Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report irrigation management system. 121 Some of these tanks are roosting or nesting sites for endangered birds like the crested grebe. 122 Herons and sometimes Pelicans roost and breed in heronries established on old village trees and often protected by local villagers. Some examples of heronries include Vedurupattu in Nellore District, Uppalapadu in Guntur District and Nelapattu in Nellore District. 123 CF Efforts supported by NGOs and Donors Among the most well known examples of CF efforts in AP are the regeneration of degraded forests on hillocks under the jurisdiction of the revenue department (the government department that controls all land except the land under the FD) in the drought prone district of Anantpur. This effort by the communities has been facilitated and promoted by the NGO Anana Paryavaran Parirakshana (APP). Encouraged by the efforts in Anantpur, regeneration of revenue hillocks was also initiated by local NGOs and communities in Cuduppa district. These efforts have been supported by funding agencies such as OXFAM and Action for Food Production (AFPRO). About 150 acres of degraded landscape around Rishi Valley Education Centre in Rayalseema has been regenerated. This regeneration has been possible through the efforts of local farmers, NGOs and the school children of the Rishi Valley school. 124 4.3 State and District Level Networks AP has a large number of grassroots NGOs working on social, political, health and ecological issues. Only a few NGOs were involved in the forestry sector before the emergence of JFM. These include APP which promoted regeneration of revenue hills; Deccan Development Society (DDS) which helped in women’s empowerment through the social forestry programme; Samata which has been involved in issues of mining in forested areas and tribal rights; and some others. Except for the naxalite dominated Telangana region, district-level networks of NGOs are very common in AP. The history of emergence of NGO networks varies across districts. In Chittoor, Paja Prayavaran Prarakshan Udyaman (PPPU) is among the oldest networks. This network inspired many others in other districts. In some districts donor or channelling agencies such as the Centre for World Solidarity (CWS), OXFAM, Christian Aid and AFPRO have found that working with a network of small NGOs and individuals is an effective use of limited resources. Hence many networks were supported by these agencies. CWS supports a network of 26 grassroots level NGOs (including 6 NGOs headed by women) in 8 districts. Each of these NGOs is working with 10-15 FPCs. The main focus of CWS is on developing people oriented policies. Their main activities include capacity building, mediating between government and local agencies, and promoting women’s participation in forestry programmes. They have promoted many allwomen FPCs. 125 AFPRO is a channelling agency for funds from the Swiss Development Corporation and Christian Aid. AFPRO’s project plan is put into operation with the help of a network of grassroots level NGOs. AFPRO works mainly in Cuddapa District with 14 partner NGOs and 120 FPCs. The main focus is on capacity building and supporting small NGOs on a long-term basis. AFPRO also provides services to NGOs, sometimes on charge. AFPRO has been a part of APP working on regeneration of revenue hillocks in Anantpur district. 126 121 Sundar, N., R. Jeffery and N. Thin. 2001. Branching Out: Joint Forest Management in India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 122 Choudhury, B.C. and D. Mudappa. 1995. Wetland Conservation and Management in Andhra Pradesh – A Report for Andhra Pradesh-World bank Forestry Project Integrated Protected Area System Development. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. 123 ibid. 124 Rangaswami, S. 1998. Rishi Valley Experiment. Hindu Folio. September 1998. 125 Pers comm. with Suryakumari, Programme Officer, Centre for World Solidarity, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 2002. 126 Pers comm. with K. Siva Prasad, Unit Manager, Action for Food Production (AFPRO), Hyderabad. 2002. 60
Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report The World Bank-supported APFP appears to have encouraged NGOs to work on JFM issues, since it is the most actively promoted government programme with a greater promise of devolution of power than any other programme. Most NGOs working on JFM see their role as intermediaries helping in effective implementation of the programme. In recent years many NGOs have conducted critical assessments of JFM which have been given to the government and are used for lobbying. NGOs regularly participate in meetings organized by the FD or by donor agencies, and make their concerns heard. NGOs in AP coordinate with each other on various issues as is clear from the successful lobbying against leasing of forestland to industry in 2000. Most NGOs are networked with each other at range, district or state level. NGOs Committee on Participatory Forest Management In 1992, the fact that the FD had requested arms and ammunition in its proposed forestry programme came to light. Many NGOs working on tribal rights, encroachments, shifting cultivation, and the Save Eastern Ghats Movement, came together to lobby for promoting participatory forestry. This took shape into a network of NGOs involved in promoting JFM, which came to be known as APNGOs. Ford Foundation, Dr. Hiremath from Karnataka, Dr. A.K. Banerjee from West Bengal, and the National Support Group (NSG) of the SPWD-JFM network were among the main influences behind this network 127 . From 1992 to 1999, Centre for Environment Concerns (CEC), a Hyderabad-based NGO, functioned as the secretariat of the network. The initial financial support came from Christian Aid, OXFAM India Trust, Centre for World Solidarity (CWS), AFPRO, Action Aid and APFD. The Network was registered in December 2001. The Head Office is in Hyderabad. Currently financial support is through Inter Co-operation and OXFAM. APFD, AFPRO, CWS, and Action Aid continue to provide short term and activity-based support. The Network includes 200 NGOs spread over 17 districts, which form the General Body of the Network. All the networks mentioned above are also a part of the APNGO network. NGOs from each district elect three or four representatives for the State Committee, which is the main decision-making body. The Steering Committee or the Secretariat (main implementing body) of the Network is composed of three representatives from each region in the state. Of these, at least one representative must be a woman. The secretariat looks after the functioning and implementation of the NGOs’ agenda for forestry. 128 The network claims to operate among 2000 of a total of 6616 FPCs in the state. Regular monitoring of implementation of JFM is the prime concern of the Network. The Network has played a major role in many changes brought about since 1992, such as: inclusion of NGOs in the Managing Committee of FPCs; 100% benefits from the harvest to communities; support by the government to NGOs for select activities helping in forming federations of FPCs at the range level ; making it mandatory for the APFDC to seek clearance from the adjoining FPC before clear-felling forested areas for industrial use; and so on. The Network also supports activities of NGOs that are not a part of the Network. For example, it is active in judicial intervention in the settlement process in certain Protected Areas along with Samata. 4.4 Perceptions of Local, National and International Networks As indicated in the sections above, a whole host of actors have influenced community forestry and trends in the last few decades. These include the communities themselves, motivated government officials, NGOs, donor agencies such as the World Bank and OXFAM, and the political leadership in the state. The following section deals with perceptions of local, national and international networks in AP. This includes views expressed by a single person or shared by a whole host of actors. Quotes have generally been avoided. 4.4.1 Perceptions of Government Officials: National Networks 127 Personal communication with K.S. Gopal, Centre for Environment Concerns, Hyderabad. 2002. 128 Personal communication with members of APNGOs Committee for JFM in Andhra Pradesh. 2000. Hyderabad; Pers comm. with K.S. Gopal, Centre for Environment Concerns, Hyderabad. 2002. 61
Page 1 and 2:
Learning from International Communi
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10: Learning from International Communi
Page 59: Learning from International Communi
show all

Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?