Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in Joint Forest Management: Insights from the Western Ghats, India

Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in Joint Forest Management: Insights from the Western Ghats, India | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in Joint Forest Management: Insights from the Western Ghats, India Liji Kareyapath, Dhanya Vijayan, Miroslava Bavorova, Anu Susan Sam This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7810312/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The participation of Indigenous communities in forest management has become a crucial component of the global effort to achieve conservation goals. However, involving all Indigenous communities in participatory management has proven challenging in a diverse country like India due to the complexity of its social and political landscape. The present study, based on qualitative surveys and descriptive statistical analysis, aims to analyse the intensity of participation of Indigenous people in the Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme and the factors influencing it, as well as its outcomes in the Kannavam forest, India. Results regarding participation intensity showed significant differences between the initial JFM implementation phase and the present day in the selected settlements. Although Indigenous peoples were involved in JFM, absolute decision-making authority and power-sharing were lacking in all settlements. The sustainability of the JFM programme was found to be affected by challenges such as benefit sharing and NTFT collection. Furthermore, JFM's co-management forest policy was noticed to have the unintended consequence of reducing Indigenous peoples' dependency on the forest. The study also showed that initial enthusiasm was often diminished by long-term management plans that lacked regular and adequate incentive support. This was observed to be one of the reasons for the underachievement of the stated JFM goals in most states where it is implemented. Despite the emphasis placed on the importance of Indigenous participation in JFM policies, the level of involvement was found to be limited in the area studied. Guided by the results of the analysis and the perspectives of Indigenous peoples, the study proposes the active involvement of Indigenous peoples in forest management programmes, incorporating appropriate mechanisms to integrate their practices and knowledge, which could help in achieving the dual objectives of conservation and empowerment. Indigenous People Community Participation Kurichya Community Participatory Forest Management Joint Forest Management Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction The notion of sustainable forest management has undergone a gradual evolution from a principle aimed at ensuring an infinite resource base for timber to one that emphasizes the provision of multiple vital ecosystem services in a sustainable manner (Foster et al. 2010 ; Prins et al. 2023 ). A sustainably managed forest can contribute to poverty eradication, biodiversity conservation, food and energy security, and livelihoods of rural poor and Indigenous peoples (Takahashi 2008 ; UN Forum on Forests Secretariat 2021 ; United Nations 2021; Vijayan et al. 2020). It could be a measure of success in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as it sits at the crossroads of all of them (WWF 2023). Halting forest degradation and improving forest cover have therefore become a primary focus, resulting in multiple policies, partnerships and targets at the global level (Garcia et al. 2020). However, the global trajectory for halting deforestation by 2030 remains elusive (Forest Tenure Funders Group 2024). For instance, in the tropics, 4.1 million hectares of primary forest were lost in 2022, a 33% deviation from targets (Forest Declaration Assessment 2024). This highlights the use of all possible measures and knowledge to ensure sustainable forest management. Participatory Forest Management (PFM) involves local communities, including Indigenous peoples who live in and depend on the forest, in conservation efforts. PFM uses a combination of scientific knowledge and Indigenous or Traditional Knowledge (TK), which has been proven to be a more sustainable form of management (Chukwu et al. 2019 ; Thomas et al. 2016; Ambus, 2011 ; Negi et al. 2018 ; Wyatt et al. 2010 ). PFM holds much more relevance at this juncture than before as an inclusive decentralised form of forest governance which shares decision-making powers and management rights to local communities, recognising their traditional forest rights (Marques et al. 2020 ; Nuari and Hermawan 2021 ; Schreckenberg et al. 2006 ; Winberg 2011 ). The participatory approach of community forestry is considered to bring increasing benefits for the local community, utilize local knowledge, encourage voluntary compliance, trigger innovation and contribute to sustainable forestry comprising economic, social and ecological benefits (Siraj et al. 2018 ). FAO stresses the importance of a decentralised approach and advocates effective participatory governance systems for Indigenous peoples and local communities with strengthened institutional capacities to protect and ensure more responsive, productive and sustainable forest management (FAO 2019 , 2020 ). Many countries have adopted one or another participatory model or form to manage their forest resources. Community Forestry Management in Nepal, Joint Forest Management in India and Pakistan, Community Based Forest Management in China, Indonesia and the Philippines, the National System of Conservation Units in Brazil, etc. are some of them (Mahanty and Guernier 2009; Ullah et al. 2022 ; Takashi 2008). The different approaches to forest management pursued by different countries have different features and implications in people’s livelihood and forest condition (Baginski and Blaikie 2007; Sikor and Ngoc Thanh 2007 ; Wollenberg 2001). Likewise, factors that influence the level of participation also vary from economic, social, political and cultural to psychological in different countries (Musyoki et al. 2016 ; Savari et al. 2020 ). Similarly, the level of stakeholder involvement, the rationale behind it, and the perspectives on the dimensions of participation differ in each form, even though the ultimate objective is the same. While some participatory approaches can change the paradigm of forest management from state-centred to people-centred, others can be highly centralised, and/or state agencies can even re-concentrate their authority under the guise of participation (Ribot and Peluso 2003 ). Nevertheless, while the focus of sustainable forest management has shifted from a top-down, government-centred approach to a bottom-up, participatory one, the extent to which this has enabled the participation of Indigenous peoples remains a matter of controversy (Borgoyary 2005; Negi et al. 2018 ; Richardson 2008). The role of Indigenous peoples in forest management is irrefutable. Their survival and development are inextricably linked to the protection and sustainability of the environment and biodiversity in which they reside. Their systems of self-governance, based on rituals and taboos, have addressed socio-environmental challenges since ancient times (Richardson 2008). They are regarded as the true guardians of the world's natural forests and are the custodians of much of the remaining forest biodiversity (White and Martin 2002 ). When Indigenous peoples and local communities have legally recognised, secured and enforced rights, they protect their lands and forests in ways that result in lower rates of deforestation, higher levels of biodiversity, and improved health for ecosystems and people (Forest Tenure Funders Group 2023 ). This is further confirmation that we cannot address forest-related issues without valuing Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and integrating it with scientific knowledge in sustainable management plans and policies (Chahyana et al. 2024 ; Chun and Tak 2009 ; Schmidt et al. 2021 ; Yuan and Liu 2009 ) India, a country renowned for its biodiversity, has forests and trees covering approximately 21.71% of its total geographical area, and is home to the second largest Indigenous population in the world (Forest Survey of India 2024; Hansen et al. 2023; James 2022 ; Ministry of Tribal Affairs, 2022; United Nations 2016). In India, Indigenous communities are called as Scheduled tribes 1 . According to the Indian State of Forest Resource 2013, over 37 per cent of the area in the 189 tribal districts of the country is covered by forests, as against the national forest cover of 21.23 per cent. Together, the tribal areas account for nearly 60% of the country’s forest cover (Government of India 2018 ). This illustrates the possibility of including Indigenous peoples in forest management efforts and the positive impact this could have. After several decades of conventional top-down forest management that proved ineffective, India initiated its participatory forest management programme, JFM, in the 1990s. The inclusion of Indigenous peoples in JFM committees and conservation/livelihood planning activities is clearly stated in the JFM objectives and policy guidelines. This reinforces their close relationship with forests and highlights the positive impact they can have, as mentioned above (Joint Forest Management: A handbook, 2015 ). Since 1990’s, many conservation programmes and important policies have been implemented under the JFM, such as National Afforestation Programme (NAP), Green India Mission, National Forest Plan, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA), Forest Rights Act (FRA), Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation Plus (REDD+) Benefits for Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) and Climate Change Adaptation for JFMCs (Joint Forest Management: A handbook, 2015 ). Most state governments have adopted JFM, and in the initial phase of implementation in the 1990s, more than 63,000 JFM groups were managing more than 14 million hectares of forest, accounting approximately 18% of the country's forest area (Singh and Khare 1993 ). Forest Research Institute data of 2015 shows that there are 1,18,213 JFM committees in India, covering more than 22 million hectares of land area and supporting 1.5 million families (Thampuran 2021 ). Many studies have focused on the implementation and outcomes of JFM in general (Agrawal and Chhatre 2006 ; Kumar and Rai 2021 ; Paul and Chakrabarti 2011 ). However, a few studies have examined Indigenous peoples' understanding of government policies and programmes related to forest management, analysed the inclusion of India's Indigenous peoples in JFM, or assessed the direct and indirect impacts of JFM policies on them. This case study was therefore conducted in Indigenous settlements in the Western Ghats of Kerala, India, to investigate the involvement of Indigenous peoples in JFM and its impact. The specific objectives of the study are (1) to understand the level of awareness of JFM programmes among Indigenous peoples in India, (2) to assess the intensity and nature of Indigenous communities' participation in JFM programmes in Kerala, (3) to understand Indigenous communities' views on the benefits and outcomes of JFM policies, and (4) to draw the factors influencing Indigenous peoples' participation in forest management from the overall analysis. The results of the study will provide an insight into the overall implementation of JFM in Indigenous settlements and its general outcome from an Indigenous perspective. It will also shed light on the actual participation of Indigenous people in the JFM efforts and the factors that may affect their active participation at the ground level. These results can be of benefit to researchers who focus on participatory approaches in socio-ecological development and to policy experts who analyse the gaps in participatory co-management conservation efforts, as well as policymakers and NGOs in the field. Materials and Methods Study Area The study area selected was the northern part of the Western Ghats in Kerala, India. Within this region, the tribal settlements in and around the Kannavam forest range (inhabited by the Paniyan and Kurichiyan communities) were chosen for data collection (Fig. 1). For this study, three settlements of the Kurichyas community viz; Kannavam, Peruva and Elamangal were specifically selected. The Kurichyas , a highly developed ethnic minority community in Kerala, traditionally practise agriculture. They are therefore one of the land-owning scheduled tribe communities in Kerala, who practise a joint family system and joint property ownership system based on a matrilineal line of inheritance (Gregory and Suma 2019 ; Ramesh and Sreeja 2022 ; Thilakan 2018 ). The selected settlements varied in their distance from the forest, with the first settlement (Kannavam) located on the periphery of the reserved forest, the second (Peruva) on the allotted land within the reserved forest, and the third (Elamangal) on the ancestral land deep within the forest. The people residing in the first two settlements were displaced in the 1970s from their original forest settlements to government-allocated land (1.62 hectares per family), followed by the implementation of the Kerala Land Reform Act of 1969. In the third settlement, only four families reside within the forest and were given land in their ancestral land itself, as they refused to be relocated from the forest. Even though all three settlements belonged to the same Indigenous community, considerable variations were exhibited in terms of the present-day standard of living of the inhabitants and the socio-economic activities according to the location of the settlement. Data collection and sampling A combination of semi-structured questionnaire surveys, key informant interviews and focus group discussions were used to achieve the objectives of the study. Before the final selecting of sampling units, a pilot study was carried out in Kannavam settlement. Based on that a purposive sampling was used to select the respondents. Data collection was conducted in May 2024. A total of 34 respondents were selected, 15 from Kannavam, 15 from Peruva and 4 from Elamangal. The respondents consisted of 20 men and 14 women, including members of the JFM Committee. The samples were mostly homogeneous, especially in terms of forest dependency, with similar occupational and socio-economic backgrounds, mainly among the settlements located within the forest (Table 1). Three key informants were interviewed, one for each of the settlements concerned. The key informants were the elders of each settlement, and the interviews focused on the historical development and shift of traditional forest governance to the JFM. In addition to this, two focus group discussions were organised in Kannavam and Peruva settlements with 7 and 10 members, respectively. The surveys, interviews and focus group discussions were conducted by the first author with the help of a field assistant from the same Indigenous community. Respondents were interviewed in isolation to minimise bias, and the medium of response was the respondent's mother tongue (Malayalam) to ensure that locally relevant responses were given to the questions. The data regarding the forest management programmes were collected at two different stages - at the initial stage of implementation and at present (May 2024) as the pilot study showed a visible difference in participation and outcome at both stages. The collected data was also validated by consulting with JFM executive members and the district coordinator of the NGO Kerala Vanavasi Vikas Kendram, who works for the upliftment of the Indigenous population in the same area. Table 1 Demographic details of the samples surveyed Age Education Primary Occupation Male Female Primary (Grade 1–8) Secondary (Grade 1–8) University Degree (Bachelor/masters) Agriculture (Crop production and livestock) Daily wages (Irregular varied income) Government Job Regular income) Others (Business, self-employed, etc.) 30–50 51–70 > 70 30–50 51–70 > 70 4 2 2 6 1 0 2 8 5 1 6 5 3 4 5 0 3 3 0 11 3 1 6 3 1 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 Variables of participation Participation is a process through which stakeholders influence policy formulation and investment choices, share control over development initiatives and management decisions, and establish the necessary sense of ownership among local communities (FAO 2019 ). Participation can be defined as the involvement of non-conventional stakeholders alongside conventional stakeholders in the planning, implementation and evaluation of activities (Reed et al. 2018 ; Teladia and Van Der Windt 2022). All definitions of participation, including one of the earliest and most recognised ladders of citizen participation by Arnstein ( 1969 ), emphasise the importance of some basic variables such as consultation, information sharing and power sharing in participatory processes to make participation meaningful. Studies on Indigenous participation also utilise the same basic variables such as, consultation, information sharing and power sharing to analyse the nature and intensity of Indigenous participation in conservation efforts (Basu 2021 ; Chukwu et al. 2019 ; Coulibaly Lingani et al. 2011; Nuari and Hermawan 2021 ). Based on previous studies, the present study covers: - (i) awareness level; (ii) intensity dimensions; (iii) benefits and outcomes, and (iv) factors influencing participation to understand the involvement of Indigenous people in the JFM activities. Awareness level Stakeholders' awareness of the aims and objectives of any management or development programme can influence the outcome of participation (Lawry et al. 2012). The sense of participation is lost if stakeholders are not informed of the full intentions behind their participation. To analyse the awareness, details of the Indigenous peoples' familiarity in various forest management programmes/acts (National Afforestation Programme, Green India Mission, National Forestry Plan, MNREGA, FRA, REDD Plus Benefits for JFMCs, and Climate Change Adaptation for JFMCs) were collected. Details of their involvement in key forest management activities were also collected according to the type of involvement, i.e. whether they are involved in the programme as stakeholders or simply as labour. Descriptive statistics are used to summarise the data, and the level of awareness is then plotted as a clustered column chart. Intensity Dimensions and Classes of Participation Intensity dimensions can provide a clear overview of the main characteristics of the whole or focused part of the participatory process. The intensity dimensions used in the participation intensity framework by Rasche et al. (2006) cover all the important participatory indicators ranging from the basic ladder of participation by Arnstein ( 1969 ) to the 5 levels of participation by Mostert and Snyman ( 2007 ). The present study adapts Rasche's intensity framework based on the six intensity dimensions (activity, equality, transparency, power sharing, flexibility and reach). Data were collected from the three selected settlements to assess the intensity of participation. The collected data was summarised in tables using descriptive statistics and the participation intensity is plotted using radial diagrams. The class of participation will provide a more defined classification of processes based on the characteristics of participation and the type of interaction found in each process. The class of participation is assessed for the three settlements based on the structured framework of six classes of participatory methods proposed by Krywkow and Hare ( 2008 ). The framework classifies participation into horizontal (Involving many stakeholders), vertical (selected stakeholders who only know the results), focused (minimum effort and stakeholders), decide-announce-defend (stakeholders support already made decision), symbolic (no stakeholder involvement in the decision making) and intensive (full access to the process). Analysing the class of participation in the selected settlement will reveal the participation process in detail, which will help to identify the gaps in the process that could be included in recommendations for improvement. Benefits and outcomes from JFM Details of the Indigenous people's observations of the current forest management programmes, the benefits they derive from them, and the outcomes of the programmes were collected through focus group discussions and questionnaires. Questions on the benefit mechanism covered aspects such as clear demarcation of land for each village, use of timber, share of commercial timber products, ownership rights over non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and other forest materials needed by the villagers, use of forest land for livestock rearing and feeding, employment opportunities and additional income, etc. The problems they faced due to forest management activities as well as their suggestions and recommendations for an effective participatory forest management plan were also collected during the focus group discussion. The collected data were collated in tables using the descriptive statistics and then plotted it in clustered columns. Factors influencing the participation The factors influencing the participation of Indigenous communities in forest management programmes were analysed based on in-depth discussions with local people during the data collection process. Relevant information from the collected data (participation indicators, Indigenous attitudes towards forest management, location of Indigenous settlements, and demographic and socio-economic status of Indigenous people) was collated to identify these influences, with a particular focus on JFM. It was then analysed to find the correlation and listed in tables showing the association. Results Variables of citizen participation Awareness Level The analysis shows that the level of awareness of various forest management policies and acts among the Indigenous people varies significantly between the three settlements studied (Fig. 2). Of the six major plans for forest management under JFM, NAP, Green India Mission, National Forestry Plan, MNREGA, FRA, REDD Plus Benefits for JFMCs and Climate Change Adaptation for JFMCs), tribal people in Peruva, were aware, participated in and benefited from four of them (the National Afforestation Programme, the Green India Mission, the National Forestry Plan and MNREGA, the Forest Rights Act) with 100% score. In Kannavam, people were aware, part of and benefited from 3 programmmes (National Afforestation Programme, Green India Mission, National Forestry Plan and MNREGA) with a 90% score and with 100% score with one programme (FRA). However, Elamagal, the settlement located deep in the forest, had the lowest awareness level of 25% for the same programmes, where the Indigenous people do not consider themselves as part or beneficiaries of any of the forest management programmes/acts implemented. Following a comprehensive explanation of the programmes, the tribal people expressed a partial recognition, yet a clear understanding of the titles and objectives remained absent. For the two newly introduced JFM programmes (REDD Plus Benefits for JFMCs and Climate Change Adaptation for JFMCs), the level of awareness is zero in all three settlements, indicating a lack of coverage of the programmes as well as the absence of any awareness campaigns for the same. The Social Forestry Programme, one of the first forest management programmes implemented at the national level in the 1980s under the National Afforestation Mission, is the only programme with which Indigenous people in the entire settlement are most familiar. This suggests that the programme was implemented extensively. In contrast, Indigenous communities were not cognisant of recent adaptation and mitigation initiatives, including REDD Plus and Climate Change Adaptation. This observation suggests that the implementation of these programmes has been slow, and awareness efforts have been inadequate. Intensity Dimensions and Classes of Participation Participation intensity in the initial phase The radial analysis of Indigenous participation intensity in JFM, based on the six intensity dimensions explained in Annexure.1, shows that participation intensity varies between all three selected settlements in the initial phase of implementation itself (Fig. 3). Peruva settlement has comparatively better level of participation with four intensity dimensions (Reach, Activity, Equality and Transparency) in the high intensity zone and other two dimensions (Power Sharing and Flexibility) in the medium intensity zone for Kannavam, only one dimension of participation falls in the high intensity zone, followed by three in the medium intensity zone and two in the low intensity zone. In the distant settlement of Elamangal, the intensity of participation is comparatively low, with only one dimension of participation (activity) in the medium intensity zone and all the other five (reach, equality, transparency, power sharing and flexibility) in the low intensity zone, as the implementation of JFM is still in progress there. Participation intensity at present While the intensity dimensions have remained the same for the Peruva and Elamangal settlements, in the Kannavam settlement there has been a change from the initial phase of implementation (Appendix 1 & Fig. 4). All the six dimensions of intensity have shifted to the low intensity zone, whereas in the initial phase of implementation it was one dimension in the high intensity zone, followed by three in the medium intensity zone and two in the low intensity zone. Classes of participation Intensity dimension analysis and the observation from the settlement show that the Peruva settlement has maintained an intense participation process in both the initial and present phases (Table 3). A direct dialogue with forest management officials was acknowledged by 25% of the Indigenous people of Peruva, thereby facilitating the exchange of knowledge and opinions during the design phase. Furthermore, 50% of respondents expressed their satisfaction with access to relevant information regarding the JFM, which resulted in meaningful participation in the entire process (Table 2). In the case of the Kannavam settlement, the class of participation process has undergone a transition from a symbolic to a vertical nature from the initial stage to the present (Table 3). This shift signifies a weakening of the participation process from its former state of high intensity, where 35% of Indigenous people were actively involved and supported by a substantial amount of information, to its current state of selective participation, where only 20% of Indigenous people are involved, while the remaining 80% are only informed about the outcome (Appendix 1). The class of participation process remains the same vertical for the Elamangal settlement, with less and nominal participation, as it is still in the implementation phase. Table.2 Classes of participation in study settlements Stage/Phase Kannavam Peruva Elamangal Initial Phase Symbolic Intense Vertical At Present Vertical Intense Vertical Symbolic : No Indigenous people involvement in the decision making, Vertical : Only selected Indigenous people are involved in the process and know the results, Intense : All the Indigenous people who participate have access to the entire process. Benefits and outcomes from JFM Analysis of the data from the questionnaires and focus group discussions shows that people's perceptions of the benefits and outcomes of JFM vary (Fig. 5). The people of Peruva settlement (where the JFM has been fully implemented and is still functioning) have an overall very positive perception of the benefits and outcomes, followed by Kannavam and Elamangal. Out of the six benefits accessed, Peruva and Kannavam agreed to 100% benefits in terms of employment opportunities, the use of forest areas for livestock breeding and feeding, and the clear demarcation of land for each village. For the third settlement, Elamagal, the clear demarcation of land was the only benefit that received a 100% positive response, while the other two benefits received a nil response. While 75% of people in Peruva responded to the benefits of ownership rights over NTFPs and other forest materials needed by the villagers, the responses for Kannavam and Elamangal were only 50% and 0%, respectively. Regarding the share of commercial timber products, only a few participants from Peruva (37%), all of whom were members of the JMF Executive Committee, responded positively, whereas no positive responses were recorded in the other two settlements. For the use of timber benefits, all three settlements responded similarly with no benefit sharing. The other aspects analysed during the discussion on perceptions of JFM outcome (relationship with the Forest Department and any disputes with them) demonstrated results that were more or less similar, with a mostly positive response. All the settlements expressed a mutual sense of respect for the forest officials; however only the Peruva settlement reported very good interaction with them. Factors influencing the participation Analysis of the data from the surveys, interviews and discussions identified five factors influencing Indigenous participation in forest management activities in the selected settlements (Table 3). While the presence of some factors has a positive impact on participation (e.g., rights, power sharing, incentives and awareness), others have a negative impact (e.g., socio-economic policies and education levels). Although the effect may vary from settlement to settlement, the sum of all these factors together indicates the actual level of participation in each settlement. Table 3 Factors influencing participation in the Indigenous settlements Factors Intensity/Level Impact on participation Rights and benefits High/Greater Positive Power sharing High/Greater Positive Awareness about JFM High/Greater Positive Distance from the forest High/Greater Positive Socio-economic policies High/Greater Negative Factors influencing the participation positively Rights and benefits Indigenous rights in the JFM and benefits derived from the process have a positive impact on participation. From the data analysis, Peruva JFMC, where the rights and benefits (Figs. 5 & 6) have been fully ensured, has consistently shown the highest level and intensity of participation in all the indicators analysed (Reach, Activity, Equality, Transparency, Power Sharing and Flexibility) from the initial stage of implementation to date (Figs. 3, 4 & 5). On the contrary, in Kannavam, where people expressed rights guaranteed only at the initial stage of JFM implementation, around 60% had a medium level of participation intensity, with most of the intensity indicators in the medium and low zones. Participation dropped to low levels as the rights enjoyed by the people in Kannavam also diminished significantly over time. Benefits from JFM are also perceived to be lesser compared to the settlement Peruva. In the case of Elemangal, where the JMC is still being implemented, the people exercise the minimum rights and receive the least benefits, which is reflected in a low level of participation intensity in most of the indicators analysed. This result clearly shows the influence of rights in JFM participation. Power sharing The data analysis from the present study shows a positive influence of power sharing on participation. Of the three settlements studied, only Peruva had consistent power sharing at a moderate level (Table 4), which also parallels the observed intensity of participation (Figs. 3 & 4). While Kannavam had moderate power sharing in the two indicators analysed, Elamagal recorded zero on all five indicators, which also matches the intensity of participation. Table 4 Power sharing in JFM (%) Power sharing indicators in JFM Kannavam Peruva Elamangal Initial Phase Present Initial Phase Present Initial Phase Present Participation in developing forest management and regulation laws 40 40 50 50 0 0 Participation in any other forest related planning or decision making process 40 0 50 50 0 0 Participation in preventing offenders from deforestation and curbing illegal forest activities 0 0 12.5 12.5 0 0 Participation in issuing warrants for community forest offenders. 0 0 12.5 12.5 0 0 Supervise forest management plan implementation 0 0 25 0 0 0 0%: no power sharing; 100%: complete power sharing Awareness about JFM Awareness was found to have a positive influence on the level of participation. The analysis of awareness level of Indigenous people about the JFM programmmes (Fig. 2) matches the participation intensity assessment (Fig. 3), where Peruva settlement has the better awareness and participation level, followed by Kannavam and Elamangal. Interviews also revealed the absence of any awareness campaign/camp in the settlement of Elamangal, unlike Peruva or Kannavam, which compliments the participation intensity. Distance from the forest A comparison of the three settlements, in which two of which are located in the forest periphery and one in the interior, revealed distance as one factor influencing participation. Participation of Indigenous people is found to be better with the further the settlement is from the forest. Peruva and Kannnavam, which are in the periphery of the forest, have competitively better participation levels than Elamangal, which is the ancestral settlement located in the interior of the forest. Factors influencing the participation negatively Socio economic enhancement policies and programmes Since the Indigenous people were displaced from the forest, many programmes have been implemented to address the major socio-economic problems they face, including poverty, illiteracy, limited access to healthcare, and social discrimination. The Indigenous people of the Kannavam settlement in the study area have acknowledged receiving various training programmes, such as weaving and stitching, as well as financial aid and employment opportunities, which have considerably improved their livelihoods. This has also led to a reduced dependency on the forest and a decline in interest in participating in forest management activities. Focus group discussions and key informant interviews in Peruva revealed comparatively few schemes and incentives, which is consistent with the level of participation observed. Among the other socio-economic parameters, education appears to have a significant impact on participation. In the case of the Kurichya Indigenous tribe studied in this research, participation is negatively impacted by education. The questionnaire survey on educational attainment shows that Kannavam and Elamangal settlements have comparatively better educational attainment, followed by Peruva (Table 1). While Kannavam and Elamangal have the maximum number of members who have completed secondary education (70% and 50%, respectively), Peruva has only 12.5% sample who have completed secondary education. Peruva, on the other hand, has the maximum number of people with only a primary education (75%). Peruva, which showed a higher level of participation in all the indicators analysed (Figs. 3 & 4), has a low level of education which shows a negative relationship. The interviews and discussions also provided support for this. Discussion Variables of citizen participation Awareness level The results of the awareness analysis of major forest management programs showed that out of the three settlements, Peruva and Kannavam had a good level of understanding about most (4 out of 6) of the JFM programs implemented and identified themselves as beneficiaries of these programmes, either directly or indirectly. A higher level of awareness in Peruva is attributed to the information sharing and interactive sessions held during village meetings since the inception of the JFM committee. This initial awareness initiative has raised enthusiasm and encouragement, resulting in comparatively better participation by the Peruva people in JFM activities. The importance of the village meeting/gathering as a central communication platform has been highlighted in similar studies by Elias et al. ( 2020 , 2023); Luswaga and Nuppenau ( 2020 ). The authors also link the high level of awareness to the successful dissemination of information about JFM within the community studied, which could be attributed to prior knowledge, community involvement in JFM initiatives and the tangible positive impact of JFM on the local environment. Similarly, the people of Kannavam attributed their active participation in the early stages of JFM to the three-day awareness camp conducted by JFM officials, during which the project’s overview, objectives and guidelines were explained in detail. Although the people of Peruva and Kannavam had an 80–100% awareness of only 4 of the 6 JFM programmes mentioned, they had a clear understanding of the overall aim of JFM and their role in it. This is consistent with the observation of Dyer et al. ( 2014 ), where in Katanino JFM, Zambia, the communities were all able to explain the aim of JFM. The role of initial deforestation missions, such as social forestry, was also mentioned by JFM committee members as having instilled a sense of community participation in forest management. The process of extensive training of user groups and Forest Departments in participatory rural appraisal, workshops and study tours can also be highlighted as a reason for this sense of community participation. Focus group discussions with women members of SHGs also pointed to the emerging role of SHGs in disseminating information and raising awareness about JFM. Although the formation and support of SHGs in and around the forest area to reduce dependency on forests was one of the functions of the JFMC, as mentioned in the JFM implementation guidelines (Joint Forest Management: A handbook, 2015 ), the role of SHGs in creating awareness about JFM was evident, which ultimately promoted greater participation, especially of women. The low awareness level (25%) of Elamangal without any outreach programmes could be attributed to the distance factor, as the settlement is located deep in the forest. This finding aligns with the observation of Basu ( 2021 ), who reported that awareness and participation levels among tribal households residing in closer proximity to the forest were found to be lower. Limited exposure to information sharing was cited as a cause for delay and exclusion. This observation bears resemblance to the findings reported by Elisha et al. ( 2023 ), where the author highlights the minority response of respondents, indicating a lack of awareness, suggesting potential gaps in communication, including inadequate outreach efforts to specific community segments, language barriers, and limited exposure to information sharing platforms. This may be one reason for the late implementation of JFM activities in Elamangal, where JFM is still in the early stage of implementation. Participation Intensity Dimensions The results show considerable variation in participation intensity indicators from the initial JFM implementation phase to the current situation in the selected settlements. Initial enthusiasm for participation diminishes over time in the areas studied. A recent review of community participation in JFM by Kumar and Rai ( 2021 ) also shows that, in many areas where JFM has been implemented, people have demonstrated a withdrawal from the system once entry-point activities have been completed, and periodic input interventions by the department have either been withdrawn or become irregular. This supports our observation of variation in participation intensity over time in our study area. Participation intensity in the initial phase The intensity indicators in the initial phase of JFM implementation are found to be better in all settlements, with Peruva scoring comparatively high (4 indicators in the higher and 2 in the moderate intensity zone). Results show that Peruva has active participation of Indigenous people with equal opportunities to participate in JFM, where all participants have similar access to information and similar levels of influence on the programme. Information regarding programme details, objectives, and progress is shared from the early planning phase. They also have partial authority in decision making and are involved in the project early enough to have some influence on the design. The better participation intensity of Peruva also compliments the high awareness level, consultation information sharing and involvement in planning, as mentioned in the previous section. They were motivated to participate as they felt valued, despite there being no absolute authority and no power sharing. This finding aligns with that of Chukwu et al. ( 2019 ), where the local community of the Onigambari Forest Reserve was observed to be involved in the preparation of the micro-plan and consulted on the day-to-day programmes of the reserve. However, their input is not reflected at all in the decision-making process. This result was also similar to that of Dyer et al. ( 2014 ), who found that community engagement was found to be better in the first phase of JFM, where the people generally felt more positive about the JFM process and claimed that the JFM plans had been made in collaboration with them. Participation intensity of the second settlement, Kannavam, in the initial phase of JFM implementation was mostly moderate. Transparency in terms of information sharing was related to the number of participants who had the opportunity to participate in JFM programs, which remained moderate in the initial phase. Power sharing and flexibility, which indicate involvement in decision-making, remained low, revealing that Indigenous people were only included after decisions had been made. In other words, the opinion of the participants may be largely ignored, indicating very little authority to influence decision-making. Similar points were raised by Chukwu et al. ( 2019 ), who noted that community members felt marginalized throughout the process, as they were not actively involved in the management and implementation of programmes in the Onigambari Forest Reserve. The low participation intensity of Elamangal is due to the early stages of implementing JFM. However, few people are involved in the planning and design phase, having little influence on planning and decision making. The interview revealed less information sharing, irregular meetings, and poor implementation. The settlement's remote location also affected participation, as mentioned in the prior section. Egunyu et al. ( 2020 ) made a similar observation while analyzing the First Nation engagement in forest governance in Canada, where people had difficulty travelling to meeting venues because they were always held far from their settlements. Participation intensity at present Our results show that the participation intensity remains the same for the first two settlements and varies for the third settlement from the initial phase to the present. The intensity indicators remained the same for Peruva, which had a higher level of participation in the initial phase, demonstrating consistency in the process and indicating better consultation, monitoring and follow-up. Similar results are cited by Dyer et al. ( 2014 ) when comparing community participation amongst three different communities in which implementation of JFM was successful, involving active consultation and participation, and a foolproof monitoring mechanism in the two communities studied. However, the consistently low intensity indicators for Elamangal at present suggest slow and inconsistent JFM implementation, with a little improvement in participation over the years. Discussions with the JFMC secretary also revealed confusion over policies, which causes delays as new policies are constantly being added that sometimes contradict previous ones. A review of policies and the implementation of participatory forest management in India by Borgoyary et al. ( 2005 ) also reveals this. Participation intensity indicators dropped drastically for Kannavam, which had initially exhibited moderate to high intensity. This indicates poor JFM implementation in the settlement, with no follow-up or consultation with Indigenous peoples. Discussions also revealed an inactive JFMC in the settlement, with minimal funding for forest management activities. This limited the benefits of participation, ultimately affecting their enthusiasm for participation. As cited in the literature (Teladia and Van Der Windt 2022), the decision-making components of co-management, such as information sharing, consultation and evaluation, have a clear relationship with the intensity of participation. Specifically, a lack of citizen decision making power falls within non-participation and higher levels of citizen decision making power are associated with levels of tokenism and citizen power. (Arnstein 1969 ). Our analysis results are also aligned with the same. Classes of participation The class of participation provides insight into the nature of Indigenous interaction within the JFM process. While the class of participation process remained the same in Peruva and Elamangal, it appears to have changed from symbolic to vertical for the Kannavam settlement, based on the intensity dimensions. In the symbolic class of participation process, although it is clearly stated that participants' suggestions will be included in the planning, it is found to be less transparent, which limits the participants' influence on the project design (Rasche Karina et al. 2006). In the case of Kannavam, this lack of transparency was found to have led to a vertical class shift in the process, where the Indigenous people were mostly excluded from the entire process. Benefits and outcomes from JFM A fair share of benefits resulting from forest protection under the JFM programme is vital for participation in the JFM programme (Ostrom 1990). Our results showed that the benefits and outcomes varied across the settlement, in parallel with the intensity of participation observed. Similarly, in many countries, such as India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, benefit sharing has been identified as one of the major challenges affecting the sustainability of JFM programmes (Agrawal and Chhatre 2006 ; MacKenzie 1988 ; Paul and Chakrabarti 2011 ). It was notable that Indigenous people from all three settlements had received clear, demarcated land (1.62 hectares per family, without ownership rights), which was unlike the observation from literature, where Indigenous people still had not received land even after the implementation of the FRA (Ministry of Tribal Affairs 2006). This could be attributed to the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 (Government of Kerala 1963 ), during which this community was relocated from their ancestral forest settlements to the forest fringe areas, and a parcel of land was distributed to each Indigenous family (Nimisha 2018 ; Suma 2014 ). The livelihoods of forest communities depend mainly on income from non-timber resources. Ensuring this can enhance the participation of local communities in sustainable forest management (Savari et al. 2020 ). The key points of the JFM policy design also clearly prescribe a benefit sharing mechanism based on NTFPs and a share in commercial timber products. However, benefits from the same were observed to be comparatively less and varied amongst the three settlements. It was also notable that the benefit was zero for the settlement inside the forest, where it was expected to be higher, owing to the proximity factor. This contrasted with the result of Masuda et al. ( 2005 ) in Randadukki, Kerala. While some people attributed the reason to confusion over the policies, the actual reason was found to be the new Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd (TRIFED) initiative, 'Pradhan Mantri Van Dhan Yojana' (PMVDY) or 'Van Dhan Vikas Yojana' (VDVY), which is being implemented through JFMCs. PMVDY mainly aims to develop value chains for forest-based products and enhance the income of tribal communities by providing them with skill training and capacity building (Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India 2020). However, the inactivity of the PMVDY office in the settlement and the misuse of the project start-up fund were pointed out by the Indigenous people of Peruva. The benefit-sharing mechanism has been found to vary from state to state, as the JFM policy mandates states to decide the percentage of benefit-sharing according to local parameters, especially in the case of commercial timber benefit-sharing. Our study showed that the benefit share from commercial timber products was very low, except for the 37% in Peruva. While the peripheral areas of the Kannavam forest (where all the settlements are located) are used for plantation of high value timber by the forest department, Indigenous people seem to be excluded from this totally both in the form of work force and beneficiaries. Zero benefits from the use of timber were also noticed from the settlements, mainly due to the very strict deforestation policy that was implemented at the beginning of forest management in the 1990s and due to the change of the forest ownership to the government. Employment creation is found to be a significant benefit from participation, which can provide jobs in the home village itself (Edward A et al., 2014 ). While people from all three settlements agreed on the benefits of employment opportunities in forest-related establishments through JFM, it was also highlighted that there were fewer jobs available. Indigenous people get permanent jobs reserved for them in the forest department, eco shops, etc., but these are considerably fewer per settlement (perhaps two or three people). However, they are completely excluded from other work such as construction within forest areas, planting activities and creating waterholes in forests, which used to be a major source of income for the community's daily wage labourers. Indigenous people are now being replaced by migrant contract workers from outside the area for this type of work. This goes against the co-management principles of JFM. These results are similar to Jana et al. ( 2014 ) where the authors cited the employment generation from JFM to be rather limited in West Bengal, India and contradicting with the research outcome of Debnath, ( 2010 ), in which he cites that the introduction of JFM activities in the last decade has provided the employment opportunities and income generation in the state of Madya Pradesh, India. Interviews with community members in our study area revealed that ensuring a minimum number of man days of work during the initial stage of forest management in the 1990’s was very helpful for the majority of uneducated members of the community. At present, only women members of the community get a minimum of 100 days of guaranteed wage employment under the scheme MGNREA scheme, which is a rural development scheme to enhance the livelihood security of rural households. Key informant interviews with JFMC members in Peruva, which has active participation among the three settlements, showed an effective use of JFM village development fund. It was noted that many low-income families benefited from the fund mainly in the form of housing. In the settlement of Kannavam, the Indigenous people were unclear about the village development fund from JFM. Still they mentioned that a few members from the settlement were availing support for housing through JFM. Factors influencing the participation A detailed analysis of the literature on JFM shows the element of participation is exercised differently when implemented in different local environments (Chukwu et al. 2019 ; Musyoki et al. 2016 ; Rasche et al. 2006; Savari et al 2020 ; Teladia and Van Der Windt 2022). In India, JFM has brought varying results at the implementation level across different states. Our study identified five factors that positively or negatively influenced the overall participation intensity in the settlements studied. Factors influencing the participation positively Rights and benefits The present study shows a clear linkage between the rights and benefits and the intensity of participation. The present study shows a clear relationship between the rights and benefits and the intensity of participation, which is highest in Peruva, where Indigenous people were granted the most rights in the JFMCs and EDCs and benefited from the management systems and activities. This finding is consistent with that of Saxena ( 1997 ), which suggests that villagers' rights over the protected area play a crucial role in initiating participation in conservation efforts. However, the findings from the Elamangal settlement showed considerable uncertainty and confusion about the rights of the Indigenous people and the content of these rights, which was one of the factors influencing the lower level of participation there. Although rights are considered to be one of the most important factors influencing participation, and policies in India have enabled these rights for effective participation in JFM through the extension of the Panchayati Raj Act, PESA and the FRA of 2006, the actual scenario has not changed much (Joint Forest Management: A handbook, 2015 ; Edward A et al 2014 ). Studies have also shown that the skewed structure of JFM programmes in India, with the forest department at the top, needs to be balanced with the rights of Indigenous peoples, to ensure maximum participation (Tiwary 2005 ; Upadhyay 2003 ). Power sharing The analysis of power sharing in the present study yields a mixed results, with only one settlement showing consistent power sharing at a moderate level since its implementation. Of the power sharing indicators studied, only participation in forest management planning and rules and regulations are observed at low to moderate levels in the present study. This aligns with other studies of participatory forest management programmes, where most countries involve the public/communities in planning and decision making through some form of consultation/participation procedures (Chahyana et al. 2024 ; Chukwu et al. 2019 ; Dyer et al. 2014 ). However, Indigenous representatives in this study perceived that these consultations do not always ensure their direct participation in decision making. This observation aligns with the views of Martineau-Delisle and Nadeau ( 2010 ) and Wyatt et al. ( 2010 ), who noted that these consultations exert varying degrees of influence on decision-making. According to one of the basic frameworks of participation, 'Arnstein's ladder' (Arnstein, 1969 ), citizen involvement in decision-making leads to citizen power, and a lack of citizen decision-making power leads to non-participation. This was evident in two of the settlements in our study, where the power-sharing attributes were at the lowest level and there was a low/diminishing level of participation. The JFM provisions under the 1990 JFM Guidelines are expected to promote several participatory principles, including community participation, collective decision making, social fencing, empowerment of the village community, sharing of authority, and a focus on NTFPs and sustainable harvesting of usufructs. This participatory arrangement is designed to empower communities by power sharing, deviating from the conventional top-down power structure (Sharma et al., 2015). However, the results of our study indicate irregularities in the institutionalisation and rigid power sharing. This finding is consistent with the findings of analogous studies in India, which have revealed the absence or minimal presence of power-sharing mechanisms among JFM participants (Kumar et al. 2014; Kumar and Rai 2021 ; Singh and Khare 1993 ; Thomas et al. 2016). The other indicators of power sharing, where absolute authority is required to prevent or curb illegal activities and deal with offenders, appear to be at a very low level in one settlement and absent in the other two settlements in the present study. The powers given to the JFM committees were observed to be generally very limited. According to the JFM plans (Joint Forest Management: A handbook, 2015 ), these committees are expected to assist the FD in preventing trespass, encroachment, grazing, fire, poaching, theft or damage; however, they rarely have the power to take action in such scenarios. It can therefore be argued that although JFM encourages community participation, in most places it is nominally implemented without much autonomy being given to the people involved. Overall, the FD still holds the upper hand in determining who can exercise power and rights. This is like the findings of Saxena ( 1997 ), who observes that the nature and limits of the power thus acquired by the people are worthless. Awareness about JFM The analysis of people’s awareness about the JFM programs and policies in the first part of this study demonstrated a positive relationship between awareness and participation intensity of the people. The initial awareness raising effort, in the form of trainings, campaigns, meetings and discussions has clearly resulted in a comparatively better participation from the Peruva settlement people in the JFM activities. This result is found to be similar to that of the early forest management initiatives of India in the early 1990’s, which focused on extensive training of user groups and FDs on participatory rural appraisal and workshops and study tours within and outside the country. These initiatives have been successful in initiating the concept of community participation in forest management, commonly known as JFM, in India (Borgoyary et al. 2005 ). Literature also supported this statement by identifying awareness, especially about the program, policy, Indigenous people’s role and rights in it, as one of the main factors that enable participation (Kilewo and Frumence 2015; Chifamba 2013 ; Gunter and Mulke 2012 ; Khedrizadeh et al. 2017 ). Similarly, our results from the Elamangal settlement underline the lack of awareness to be one of the main reasons for poor participation, which is in parallel with the findings of Carson et al. ( 2018 ); Robson and Rosenthal, ( 2014 ). A micro-study by Debnath ( 2010 ) on the Forest Development Agency in Madhya Pradesh, India highlights to the limited role of FD in community mobilisation, with no awareness workshops or contact programmes to increase awareness among people for proper community mobilization. This appears to be the case in many places where people’s participation is low. Distance from the forest The relationship between distance and participation in our study brings out different results for each settlement. The farther away a settlement is from the forest, the more people take part. This was seen in two of the villages we studied, which are relatively far from the forest. This is similar to the results of Basu ( 2021 ), but different from Guthiga ( 2008 ), who found that in Kenya, the further a person lived from the forest, the less they participated. The Indigenous Elamangal settlement, located in the ancestral forest, showed a negative relationship with distance and the least participation. This indicates that distance has a significant impact on awareness and participation. The more remote a community's location is in the forest, the less aware and interested they tend to be in forest management activities. This also shows that there is little coverage of JFM in these areas. It is ironic, however, that the Indigenous settlement furthest inside the forest is not at all interested in/involved in forest management activities. Factors influencing the participation negatively Socio-economic policies The socio-economic upliftment policies designed to reduce dependency on forests, ultimately led to a shift in people's attitudes towards forests. This, in turn, had a negative impact on participation in JFM in the settlements examined. Concurrent with alternative livelihood and poverty alleviation programmes, with a particular emphasis on scheduled tribes, education emerged as the primary focus in Kerala's socio-economic upliftment policies. Kerala, being the first state in India to attain 100% literacy, had a strong focus on literacy and education in the early 1990s. This phenomenon is also reflected in the settlement under study, where the overall literacy level is notably high. This emphasis on education exerts a negative influence on participation. The settlement with the highest level of education, characterised by a greater proportion of the population having completed secondary education, exhibits the lowest levels of participation intensity, and vice versa. Indigenous individuals with a higher educational attainment are more inclined to seek employment outside the settlement, a decision that results in their physical and cultural disconnection from the forest and their ancestral roots. These results align with those reported by Basu ( 2021 ), who found that the level of participation of households headed by illiterate individuals was higher than that of households with formal education, particularly during the planning stage of JFM. Conclusion The present study analysed the key variables of Indigenous participation in the JFM programme, which includes awareness, participation intensity, factors influencing participation and the benefits/outcomes of the JFM policy in the Kurichya Indigenous settlements of Kannavam forest, Kerala, South India. The study found that levels of Indigenous participation in the programme vary between different settlements. The analysis revealed a distinct set of participation indicators for the selected settlements, indicating variation in the implementation of JFM across the state. Although the JFM scheme was introduced in Kerala in 1998, its implementation is still underway in some forest settlements, including one of the settlements covered by our study. Even after full implementation, a lack of power sharing in terms of decision-making was observed in the studied settlements. However, in the settlement with high intensity of participation, there was a smooth exchange of information, consultation and involvement of Indigenous people, particularly during the planning stage. Poor implementation, characterised by a lack of consultation and follow-up, as well as minimal funding and benefits, affected the enthusiasm of the Indigenous people to participate. This was identified as one of the main challenges affecting the sustainability of the JFM programme in the areas where it is implemented. In the present study, the main factors that influenced Indigenous participation were awareness, rights and benefits, power sharing, distance and socio-economic policies. Awareness about the project through camps, campaigns, meetings, and self-help group discussions has resulted in consistently high participation from the indigenous people in the settlements. Participation was found to be highest in those Indigenous settlements where rights were most established, and which also benefited most from the management systems and activities. Although power sharing between the Indigenous community and the forest department was generally low, the settlement with high participation intensity exhibited better and more consistent power sharing in terms of involvement in forest management planning and adherence to rules and regulations. In the case of remote forest settlements, the distance to JFMC/village meeting locations acted as a barrier to information sharing, awareness initiatives and ultimately participation. Among the socio-economic upliftment policies focused on Indigenous peoples, education was found to have the most negative impact on participation in the settlements studied. JFM was implemented in India through the state governments, which gave the states some authority to modify the provisions of the agreements slightly in terms of the rights and benefits shared with the communities. This resulted in variations in the outcomes of JFM across the country. Apart from this, variations in outcomes at the state level were also caused by the interplay of local/contextual factors. Inconsistent and unclear policies were found to affect the collection of NTFPs by Indigenous peoples, ultimately limiting their dependence on the forest and causing a major shift in their way of life. It was also noted that there are currently very few employment opportunities for Indigenous people in forest management activities. The forest department's forest management practices under JFM have been criticised for not fully aligning with environmental sustainability principles. The study therefore proposes the active and effective involvement of Indigenous peoples in forest management programmes, incorporating appropriate power- and knowledge-sharing mechanisms to integrate their traditional practices and knowledge. This would help to achieve JFM's dual objectives of forest conservation and empowerment. Declarations Author Contribution LK – research conceptualisation, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing and editing; DV – research supervision and supervision for manuscript writing and editing; MB – research supervision and manuscript editing; ASS – manuscript preparation and editing Acknowledgement Indigenous People and other experts who have provided relevant information during focus group discussions and key informant interviews are deeply acknowledged. We also thank (late) Prof. Dr. Harald Kaechele for his support during the conceptualisation of the research idea and for the constant support provided by him. References Agrawal A, Chhatre A (2006) Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Dev 34:149–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.013 Ambus L, Hoberg G (2011) The evolution of devolution: A critical analysis of the community forest agreement in British Columbia. Soc Nat Resour 24:933–950. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2010.520078 Arnstein SR (1969) A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. J Am Inst Plann 35:216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Baginski OS, Blaikie P (2013) Forests people and power: The political ecology of reform in South Asia, 1st edn. ISBN 9781138001992. Routledge India Basu JP (2021) Forest participation of local communities: a study of a tribal dominated region in India. J Soc Econ Dev 23(1):180–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-020-00142-w Borgoyary M, Saigal S, Peters NI (2005) Participatory Forest Management in India: A Review of Policies and Implementation. Working Paper No 1. Winrock International India, New Delhi. 1–56 Carson S, Kentatchime F, Nana E et al (2018) Indigenous Peoples’ Concerns About Loss of Forest Knowledge: Implications for Forest Management. Conserv Soc 16:431. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_17_105 Chahyana I, Hutomo P, Hernawan E, Titisari P (2024) The role of indigenous people to the viability of traditional forest management: A case study from Imbo Putui Customary Forest. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 1297:012091. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1297/1/012091 Chifamba E (2013) Confronting the challanges and barriers to community participation in rural development initiatives in Buhera district, Ward 12 Zimbabwe. Basic Res J Agric Sci Rev ISSN 2(7):2315–6880 Chukwu VE, Chukwu VE, Bada SO (2019) Assessment of Community Participation in Forestry in Onigambari Forest Reserve. Int J Res Innov Soc Sci 2454–6186 Chun YW, Tak K-I (2009) Songgye, a traditional knowledge system for sustainable forest management in Choson Dynasty of Korea. Ecol Manage 257:2022–2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.11.038 Cleetus B (2023) Education and Womens Identity: Missionary Initiatives and State Intervention in Early Twentieth Century Kerala. Curr Res J Soc Sci Humanit 6:87–100. https://doi.org/10.12944/CRJSSH.6.1.07 Coulibaly-Lingani P, Savadogo P, Tigabu M, Oden P-C (2011) Factors influencing people’s participation in the forest management program in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Policy Econ 13:292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.02.005 Debnath (2010) The role of formal and informal institutions in livelihood generations: A micro-study in the Forest Development Agency of Hoshangabad in Madhya Pradesh. www.rcdcindia.org Dyer J, Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Leventon J, Nshimbi M, Chama F et al (2014) Assessing participatory practices in community-based natural resource management: Experiences in community engagement from southern Africa. J Environ Manage 137:137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.057 Edward A, Ellis, Karen A, Kainer et al (2014) Community-based forest management in Quintana Roo, Mexico, Forests under pressure: local responses to global issues. In: Katila Pia, Galloway Glenn, Jong Wil de, Pacheco Pablo GM (ed) Forests Under Pressure – Local Responses To Global Issues. International Union of Forest Research Organization (IUFRO), Vienna Austria, pp 131–151 Egunyu F, Reed MG, Sinclair AJ, Parkins JR, Robson JP (2020) Public engagement in forest governance in Canada: whose values are being represented anyway? Can J Res 50:1152–1159. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2020-0026 Elias M, Grosse A, Campbell N (2020) Unpacking ‘gender’ in joint forest management: Lessons from two Indian states. Geoforum 111:218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.02.020 Elisha G, Nzali A, Philipo F (2023) Socio-Cultural Factors Influencing Community Participation in the Joint Forest Management: A Case of Uzungwa Scarp Nature Forest Reserve, Tanzania. East Afr J Arts Soc Sci 6:158–173. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajass.6.2.1466 FAO (2019) FAO’s work with indigenous peoples in forestry. FAO, Rome, Italy. pp 1–8 https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca4293en Accessed on Sep 2024 FAO (2020) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 Key findings. FAO Rome, Italy. pp 1–8 https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca8753en Accessed on Sep 2024 Forest Rights Act (2006) Rules and Guidelines. Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Gov of India and UNDP India, 2024. http://forestrights.nic.in/ Accessed on Dec 2024 Forest Declaration Assessment Partners (2024) Forests under fire: Tracking progress on 2030 forest goals. Climate Focus (coordinator and editor). Accessed on Dec 2024 Forest Tenure Funders Group (2023) Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Forest Tenure Pledge: Annual Report 2022–2023. https://tinyurl.com/Forest-Tenure Accessed on Oct 2024 Foster BC, Wang D, Keeton WS, Ashton MS (2010) Implementing Sustainable Forest Management Using Six Concepts in an Adaptive Management Framework. J Sustain For 29:79–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549810903463494 Government of India (2018) Report of the expert committee on tribal health. Tribal Health in India Bridging the Gap and a Roadmap for the Future. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi, India Government of Kerala (1963) Kerala Land Reform Act. Revenue Department, Kerala Gregory S, Suma TR (2019) Gandhiji’s Vision of Grama Swaraj and the Kurichya Joint Farming System: The Development Experience and the Way Forward. Rajagiri J Soc Dev 11 Gunter J, Mulke S (2012) Essential Background: A Short History of Community Forestry in British Columbia, The Community Forestry Guidebook II, Effective Governance and Forest Management. FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources British Columbia Community Forest Association Guthiga P (2008) Understanding Local Communities Perceptions of Existing Forest Management Regimes of a Kenyan Rainforest. International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2008, 1(2):145–166. ISSN 1979–2611 Hansen MC, Potapov, Peter, Moore, Rebecca HM, Turubanova, Svetlana, Tyukavina, Alexandra TD, Stehman (2013) Stephen, Goetz, Scott, Loveland, Thomas, Kommareddy, Anil, Egorov, Alexey, Chini. L. In: Justice CO, Townshend J (eds) High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change, vol 342. Science, New York, N.Y., pp 850–853. 10.1126/science.1244693 . India State of Forest Report (2023) Volume 1. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Cimate Change. Accessed on Oct 2024 James TC (2022) International Discussions on Indigenous People and India RIS Discussion Paper Series. www.ris.org.in Jana SK, Lise W, Ahmed M (2014) Factors affecting participation in joint forest management in the West Bengal state of India. J Econ 20:317–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2014.09.003 Joint Forest Management: A handbook (2015) Ministry of Environment & Forests, Gov of India. Retrieved from https://www.nitiforstates.gov.in/public-assets/Policy/policy-repo/agriculture-and-allied-services/TNC493A000588.pdf Khedrizadeh M, Malelniya R, Adeli K, Henareh J (2017) Survey of barriers and potential field to involve local people in the forest management process (Case study: Local Communities in Nameshir, Baneh). J of Wood for Sci Technol, 2017; 24(3): 35–48. 10.22069/jwfst.2017.12024.1634 Krywkow J, Hare M (2008) Participatory process management. International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software. Integrating Sciences and Information Technology for Environmental Assessment and Decision Making International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) Kumar BS, Rai A (2021) Joint Forest Management and Community Participation: A Study in Indian Perspective. Indian J Law Justice 12(2):0976–3570 Luswaga H, Nuppenau EA (2020) Participatory Forest Management in West Usambara Tanzania: What Is the Community Perception on Success? Sustainability 12:921. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030921 MacKenzie C (1988) The challenges of participatory forest management in Sri Lanka. In Community forestry at a cross-roads: Reflections and future directions in the development of community forestry. Int Semin held Bangkok, 17–19 July 1997, RECOFTC Rep 16 Mahanty S, Guernier J (2010) A Fair Share? Sharing the Benefits and Costs of Collaborative Forest Management. Int Forestry Rev 11:268–280. 10.1505/ifor.11.2.268 Marques M, Oliveira M, Borges JG (2020) An approach to assess actors’ preferences and social learning to enhance participatory forest management planning. Trees People 2:100026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100026 Martineau-Delisle C, Nadeau S (2010) Assessing the effects of public participation processes from the point of view of participants: Significance, achievements, and challenges. Chron 86:753–765. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc86753-6 Masuda M, Mishiba J, Dhakal M (2005) Implementation of participatory forest management in Kerala, India. Tropics 14:323–333. https://doi.org/10.3759/tropics.14.323 Mostert JC, Snyman MMM (2007) Knowledge management framework for the development of an effective knowledge management strategy. SA J Inf Manag 9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v9i2.25 Musyoki JK, Mugwe J, Mutundu K, Muchiri M (2016) Factors influencing level of participation of community forest associations in management forests in Kenya. J Sustain for 35:205–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2016.1142454 Negi S, Pham T, Karky B, Garcia C (2018) Role of Community and User Attributes in Collective Action: Case Study of Community-Based Forest Management in Nepal. Forests 9:136. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9030136 Nimisha P (2018) Tribes of Kerala: a Case Study of Kurichyas of Kannavam. Bodhi Int J Res Humanit Arts Sci Vol.2:No.3. E-ISSN: 2456–5571 Nuari AI, Hermawan S (2021) The Urgency of Strengthening the Rights and Participation of Indigenous Peoples in Realizing Sustainable Management of Customary Forest. Kanun J Ilmu Huk 23:399–416. https://doi.org/10.24815/kanun.v23i3.21881 Ostrom E (2015) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Gov Commons Evol Institutions Collect Action 1–280. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423936 Paul S, Chakrabarti S (2011) Socio-economic issues in forest management in India. Policy Econ 13:55–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.08.006 Prins K, Köhl M, Linser S (2023) Is the concept of sustainable forest management still fit for purpose? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103072 . For Policy Econ 157: Ramesh DK, Sreeja (2022) A comparative study between Kurichya and Paniya tribe. International Journal of Research. p-ISSN: 2348–6848 e-ISSN: 2348-795X. Vol. 9 Issue 02 Rasche K, Krywkow J, Newig J, Hare M (2007) Assessing the intensity of participation along six dimensions. In: Paper Presented at the Conference CAIWA 12.-15.11.2007, Basel, Available online: http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/pathconference/outputs/PATH abstract 3.3.3.pdf Reed MS, Vella S, Challies E, de Vente J, Frewer L et al (2018) A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restor Ecol 26:S7–S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541 Ribot JC, Peluso NL (2003) A Theory of Access. Rural Sociol 68:153–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x Richardson BJ (2021) The Ties that Bind: Indigenous Peoples and Environmental Governance. Indig Peoples Law. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509955565.ch-013 Robson M, Rosenthal J (2014) Evaluating the effectiveness of stakeholder advisory committee participation in forest management planning in Ontario, Canada. Forestry Chron 90:361–370. 10.5558/tfc2014-070 Savari M, Eskandari Damaneh H, Eskandari Damaneh H (2020) Factors influencing local people’s participation in sustainable forest management. Arab J Geosci 13:513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05519-z Saxena NC (1997) The Saga of Participatory Forest Management in India. CIFOR Special Publication ISBN 979-8674-15-3. Centre For International Forestry Research. http://www.cgiar.org/cifor Schmidt MVC, Ikpeng YU, Kayabi T, Sanches RA, Ono KY et al (2021) Indigenous Knowledge and Forest Succession Management in the Brazilian Amazon: Contributions to Reforestation of Degraded Areas. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.605925 . Front For Glob Chang 4: Schreckenberg K, Luttrell C, Moss C (2006) Participatory forest management: an overview. http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=4321and Schreckenberg K, Luttrell C, Moss C (2006) Participatory forest management: An overview. Retrieved from- https://odi.cdn.ngo/media/documents/3781.pdf Sikor T, Ngoc Thanh T (2007) Exclusive versus inclusive devolution in forest management: Insights from forest land allocation in Vietnam’s Central Highlands. Land use policy 24:644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.04.006 Singh S, Khare A (1993) People’s participation in forest management. Commonw Forestry Rev 72(4):279–283. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42606967 Siraj M, Zhang K, Xiao W et al (2018) Does Participatory Forest Management Save the Remnant Forest in Ethiopia? Proc Natl Acad Sci India Sect B Biol Sci 88:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-016-0712-4 Suma (2014) Customry vs state laws of land governance: Adivasi joint family farmers seek policy support. Th case of Kurichya joint families in Wayanad, southern India. International Land Coalition Secretariat at IFAD Via Paolo di Dono, 44, 00142 - Rome, Italy. SBN: ISBN: 978-92-95105-06-5. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279916821 Takahashi S (2008) Challenges for Local Communities and Livelihoods to Seek Sustainable Forest Management in Indonesia. J Environ Dev 17:192–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496508316723 Teladia A, der Windt H (2022) A new framework for analysing local participation in community energy initiatives. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 1085:012034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1085/1/012034 Thampuran MVS (2021) Present challenges in Joint Forest Management in India: A review. E-Planet 2:157–168 Thilakan KTS (2018) Development Issues of Tribal Population: A Study among Paniya and Kurichiya Tribal Communities. Revisiting Strateg Growth Sustain Dev Dev 6:32–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1488505 Tiwary M (2005) Panchayats versus Forest Protection Committees Equity and Institutional Complicance in Rural Development Forestry. org/https://doi.org/10.2307/4416613 . Econ Polit Wkly. https://doi. Ullah A, Zeb A, Saqib SE, Kächele H (2022) Landscape co-management and livelihood sustainability: Lessons learned from the billion trees afforestation project in Pakistan. Land use policy 115:106034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106034 UN Forum on Forests Secretariat (2021) United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests 2030. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, www.un.org/esa/forests United Nations, PDF) (2016) State of the World's Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Peoples' Access to Health Services. The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the UN. ISBN (: 9789210575553 https://doi.org/10.18356/7914b045-en United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2021) The Global Forest Goals Report 2021 Realizing the Importance of Forests in a Changing World. ISBN (PDF): 9789214030515 https://doi.org/10.18356/9789214030515 Upadhyay S (2003) JFM in India: some legal concerns. Econ Polit Wkly 38:3629–3631 Vijayan D, Kaechele H, Girindran R et al (2021) Tropical forest conversion and its impact on indigenous communities Mapping forest loss and shrinking gathering grounds in the Western Ghats, India. Land use policy 102:105133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105133 White A, Martin A (2002) Who owns the world’s forests? Forest tenure and public forests in transition. Forest Trends, Center for International Environmental Law. Washington DC, USA. ISBN 0-9713606-2-6 Winberg E (2011) Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia, Practices and Experiences. FAO, Sub regional Office for Eastern Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-aq407e.pdf Wollenberg E, Edmunds D, Buck L, Fox J, Brodt S (2001) Social learning in community forests. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/18477 Accessed on Sep 2024 WWF, Gagen MH, Dudley N, Jennings S, Timmins HL, BaldwinCantello W, D’Arcy L, Dodsworth JE, Fleming D, Kleymann H, Pacheco P, Price F (2023) The Forest Pathways Report. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. (Lead Authors) Wyatt S, Fortier JF, Martineau-Delisle C (2010) First nations’ involvement in forest governance in Québec: The place for distinct consultation processes. Chron 86:730–741. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc86730-6 Yuan J, Liu J (2009) Fengshui forest management by the Buyi ethnic minority in China. For Ecol Manag 257(10):2002–2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.040 Footnotes The term “Scheduled Tribes” refers to Indigenous communities that are identified by the Indian government as deserving special protections and benefits due to their socio-economic and educational backwardness. The Constitution of India, under Article 366(25), defines Scheduled Tribes as “such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7810312","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":539145581,"identity":"46c84bf8-ac8e-4958-a40b-b67b5118d682","order_by":0,"name":"Liji Kareyapath","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Liji","middleName":"","lastName":"Kareyapath","suffix":""},{"id":539145583,"identity":"f2a86439-8fc4-492d-a3c1-91d70157987d","order_by":1,"name":"Dhanya Vijayan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dhanya","middleName":"","lastName":"Vijayan","suffix":""},{"id":539145584,"identity":"f5d36f3c-b594-4130-9de0-0e9afa301f23","order_by":2,"name":"Miroslava Bavorova","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Czech University of Life Sciences Prague","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Miroslava","middleName":"","lastName":"Bavorova","suffix":""},{"id":539145586,"identity":"b68dc9b8-cc26-4912-9eb0-0e3c30cd3215","order_by":3,"name":"Anu Susan Sam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kerala Agricultural University, Regional Agricultural Research Station","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anu","middleName":"Susan","lastName":"Sam","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-08 17:42:49","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7810312/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7810312/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95526494,"identity":"8f30fe8e-8452-434f-9ef6-f631fb8a4922","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:07:06","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4308820,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"RevisedManuscriptLijiKareyapathet.al.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/ffa9f27aa9222ef556dbc1fb.docx"},{"id":95387569,"identity":"b3fdfdf2-4693-41d5-b04d-8d94b7684b14","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6524,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"67ef38db231e436c8116a71311c826ce.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/f78ed8a4db2c3d7c83e4959a.json"},{"id":95526939,"identity":"54827612-89d4-4775-8cdd-fc48c029cb0c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:08:47","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":194370,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"67ef38db231e436c8116a71311c826ce1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/698550fa20f7c1666c2f64ab.xml"},{"id":95526154,"identity":"1c1aea0f-126d-4003-8bee-9a6670123aaa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:06:23","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4029715,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/2f02cdce2c1ad129ea3fc6e2.png"},{"id":95387573,"identity":"bab9a9f2-9bda-46a2-b734-0dcdac8722f1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16350,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/91d3d9afcd0e2b5d23d248cf.png"},{"id":95526138,"identity":"4168bad2-239a-4b04-9696-5456de372d4e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:06:21","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":165209,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/674e3dceffe14a8acfe63db1.jpeg"},{"id":95525696,"identity":"c1c1d788-f288-4f8e-b300-be534999d6b9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:05:34","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":152457,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/d05eb86612e7fa0554b9685a.jpeg"},{"id":95387590,"identity":"4e76756f-19e3-4621-bf2f-18144402590a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15894,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/6ce95e5e3e198cd70c52e09c.png"},{"id":95387585,"identity":"abc503a3-f84d-4a02-8bc8-22f628bf1150","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16055,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/d3c5274f4d4cbaed9c4ac5f7.png"},{"id":95387584,"identity":"57915d95-78dd-4223-851e-8a8e317f1718","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":524270,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/8e08badded4eb89b42ee9173.png"},{"id":95387583,"identity":"231064bf-1950-4cdf-8352-f97b8981890a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":13936,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/228c8ec41ea1e4e7ce5d5029.png"},{"id":95387581,"identity":"b602bdb3-c84d-4bd1-b8d3-992c6553ef4a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":46407,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/f1784078693030480a781dc8.png"},{"id":95387591,"identity":"cf60b957-8a81-4f12-9e50-a2411c3b6788","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:44","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":43405,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/98df3836e64c29a0fb230447.png"},{"id":95387577,"identity":"556c44e6-2cab-4b6c-9b25-a4a9f4ca93d1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15368,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/a55af29cf3d3c65894fbb816.png"},{"id":95387580,"identity":"aab35022-6899-465a-bacc-789949362b65","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8985,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/879aac5d1907bf12ab869af8.png"},{"id":95526891,"identity":"bd45502a-0570-46ab-ac7e-06a5f9194ce2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:08:27","extension":"xml","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":190449,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"67ef38db231e436c8116a71311c826ce1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/a5801d3dcf03a29d1d8ffb35.xml"},{"id":95387589,"identity":"adca4a3e-f5be-4e67-b291-280d246e5dae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"html","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":203102,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/7c94ed604b4b8a67c68baea5.html"},{"id":95387576,"identity":"0ff81d1b-74ca-4641-a2e4-34777e3f7c22","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2970306,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of the study area (Source: Google Earth and Google Maps); a. Location of Indigenous settlements selected for the study; b. Forest cover within the study area\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/fe370af752a0b0bebde08229.png"},{"id":95526964,"identity":"56e27f05-299e-4739-aa22-4703276fdbbc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:08:53","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":16350,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAwareness and implementation of significant JFM Programmes\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/7e50ba7340358aa1a40720d3.png"},{"id":95387566,"identity":"6ae8a0d3-1f83-4ac5-b991-6866590f5626","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":39748,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIntensity of participation in the initial phase of JFM\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/a5865964e14b392b9c321576.png"},{"id":95526116,"identity":"d738a4fc-0e90-462b-84ac-6adf962af00b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:06:18","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35437,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIntensity of participation at present\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/695be279a2b47097225213b1.png"},{"id":95387572,"identity":"f089bf70-698c-490d-9893-3faff28454b3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":15894,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBenefits from JFM\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/6fbf0efbf1e86f42fc248851.png"},{"id":95526095,"identity":"d91fb601-8469-4a8e-aa7e-90463bfba5f2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:06:14","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":16055,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRights enjoyed by the Indigenous people in the JFMC/EDC\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/0eea712da3710c8fae6a571b.png"},{"id":95531532,"identity":"1ff24b32-46f7-4f28-9b95-0233bb296c36","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:23:06","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":5034470,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/8fed6c6f-d202-4316-913b-544993425a42.pdf"},{"id":95387568,"identity":"f5a42687-9227-41d0-b0e8-ff3a76a2426f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 13:15:43","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":16972,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7810312/v1/4e94088336b745aab3c17066.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in Joint Forest Management: Insights from the Western Ghats, India","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe notion of sustainable forest management has undergone a gradual evolution from a principle aimed at ensuring an infinite resource base for timber to one that emphasizes the provision of multiple vital ecosystem services in a sustainable manner (Foster et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Prins et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). A sustainably managed forest can contribute to poverty eradication, biodiversity conservation, food and energy security, and livelihoods of rural poor and Indigenous peoples (Takahashi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; UN Forum on Forests Secretariat \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; United Nations 2021; Vijayan et al. 2020). It could be a measure of success in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as it sits at the crossroads of all of them (WWF 2023). Halting forest degradation and improving forest cover have therefore become a primary focus, resulting in multiple policies, partnerships and targets at the global level (Garcia et al. 2020). However, the global trajectory for halting deforestation by 2030 remains elusive (Forest Tenure Funders Group 2024). For instance, in the tropics, 4.1\u0026nbsp;million hectares of primary forest were lost in 2022, a 33% deviation from targets (Forest Declaration Assessment 2024). This highlights the use of all possible measures and knowledge to ensure sustainable forest management. Participatory Forest Management (PFM) involves local communities, including Indigenous peoples who live in and depend on the forest, in conservation efforts. PFM uses a combination of scientific knowledge and Indigenous or Traditional Knowledge (TK), which has been proven to be a more sustainable form of management (Chukwu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Thomas et al. 2016; Ambus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Negi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Wyatt et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). PFM holds much more relevance at this juncture than before as an inclusive decentralised form of forest governance which shares decision-making powers and management rights to local communities, recognising their traditional forest rights (Marques et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Nuari and Hermawan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Schreckenberg et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Winberg \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The participatory approach of community forestry is considered to bring increasing benefits for the local community, utilize local knowledge, encourage voluntary compliance, trigger innovation and contribute to sustainable forestry comprising economic, social and ecological benefits (Siraj et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). FAO stresses the importance of a decentralised approach and advocates effective participatory governance systems for Indigenous peoples and local communities with strengthened institutional capacities to protect and ensure more responsive, productive and sustainable forest management (FAO \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany countries have adopted one or another participatory model or form to manage their forest resources. Community Forestry Management in Nepal, Joint Forest Management in India and Pakistan, Community Based Forest Management in China, Indonesia and the Philippines, the National System of Conservation Units in Brazil, etc. are some of them (Mahanty and Guernier 2009; Ullah et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Takashi 2008). The different approaches to forest management pursued by different countries have different features and implications in people\u0026rsquo;s livelihood and forest condition (Baginski and Blaikie 2007; Sikor and Ngoc Thanh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Wollenberg 2001). Likewise, factors that influence the level of participation also vary from economic, social, political and cultural to psychological in different countries (Musyoki et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Savari et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, the level of stakeholder involvement, the rationale behind it, and the perspectives on the dimensions of participation differ in each form, even though the ultimate objective is the same. While some participatory approaches can change the paradigm of forest management from state-centred to people-centred, others can be highly centralised, and/or state agencies can even re-concentrate their authority under the guise of participation (Ribot and Peluso \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, while the focus of sustainable forest management has shifted from a top-down, government-centred approach to a bottom-up, participatory one, the extent to which this has enabled the participation of Indigenous peoples remains a matter of controversy (Borgoyary 2005; Negi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Richardson 2008).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe role of Indigenous peoples in forest management is irrefutable. Their survival and development are inextricably linked to the protection and sustainability of the environment and biodiversity in which they reside. Their systems of self-governance, based on rituals and taboos, have addressed socio-environmental challenges since ancient times (Richardson 2008). They are regarded as the true guardians of the world's natural forests and are the custodians of much of the remaining forest biodiversity (White and Martin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). When Indigenous peoples and local communities have legally recognised, secured and enforced rights, they protect their lands and forests in ways that result in lower rates of deforestation, higher levels of biodiversity, and improved health for ecosystems and people (Forest Tenure Funders Group \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This is further confirmation that we cannot address forest-related issues without valuing Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and integrating it with scientific knowledge in sustainable management plans and policies (Chahyana et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Chun and Tak \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Schmidt et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Yuan and Liu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndia, a country renowned for its biodiversity, has forests and trees covering approximately 21.71% of its total geographical area, and is home to the second largest Indigenous population in the world (Forest Survey of India 2024; Hansen et al. 2023; James \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Ministry of Tribal Affairs, 2022; United Nations 2016). In India, Indigenous communities are called as Scheduled tribes\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e. According to the Indian State of Forest Resource 2013, over 37 per cent of the area in the 189 tribal districts of the country is covered by forests, as against the national forest cover of 21.23 per cent. Together, the tribal areas account for nearly 60% of the country\u0026rsquo;s forest cover (Government of India \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This illustrates the possibility of including Indigenous peoples in forest management efforts and the positive impact this could have. After several decades of conventional top-down forest management that proved ineffective, India initiated its participatory forest management programme, JFM, in the 1990s. The inclusion of Indigenous peoples in JFM committees and conservation/livelihood planning activities is clearly stated in the JFM objectives and policy guidelines. This reinforces their close relationship with forests and highlights the positive impact they can have, as mentioned above (Joint Forest Management: A handbook, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince 1990\u0026rsquo;s, many conservation programmes and important policies have been implemented under the JFM, such as National Afforestation Programme (NAP), Green India Mission, National Forest Plan, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA), Forest Rights Act (FRA), Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation Plus (REDD+) Benefits for Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) and Climate Change Adaptation for JFMCs (Joint Forest Management: A handbook, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Most state governments have adopted JFM, and in the initial phase of implementation in the 1990s, more than 63,000 JFM groups were managing more than 14\u0026nbsp;million hectares of forest, accounting approximately 18% of the country's forest area (Singh and Khare \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Forest Research Institute data of 2015 shows that there are 1,18,213 JFM committees in India, covering more than 22\u0026nbsp;million hectares of land area and supporting 1.5\u0026nbsp;million families (Thampuran \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany studies have focused on the implementation and outcomes of JFM in general (Agrawal and Chhatre \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Kumar and Rai \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Paul and Chakrabarti \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). However, a few studies have examined Indigenous peoples' understanding of government policies and programmes related to forest management, analysed the inclusion of India's Indigenous peoples in JFM, or assessed the direct and indirect impacts of JFM policies on them. This case study was therefore conducted in Indigenous settlements in the Western Ghats of Kerala, India, to investigate the involvement of Indigenous peoples in JFM and its impact. The specific objectives of the study are (1) to understand the level of awareness of JFM programmes among Indigenous peoples in India, (2) to assess the intensity and nature of Indigenous communities' participation in JFM programmes in Kerala, (3) to understand Indigenous communities' views on the benefits and outcomes of JFM policies, and (4) to draw the factors influencing Indigenous peoples' participation in forest management from the overall analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the study will provide an insight into the overall implementation of JFM in Indigenous settlements and its general outcome from an Indigenous perspective. It will also shed light on the actual participation of Indigenous people in the JFM efforts and the factors that may affect their active participation at the ground level. These results can be of benefit to researchers who focus on participatory approaches in socio-ecological development and to policy experts who analyse the gaps in participatory co-management conservation efforts, as well as policymakers and NGOs in the field.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudy Area\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study area selected was the northern part of the Western Ghats in Kerala, India. Within this region, the tribal settlements in and around the Kannavam forest range (inhabited by the Paniyan and Kurichiyan communities) were chosen for data collection (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). For this study, three settlements of the Kurichyas community viz; \u003cem\u003eKannavam, Peruva and Elamangal\u003c/em\u003e were specifically selected. The \u003cem\u003eKurichyas\u003c/em\u003e, a highly developed ethnic minority community in Kerala, traditionally practise agriculture. They are therefore one of the land-owning scheduled tribe communities in Kerala, who practise a joint family system and joint property ownership system based on a matrilineal line of inheritance (Gregory and Suma \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Ramesh and Sreeja \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Thilakan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The selected settlements varied in their distance from the forest, with the first settlement (Kannavam) located on the periphery of the reserved forest, the second (Peruva) on the allotted land within the reserved forest, and the third (Elamangal) on the ancestral land deep within the forest. The people residing in the first two settlements were displaced in the 1970s from their original forest settlements to government-allocated land (1.62 hectares per family), followed by the implementation of the Kerala Land Reform Act of 1969. In the third settlement, only four families reside within the forest and were given land in their ancestral land itself, as they refused to be relocated from the forest. Even though all three settlements belonged to the same Indigenous community, considerable variations were exhibited in terms of the present-day standard of living of the inhabitants and the socio-economic activities according to the location of the settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData collection and sampling\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA combination of semi-structured questionnaire surveys, key informant interviews and focus group discussions were used to achieve the objectives of the study. Before the final selecting of sampling units, a pilot study was carried out in Kannavam settlement. Based on that a purposive sampling was used to select the respondents. Data collection was conducted in May 2024. A total of 34 respondents were selected, 15 from Kannavam, 15 from Peruva and 4 from Elamangal. The respondents consisted of 20 men and 14 women, including members of the JFM Committee. The samples were mostly homogeneous, especially in terms of forest dependency, with similar occupational and socio-economic backgrounds, mainly among the settlements located within the forest (Table\u0026nbsp;1). Three key informants were interviewed, one for each of the settlements concerned. The key informants were the elders of each settlement, and the interviews focused on the historical development and shift of traditional forest governance to the JFM. In addition to this, two focus group discussions were organised in Kannavam and Peruva settlements with 7 and 10 members, respectively. The surveys, interviews and focus group discussions were conducted by the first author with the help of a field assistant from the same Indigenous community. Respondents were interviewed in isolation to minimise bias, and the medium of response was the respondent's mother tongue (Malayalam) to ensure that locally relevant responses were given to the questions. The data regarding the forest management programmes were collected at two different stages - at the initial stage of implementation and at present (May 2024) as the pilot study showed a visible difference in participation and outcome at both stages. The collected data was also validated by consulting with JFM executive members and the district coordinator of the NGO Kerala Vanavasi Vikas Kendram, who works for the upliftment of the Indigenous population in the same area.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemographic details of the samples surveyed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"13\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c13\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary Occupation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Grade 1\u0026ndash;8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecondary\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Grade 1\u0026ndash;8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUniversity Degree\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Bachelor/masters)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgriculture\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Crop production and livestock)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDaily wages\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Irregular varied income)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovernment Job\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegular income)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOthers (Business,\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eself-employed, etc.)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51\u0026ndash;70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51\u0026ndash;70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eVariables of participation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipation is a process through which stakeholders influence policy formulation and investment choices, share control over development initiatives and management decisions, and establish the necessary sense of ownership among local communities (FAO \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Participation can be defined as the involvement of non-conventional stakeholders alongside conventional stakeholders in the planning, implementation and evaluation of activities (Reed et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Teladia and Van Der Windt 2022). All definitions of participation, including one of the earliest and most recognised ladders of citizen participation by Arnstein (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e), emphasise the importance of some basic variables such as consultation, information sharing and power sharing in participatory processes to make participation meaningful. Studies on Indigenous participation also utilise the same basic variables such as, consultation, information sharing and power sharing to analyse the nature and intensity of Indigenous participation in conservation efforts (Basu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Chukwu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Coulibaly Lingani et al. 2011; Nuari and Hermawan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Based on previous studies, the present study covers: - (i) awareness level; (ii) intensity dimensions; (iii) benefits and outcomes, and (iv) factors influencing participation to understand the involvement of Indigenous people in the JFM activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAwareness level\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStakeholders' awareness of the aims and objectives of any management or development programme can influence the outcome of participation (Lawry et al. 2012). The sense of participation is lost if stakeholders are not informed of the full intentions behind their participation. To analyse the awareness, details of the Indigenous peoples' familiarity in various forest management programmes/acts (National Afforestation Programme, Green India Mission, National Forestry Plan, MNREGA, FRA, REDD Plus Benefits for JFMCs, and Climate Change Adaptation for JFMCs) were collected. Details of their involvement in key forest management activities were also collected according to the type of involvement, i.e. whether they are involved in the programme as stakeholders or simply as labour. Descriptive statistics are used to summarise the data, and the level of awareness is then plotted as a clustered column chart.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIntensity Dimensions and Classes of Participation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntensity dimensions can provide a clear overview of the main characteristics of the whole or focused part of the participatory process. The intensity dimensions used in the participation intensity framework by Rasche et al. (2006) cover all the important participatory indicators ranging from the basic ladder of participation by Arnstein (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e) to the 5 levels of participation by Mostert and Snyman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). The present study adapts Rasche's intensity framework based on the six intensity dimensions (activity, equality, transparency, power sharing, flexibility and reach). Data were collected from the three selected settlements to assess the intensity of participation. The collected data was summarised in tables using descriptive statistics and the participation intensity is plotted using radial diagrams.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e The class of participation will provide a more defined classification of processes based on the characteristics of participation and the type of interaction found in each process. The class of participation is assessed for the three settlements based on the structured framework of six classes of participatory methods proposed by Krywkow and Hare (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The framework classifies participation into horizontal (Involving many stakeholders), vertical (selected stakeholders who only know the results), focused (minimum effort and stakeholders), decide-announce-defend (stakeholders support already made decision), symbolic (no stakeholder involvement in the decision making) and intensive (full access to the process). Analysing the class of participation in the selected settlement will reveal the participation process in detail, which will help to identify the gaps in the process that could be included in recommendations for improvement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eBenefits and outcomes from JFM\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDetails of the Indigenous people's observations of the current forest management programmes, the benefits they derive from them, and the outcomes of the programmes were collected through focus group discussions and questionnaires. Questions on the benefit mechanism covered aspects such as clear demarcation of land for each village, use of timber, share of commercial timber products, ownership rights over non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and other forest materials needed by the villagers, use of forest land for livestock rearing and feeding, employment opportunities and additional income, etc. The problems they faced due to forest management activities as well as their suggestions and recommendations for an effective participatory forest management plan were also collected during the focus group discussion. The collected data were collated in tables using the descriptive statistics and then plotted it in clustered columns.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFactors influencing the participation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe factors influencing the participation of Indigenous communities in forest management programmes were analysed based on in-depth discussions with local people during the data collection process. Relevant information from the collected data (participation indicators, Indigenous attitudes towards forest management, location of Indigenous settlements, and demographic and socio-economic status of Indigenous people) was collated to identify these influences, with a particular focus on JFM. It was then analysed to find the correlation and listed in tables showing the association.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eVariables of citizen participation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAwareness Level\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis shows that the level of awareness of various forest management policies and acts among the Indigenous people varies significantly between the three settlements studied (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). Of the six major plans for forest management under JFM, NAP, Green India Mission, National Forestry Plan, MNREGA, FRA, REDD Plus Benefits for JFMCs and Climate Change Adaptation for JFMCs), tribal people in Peruva, were aware, participated in and benefited from four of them (the National Afforestation Programme, the Green India Mission, the National Forestry Plan and MNREGA, the Forest Rights Act) with 100% score. In Kannavam, people were aware, part of and benefited from 3 programmmes (National Afforestation Programme, Green India Mission, National Forestry Plan and MNREGA) with a 90% score and with 100% score with one programme (FRA). However, Elamagal, the settlement located deep in the forest, had the lowest awareness level of 25% for the same programmes, where the Indigenous people do not consider themselves as part or beneficiaries of any of the forest management programmes/acts implemented. Following a comprehensive explanation of the programmes, the tribal people expressed a partial recognition, yet a clear understanding of the titles and objectives remained absent. For the two newly introduced JFM programmes (REDD Plus Benefits for JFMCs and Climate Change Adaptation for JFMCs), the level of awareness is zero in all three settlements, indicating a lack of coverage of the programmes as well as the absence of any awareness campaigns for the same. The Social Forestry Programme, one of the first forest management programmes implemented at the national level in the 1980s under the National Afforestation Mission, is the only programme with which Indigenous people in the entire settlement are most familiar. This suggests that the programme was implemented extensively. In contrast, Indigenous communities were not cognisant of recent adaptation and mitigation initiatives, including REDD Plus and Climate Change Adaptation. This observation suggests that the implementation of these programmes has been slow, and awareness efforts have been inadequate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eIntensity Dimensions and Classes of Participation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipation intensity in the initial phase\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe radial analysis of Indigenous participation intensity in JFM, based on the six intensity dimensions explained in Annexure.1, shows that participation intensity varies between all three selected settlements in the initial phase of implementation itself (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3). Peruva settlement has comparatively better level of participation with four intensity dimensions (Reach, Activity, Equality and Transparency) in the high intensity zone and other two dimensions (Power Sharing and Flexibility) in the medium intensity zone for Kannavam, only one dimension of participation falls in the high intensity zone, followed by three in the medium intensity zone and two in the low intensity zone. In the distant settlement of Elamangal, the intensity of participation is comparatively low, with only one dimension of participation (activity) in the medium intensity zone and all the other five (reach, equality, transparency, power sharing and flexibility) in the low intensity zone, as the implementation of JFM is still in progress there.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipation intensity at present\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the intensity dimensions have remained the same for the Peruva and Elamangal settlements, in the Kannavam settlement there has been a change from the initial phase of implementation (Appendix 1 \u0026amp; Fig.\u0026nbsp;4). All the six dimensions of intensity have shifted to the low intensity zone, whereas in the initial phase of implementation it was one dimension in the high intensity zone, followed by three in the medium intensity zone and two in the low intensity zone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eClasses of participation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntensity dimension analysis and the observation from the settlement show that the Peruva settlement has maintained an intense participation process in both the initial and present phases (Table\u0026nbsp;3). A direct dialogue with forest management officials was acknowledged by 25% of the Indigenous people of Peruva, thereby facilitating the exchange of knowledge and opinions during the design phase. Furthermore, 50% of respondents expressed their satisfaction with access to relevant information regarding the JFM, which resulted in meaningful participation in the entire process (Table\u0026nbsp;2). In the case of the Kannavam settlement, the class of participation process has undergone a transition from a symbolic to a vertical nature from the initial stage to the present (Table\u0026nbsp;3). This shift signifies a weakening of the participation process from its former state of high intensity, where 35% of Indigenous people were actively involved and supported by a substantial amount of information, to its current state of selective participation, where only 20% of Indigenous people are involved, while the remaining 80% are only informed about the outcome (Appendix 1). The class of participation process remains the same vertical for the Elamangal settlement, with less and nominal participation, as it is still in the implementation phase.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable.2 Classes of participation in study settlements\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStage/Phase\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKannavam\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeruva\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eElamangal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInitial Phase\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSymbolic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntense\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVertical\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt Present\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVertical\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntense\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVertical\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSymbolic\u003c/b\u003e: No Indigenous people involvement in the decision making, \u003cb\u003eVertical\u003c/b\u003e: Only selected Indigenous people are involved in the process and know the results, \u003cb\u003eIntense\u003c/b\u003e: All the Indigenous people who participate have access to the entire process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eBenefits and outcomes from JFM\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the data from the questionnaires and focus group discussions shows that people's perceptions of the benefits and outcomes of JFM vary (Fig.\u0026nbsp;5). The people of Peruva settlement (where the JFM has been fully implemented and is still functioning) have an overall very positive perception of the benefits and outcomes, followed by Kannavam and Elamangal. Out of the six benefits accessed, Peruva and Kannavam agreed to 100% benefits in terms of employment opportunities, the use of forest areas for livestock breeding and feeding, and the clear demarcation of land for each village. For the third settlement, Elamagal, the clear demarcation of land was the only benefit that received a 100% positive response, while the other two benefits received a nil response. While 75% of people in Peruva responded to the benefits of ownership rights over NTFPs and other forest materials needed by the villagers, the responses for Kannavam and Elamangal were only 50% and 0%, respectively. Regarding the share of commercial timber products, only a few participants from Peruva (37%), all of whom were members of the JMF Executive Committee, responded positively, whereas no positive responses were recorded in the other two settlements. For the use of timber benefits, all three settlements responded similarly with no benefit sharing. The other aspects analysed during the discussion on perceptions of JFM outcome (relationship with the Forest Department and any disputes with them) demonstrated results that were more or less similar, with a mostly positive response. All the settlements expressed a mutual sense of respect for the forest officials; however only the Peruva settlement reported very good interaction with them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFactors influencing the participation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the data from the surveys, interviews and discussions identified five factors influencing Indigenous participation in forest management activities in the selected settlements (Table\u0026nbsp;3). While the presence of some factors has a positive impact on participation (e.g., rights, power sharing, incentives and awareness), others have a negative impact (e.g., socio-economic policies and education levels). Although the effect may vary from settlement to settlement, the sum of all these factors together indicates the actual level of participation in each settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactors influencing participation in the Indigenous settlements\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntensity/Level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImpact on participation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRights and benefits\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh/Greater\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePower sharing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh/Greater\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAwareness about JFM\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh/Greater\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDistance from the forest\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh/Greater\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocio-economic policies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh/Greater\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNegative\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFactors influencing the participation positively\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eRights and benefits\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndigenous rights in the JFM and benefits derived from the process have a positive impact on participation. From the data analysis, Peruva JFMC, where the rights and benefits (Figs.\u0026nbsp;5 \u0026amp; 6) have been fully ensured, has consistently shown the highest level and intensity of participation in all the indicators analysed (Reach, Activity, Equality, Transparency, Power Sharing and Flexibility) from the initial stage of implementation to date (Figs.\u0026nbsp;3, 4 \u0026amp; 5). On the contrary, in Kannavam, where people expressed rights guaranteed only at the initial stage of JFM implementation, around 60% had a medium level of participation intensity, with most of the intensity indicators in the medium and low zones. Participation dropped to low levels as the rights enjoyed by the people in Kannavam also diminished significantly over time. Benefits from JFM are also perceived to be lesser compared to the settlement Peruva. In the case of Elemangal, where the JMC is still being implemented, the people exercise the minimum rights and receive the least benefits, which is reflected in a low level of participation intensity in most of the indicators analysed. This result clearly shows the influence of rights in JFM participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePower sharing\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e The data analysis from the present study shows a positive influence of power sharing on participation. Of the three settlements studied, only Peruva had consistent power sharing at a moderate level (Table\u0026nbsp;4), which also parallels the observed intensity of participation (Figs.\u0026nbsp;3 \u0026amp; 4). While Kannavam had moderate power sharing in the two indicators analysed, Elamagal recorded zero on all five indicators, which also matches the intensity of participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePower sharing in JFM (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePower sharing indicators in JFM\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKannavam\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeruva\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eElamangal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInitial Phase\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePresent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInitial Phase\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePresent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInitial Phase\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePresent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipation in developing forest management and regulation laws\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipation in any other forest related planning or decision making process\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipation in preventing offenders from deforestation and curbing illegal forest activities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipation in issuing warrants for community forest offenders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSupervise forest management plan implementation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e0%: no power sharing; 100%: complete power sharing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAwareness about JFM\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAwareness was found to have a positive influence on the level of participation. The analysis of awareness level of Indigenous people about the JFM programmmes (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2) matches the participation intensity assessment (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3), where Peruva settlement has the better awareness and participation level, followed by Kannavam and Elamangal. Interviews also revealed the absence of any awareness campaign/camp in the settlement of Elamangal, unlike Peruva or Kannavam, which compliments the participation intensity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDistance from the forest\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA comparison of the three settlements, in which two of which are located in the forest periphery and one in the interior, revealed distance as one factor influencing participation. Participation of Indigenous people is found to be better with the further the settlement is from the forest. Peruva and Kannnavam, which are in the periphery of the forest, have competitively better participation levels than Elamangal, which is the ancestral settlement located in the interior of the forest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFactors influencing the participation negatively\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSocio economic enhancement policies and programmes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince the Indigenous people were displaced from the forest, many programmes have been implemented to address the major socio-economic problems they face, including poverty, illiteracy, limited access to healthcare, and social discrimination. The Indigenous people of the Kannavam settlement in the study area have acknowledged receiving various training programmes, such as weaving and stitching, as well as financial aid and employment opportunities, which have considerably improved their livelihoods. This has also led to a reduced dependency on the forest and a decline in interest in participating in forest management activities. Focus group discussions and key informant interviews in Peruva revealed comparatively few schemes and incentives, which is consistent with the level of participation observed. Among the other socio-economic parameters, education appears to have a significant impact on participation. In the case of the Kurichya Indigenous tribe studied in this research, participation is negatively impacted by education. The questionnaire survey on educational attainment shows that Kannavam and Elamangal settlements have comparatively better educational attainment, followed by Peruva (Table\u0026nbsp;1). While Kannavam and Elamangal have the maximum number of members who have completed secondary education (70% and 50%, respectively), Peruva has only 12.5% sample who have completed secondary education. Peruva, on the other hand, has the maximum number of people with only a primary education (75%). Peruva, which showed a higher level of participation in all the indicators analysed (Figs.\u0026nbsp;3 \u0026amp; 4), has a low level of education which shows a negative relationship. The interviews and discussions also provided support for this.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eVariables of citizen participation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAwareness level\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the awareness analysis of major forest management programs showed that out of the three settlements, Peruva and Kannavam had a good level of understanding about most (4 out of 6) of the JFM programs implemented and identified themselves as beneficiaries of these programmes, either directly or indirectly. A higher level of awareness in Peruva is attributed to the information sharing and interactive sessions held during village meetings since the inception of the JFM committee. This initial awareness initiative has raised enthusiasm and encouragement, resulting in comparatively better participation by the Peruva people in JFM activities. The importance of the village meeting/gathering as a central communication platform has been highlighted in similar studies by Elias et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, 2023); Luswaga and Nuppenau (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The authors also link the high level of awareness to the successful dissemination of information about JFM within the community studied, which could be attributed to prior knowledge, community involvement in JFM initiatives and the tangible positive impact of JFM on the local environment. Similarly, the people of Kannavam attributed their active participation in the early stages of JFM to the three-day awareness camp conducted by JFM officials, during which the project\u0026rsquo;s overview, objectives and guidelines were explained in detail. Although the people of Peruva and Kannavam had an 80\u0026ndash;100% awareness of only 4 of the 6 JFM programmes mentioned, they had a clear understanding of the overall aim of JFM and their role in it. This is consistent with the observation of Dyer et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), where in Katanino JFM, Zambia, the communities were all able to explain the aim of JFM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe role of initial deforestation missions, such as social forestry, was also mentioned by JFM committee members as having instilled a sense of community participation in forest management. The process of extensive training of user groups and Forest Departments in participatory rural appraisal, workshops and study tours can also be highlighted as a reason for this sense of community participation. Focus group discussions with women members of SHGs also pointed to the emerging role of SHGs in disseminating information and raising awareness about JFM. Although the formation and support of SHGs in and around the forest area to reduce dependency on forests was one of the functions of the JFMC, as mentioned in the JFM implementation guidelines (Joint Forest Management: A handbook, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), the role of SHGs in creating awareness about JFM was evident, which ultimately promoted greater participation, especially of women.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe low awareness level (25%) of Elamangal without any outreach programmes could be attributed to the distance factor, as the settlement is located deep in the forest. This finding aligns with the observation of Basu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), who reported that awareness and participation levels among tribal households residing in closer proximity to the forest were found to be lower. Limited exposure to information sharing was cited as a cause for delay and exclusion. This observation bears resemblance to the findings reported by Elisha et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), where the author highlights the minority response of respondents, indicating a lack of awareness, suggesting potential gaps in communication, including inadequate outreach efforts to specific community segments, language barriers, and limited exposure to information sharing platforms. This may be one reason for the late implementation of JFM activities in Elamangal, where JFM is still in the early stage of implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipation Intensity Dimensions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results show considerable variation in participation intensity indicators from the initial JFM implementation phase to the current situation in the selected settlements. Initial enthusiasm for participation diminishes over time in the areas studied. A recent review of community participation in JFM by Kumar and Rai (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) also shows that, in many areas where JFM has been implemented, people have demonstrated a withdrawal from the system once entry-point activities have been completed, and periodic input interventions by the department have either been withdrawn or become irregular. This supports our observation of variation in participation intensity over time in our study area.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipation intensity in the initial phase\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe intensity indicators in the initial phase of JFM implementation are found to be better in all settlements, with Peruva scoring comparatively high (4 indicators in the higher and 2 in the moderate intensity zone). Results show that Peruva has active participation of Indigenous people with equal opportunities to participate in JFM, where all participants have similar access to information and similar levels of influence on the programme. Information regarding programme details, objectives, and progress is shared from the early planning phase. They also have partial authority in decision making and are involved in the project early enough to have some influence on the design. The better participation intensity of Peruva also compliments the high awareness level, consultation information sharing and involvement in planning, as mentioned in the previous section. They were motivated to participate as they felt valued, despite there being no absolute authority and no power sharing. This finding aligns with that of Chukwu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), where the local community of the Onigambari Forest Reserve was observed to be involved in the preparation of the micro-plan and consulted on the day-to-day programmes of the reserve. However, their input is not reflected at all in the decision-making process. This result was also similar to that of Dyer et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), who found that community engagement was found to be better in the first phase of JFM, where the people generally felt more positive about the JFM process and claimed that the JFM plans had been made in collaboration with them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipation intensity of the second settlement, Kannavam, in the initial phase of JFM implementation was mostly moderate. Transparency in terms of information sharing was related to the number of participants who had the opportunity to participate in JFM programs, which remained moderate in the initial phase. Power sharing and flexibility, which indicate involvement in decision-making, remained low, revealing that Indigenous people were only included after decisions had been made. In other words, the opinion of the participants may be largely ignored, indicating very little authority to influence decision-making. Similar points were raised by Chukwu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), who noted that community members felt marginalized throughout the process, as they were not actively involved in the management and implementation of programmes in the Onigambari Forest Reserve.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe low participation intensity of Elamangal is due to the early stages of implementing JFM. However, few people are involved in the planning and design phase, having little influence on planning and decision making. The interview revealed less information sharing, irregular meetings, and poor implementation. The settlement's remote location also affected participation, as mentioned in the prior section. Egunyu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) made a similar observation while analyzing the First Nation engagement in forest governance in Canada, where people had difficulty travelling to meeting venues because they were always held far from their settlements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipation intensity at present\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur results show that the participation intensity remains the same for the first two settlements and varies for the third settlement from the initial phase to the present. The intensity indicators remained the same for Peruva, which had a higher level of participation in the initial phase, demonstrating consistency in the process and indicating better consultation, monitoring and follow-up. Similar results are cited by Dyer et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) when comparing community participation amongst three different communities in which implementation of JFM was successful, involving active consultation and participation, and a foolproof monitoring mechanism in the two communities studied. However, the consistently low intensity indicators for Elamangal at present suggest slow and inconsistent JFM implementation, with a little improvement in participation over the years. Discussions with the JFMC secretary also revealed confusion over policies, which causes delays as new policies are constantly being added that sometimes contradict previous ones. A review of policies and the implementation of participatory forest management in India by Borgoyary et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) also reveals this. Participation intensity indicators dropped drastically for Kannavam, which had initially exhibited moderate to high intensity. This indicates poor JFM implementation in the settlement, with no follow-up or consultation with Indigenous peoples. Discussions also revealed an inactive JFMC in the settlement, with minimal funding for forest management activities. This limited the benefits of participation, ultimately affecting their enthusiasm for participation. As cited in the literature (Teladia and Van Der Windt 2022), the decision-making components of co-management, such as information sharing, consultation and evaluation, have a clear relationship with the intensity of participation. Specifically, a lack of citizen decision making power falls within non-participation and higher levels of citizen decision making power are associated with levels of tokenism and citizen power. (Arnstein \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e). Our analysis results are also aligned with the same.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eClasses of participation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe class of participation provides insight into the nature of Indigenous interaction within the JFM process. While the class of participation process remained the same in Peruva and Elamangal, it appears to have changed from symbolic to vertical for the Kannavam settlement, based on the intensity dimensions. In the symbolic class of participation process, although it is clearly stated that participants' suggestions will be included in the planning, it is found to be less transparent, which limits the participants' influence on the project design (Rasche Karina et al. 2006). In the case of Kannavam, this lack of transparency was found to have led to a vertical class shift in the process, where the Indigenous people were mostly excluded from the entire process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eBenefits and outcomes from JFM\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA fair share of benefits resulting from forest protection under the JFM programme is vital for participation in the JFM programme (Ostrom 1990). Our results showed that the benefits and outcomes varied across the settlement, in parallel with the intensity of participation observed. Similarly, in many countries, such as India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, benefit sharing has been identified as one of the major challenges affecting the sustainability of JFM programmes (Agrawal and Chhatre \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; MacKenzie \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Paul and Chakrabarti \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt was notable that Indigenous people from all three settlements had received clear, demarcated land (1.62 hectares per family, without ownership rights), which was unlike the observation from literature, where Indigenous people still had not received land even after the implementation of the FRA (Ministry of Tribal Affairs 2006). This could be attributed to the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 (Government of Kerala \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1963\u003c/span\u003e), during which this community was relocated from their ancestral forest settlements to the forest fringe areas, and a parcel of land was distributed to each Indigenous family (Nimisha \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Suma \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe livelihoods of forest communities depend mainly on income from non-timber resources. Ensuring this can enhance the participation of local communities in sustainable forest management (Savari et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The key points of the JFM policy design also clearly prescribe a benefit sharing mechanism based on NTFPs and a share in commercial timber products. However, benefits from the same were observed to be comparatively less and varied amongst the three settlements. It was also notable that the benefit was zero for the settlement inside the forest, where it was expected to be higher, owing to the proximity factor. This contrasted with the result of Masuda et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) in Randadukki, Kerala. While some people attributed the reason to confusion over the policies, the actual reason was found to be the new Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd (TRIFED) initiative, 'Pradhan Mantri Van Dhan Yojana' (PMVDY) or 'Van Dhan Vikas Yojana' (VDVY), which is being implemented through JFMCs. PMVDY mainly aims to develop value chains for forest-based products and enhance the income of tribal communities by providing them with skill training and capacity building (Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India 2020). However, the inactivity of the PMVDY office in the settlement and the misuse of the project start-up fund were pointed out by the Indigenous people of Peruva.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe benefit-sharing mechanism has been found to vary from state to state, as the JFM policy mandates states to decide the percentage of benefit-sharing according to local parameters, especially in the case of commercial timber benefit-sharing. Our study showed that the benefit share from commercial timber products was very low, except for the 37% in Peruva. While the peripheral areas of the Kannavam forest (where all the settlements are located) are used for plantation of high value timber by the forest department, Indigenous people seem to be excluded from this totally both in the form of work force and beneficiaries. Zero benefits from the use of timber were also noticed from the settlements, mainly due to the very strict deforestation policy that was implemented at the beginning of forest management in the 1990s and due to the change of the forest ownership to the government.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmployment creation is found to be a significant benefit from participation, which can provide jobs in the home village itself (Edward A et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). While people from all three settlements agreed on the benefits of employment opportunities in forest-related establishments through JFM, it was also highlighted that there were fewer jobs available. Indigenous people get permanent jobs reserved for them in the forest department, eco shops, etc., but these are considerably fewer per settlement (perhaps two or three people). However, they are completely excluded from other work such as construction within forest areas, planting activities and creating waterholes in forests, which used to be a major source of income for the community's daily wage labourers. Indigenous people are now being replaced by migrant contract workers from outside the area for this type of work. This goes against the co-management principles of JFM. These results are similar to Jana et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) where the authors cited the employment generation from JFM to be rather limited in West Bengal, India and contradicting with the research outcome of Debnath, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), in which he cites that the introduction of JFM activities in the last decade has provided the employment opportunities and income generation in the state of Madya Pradesh, India. Interviews with community members in our study area revealed that ensuring a minimum number of man days of work during the initial stage of forest management in the 1990\u0026rsquo;s was very helpful for the majority of uneducated members of the community. At present, only women members of the community get a minimum of 100 days of guaranteed wage employment under the scheme MGNREA scheme, which is a rural development scheme to enhance the livelihood security of rural households.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey informant interviews with JFMC members in Peruva, which has active participation among the three settlements, showed an effective use of JFM village development fund. It was noted that many low-income families benefited from the fund mainly in the form of housing. In the settlement of Kannavam, the Indigenous people were unclear about the village development fund from JFM. Still they mentioned that a few members from the settlement were availing support for housing through JFM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFactors influencing the participation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA detailed analysis of the literature on JFM shows the element of participation is exercised differently when implemented in different local environments (Chukwu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Musyoki et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Rasche et al. 2006; Savari et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Teladia and Van Der Windt 2022). In India, JFM has brought varying results at the implementation level across different states. Our study identified five factors that positively or negatively influenced the overall participation intensity in the settlements studied.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFactors influencing the participation positively\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec36\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eRights and benefits\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe present study shows a clear linkage between the rights and benefits and the intensity of participation. The present study shows a clear relationship between the rights and benefits and the intensity of participation, which is highest in Peruva, where Indigenous people were granted the most rights in the JFMCs and EDCs and benefited from the management systems and activities. This finding is consistent with that of Saxena (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), which suggests that villagers' rights over the protected area play a crucial role in initiating participation in conservation efforts. However, the findings from the Elamangal settlement showed considerable uncertainty and confusion about the rights of the Indigenous people and the content of these rights, which was one of the factors influencing the lower level of participation there. Although rights are considered to be one of the most important factors influencing participation, and policies in India have enabled these rights for effective participation in JFM through the extension of the Panchayati Raj Act, PESA and the FRA of 2006, the actual scenario has not changed much (Joint Forest Management: A handbook, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Edward A et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Studies have also shown that the skewed structure of JFM programmes in India, with the forest department at the top, needs to be balanced with the rights of Indigenous peoples, to ensure maximum participation (Tiwary \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Upadhyay \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec37\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePower sharing\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of power sharing in the present study yields a mixed results, with only one settlement showing consistent power sharing at a moderate level since its implementation. Of the power sharing indicators studied, only participation in forest management planning and rules and regulations are observed at low to moderate levels in the present study. This aligns with other studies of participatory forest management programmes, where most countries involve the public/communities in planning and decision making through some form of consultation/participation procedures (Chahyana et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Chukwu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Dyer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). However, Indigenous representatives in this study perceived that these consultations do not always ensure their direct participation in decision making. This observation aligns with the views of Martineau-Delisle and Nadeau (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) and Wyatt et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), who noted that these consultations exert varying degrees of influence on decision-making. According to one of the basic frameworks of participation, 'Arnstein's ladder' (Arnstein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e), citizen involvement in decision-making leads to citizen power, and a lack of citizen decision-making power leads to non-participation. This was evident in two of the settlements in our study, where the power-sharing attributes were at the lowest level and there was a low/diminishing level of participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e The JFM provisions under the 1990 JFM Guidelines are expected to promote several participatory principles, including community participation, collective decision making, social fencing, empowerment of the village community, sharing of authority, and a focus on NTFPs and sustainable harvesting of usufructs. This participatory arrangement is designed to empower communities by power sharing, deviating from the conventional top-down power structure (Sharma et al., 2015). However, the results of our study indicate irregularities in the institutionalisation and rigid power sharing. This finding is consistent with the findings of analogous studies in India, which have revealed the absence or minimal presence of power-sharing mechanisms among JFM participants (Kumar et al. 2014; Kumar and Rai \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Singh and Khare \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Thomas et al. 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe other indicators of power sharing, where absolute authority is required to prevent or curb illegal activities and deal with offenders, appear to be at a very low level in one settlement and absent in the other two settlements in the present study. The powers given to the JFM committees were observed to be generally very limited. According to the JFM plans (Joint Forest Management: A handbook, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), these committees are expected to assist the FD in preventing trespass, encroachment, grazing, fire, poaching, theft or damage; however, they rarely have the power to take action in such scenarios. It can therefore be argued that although JFM encourages community participation, in most places it is nominally implemented without much autonomy being given to the people involved. Overall, the FD still holds the upper hand in determining who can exercise power and rights. This is like the findings of Saxena (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), who observes that the nature and limits of the power thus acquired by the people are worthless.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec38\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAwareness about JFM\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of people\u0026rsquo;s awareness about the JFM programs and policies in the first part of this study demonstrated a positive relationship between awareness and participation intensity of the people. The initial awareness raising effort, in the form of trainings, campaigns, meetings and discussions has clearly resulted in a comparatively better participation from the Peruva settlement people in the JFM activities. This result is found to be similar to that of the early forest management initiatives of India in the early 1990\u0026rsquo;s, which focused on extensive training of user groups and FDs on participatory rural appraisal and workshops and study tours within and outside the country. These initiatives have been successful in initiating the concept of community participation in forest management, commonly known as JFM, in India (Borgoyary et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Literature also supported this statement by identifying awareness, especially about the program, policy, Indigenous people\u0026rsquo;s role and rights in it, as one of the main factors that enable participation (Kilewo and Frumence 2015; Chifamba \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Gunter and Mulke \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Khedrizadeh et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, our results from the Elamangal settlement underline the lack of awareness to be one of the main reasons for poor participation, which is in parallel with the findings of Carson et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e); Robson and Rosenthal, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). A micro-study by Debnath (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) on the Forest Development Agency in Madhya Pradesh, India highlights to the limited role of FD in community mobilisation, with no awareness workshops or contact programmes to increase awareness among people for proper community mobilization. This appears to be the case in many places where people\u0026rsquo;s participation is low.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec39\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDistance from the forest\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e The relationship between distance and participation in our study brings out different results for each settlement. The farther away a settlement is from the forest, the more people take part. This was seen in two of the villages we studied, which are relatively far from the forest. This is similar to the results of Basu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), but different from Guthiga (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), who found that in Kenya, the further a person lived from the forest, the less they participated. The Indigenous Elamangal settlement, located in the ancestral forest, showed a negative relationship with distance and the least participation. This indicates that distance has a significant impact on awareness and participation. The more remote a community's location is in the forest, the less aware and interested they tend to be in forest management activities. This also shows that there is little coverage of JFM in these areas. It is ironic, however, that the Indigenous settlement furthest inside the forest is not at all interested in/involved in forest management activities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec40\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFactors influencing the participation negatively\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSocio-economic policies\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe socio-economic upliftment policies designed to reduce dependency on forests, ultimately led to a shift in people's attitudes towards forests. This, in turn, had a negative impact on participation in JFM in the settlements examined. Concurrent with alternative livelihood and poverty alleviation programmes, with a particular emphasis on scheduled tribes, education emerged as the primary focus in Kerala's socio-economic upliftment policies. Kerala, being the first state in India to attain 100% literacy, had a strong focus on literacy and education in the early 1990s. This phenomenon is also reflected in the settlement under study, where the overall literacy level is notably high. This emphasis on education exerts a negative influence on participation. The settlement with the highest level of education, characterised by a greater proportion of the population having completed secondary education, exhibits the lowest levels of participation intensity, and vice versa. Indigenous individuals with a higher educational attainment are more inclined to seek employment outside the settlement, a decision that results in their physical and cultural disconnection from the forest and their ancestral roots. These results align with those reported by Basu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), who found that the level of participation of households headed by illiterate individuals was higher than that of households with formal education, particularly during the planning stage of JFM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study analysed the key variables of Indigenous participation in the JFM programme, which includes awareness, participation intensity, factors influencing participation and the benefits/outcomes of the JFM policy in the Kurichya Indigenous settlements of Kannavam forest, Kerala, South India. The study found that levels of Indigenous participation in the programme vary between different settlements. The analysis revealed a distinct set of participation indicators for the selected settlements, indicating variation in the implementation of JFM across the state. Although the JFM scheme was introduced in Kerala in 1998, its implementation is still underway in some forest settlements, including one of the settlements covered by our study. Even after full implementation, a lack of power sharing in terms of decision-making was observed in the studied settlements. However, in the settlement with high intensity of participation, there was a smooth exchange of information, consultation and involvement of Indigenous people, particularly during the planning stage. Poor implementation, characterised by a lack of consultation and follow-up, as well as minimal funding and benefits, affected the enthusiasm of the Indigenous people to participate. This was identified as one of the main challenges affecting the sustainability of the JFM programme in the areas where it is implemented.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the present study, the main factors that influenced Indigenous participation were awareness, rights and benefits, power sharing, distance and socio-economic policies. Awareness about the project through camps, campaigns, meetings, and self-help group discussions has resulted in consistently high participation from the indigenous people in the settlements. Participation was found to be highest in those Indigenous settlements where rights were most established, and which also benefited most from the management systems and activities. Although power sharing between the Indigenous community and the forest department was generally low, the settlement with high participation intensity exhibited better and more consistent power sharing in terms of involvement in forest management planning and adherence to rules and regulations. In the case of remote forest settlements, the distance to JFMC/village meeting locations acted as a barrier to information sharing, awareness initiatives and ultimately participation. Among the socio-economic upliftment policies focused on Indigenous peoples, education was found to have the most negative impact on participation in the settlements studied.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJFM was implemented in India through the state governments, which gave the states some authority to modify the provisions of the agreements slightly in terms of the rights and benefits shared with the communities. This resulted in variations in the outcomes of JFM across the country. Apart from this, variations in outcomes at the state level were also caused by the interplay of local/contextual factors. Inconsistent and unclear policies were found to affect the collection of NTFPs by Indigenous peoples, ultimately limiting their dependence on the forest and causing a major shift in their way of life. It was also noted that there are currently very few employment opportunities for Indigenous people in forest management activities. The forest department's forest management practices under JFM have been criticised for not fully aligning with environmental sustainability principles. The study therefore proposes the active and effective involvement of Indigenous peoples in forest management programmes, incorporating appropriate power- and knowledge-sharing mechanisms to integrate their traditional practices and knowledge. This would help to achieve JFM's dual objectives of forest conservation and empowerment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eLK \u0026ndash; research conceptualisation, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing and editing; DV \u0026ndash; research supervision and supervision for manuscript writing and editing; MB \u0026ndash; research supervision and manuscript editing; ASS \u0026ndash; manuscript preparation and editing\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndigenous People and other experts who have provided relevant information during focus group discussions and key informant interviews are deeply acknowledged. We also thank (late) Prof. Dr. Harald Kaechele for his support during the conceptualisation of the research idea and for the constant support provided by him.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgrawal A, Chhatre A (2006) Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Dev 34:149\u0026ndash;166. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmbus L, Hoberg G (2011) The evolution of devolution: A critical analysis of the community forest agreement in British Columbia. Soc Nat Resour 24:933\u0026ndash;950. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2010.520078\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08941920.2010.520078\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArnstein SR (1969) A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. J Am Inst Plann 35:216\u0026ndash;224. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/01944366908977225\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaginski OS, Blaikie P (2013) Forests people and power: The political ecology of reform in South Asia, 1st edn. ISBN 9781138001992. Routledge India\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBasu JP (2021) Forest participation of local communities: a study of a tribal dominated region in India. J Soc Econ Dev 23(1):180\u0026ndash;201. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-020-00142-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s40847-020-00142-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorgoyary M, Saigal S, Peters NI (2005) Participatory Forest Management in India: A Review of Policies and Implementation. Working Paper No 1. Winrock International India, New Delhi. 1\u0026ndash;56\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarson S, Kentatchime F, Nana E et al (2018) Indigenous Peoples\u0026rsquo; Concerns About Loss of Forest Knowledge: Implications for Forest Management. Conserv Soc 16:431. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_17_105\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4103/cs.cs_17_105\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChahyana I, Hutomo P, Hernawan E, Titisari P (2024) The role of indigenous people to the viability of traditional forest management: A case study from Imbo Putui Customary Forest. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 1297:012091. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1297/1/012091\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1088/1755-1315/1297/1/012091\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChifamba E (2013) Confronting the challanges and barriers to community participation in rural development initiatives in Buhera district, Ward 12 Zimbabwe. Basic Res J Agric Sci Rev ISSN 2(7):2315\u0026ndash;6880\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChukwu VE, Chukwu VE, Bada SO (2019) Assessment of Community Participation in Forestry in Onigambari Forest Reserve. Int J Res Innov Soc Sci 2454\u0026ndash;6186\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChun YW, Tak K-I (2009) Songgye, a traditional knowledge system for sustainable forest management in Choson Dynasty of Korea. Ecol Manage 257:2022\u0026ndash;2026. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.11.038\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.foreco.2008.11.038\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCleetus B (2023) Education and Womens Identity: Missionary Initiatives and State Intervention in Early Twentieth Century Kerala. Curr Res J Soc Sci Humanit 6:87\u0026ndash;100. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.12944/CRJSSH.6.1.07\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.12944/CRJSSH.6.1.07\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoulibaly-Lingani P, Savadogo P, Tigabu M, Oden P-C (2011) Factors influencing people\u0026rsquo;s participation in the forest management program in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Policy Econ 13:292\u0026ndash;302. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.02.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.forpol.2011.02.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDebnath (2010) The role of formal and informal institutions in livelihood generations: A micro-study in the Forest Development Agency of Hoshangabad in Madhya Pradesh. www.rcdcindia.org\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDyer J, Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Leventon J, Nshimbi M, Chama F et al (2014) Assessing participatory practices in community-based natural resource management: Experiences in community engagement from southern Africa. J Environ Manage 137:137\u0026ndash;145. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.057\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.057\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdward A, Ellis, Karen A, Kainer et al (2014) Community-based forest management in Quintana Roo, Mexico, Forests under pressure: local responses to global issues. In: Katila Pia, Galloway Glenn, Jong Wil de, Pacheco Pablo GM (ed) Forests Under Pressure \u0026ndash; Local Responses To Global Issues. International Union of Forest Research Organization (IUFRO), Vienna Austria, pp 131\u0026ndash;151\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEgunyu F, Reed MG, Sinclair AJ, Parkins JR, Robson JP (2020) Public engagement in forest governance in Canada: whose values are being represented anyway? Can J Res 50:1152\u0026ndash;1159. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2020-0026\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1139/cjfr-2020-0026\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElias M, Grosse A, Campbell N (2020) Unpacking \u0026lsquo;gender\u0026rsquo; in joint forest management: Lessons from two Indian states. Geoforum 111:218\u0026ndash;228. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.02.020\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.02.020\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElisha G, Nzali A, Philipo F (2023) Socio-Cultural Factors Influencing Community Participation in the Joint Forest Management: A Case of Uzungwa Scarp Nature Forest Reserve, Tanzania. East Afr J Arts Soc Sci 6:158\u0026ndash;173. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.37284/eajass.6.2.1466\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.37284/eajass.6.2.1466\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (2019) FAO\u0026rsquo;s work with indigenous peoples in forestry. FAO, Rome, Italy. pp 1\u0026ndash;8 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca4293en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca4293en\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Accessed on Sep 2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (2020) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 Key findings. FAO Rome, Italy. pp 1\u0026ndash;8 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca8753en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca8753en\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Accessed on Sep 2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eForest Rights Act (2006) Rules and Guidelines. Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Gov of India and UNDP India, 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://forestrights.nic.in/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://forestrights.nic.in/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Accessed on Dec 2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eForest Declaration Assessment Partners (2024) Forests under fire: Tracking progress on 2030 forest goals. Climate Focus (coordinator and editor). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.forestdeclaration.org\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Accessed on Dec 2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eForest Tenure Funders Group (2023) Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Forest Tenure Pledge: Annual Report 2022\u0026ndash;2023. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://tinyurl.com/Forest-Tenure\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://tinyurl.com/Forest-Tenure\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Accessed on Oct 2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFoster BC, Wang D, Keeton WS, Ashton MS (2010) Implementing Sustainable Forest Management Using Six Concepts in an Adaptive Management Framework. J Sustain For 29:79\u0026ndash;108. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10549810903463494\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10549810903463494\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGovernment of India (2018) Report of the expert committee on tribal health. Tribal Health in India Bridging the Gap and a Roadmap for the Future. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi, India\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGovernment of Kerala (1963) Kerala Land Reform Act. Revenue Department, Kerala\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGregory S, Suma TR (2019) Gandhiji\u0026rsquo;s Vision of Grama Swaraj and the Kurichya Joint Farming System: The Development Experience and the Way Forward. Rajagiri J Soc Dev 11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGunter J, Mulke S (2012) Essential Background: A Short History of Community Forestry in British Columbia, The Community Forestry Guidebook II, Effective Governance and Forest Management. FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources British Columbia Community Forest Association\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuthiga P (2008) Understanding Local Communities Perceptions of Existing Forest Management Regimes of a Kenyan Rainforest. International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2008, 1(2):145\u0026ndash;166. ISSN 1979\u0026ndash;2611\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHansen MC, Potapov, Peter, Moore, Rebecca HM, Turubanova, Svetlana, Tyukavina, Alexandra TD, Stehman (2013) Stephen, Goetz, Scott, Loveland, Thomas, Kommareddy, Anil, Egorov, Alexey, Chini. L. In: Justice CO, Townshend J (eds) High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change, vol 342. Science, New York, N.Y., pp 850\u0026ndash;853. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1126/science.1244693\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/science.1244693\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIndia State of Forest Report (2023) Volume 1. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest \u0026amp; Cimate Change. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.fsi.nic.in\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Accessed on Oct 2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJames TC (2022) International Discussions on Indigenous People and India RIS Discussion Paper Series. www.ris.org.in\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJana SK, Lise W, Ahmed M (2014) Factors affecting participation in joint forest management in the West Bengal state of India. J Econ 20:317\u0026ndash;332. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2014.09.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jfe.2014.09.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJoint Forest Management: A handbook (2015) Ministry of Environment \u0026amp; Forests, Gov of India. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.nitiforstates.gov.in/public-assets/Policy/policy-repo/agriculture-and-allied-services/TNC493A000588.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.nitiforstates.gov.in/public-assets/Policy/policy-repo/agriculture-and-allied-services/TNC493A000588.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhedrizadeh M, Malelniya R, Adeli K, Henareh J (2017) Survey of barriers and potential field to involve local people in the forest management process (Case study: Local Communities in Nameshir, Baneh). J of Wood for Sci Technol, 2017; 24(3): 35\u0026ndash;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.22069/jwfst.2017.12024.1634\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.22069/jwfst.2017.12024.1634\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKrywkow J, Hare M (2008) Participatory process management. International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software. Integrating Sciences and Information Technology for Environmental Assessment and Decision Making International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKumar BS, Rai A (2021) Joint Forest Management and Community Participation: A Study in Indian Perspective. Indian J Law Justice 12(2):0976\u0026ndash;3570\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLuswaga H, Nuppenau EA (2020) Participatory Forest Management in West Usambara Tanzania: What Is the Community Perception on Success? Sustainability 12:921. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su12030921\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su12030921\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacKenzie C (1988) The challenges of participatory forest management in Sri Lanka. In Community forestry at a cross-roads: Reflections and future directions in the development of community forestry. Int Semin held Bangkok, 17\u0026ndash;19 July 1997, RECOFTC Rep 16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMahanty S, Guernier J (2010) A Fair Share? Sharing the Benefits and Costs of Collaborative Forest Management. Int Forestry Rev 11:268\u0026ndash;280. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1505/ifor.11.2.268\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1505/ifor.11.2.268\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarques M, Oliveira M, Borges JG (2020) An approach to assess actors\u0026rsquo; preferences and social learning to enhance participatory forest management planning. Trees People 2:100026. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100026\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100026\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartineau-Delisle C, Nadeau S (2010) Assessing the effects of public participation processes from the point of view of participants: Significance, achievements, and challenges. Chron 86:753\u0026ndash;765. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5558/tfc86753-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5558/tfc86753-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMasuda M, Mishiba J, Dhakal M (2005) Implementation of participatory forest management in Kerala, India. Tropics 14:323\u0026ndash;333. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3759/tropics.14.323\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3759/tropics.14.323\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMostert JC, Snyman MMM (2007) Knowledge management framework for the development of an effective knowledge management strategy. SA J Inf Manag 9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v9i2.25\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4102/sajim.v9i2.25\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMusyoki JK, Mugwe J, Mutundu K, Muchiri M (2016) Factors influencing level of participation of community forest associations in management forests in Kenya. J Sustain for 35:205\u0026ndash;216. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2016.1142454\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10549811.2016.1142454\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNegi S, Pham T, Karky B, Garcia C (2018) Role of Community and User Attributes in Collective Action: Case Study of Community-Based Forest Management in Nepal. Forests 9:136. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/f9030136\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/f9030136\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNimisha P (2018) Tribes of Kerala: a Case Study of Kurichyas of Kannavam. Bodhi Int J Res Humanit Arts Sci Vol.2:No.3. E-ISSN: 2456\u0026ndash;5571\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNuari AI, Hermawan S (2021) The Urgency of Strengthening the Rights and Participation of Indigenous Peoples in Realizing Sustainable Management of Customary Forest. Kanun J Ilmu Huk 23:399\u0026ndash;416. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.24815/kanun.v23i3.21881\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.24815/kanun.v23i3.21881\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOstrom E (2015) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Gov Commons Evol Institutions Collect Action 1\u0026ndash;280. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423936\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/CBO9781316423936\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaul S, Chakrabarti S (2011) Socio-economic issues in forest management in India. Policy Econ 13:55\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.08.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.forpol.2010.08.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrins K, K\u0026ouml;hl M, Linser S (2023) Is the concept of sustainable forest management still fit for purpose? \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103072\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103072\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. For Policy Econ 157:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamesh DK, Sreeja (2022) A comparative study between Kurichya and Paniya tribe. International Journal of Research. p-ISSN: 2348\u0026ndash;6848 e-ISSN: 2348-795X. Vol. 9 Issue 02\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRasche K, Krywkow J, Newig J, Hare M (2007) Assessing the intensity of participation along six dimensions. In: Paper Presented at the Conference CAIWA 12.-15.11.2007, Basel, Available online: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.macaulay.ac.uk/pathconference/outputs/PATH\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/pathconference/outputs/PATH\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e abstract 3.3.3.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReed MS, Vella S, Challies E, de Vente J, Frewer L et al (2018) A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restor Ecol 26:S7\u0026ndash;S17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/rec.12541\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRibot JC, Peluso NL (2003) A Theory of Access. Rural Sociol 68:153\u0026ndash;181. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichardson BJ (2021) The Ties that Bind: Indigenous Peoples and Environmental Governance. Indig Peoples Law. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5040/9781509955565.ch-013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5040/9781509955565.ch-013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobson M, Rosenthal J (2014) Evaluating the effectiveness of stakeholder advisory committee participation in forest management planning in Ontario, Canada. Forestry Chron 90:361\u0026ndash;370. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5558/tfc2014-070\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5558/tfc2014-070\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSavari M, Eskandari Damaneh H, Eskandari Damaneh H (2020) Factors influencing local people\u0026rsquo;s participation in sustainable forest management. Arab J Geosci 13:513. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05519-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12517-020-05519-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaxena NC (1997) The Saga of Participatory Forest Management in India. CIFOR Special Publication ISBN 979-8674-15-3. Centre For International Forestry Research. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.cgiar.org/cifor\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.cgiar.org/cifor\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchmidt MVC, Ikpeng YU, Kayabi T, Sanches RA, Ono KY et al (2021) Indigenous Knowledge and Forest Succession Management in the Brazilian Amazon: Contributions to Reforestation of Degraded Areas. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.605925\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/ffgc.2021.605925\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Front For Glob Chang 4:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchreckenberg K, Luttrell C, Moss C (2006) Participatory forest management: an overview. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=4321and\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=4321and\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchreckenberg K, Luttrell C, Moss C (2006) Participatory forest management: An overview. Retrieved from- \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://odi.cdn.ngo/media/documents/3781.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://odi.cdn.ngo/media/documents/3781.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSikor T, Ngoc Thanh T (2007) Exclusive versus inclusive devolution in forest management: Insights from forest land allocation in Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s Central Highlands. Land use policy 24:644\u0026ndash;653. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.04.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.04.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh S, Khare A (1993) People\u0026rsquo;s participation in forest management. Commonw Forestry Rev 72(4):279\u0026ndash;283. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/42606967\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.jstor.org/stable/42606967\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiraj M, Zhang K, Xiao W et al (2018) Does Participatory Forest Management Save the Remnant Forest in Ethiopia? Proc Natl Acad Sci India Sect B Biol Sci 88:1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-016-0712-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s40011-016-0712-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSuma (2014) Customry vs state laws of land governance: Adivasi joint family farmers seek policy support. Th case of Kurichya joint families in Wayanad, southern India. International Land Coalition Secretariat at IFAD Via Paolo di Dono, 44, 00142 - Rome, Italy. SBN: ISBN: 978-92-95105-06-5. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/279916821\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279916821\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTakahashi S (2008) Challenges for Local Communities and Livelihoods to Seek Sustainable Forest Management in Indonesia. J Environ Dev 17:192\u0026ndash;211. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1070496508316723\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1070496508316723\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeladia A, der Windt H (2022) A new framework for analysing local participation in community energy initiatives. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 1085:012034. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1085/1/012034\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1088/1755-1315/1085/1/012034\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThampuran MVS (2021) Present challenges in Joint Forest Management in India: A review. E-Planet 2:157\u0026ndash;168\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThilakan KTS (2018) Development Issues of Tribal Population: A Study among Paniya and Kurichiya Tribal Communities. Revisiting Strateg Growth Sustain Dev Dev 6:32\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1488505\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5281/zenodo.1488505\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTiwary M (2005) Panchayats versus Forest Protection Committees Equity and Institutional Complicance in Rural Development Forestry. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eorg/https://doi.org/10.2307/4416613\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/4416613\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Econ Polit Wkly. https://doi.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUllah A, Zeb A, Saqib SE, K\u0026auml;chele H (2022) Landscape co-management and livelihood sustainability: Lessons learned from the billion trees afforestation project in Pakistan. Land use policy 115:106034. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106034\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106034\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUN Forum on Forests Secretariat (2021) United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests 2030. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, www.un.org/esa/forests\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations, PDF) (2016) State of the World's Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Peoples' Access to Health Services. The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the UN. ISBN (: 9789210575553 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18356/7914b045-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18356/7914b045-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2021) The Global Forest Goals Report 2021 Realizing the Importance of Forests in a Changing World. ISBN (PDF): 9789214030515 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18356/9789214030515\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18356/9789214030515\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUpadhyay S (2003) JFM in India: some legal concerns. Econ Polit Wkly 38:3629\u0026ndash;3631\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVijayan D, Kaechele H, Girindran R et al (2021) Tropical forest conversion and its impact on indigenous communities Mapping forest loss and shrinking gathering grounds in the Western Ghats, India. Land use policy 102:105133. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105133\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105133\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhite A, Martin A (2002) Who owns the world\u0026rsquo;s forests? Forest tenure and public forests in transition. Forest Trends, Center for International Environmental Law. Washington DC, USA. ISBN 0-9713606-2-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWinberg E (2011) Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia, Practices and Experiences. FAO, Sub regional Office for Eastern Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.fao.org/3/a-aq407e.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.fao.org/3/a-aq407e.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWollenberg E, Edmunds D, Buck L, Fox J, Brodt S (2001) Social learning in community forests. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/18477\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://hdl.handle.net/10568/18477\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Accessed on Sep 2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWWF, Gagen MH, Dudley N, Jennings S, Timmins HL, BaldwinCantello W, D\u0026rsquo;Arcy L, Dodsworth JE, Fleming D, Kleymann H, Pacheco P, Price F (2023) The Forest Pathways Report. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. (Lead Authors)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWyatt S, Fortier JF, Martineau-Delisle C (2010) First nations\u0026rsquo; involvement in forest governance in Qu\u0026eacute;bec: The place for distinct consultation processes. Chron 86:730\u0026ndash;741. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5558/tfc86730-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5558/tfc86730-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYuan J, Liu J (2009) Fengshui forest management by the Buyi ethnic minority in China. For Ecol Manag 257(10):2002\u0026ndash;2009. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.040\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.040\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The term \u0026ldquo;Scheduled Tribes\u0026rdquo; refers to Indigenous communities that are identified by the Indian government as deserving special protections and benefits due to their socio-economic and educational backwardness. The Constitution of India, under Article 366(25), defines Scheduled Tribes as \u0026ldquo;such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Indigenous People, Community Participation, Kurichya Community, Participatory Forest Management, Joint Forest Management","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7810312/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7810312/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe participation of Indigenous communities in forest management has become a crucial component of the global effort to achieve conservation goals. However, involving all Indigenous communities in participatory management has proven challenging in a diverse country like India due to the complexity of its social and political landscape. The present study, based on qualitative surveys and descriptive statistical analysis, aims to analyse the intensity of participation of Indigenous people in the Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme and the factors influencing it, as well as its outcomes in the Kannavam forest, India. Results regarding participation intensity showed significant differences between the initial JFM implementation phase and the present day in the selected settlements. Although Indigenous peoples were involved in JFM, absolute decision-making authority and power-sharing were lacking in all settlements. The sustainability of the JFM programme was found to be affected by challenges such as benefit sharing and NTFT collection. Furthermore, JFM's co-management forest policy was noticed to have the unintended consequence of reducing Indigenous peoples' dependency on the forest. The study also showed that initial enthusiasm was often diminished by long-term management plans that lacked regular and adequate incentive support. This was observed to be one of the reasons for the underachievement of the stated JFM goals in most states where it is implemented. Despite the emphasis placed on the importance of Indigenous participation in JFM policies, the level of involvement was found to be limited in the area studied. Guided by the results of the analysis and the perspectives of Indigenous peoples, the study proposes the active involvement of Indigenous peoples in forest management programmes, incorporating appropriate mechanisms to integrate their practices and knowledge, which could help in achieving the dual objectives of conservation and empowerment.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in Joint Forest Management: Insights from the Western Ghats, India","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-07 13:15:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7810312/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"400b84d2-a6e2-40a0-8d11-da61182911ed","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 7th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-30T07:09:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-07 13:15:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7810312","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7810312","identity":"rs-7810312","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}