Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report Another criticism of the MoEF-JFM network centred on the lack of sufficient grassroots representation in the network and the feeling that it had become ‘sarkari’ or bureaucratic. Networking, which ideally should be a forum where stakeholders meet on an equal footing, may be hindered by the history of traditional conflict between the FD and NGOs - in Delhi during a MoEF-JFM network meeting, the researchers observed that the FD representatives were absent from the room for long periods, leaving the NGO representatives to discuss issues, rather than engaging in a dialogue with them. The feeling of frustration at this was made clear when a participant remarked to the chair, “If it is just a question of presenting proposals [to the FD] we could have sent them by post. There was no need for us to come all the way to Delhi.” This is not to generalise from the experience of one network meeting, but it does illustrate the deficiencies of networking in a hierarchical setting, and is illustrative of the wider problem in NGO-FD relations. However, the MoEF-JFM Network is an important initiative to bring together the FD and NGOs for dialogue and policy feedback, and it may still be early days to judge the success of this. Foresters’ Network Origins: Initiated by WWF-India in 1998, this network had a very short life. The reasons for its existence and demise are instructive. It was felt that since the SPWD-JFM National Network was dominated by NGOs, there was no adequate platform for forest officers to share ideas and experiences of JFM. A platform was needed where younger forest officers could speak frankly without feeling intimidated by the presence of senior officers. The Foresters’ Network was initiated by WWF-India to fill this gap. Once again, the Ford Foundation was instrumental in supporting this initiative. Functioning: All state governments were requested to nominate two forest officers for the network. The only meeting ever organised by WWF was in 1998, comprising of 60 forest officers. Thereafter the network quickly lost pace, and ceased to exist. To a large extent this was due to a lack of official patronage from the MoEF. Raina notes that the MoEF “felt the process somehow subverted the formal approval of the MoEF, thus undermining the official position of the government. It was also felt that the MoEF, and not an external agency like WWF-India, should have started such a network.” 30 This observation was corroborated in interviews conducted for this study. 1.5 Summary of International Network Activities in India 31 Asia Forest Network (AFN): The AFN is not very active in India at present, due to a lack of resources. (It is currently active in South-East Asia.) The network was begun by Dr. Mark Poffenberger after his departure from Ford Foundation India. He had already been closely involved in promoting CF in India within a circle of NGO representatives, bureaucrats and academics who thereafter came to be associated with the AFN. The AFN was most active in India between 1991 and 1997. AFN’s South Asia regional office was based at WWF-India, co-ordinated by Arvind Khare in 1995-96. DN Pandey at IIFM, Bhopal, took over this role from 1999-2000. Currently there is no co-ordinator in India. The aims of AFN as described by the last co-ordinator were: (1) sharing information among stakeholders, NGOs and policymakers; (2) bringing likeminded people together for discussion; (3) supporting JFM. A fundamental goal was to provide good quality, reliable research. AFN held only one major meeting in India, at Surajkund in 1996 with international participants. There was not much follow-up to the meeting, but a report of proceedings was produced, entitled “Linking Government with Community Resource Management: What’s Working and What’s Not.” Network membership was very loose. There was a focus on bringing out publications based on research done by members. Several case studies were published in association with RECOFTC and IIFM. An India-specific manual on Manual GIS (on Orissa, Rajasthan, and West Bengal) was published as well. This was a result of a training programme held in 1993, Udaipur, with over 50 participants mainly from the FD, and some from NGOs. The feedback on the training, which was conducted in Hindi, was good, but it is not known whether the training was used at ground level. A study on carbon sequestration was published in the latter part of 2001, prepared by Dr. Mark Poffenberger, DN 30 Raina, R. 2001. Study on Networks in Community Forestry in India. Unpublished report. IIFM. 31 The international networks listed in this section have been examined separately as part of CIFOR’s study. For detailed information on the activities and objectives of these networks, please refer to the network reports on the CIFOR website (http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/scripts/default.asp?ref=highlights/cf.htm) 14
Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report Pandey and Dr Rabindranath. A monograph on experiences of CF in Eastern India was published in collaboration with researchers at IIFM. Some of the publications were translated into Oriya and Hindi, but not to a great extent. In West Bengal Dr. Mark Poffenberger collaborated with Prof. SB Roy of IBRAD on mapping and techniques of cluster analysis (e.g. how a number of villages share their resources, etc.) Publications were shared with various organisations and individuals. Many AFN activities were centred in Orissa in the past. One of the problems of interviewing people about AFN activities was that not many people make the distinction between the activities of AFN and Dr. Mark Poffenberger. In this sense, the AFN did not seem to have a strong identity as a network. One of the reasons may also have been the informal nature of membership. Links with national networks: While in Ford, Dr. Mark Poffenberger was instrumental in encouraging and supporting the formation of the SPWD-JFM national network. Thereafter the AFN kept in close touch with individuals active within the national network. He was also instrumental in initiating the Foresters’ Network. Regional Community Forestry Training Centre (RECOFTC) and Forest Trees and People Programme (FTPP): There has been a great deal of overlap between the activities of RECOFTC and FTPP in India, because the FTPP programme in India has been routed through RECOFTC, which acted as the regional nodal point. Most people do not distinguish between the activities of the two networks, and often use the names interchangeably. However, people did distinguish between the two networks with regard to their newsletters, and RECOFTC’s independent training programmes in Bangkok. Three institutes collaborated closely with RECOFTC/FTPP – IIFM, SPWD and IBRAD, from the mid-1990s up to 2000. The origin of the collaboration was an invitation from FTPP to IBRAD and SPWD representatives to attend the first regional FTPP network meeting in RECOFTC (Bangkok), where there were representatives from 7-8 other countries as well. The participants were told that FTPP was starting a network with the objective of periodically sharing experiences and facilitating training activities, and that the network would also provide some small grants for network activities in the different countries. It was decided that the network would meet annually in different member countries. However there was never a meeting organised in India because this would have excluded members from Pakistan (and vice-versa). IIFM joined the network at a later stage. The main collaboration with RECOFTC was in conducting two ‘travelling’ international training programmes on “Participatory Forest Resource Assessment (PFRA) and Planning”, with participants from different parts of Asia. Over 21 days, the trainees spent 6 days each in Delhi (SPWD), Bhopal (IIFM) and Calcutta (IBRAD). It was an expensive programme, costing about US $4000 per participant. The objectives of the course were to “develop skills in PFRA and monitoring; increase understanding on approaches and methods in implementing PFRA; and identify ways to apply strategies and approaches learned in the course back in the participants’ own work situation.” 32 In 1999 two Indian forest officers and one SPWD representative were sponsored for training. Judging from an evaluation done for the 1998 programme, the responses to the training were mixed. While field work was perceived as mostly well organised and content was overall interesting with useful material being given out, negative comments included badly presented lectures, bad time-keeping, and dominating resource persons. 33 In 1996-97 IIFM developed several case studies required for the training programme, in collaboration with RECOFTC. A writing workshop was organised twice with RECOFTC, with AFN partially supporting the effort. Participants from Asia, including India, visited RECOFTC in Bangkok and wrote about 10 case studies while there, on different subjects like conflicts, NTFP or institutional aspects of CF, for the Asian region. A format was also developed for writing case studies for trainers to use as teaching material. One of the case studies written at IIFM was on self-initiated forest protection by communities in Kudada 32 Anon. 1999. Pamphlet on training course on “Participatory Forest Resource Assessment and Planning.” RECOFTC. Bangkok. 33 Fuller, J. 1998. Participatory Resource Assessment and Planning, India 1998 RECOFTC / IIFM/ IBRAD /SPWD Course Review. Unpublished. 15
Page 1 and 2: Learning from International Communi
Page 13: Learning from International Communi
Page 65 and 66:
Learning from International Communi
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
show all

Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?