The Union government is considering the introduction of a minimum support price (MSP) for non-timber forest produce, which is a source of livelihood for forest-dependent people. This will involve creating a central pricing body on the lines of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) for fixing the prices of forest produce and state-level corporations or cooperatives for procuring the stuff at the MSPs, which, in turn, will be sold to user industries. These proposals would be welcomed by those concerned about the welfare of tribals who subsist on secondary forest produce – such as bamboo, tendu leaves, tamarind, mahua, sal seeds and so on – and are exploited by contractors who pay very low rates for the produce. That tribals should get a “fair price” for forest produce is unquestionable. Maoist groups active in the Dandakaranya forest belt, stretching across eastern Maharashtra and southern Chhattisgarh, have earned the goodwill of forest dwellers by forcing contractors to pay higher prices for forest produce. If the influence of such groups has to be countered, the government must step in and ensure that the good work being done by Maoists is, in fact, done by government agencies. Denying adequate returns on forest produce can even encourage forest dwellers to abandon tapping forest produce and instead make themselves available for work under programmes such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. This will not only make forest dwellers a burden on government resources, but it would also leave valuable forest produce untapped. Hence, ensuring that forest dwellers are paid an economic price for non-timber forest produce is a good idea.
However, the creation of a CACP-like body at the Centre is not necessarily a good idea. Given the diversity of this vast country, it is best if state governments are asked to fix state-level minimum prices and create the administrative wherewithal to implement the programme at the state level. Related suggestions that a Food Corporation of India-like body be created to store the produce and cooperatives be formed to market them are, at best, premature and, at worst, unimaginative ideas. Apart from milk and sugar, the only producers’ cooperatives that have worked in India are those operated by the government. Instead of adopting such experiments and creating new bureaucracies, state governments must adopt joint forest management (JFM) models to deal with the needs of forest dwellers and protect their livelihoods. JFM entails partnerships between forest dwellers and the government on the basis of mutual trust and jointly defined roles and responsibilities with regard to forest protection and development. Models of successful JFM exist in which forest dwellers and forest department officials have been able to manage forest produce and resources and also share the cost of doing so. Given the social, economic and geographic diversity of Indian forests, it is best that JFM is left to state-level bodies rather than a central body that imposes national solutions to deal with local problems.
