Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report
‘outsider’ or ‘foreign’ entity, which has its centre somewhere else. Both these reasons are closely
tied to the larger issue of the origins and the process of formation of a network. An interviewee
who was very closely involved with international and national networks in the past, had come to
the conclusion that international networks are “totally irrelevant because the agenda is not made
by its constituents. The formulation process of a network directly affects what the network does
and how relevant it is. If someone in some part of the world decides that they will have a network,
and they pick up a local partner, it does not work. You have to see what is the lowest common
denominator in the priorities of a country. But this has never happened.” Another person
commented, “Many people are suspicious of networks, especially if they have not been involved
in the formation of that network. People feel that networks take away their information, publish
material and gain publicity… A network that emerges when the need is felt at the local level and
then expands outwards is likely to be more effective than a network that is formed at the top and is
trying to reach the grassroots.” The second reason perhaps has to do with the way many Indians
view themselves and their own identity. Several people mentioned that it was very difficult for
outsiders to tell people in India what to do, because it was resented as being ‘foreign’. Two
persons mentioned the AFN as an example of a network that is seen as being an ‘outsider’. The
suggestion was that such a network would need to have a strong base in India and better country
representation. An interesting parallel was drawn with Winrock International: “AFN would need
to have a strong part of them present here, and it needs to be perceived as such… If AFN had been
doing what Winrock International is doing now, they wouldn’t have been seen as an external
organisation. Winrock does not seem external because the individuals involved in it are based here
and very well known.” Another comment was, “if AFN is working in India they would probably
be getting Californians here to do the work, or would hire Indians here to do it. But they should
have a nodal point or agency that is active. This is not happening in many networks – they are a bit
too centralised.” A related point was raised regarding the perception of networks as ‘foreign’
where, as opposed to simply having low effectiveness, they could perhaps create problems by
highlighting an indigenous cause or demand at international level, thereby opening up the space
for detractors to label the demand as a foreign lobby working against India’s development, for
example.
3) In contrast, it was felt that national or regional networks were far more effective and relevant in
impacting on policy and leading to changes on the ground. While several people felt that they had
personally benefited from the exposure offered by international networks in terms of information
gained or workshops and seminars, the impact of international networks in the larger picture
remained intangible. Comments on this were restricted to remarks to the effect that international
networks may have had only an indirect effect at grassroots or policy level.
4) Finally, there seemed to be a clique of people who were involved in national and international
networking activities. Time and again, the same names would be referred to. This may point to the
fact that international networks have a very narrow base, and have not succeeded in (or attempted)
expanding this base over the years. One person mentioned language as an impeding factor in
expanding this base: “Unless networks translate into local languages, how will they ever be able to
expand beyond the narrow circle of academics and donors?” Another impediment in expanding
this base was noted as being the decentralised nature of forest department activities. In a situation
where there is no central FD, and where each state FD has its own strong characteristics and
culture of functioning, international networks can be effective in reaching the FD as an institution
only if it directly targets state FDs. Otherwise, they have to rely on the initiative of individual
officers at the Centre, such as Dr VK Bahuguna, who (at the time of interview) is head of the JFM
Cell at the Centre, and has distributed copies of the IUCN WG-CIFM publication, “Communities
and Forest Management in South Asia”, to his officers.
Only one person gave specific comments on how networks could enhance their potential. Some of the
suggestions were: track whether countries are following international obligations like CBD; track the
impact of international commercial forces on forestry; assist in documenting trends in CF in India which
can be used as policy input; facilitate greater exchange of people for learning, between countries in the
region; facilitate local language translations and outreach; prepare concise information as lengthy
publications are rarely read, especially by government officials.
17