Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report
of Forests (West); W. Bengal JFM Nodal Officer.); Aren Ghosh, (IFS, Additional Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests - Development and Planning); Subhabrata Palit (Forestry Consultant; IFS Retd., Ex-
Chief Conservator of Forests, West Bengal); Narendra Kumar Pandey (IFS, Conservator of Forests,
Personnel Management Cell; Member W. Bengal JFM Cell); Lipika Ray (Divisional Forest Officer, ex-
Women’s Co-ordinator for JFM); and Vinod Kumar Yadav (IFS, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Wildlife
Division (South); Nodal officer for India Eco-development Project).
As in Madhya Pradesh, there was not much awareness of international or national networks among forest
officials, despite the fact that West Bengal has one of the longest histories of CF. Of 9 officials interviewed,
only 4 knew of specific international networks. The networks mentioned were RECOFTC, FTPP, RDFN
and AFN. There was least recognition of AFN, with only one person being aware of it. One person
mentioned CIFOR as a network that has been very relevant, particularly on NTFP-related information, and
expressed the hope that it would involve itself more closely with India. Two persons felt that networks
should provide funds. It was significant, however, that both were individuals without much awareness of
international network activities. Those aware of network activities tended to focus on the benefits of
networking and information exchange. This was also the case with the NGO sector, which did not see
funding as a primary use of networks.
The overall view among FD officials was that national or regional networks are more important, and that
international networks can play mainly a supporting and indirect role through providing information and a
network of contacts.
3.4.1 (a) Communication and Information Dissemination (Newsletters / Publications / Email)
Reach and impact of communication:
The FD as an institution has not been targeted by international networks. Network publications do not reach
most forest officials, since most are sent to headquarters rather than to the field. It was felt that publications
are sent to individuals who are already aware of such things, or who are known to networks, or who make
the effort to request for publications on an individual basis. Thus network information may have been used
‘officially’ or affected policy, only if an individual made the effort to cull out the information and use it in
writing papers or giving presentations in workshops. One person felt that since the example of CF in Nepal
has been influential in India, and had been cited in many papers, networks may have played a role in
providing information on this. Two persons mentioned that international networking was restricted to the
top-most hierarchy of the FD, since other levels of the FD often do not have access to computers or
computer skills. There is no mechanism to ensure that information received at the top will trickle down:
“Even if bosses have information from networks, it is not disseminated downwards – it is not possible
unless there is a particular cell to do the job of disseminating information in the FD. Networks will work
only when range-level people have access to information and computers. The people who can really use the
information, do not get it. Therefore networks do not help CF. Regional networks would be more useful.”
Of course, the point about information not trickling down through the FD is due to the internal functioning
of the FD. However, networks would need to take into account the modalities of FD functioning for
effective and informed targeting of the FD as an institution.
Comments on specific networks were as follows: One person had been receiving AFN publications
previously, but had nothing sent to him for the last two years. His opinion was that the network was not in
touch with the grassroots reality in India. Regarding FTPP, two persons commented that the newsletter was
irregularly sent, and that its reach was limited because it was not sent to the field. Often people complained
of irregular delivery of newsletters and publications. Some were still waiting for FTPP newsletters, and
were not aware that FTPP activities had ceased.
Content:
It may be that in the present form, network information is not of enough use to FD officials, particularly
those who spend much of their time in the field. 2 officials were of the opinion that a lot of network
information may be more suitable for researchers, and that field workers would need information that is
very focussed and directly relevant: “Professional foresters cannot spend so much time going through all
these journals. We are not researchers, we have to go back to the field and work. So we focus attention only
46