Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report
and issues raised by people with regard to networking. Delhi being the capital city, with greater access to
communications, policy makers and, presumably, to international activity, we felt it would also provide a
useful contrast to network activity in different states.
Definitions of Community Forestry: India has a vast range of socio-political environments in which CF has
taken on diverse forms and meanings. It was essential that the project as a whole adopted the widest
possible definition of ‘community forestry’. In West Bengal the term connotes the official Joint Forest
Management (JFM) programme with the FD playing a key role. In Madhya Pradesh it emerged that the
term ‘community forestry’ has strong political implications of community ownership of forests, with FD
officials often opposing the term, claiming that such a thing did not exist in the state and that JFM was the
only possible paradigm with the FD playing a key role. Activists in the state also rejected the term
‘community forestry’ to describe JFM, with an almost unanimous opinion that community participation in
JFM was a myth propagated by the FD. For both parties, the term ‘community forestry’ implied a rejection
of official involvement in forest management, with the FD feeling threatened by it and activists feeling
disillusioned that ‘true’ CF had not come to pass. Thus this report has taken a broad working definition of
CF, and refers to CF as meaning community participation in forest management, ranging from officially
sanctioned JFM to community-led initiatives in forest management. The specific connotations of CF within
a state should become clear within the individual state reports that follow.
Method of gathering information: The primary method of gathering information was interviews with
individuals from a range of sectors, mainly government officials, NGOs, activists, academics and donor
representatives. An attempt was made to contact as many individuals as possible, who are key players in
the CF context in a particular state or in Delhi. In addition to this, lists of network members in India were
obtained from the Asia Forest Network (AFN), Forest Trees and People Programme (FTPP), Rural
Development and Forestry Network (RDFN) and RECOFTC. Some of these members were contacted.
Most often, however, there was an overlap with individuals already identified by us as key players in CF. It
was felt that to get an accurate picture of the reach, visibility and value of international networks, it was
important to identify interviewees through the networks themselves, as well as to separately identify those
who are key players in CF, whether or not they are formal members of any network. Interviews were
generally conducted one-to-one, on the basis of pre-prepared questionnaires. The basic format of the
questionnaire has been included in Appendix 3, though changes were made according to the context of the
state and the background of the interviewee.
Workshops were not conducted during the country study because we felt that the time spent in coordinating
a gathering of people would not be justified, given the limited amount of time available for the
study. This decision was to a large extent taken on the basis of the cultural context where people often do
not give specific appointments well in advance. Despite contacting people well in advance of field visits, it
was usually not possible to fix specific appointments till we actually reached the place, and even then
people would often not commit to a time even a day in advance. Such a situation would have created
logistical difficulties in trying to have a meeting, with limited time available for organisation. Secondly, in
a group discussion or workshop it would have been difficult for the researchers to follow the discussion if it
lapsed into the local language. It was felt that a group discussion would not be much use if the researcher
had to rely on a translator. Given these drawbacks, it was felt that better use could be made of the limited
time, and information could be obtained in a more systematic and detailed manner, by conducting
individual interviews rather than workshops or group discussions. Nevertheless, a very small, informal
group discussion with three people was organised in Delhi as a ‘brainstorming’ session to get a preliminary
idea of what responses were evoked by a discussion on international networks. Where possible, the
researchers tried to attend ongoing workshops.
Prior to the field visits, literature surveys were done to acquaint ourselves with the context, and during the
field visit published or grey literature was collected. Within the states, a few brief visits to rural field sites
were undertaken. Due to time constraints, this was mainly for the researcher to establish a context to
network activity, rather than to collect information on networks. Given the limited amount of time
available, local assistants in each state proved invaluable for recommending relevant interviewees, setting
up appointments and facilitating travel.
5