Montane – Himalayan Oak – Rhododendron forest, grassland, cultivated land, and habitation of four villages is within 10 km of the forest patch. The flora is dominated by baan oak and rhododendron. Other associated tree species are ainyaar, lodhra, kaula/kawala, shurur, kaint/mohal, phaja, bhambela, pangoi/paranga, bashroi/bhainshra, kimu and dudhoi. Chir is also present, as this altitude is the upper limit of this species. Bhiyul and kharki are cultivated on terrace edges for fodder and other uses.

The village forest is located on and around a hilltop near the village. It is a sloping land at an altitude range of 1800–1900 m, with a mean annual rainfall of 110 cm, a lowest winter temp of 0°C, and a highest summer temp of 30°C. The climate is monsoon sub-tropical to temperate. There are eight natural water sources present in the vicinity of the village, whose catchment is protected and maintained by this forest. 

The village has about 600 people and a livestock population of about 2000.

For Jayara (rajput), their main source of income is Agriculture, animal husbandry, service, wage labour

Mistri (dalit), their main source of income is Masonry and carpentry, building construction Bajgi (dalit), occupation is Tailoring and stitching, playing traditional drums at festivals, weddings, spiritual ceremonies and rituals

Harijan (dalit), vocation is Wage labour, agriculture

Nomadic Van Gujjar tribe, originally from Jammu, and now settled in the Shivalik hill area around Dehradun and Haridwar migrate through this area seasonally with their buffaloes, for grazing in the forests.

In 1897, the Tehri riyasat introduced systematic forestry techniques, demarcating vast tracts of the mixed deciduous forests prohibiting cultivation, restricting lopping and felling of trees, leading to repeated rebellions. In 1908, three categories of forests were created, Class III Reserved Forests that were commercially valuable, Class II Protected Forests, which were kept aside for regeneration, and Class I Village Forests, which were mainly barren clear-felled patches with hardly any or no trees at all.

Between 1928 and 1929, at the invitation of the Durbar, Dr. Franz Heske, a German forestry expert came to inspect the riyasat forests and left detailed reports about future management, suggesting laws to be passed for the protection of wildlife on land, in rivers and streams.

In 1938, fire protection measures were enforced in all riyasat forests.

By 1940, the present forest divisions were created, and manpower for forest management recruited. The history of large-scale resource exploitation from Tehri Garhwal can be traced back to 1840’s.  The maharaja leased the forest to contractors for commercial felling of deodar and chir. Timber had never been exploited as a commercial raw material for profit before this time.

 The main objective of the community initiative was to re-establish an earlier existing system of sustainable resource use to yield fodder, firewood, catchment protection, medicines, wild edibles, fibres, etc. This traditional system had been disturbed and dismantled by the reservation of village forests by the forest department of Tehri Riyasat under the maharaja. The nearby forest that the villagers depended on for their livelihoods had become severely degraded from commercial exploitation and the resentment of local people who then began to use it excessively, believing that if they protected it, then the state would take it away from them.

The initiative towards conservation was started about 50 years ago. Reservation and curtailment of customary rights had caused alienation of local communities from the forests. By this time, a very large area of forest that included this particular patch had become extremely degraded. Many water sources had dried up; and firewood, leaf fodder, leaf litter and other forest produce was becoming scarce; and women’s drudgery had increased substantially. The entire village, after facing tremendous hardship in meeting their basic needs, sat together and took a unanimous decision to start protecting this patch of forest for their basic needs. The decision was supported by all sections of society in the village, including the disprevileged groups. The village instituted a van suraksha samiti and a mahila mangal dal (MMD) for management of these forests.

The history of large-scale resource exploitation from Tehri Garhwal can be traced back to 1840’s.  

The entire village, after facing tremendous hardship in meeting their basic needs, sat together and took a unanimous decision to start protecting this patch of forest for their basic needs. The decision was supported by all sections of society in the village, including the disprivileged groups. The village instituted a van suraksha samiti and a mahila mangal dal (MMD) for management of these forests. The MMD was originally formed on the request of the Assistant Development Officer (ADO) of the local panchayat. This was essentially to meet a target assigned to the BDO for setting up these bodies in the villages. The MMD was promised a dari (rug), a dhol (drums), a matching contribution to what they could save, and training programmes for women for income-generation schemes. (After the dari and the dhol, nothing further materialised.) The adhyaksha (president) of the MMD was elected democratically by about 50 per cent of the women in the village who had chosen to become members and started saving. Her term has been fixed at 3 years, after which another woman will be elected in her place. The VSS has all male family members above school-going age as members. A karyakarani samiti (executive committee) of 5 members was democratically elected and is responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the samiti. The term of the committee is also 3 years. Seasonally, a routine meeting of all the families is called to take decisions about harvesting, rotation, etc. For resolution of conflicts, traditional systems are resorted to even today, which mainly include a council of elders

The village instituted a van suraksha samiti and a mahila mangal dal (MMD) for management of these forests. The MMD was originally formed on the request of the Assistant Development Officer (ADO) of the local panchayat. This was essentially to meet a target assigned to the BDO for setting up these bodies in the villages. The MMD was promised a dari (rug), a dhol (drums), a matching contribution to what they could save, and training programmes for women for income-generation schemes. (After the dari and the dhol, nothing further materialised.) The adhyaksha (president) of the MMD was elected democratically by about 50 per cent of the women in the village who had chosen to become members and started saving. Her term has been fixed at 3 years, after which another woman will be elected in her place. The VSS has all male family members above school-going age as members. A karyakarani samiti (executive committee) of 5 members was democratically elected and is responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the samiti. The term of the committee is also 3 years. Seasonally, a routine meeting of all the families is called to take decisions about harvesting, rotation, etc. For resolution of conflicts, traditional systems are resorted to even today, which mainly include a council of elders.

The entire village, after facing tremendous hardship in meeting their basic needs, sat together and took a unanimous decision to start protecting this patch of forest for their basic needs. The decision was supported by all sections of society in the village, including the disprevileged groups. The van suraksha samiti and mahila mangal dal (MMD) are responsible for the management of these forests. The MMD was formed on the request of the Assistant Development Officer (ADO) of the local panchayat.

Decision making systems

The village instituted a 1. van suraksha samiti (VSS), 2. a mahila mangal dal (MMD) and 3.karyakarani samiti (KS) for management of these forests.

Seasonally, a routine meeting of all the families from all sections of society in the village, including the disprevileged groups is called to take decisions about harvesting, rotation, etc. For resolution of conflicts, traditional systems are resorted to even today, which mainly include a council of elders.

The MMD was originally formed on the request of the Assistant Development Officer (ADO) of the local panchayat. This was essentially to meet a target assigned to the BDO for setting up these bodies in the villages. The MMD was promised a matching contribution to what they could save, and training programmes for women for income-generation schemes. Though nothing materialised, the adhyaksha (president) of the MMD was elected democratically by about 50 per cent of the women in the village who had chosen to become members and started saving. Her term has been fixed at 3 years, after which another woman will be elected in her place. The VSS has all male family members above school-going age as members. A karyakarani samiti (executive committee) of 5 members was democratically elected and is responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the samiti. The term of the committee is also 3 years. Seasonally, a routine meeting of all the families is called to take decisions about harvesting, rotation, etc. For resolution of conflicts, traditional systems are resorted to even today, which mainly include a council of elders.

Legally these forests are Reserved Forests declared in 1911. Since then officially there are no rights for local villagers in these forests as per the working plan for Jumna Forest Division. Only concessions are granted. These concessions include limited grazing, dead wood collection and extremely limited free grant timber.

There are some important local rules to conserve the forest and ensure its sustainable use:

• Lopping for leaves and branches for fodder and firewood from a selected patch is allowed only every 5 years.

• Removal of leaf litter from the forest floor for manure purposes in a selected patch is allowed only every 2 years.

• Blanket ban on green felling of trees without following forest department procedures.

• Use of all forest produce is only allowed at a specified time, for a short period, e.g., 1 week, decided at an open meeting well ahead. Every family is allowed to send one representative to ensure fair and equitable distribution of produce.

• Specified areas are kept aside for grazing. Other areas are designated for grass cutting after the monsoon, where grazing is not allowed.

• Limited quarrying of flat roofing slates called pataal, and local stone for house construction.

It is obvious that people’s livelihood requirements are far more than what is officially allowed. Having understood this reality, the local forest officials have not been very strict if additional timber is occasionally required by the villagers.

The management of the forests is based on the principles of equal access to natural resources for every family. The village maintains a self-imposed ban on firewood and fodder collection from the area under their protection. This forest area is only opened every year for leaf fodder lopping and firewood collection for a definite short period as described earlier. This is strictly monitored by a committee appointed by the village. Every family gets an equal share of the resource, by the method of only allowing one person per family to participate in collection.

This forest area is only opened every year for leaf fodder lopping and firewood collection for a definite short period. This is strictly monitored by a committee appointed by the village.

The legal framework governing Reserved Forests does not contain any rights for any local communities, only concessions originally granted by the earlier Maharaja of Tehri Riyasat after he had the forests reserved in accordance with British forest policy. The original settlements setting out timber requirements per family are ridiculously outdated and now reportedly legally provide roughly 1 tree per family every 5 years or so. This is simply not enough. So to meet their needs, villagers are forced to bribe the forest guard or forester to look the other way while they fell a tree to meet their legitimate needs. In 1995, a Supreme Court ruling curtailed even bonafide ‘free grant’ timber rights indefinitely, and this right has only been restored in 2000.

Improved status of soil and water, and reduction in situations of droughts, floods, etc.

No scientific studies exist to prove exactly how the initiative has benefited the ecology of these areas. However, the forests have regenerated over a period of time and supply of forest produce has increased. This has benefited the people in many ways. The women do not need to walk long distances for collection of firewood, water and other forest produce anymore. Water availability has increased in the village. There appears to be a return of some plants and animals that had become scarce when the area had become degraded. These include associates of oak like ainyaar, lodhra, buraans, etc., and animals such as kakar, serow, and various bird species. 

Villagers also feel that the schemes and programmes for development and protection of forests exist only on paper. The forest department seems to use them exclusively to make money from public development funds. Non-literate villagers say, ‘We plant 5 trees for our basic survival needs. All of them survive and grow. The government plants thousands every year. But where are they? None seem to survive. Why? Because the forest department and the contractors and labourers they hire are only interested in the money, not the trees. They have no feeling for the forest. Why can’t they hire local people?’

Local people speak of the existence of a bond between themselves (human society) and the forest. However, they feel that the 100-year-old conflict between the traditional subsistence use of the forests by local villagers and scientific commercial forestry has taken a heavy toll in terms of turning people against the forests, and resorting at times to destructive and irresponsible practices. Such practices are further fuelled because of the corruption in the official machinery. For example, in the hills above 1000 msl, the government banned green felling in 1981. Instead, the Forest Development Corporation (FDC) was handed over the responsibility of removing dead and decaying trees. The FDC now floats tenders for this task rather than handing it over to the villages. Villages have seen over a period of time that contractors have misused the situation by felling many green trees under the garb of collecting dead wood. Such practices are clandestinely supported by the government machinery. This has brought about a disillusionment among the villagers.

The contracts being handed over to the outsiders has also severely restricted the possibilities of generating local ecosystem-based incomes and livelihood sources. Villages like Dakhyat present a strong case for a larger area to be officially handed over to the villages to manage, conserve and use by restoring full customary rights and responsibilities over forest produce.

The legal framework governing Reserved Forests does not contain any rights for any local communities, only concessions originally granted by the earlier Maharaja of Tehri Riyasat after he had the forests reserved in accordance with British forest policy. The original settlements setting out timber requirements per family are ridiculously outdated and now reportedly legally provide roughly 1 tree per family every 5 years or so. This is simply not enough. So to meet their needs, villagers are forced to bribe the forest guard or forester to look the other way while they fell a tree to meet their legitimate needs.

Establishing a van panchayat would be a big help.

Villages like Dakhyat present a strong case for a larger area to be officially handed over to the villages to manage, conserve and use by restoring full customary rights and responsibilities over forest produce.

The Government of Uttarakhand could have learnt a lesson or two from the successes of neighbouring Nepal, where the government has handed over forests for management and use to village communities under their community forestry programmes and have had successful results in forest regeneration.

The village needs to be equipped with the tools to plan ahead for their future. They need to be trained in techniques to survey and estimate the extent of their available biomass resources, estimate their total and per capita demand, and project both into the future. This can form the basis of a plan to create and develop the resources required to provide sustainable livelihoods for the village. This will envisage re-establishing customary/traditional rights over a larger area including patches of reserved forest, and closing off part of the area for afforestation and to assist Uttarakhand 771 case studies - uttarakhand natural regeneration. Establishing a van panchayat would be a big help. The basic requirement for leaf fodder has been worked out by Shri Sundarlal Bahuguna. He says an average family that keeps a milch buffalo, a pair of bullocks and a few goats or sheep requires a minimum of 300 mature fodder trees. One tree should be lopped per day, while the remaining 65 days during the monsoon, green grass can be collected from agricultural lands and supplemented with weeds and crop residues.