Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report
There were differing expectations of international networks, and therefore differing views as to the
potential of networks. One person felt that international networks should put more emphasis on establishing
contact with young people, such as IIFM graduates – “CF is not something to be learned in one year – it’s a
complete attitude change. So networks should target more young people instead of ‘grandfathers’ [of CF]…
and they should learn from younger, creative ideas so that young people can later take over networks.” This
was a significant point since IIFM has been a hub of international network activity that should theoretically
have reached out to students in a more direct way. It is not clear to what extent this has happened, since
students were not interviewed. Perhaps an area for further investigation would be to look at to what extent
network activity permeates through an institution (rather than being restricted to a few individuals), and
whether networks should take active steps to promote this, rather than take a ‘domino effect’ for granted.
As far as individual networks are concerned, it was felt by one person that the aims of AFN were too
academic, and that the primary objective of a network should be capacity building of field staff.
2.4.3 (b) Workshops
Lack of follow-up after workshops was a problem mentioned by interviewees. One person noted that FTPP
meetings were very good and dynamic, and that the network should be revived. Especially helpful was the
framing of “top ten” FTPP activities at meetings. However, though several plans would be drawn up during
FTPP annual meetings, rarely were any followed up or implemented, often due to lack of funding support,
which led to frustration among participants. A similar point was raised about meetings held by AFN in the
Philippines and Surajkund, after which there was not much follow-up, and therefore were perceived as not
being of much use.
2.4.3 (c) Training and Capacity Building
FTPP/RECOFTC was the only international network identified with training and capacity building. The
training collaboration between IIFM and FTPP/RECOFTC has now come to an end. There were varied
opinions on the subject, and some sense of hurt was apparent due to a feeling that RECOFTC had somehow
cut itself off from the collaboration for unclear reasons. One perception was that it was because IIFM was
viewed by RECOFTC as a competing training institute in South Asia. Comments and criticisms on training
and capacity building by networks have been included thematically below.
Content:
A general point on training manuals made by one academic was that it was not possible to use generic
manuals especially within the FD, which normally prepares its own. He said it was also important to have a
government seal of approval on training manuals. Almost none of the interviewees had awareness of
training manuals of any network.
In general there were no criticisms about the content of RECOFTC training programmes (one interviewee
praised the curriculum as being “exhaustive but compact”), except for one comment that it did not explore
a range of CF, instead focussing too much on management issues.
Reach and impact of training:
There were extensive comments about RECOFTC from various people, listed below. Many related to a
common theme - that the training did not reach the right people, or that it excluded some people:
• One person commented that there was too much focus on sponsoring SE Asian participants for
training. Two persons felt that there was no balanced regional representation, even though South
Asian countries have more experience in CF to offer.
• A related point was that RECOFTC had limited involvement in India for training, which mainly
involved organising two workshops with IIFM, SPWD and IBRAD. It was felt that this could have
only a limited effect.
• RECOFTC is a ‘closed’ network that tends to cater to a ‘clique’ of chosen people – “I’ve tried
many times to go there for a workshop, or go to contribute a paper. But when it comes to financial
support, they only support a chosen few. They should keep track of how many times a person has
been, and give an opportunity to others.” This observation was borne out by another interviewee
32