Understanding India’s forest bureaucracy: a review

Abstract

Forest administrators play a crucial role in translating conservation and development policies into action, yet policy reformers and scholars rarely examine how these administrators make decisions about the implementation of conservation and development policy in India. In this paper, I address this gap. I begin by developing a framework that draws on Western policy implementation studies and Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development framework and then apply this framework to a review of published studies that examine the role of forest officials in implementing public policies in India. The framework differentiates between formal and informal institutions and between institutions which are developed within an agency and those that are directed from outside the agency. I find that forester behavior varies significantly across space and time and has an important influence on the outcome of forestry programs. Innovations and excellent program implementation appear related to foresters' desire to demonstrate professional efficacy. On the other hand, many failings can be traced either to external direction or to foresters developing internal institutions that are poorly suited to the problems they are tasked with solving. Existing research is limited in its geographic and temporal scope and leaves many questions unanswered, and thus, the review concludes with a brief outline of future research needs.

Professional ecological knowledge: an unrecognized knowledge domain within natural resource management

“…This model introduces management practices to maintain system stability so the yield of one or a few products can be optimized, timber production in this particular case (Holling and Meffe 1996). Although subsequent policy revisions now place greater emphasis on support for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation, and commercial uses have been greatly restricted (Ministry of Environment and Forests 1988), contemporary forestry practices continue to emphasize the traditional objective of timber production (Fleischman 2014(Fleischman , 2015. This is reflected in the knowledge base of many foresters, which emphasizes knowledge of commercial timber species over that of other forest products and ecosystem services (Robbins 2000).…”

“…Even though these professionals may live near the natural resources they manage, the bureaucratic nature of their work and authority of their positions often separates them from rural livelihoods and direct observation of management outcomes. Consequently, opportunities for systematic or long-term observation may be limited (Roux et al 2006, Fleischman 2015.…”

Exploring the Relationship between Remotely-Sensed Spectral Variables and Attributes of Tropical Forest Vegetation under the Influence of Local Forest Institutions

“…Legally, forest patches outside protected areas belong to the state. These forest patches are under the formal control of the Indian Forest Department, but at smaller scales may be managed by local communities through informal institutions such as sacred groves, as well as by traditional norms of local communities that relate to hunting and harvesting of forest resources [29]. Recently, through Joint Forest Management and the Indian Forest Rights Act of 2006, local communities have also received some de jure (formal) rights to access and maintain forest patches [22,30].…”

All that glitters is not gold: the effect of top-down participation on conservation knowledge, attitudes and institutional trust in a Central Indian tiger reserve

“…According to Vemuri (2008), attitudinal changes of forest department staff to prepare for the policy that advocates social inclusion into the hierarchical system of forest management did not happen. As the forest department staff frequently lacks time and adequate training for implementing the participatory activities, these initiatives are never truly institutionalized (Fleischman 2015). Moreover, changing from being an enforcement officer to someone who has also to ''talk to and drink tea together with the villagers'' is often an uneasy task (Interview, PTR lower level forest officer-wildlife wing, March 2014).…”

“…This perception of control and reluctance of the forest department to give real power to locals can be possibly explained with the internal organizational structure and working culture of the forest department. The forest department is responsible to implement participatory strategies when, at the same time, a strong sense of hierarchy is present within their own organization (Lawrence 2007;Fleischman 2015;Guha 1997). According to Vemuri (2008), attitudinal changes of forest department staff to prepare for the policy that advocates social inclusion into the hierarchical system of forest management did not happen.…”