Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report on things that are absolutely relevant to our work. Some papers are good for researchers but not necessarily for people in the field.” Similarly, another official remarked, “I am not a researcher, I want information that can be implemented in the field.” This view was endorsed by an NGO representative who felt that network information is mainly aimed at researchers and development workers: “FD officials are administrators – very few would be interested in such articles.” In a related point, it was also felt that network information is usually too sophisticated to be used directly at grassroots level. Information would be more useful if it were easier to read. In terms of specific networks, the newsletters of RDFN, FTPP and RECOFTC were generally appreciated. Three people received the FTPP newsletter, and felt that it had been useful. Useful features of the newsletter were cited as being information on workshops and seminars; information on FAO reports which the interviewee would use to acquire relevant reports; good documentation which is lacking in West Bengal; relevance in the field as well as outside the field. One person felt that the FTPP newsletter had shaped his thinking to some extent. One complaint was that contributors were mainly from the NGO or research sector, with hardly any contributions by professional foresters. Significantly, though, the same person admitted that he prefers writing articles for Indian journals such as Wasteland News, because the readership within India is far better: “Not everyone has access to journals like FTPP.” It may be, therefore, that there is a vicious circle in operation in terms of the reach of network information – newsletters do not reach a wide enough range of people, which means that fewer people would take the trouble to contribute articles or information, which means that the content is not as relevant to the context as it could be, which in turn prevents the newsletter from reaching out to a wider audience. It may be useful to examine this issue in detail in the future. Two persons receive the RDFN newsletter, with varying responses. While one felt it was marginally useful, another felt that it was very relevant, not too theoretical and had been an influence on him. A complaint about RDFN was that there was not enough information on India. One person was very enthusiastic about the RDFN directory of members and RDFN thematic papers. The profile of members with details of special interest in the directory was a useful tool for networking: “I have written to many people asking for information about workshops, newsletters from other countries, etc. RDFN also sends emails of new members along with the telephone number.” Another point about RDFN that was appreciated was that thematic papers were sent regularly, and sent according to the interest of the member, which is to be specified in advance. This meant that thematic papers received were always relevant and of interest. One person received the RECOFTC newsletter, and found it very useful for information on workshops, seminars and fellowships. Though he does not receive it regularly anymore, he accesses new issues on the internet. AFN publications were seen as not too useful because they presented too general a picture, and tended to focus on SE Asia. Tools of Communication / 2-way Flow of Communication: Hard copy publications were favoured as being the easiest tool of communication. Two persons felt that email excluded too many people from networks, such as lower level FD officials. In this context, the suggestion of one person to use CD-ROMs to circulate information, seems inappropriate. It was also felt that workshops as a method of communication, tend to reach too few people. Overall there seemed to be hardly any two-way flow between FD members and networks. None of the interviewees had ever contributed to newsletters, though one had made use of the RDFN directory to make contact with other members. One person had occasionally contributed to FTPP email discussions. Overall the relationship with networks seems to be one of receiving information. Potential: Most comments on the potential of networks focussed on improving the content of information disseminated. Some of the suggestions were as follows: • CF in India is very dependent on successful management of NTFP. Networks should put together information on NTFP management from around the world and circulate it. • Networks should circulate information about lesser-known funding agencies that can support projects. 47
Page 1 and 2: Learning from International Communi
Page 45: Learning from International Communi

Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?