Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report
Director of M.P. Community Forest Management Project); Dr Gopa Pandey (IFS, Conservator of Forests –
Development), BMS Rathore (IFS, CF Seoni).
Of 8 officials interviewed, 3 were not aware of any national networks, 4 were not aware of any
international networks, and none were aware of any state-level networking. There was most awareness of
AFN, RECOFTC, FTPP, and to a small degree, WRM. Other networks which people had only heard of, but
had no further knowledge of, were GFC and IUCN WG-CIFM. The only person with significant experience
of RECOFTC is an ex-director of IIFM, and has been included in the “academics” section above. Once
again, this points to the fact that the reach of networks seems to be limited to those forest officials in the
academic circuit.
Overall, the level of interaction with networks was low, and restricted to reading publications and
newsletters. A few individuals knew of AFN publications, one person knew of RECOFTC case study
papers, while two people commented on the FTPP newsletter.
2.4.4 (a) Communication and Information Dissemination (Newsletters, Publications, Email)
Content:
The main point regarding content of publications and newsletters was the feeling that networks relied too
much on NGO documentation, leading to a lop-sided view of things. It was felt that international networks
tended to protect a certain kind of idea, where CF could only be praised, without talking about any
shortcomings (a similar point had been raised by an academic who felt that there was much to learn from
the failures of CF, which networks did not give enough information about). A related point was raised by
two academics, who felt that there was a bias of networks towards NGOs, and only those individuals or
NGOs who were “anti-FD” were encouraged. In particular RECOFTC was mentioned as an example. All
felt that by ignoring the FD, international networks were bypassing a key player in CF, and thus reducing
their own effectiveness.
One official said that network information was more relevant for academic purposes, and so did not matter
in the big picture. Even though networks had focussed on issues like gender, it did not translate into any
difference on the ground. She felt that networks should extend more positive information and guidance
rather than just publishing material.
As far as individual networks are concerned, there were comments about the FTPP newsletter. It was found
to be useful by two people because it had (1) relevant case studies, especially on the Asia-Pacific region;
and (2) a focus on the institutional aspect of CF, which is crucial in FD-community relations. On the other
hand it was also felt that the newsletter did not focus enough on South Asia, even though the region has
vast experience of CF.
Reach and impact of communications:
Among three officials and two academics there was a strong feeling that international networks did not
attempt to target forest officials. (As noted, half the officials interviewed were not aware of any
international networks). In terms of practical implementation international networks were often seen as not
relevant, largely because (1) they seemed to bypass forest officials who are the main players in forestry:
“Networks don’t send information to the actual implementers, i.e. government departments. Therefore
networks are often not in touch with ground realities and constraints. For this they need to interact with
forest officials who are working at grassroots level. There are 33 state FDs. Networks should concentrate
on these as nodal points rather than on central departments, because the Government of India does not
systematically transmit information to state FDs.” Another official remarked, “Government officials should
be targeted because they are the official custodians of the forests. You can’t wish away the FD. No network
which is oblivious of the FD is going to succeed.” It was noted that no network had any interaction with
IGNFA, despite the fact that it was the main training institute for the Indian Forest Service.
It was also felt that it is necessary to target and capture political will for change to come about quickly. One
official remarked that though networks had greatly influenced her point of view, her voice could not carry
much weight in terms of policy.
35