development activities in the village and vice-versa. Both of the above depended on the cumulative literacy levels in the village. •Finally, the influence of the social, cultural and religious aspects had limited influence on the programme and vice versa.