these traditional groups are often not officially recognized under JFM rules, and in many cases are compelled to change their structure and functioning in order to be officially recognized and receive benefits associated with JFM (Sundar 2000, Khare and others 2002).<sup>8</sup> Many papers have been written on the effectiveness of JFM and other community based efforts to manage forests. While these provide excellent insights in community efforts, they tend to be case studies and cannot be generalized. For example, Kumar (2002) bases his work on five villages in Ranchi district, and concludes that the JFM regime reflects the preferences of the rural non-poor. Lise (2000) focuses on factors influencing participation in three types of community forestry in ten villages in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. He concludes that participation in community forestry is associated with forest dependence, low average family education, high respondent education and greater involvement of women. Heltberg (2001) determines the impact of local institutions on JFM, using data from a protected area in Rajasthan. He suggests that in order for JFM institutions to be more effective, they need to build on existing local institutions and involve non-government organizations. Chopra and Dasgupta (2002, 2003) also conclude that JFM type initiatives should be based on pre-existing institutions and should be complemented with appropriate land use policies. Alsop and others (2002) study three World Bank aided projects and reinforce some of these conclusions. They conclude that while forestry and non-forestry user groups are working well in terms of delivering benefits, they may require additional support in order to be sustainable in the long-run (Alsop and others 2002).

Some authors writing about JFM contend that this program may hurt rather than help poor women and villagers who depend on fuelwood. Sundar (2000) and Sarin and others (1988), for example, argue that JFM, by closing off access to certain forests, helps well-off villagers who can secure alternate sources of fuelwood but burdens poor villagers. Agarwal (2001) focuses on ‘participatory exclusion’ of women within JFM regimes.<sup>9</sup> She finds that women bear significant costs associated with loss of access to forests, additional time spent to collect fuelwood and fodder, use of alternate inferior fuels, scarce supply of fuelwood even after forests have regenerated, and inequitable distribution of community benefits. Agarwal argues that participatory exclusion is a broad phenomenon in South Asia and is found in many traditional and new collective action efforts.

In an excellent and broad review of Joint Forest Management, Khare and others (2000), show that JFM has been very successful in spreading rapidly and has been widely implemented in India. They suggest that JFM is resulting in improved forest cover and its potential for timber harvesting is being slowly realized (particularly in West Bengal). JFM has resulted in legitimizing people’s use of forests and in village development through the use of JFM related funds – however, Khare and others (2000) contend that this is true in some and not most cases. Many challenges remain. Forest departments tend to

> 8 For instance in UP, the JFM order of 1997 required the existing Van Panchayats to accept in writing that the Panchayat rules no longer apply under JFM (Khare and others, 2000).

> 9 Agarwal (2001) bases her work on 87 community forestry groups in 5 states in India and two districts in Nepal.

6