Excerpts* from:
Tribal Forest Interface - Logic of Survival
Pradip Prabhu

Non Timber Forest Produce

The second vital issue in ensuring that the future of the tribals is intertwined with a sustain use of the forest resources and takes the symbiosis argument a step further, from survial with stewardship to development with stewardship is the issue of non timber forest produce (NTFP). It has now been well established that NTFP in the case of the tribals is not MFP (minor forest produce), it provides substantial sustenance to the tribals living on the fringe of standing forests. It is estimated that 70 % of NTFP is collected in 5 states i.e. Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh where 65 % of tribal population lives. NTFPs are important raw materials for cottage, small and village industries and contribute to the national income through export and import substitution.

It has been observed that the annual collection of most of the NTFPs in the country is presently less than 5% of the estimated potential. Notwithstanding the fact that only 5% of the estimated potential is collected, one can evade the fact the tribal economy is intimately connected with the forest, but unfortunately though the fact has been recognized, has not been articulated in terms of clear policies and programs.

The tribal economy and the forest economy, therefore, have tended to drift apart with adverse implications to both. In some cases the forests have suffered tremendous loss while in others the tribal economy has been shattered. The double loss to the national economy has been sizable, both forests and the forest dwellers have lost. But this loss has move adversely affected the weakest groups and the imbalance in the socio-economic structure has increased. Minor forest produce provides substantial sustenance to the tribal communities particularly in the backward regions. In some cases they are the main source of cash income through which they can meet other non-subsistence needs like health and education. Though NTFP was major for the tribal communities, it continued to be incidental to or at best a minor activity in the general forestry operations of the department.

In the past, commodities acquired commercial value the forest department began assigning the collection of MFP to traders on payment of lump-sum royalty. The result was that while traders filled their coffers, both the tribals and the department remained losers and mal-practices increased. The result was the nationalization of the trade but it still did not result in a substantial improvement. Though collection was to be done directly by the Department through the tribals, in most cases is was done informally through agents to solve the problems of quality, storage and finances.

The aim of eliminating the middleman was bypassed by the Forest Department, the goal of ensuring that the tribal primary collectors got adequate returns of their labour was effectively subverted. The second issue was the policy of fixing the price, which was done through a reference to notional labour inputs in the collection. Though it is the primary collectors who actually determine the economic value of NTFP, which otherwise would lie wasting in the forest and be lost to the national economy, by collecting it and bringing it from inaccessible regions to the market, their remuneration is arbitrarily fixed on what the market it willing to pay in a distress sale. The only rational considerations in the NTFP question are on the issues of ownership of the forest produce and the fixation of a price which can ensure maximization of return for the labour input of the primary collectors and thus enable them to make the maximum collection of NTFP which would otherwise go waste.

NTFP should not be treated as a source of revenue to the State but rather be seen as providing maximum return to the tribal so that an economic interest is created in the maintenance of the forests with the possibility of substantial accruing to the tribal collectors. The issue of ownership of NTFP has been resolved by the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act 1996, which legislates that the ownership of NTFP is with the Gram Sabha, but its implementation in letter and spirit still leaves a lot to be desired.

The second issue should be resolved on the principle that the price should be determined by what industry can bear and in reference to the value added by processing and other services, which they can perform. The hidden subsidy by supply of raw materials at the lower price to the industrial units is not in the interests of the national economy let alone the interests of the tribal primary collectors. Fixation and enforcement of MSP on the real value of the NTFP being sold can be a starting point for both equity and sustainable tribal development.

This brings us to the last and critical aspect on the issue of the symbiotic future of the forest and the tribals, which is so linking up their futures that the sustained advancement of one necessarily depends on the sustainable advancement of the other. Most researchers dealing with the forest today argue, saving the forest can only be done in collaboration with the local communities and by finding ways of combining conservation with sustainable uses of the forest by the forest dwellers. India has internationally been regarded as the forerunner of such forest policies through the renowned project of Joint Forest Management first developed in West Bengal. In this project thousands of Forest Protection Committees have been organized. Within these, the villagers work together with the Forest Department to protect and regenerate the forests and finally also get a share of the profits from the sale of timber and other forest produce. Various agencies and research the project as a great success.

Among them Ramchandra Guha and his colleague Gadgil, who say it embodies their core message "the need for blending 'ecology with equity', bring the power to control natural resources from corrupt bureaucracies' to people who depend on these resources xIv- The Working Group on Tribal Development (1980- 85) recommended that the local tribal community, which has a symbiotic relationship with the forest, should be accepted as partners in the local forestry development efforts in each area. The Working Group on Development of the Scheduled Tribes during the Seventh Five Year Plan has made 15 similar recommendations in its report.

Though the National Forest Policy put at rest the next crucial issue of divergent claims and differing perception about the ownership of forest resources. In this conflict, the forest, which depends on the tribal people for its survival and on the forest department for its development, is the ultimate loser. Today the conflict arises because there are only two mutually exclusive situations. Either the department manages the forests in which even nistar rights become a burden or in the alternative the tribal somehow gets hold of forest land, clear fells it, sells the trees illegally to timber contractors and takes to cultivation, irrespective of the quality of the land, its yield or the sustainability of agriculture itself. It would be impossible to contain the conflicts arising out of pressure on the forest unless this conflict is resolved for the betterment of the forests and the forest dwellers, I repeat, the betterment of the forests and the forest dwellers and not the forest department.. By no means can the use of tribal forest dwellers as casual labour in forestry operations be considered as a means of tribal development. The forest department can at best be seen as an agency that would ensure the betterment of both collectively. It is becoming clear that that the final objective of forest management has to be a better and extensive tree cover notwithstanding the fact that consideration of revenue are becoming dominant with commercialization of forestry operations Can the Forest Department simulate a condition where the tribals can also accept extensive and better tree cover in his own interest. We believe it is possible through afforestation operations by the tribals based on a new concept of limited ownership and the right to usu-fruct.  An afforestation scheme, essentially of fruit trees, by the tribals with limited ownership of the tribal in the land but full usu-fructory ownership, so that the afforestation becomes an economic asset of the tribal family and qualify as a tribal development program that creates not private property assets whether of the state of an individual but common property  assets of the nation providing immediate economic betterment for concerned tribal family.
 

* The original article runs into 14 pages. The portion relevant to forest economy has been reproduced here.