Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report
The network was successful in pushing for policy change to some extent, such as advocating for the
creation of a JFM Cell in the MoEF. The G&E sub-group successfully lobbied for ensuring that most state
JFM orders had specific provisions for women’s representation in the general body committees and
executive committees of JFM groups. Network pressure played a part in ensuring that the revised
guidelines of 2000 required that at least 50% of general body members and 33% of managing committee
members of all JFM committees were women. It played a role in pushing for the inclusion of good,
standing forests (as opposed to only degraded forests) within JFM. The network also lobbied successfully
some years ago, against a suggestion by the government to increase afforestation by leasing out forest lands
to industries so that industries could grow their own raw materials 25 . The general feeling among
interviewees was that the SPWD-JFM Network contributed significantly towards popularising JFM across
the country and facilitating exchange about research into, and experiences of, JFM thereby leading to an
increased understanding of the implementation, potential and drawbacks of JFM. From a small group of 30
Ford grantees, the network expanded to over a hundred members from NGOs, donor agencies, research and
academic institutions, and to a slightly lesser extent, forestry officials and policy makers. However the
network remained informal without any fixed criteria of membership, and no clear agreement between subnetworks
and the SPWD regarding the mandate of the sub-networks. Eventually, this lack of clarity about
mandates became a serious drawback, resulting in confusion over the rights and responsibilities of
members and sub-network co-ordinators, hindering efficiency and participation.
As the membership of the network grew, the NSG found it increasingly difficult to cater to the diverse
demands and expectations of members, such as funding, logistical and research support. The routing of
Ford funding created some confusion - while some funding was made available to sub-networks through
the SPWD’s NSG, at other times Ford directly funded sub-networks for their activities. There were also
complaints of inadequate follow-up on decisions taken, and poor quality control.
In 1997, the Report of the JFM Network Review Committee noted various drawbacks of the network:
“While the Network has been able to respond to changing JFM issues, its progress has been
dependent mainly on the availability and consistency of NSG support and on the voluntary, if
sporadic, efforts of a small core of committed members. Despite its expansion and seeming
success in focussing attention on conceptual and practical aspects of JFM, the Network has had
little impact on state and national forestry policy. Moreover, while the Network has been able to
bring together NGOs and researchers, it has not been able to successfully interface with
government forest departments, the largest implementer of JFM programs in the country. Neither
has it effectively established and institutionalised links with JFM communities and grassroots
organisations.” 26
However, one of the committee members interviewed, felt that the report “did not capture the essence of
the committee’s deliberations”, and that the SPWD-JFM network “did have an impact on both state and
national policies. There were always a large number of forest officers who were network participants”.
Today the SPWD-JFM network is almost inactive, though individual sub-networks carry out some
activities. In 1998 the national network was decentralised into four regional networks – Northern, Southern,
Eastern and Western, co-ordinated by four regional offices of the SPWD. All are at a rudimentary stage but
the eastern region is the most advanced. As described in the section on West Bengal, the aim now is to
create regional networks of FPCs.
25 Pers comm. S.Palit.
26 Palit S, Singh N, Sarin M, Ravindranath, Capistrano D. 1997. Report of the JFM Network Review
Committee. SPWD. New Delhi. p.2.
12