JBICI DISCUSSION PAPER
No.12
Understanding the Role of Networks as Connecters in Bridging the Research Policy Gap
in Participatory Forest Policy Development in India
Global Development Network - Bridging Research and Policy Project
Winrock International India
July 2006
JBIC Institute
JAPAN BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
JBICI DISCUSSION PAPER
No.12
Understanding the Role of Networks as Connecters in Bridging the Research Policy Gap
in Participatory Forest Policy Development in India
Winrock International India
July 2006
JBIC Institute
JAPAN BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
‘JBICI Discussion Paper’ is based on the research done by staffs and/or fellow researchers of the Japan Bank
for International Cooperation (JBIC) and published by the JBIC Institute. Views expressed herein are those of
the author(s) and do not reflect those of the JBIC Institute.
JBIC Institute, Japan Bank for International Cooperation
4-1, Ohtemachi 1-chome, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-8144, Japan
Tel: (81 3) 5218 9720, Fax: (81 3) 5218 9846, E-mail: [email protected], Website: www.jbic.go.jp
© 2006 by JBIC Institute. All rights reserved.
i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... i List of Tables................................................................................................................................ ii List of Boxes ................................................................................................................................ ii List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................... iii Policy Brief ................................................................................................................................. iv 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................1 2. Objective and Key Research Questions .................................................................................1 3. Methodology ..........................................................................................................................2
3.1. Rationale for selecting PFM networks...........................................................................2 4. Role of Networks in PFM policy change process..................................................................4
4.1. History of Participatory Forest Management and the Role of Networks in India..........4 4.2. Moving towards PFM ....................................................................................................5 4.3. Emergence of PFM Networks: Does Research Enable Networks to Influence Policy ..6
4.3.1 National PFM Networks: Social and political context..................................................6 4.3.2Evidence.......................................................................................................................13 4.3.3 Links ...........................................................................................................................14 4.3.4 External influence .......................................................................................................14
4.4. Emergence of State Level Networks............................................................................15 4.4.1 Social and political context .........................................................................................15 4.4.2 Evidence......................................................................................................................19 4.4.3 Links ...........................................................................................................................19
4.5. Narrative of Identified Episodes: Networks as Connectors in Bridging Research Policy Gaps..............................................................................................................................20
5. Conclusions..........................................................................................................................24 Bibliography................................................................................................................................27 Annexure 1: Comparative description of PFM Networks...........................................................28 Annexure 2: National Level PFM Policy Change Table.............................................................31 Annexure 3: Major PFM Policy Change Table of AP ................................................................32 Annexure 4: Check lists for field-work.......................................................................................39 Annexure 5: List of stakeholders interviewed.............................................................................51
ii
List of Tables
Table 1: Issues raised through research by NSG and translated into policies Table 2: Episode of change- Increased women's involvement in PFM and better utilisation of
NTFPs Table 3: Episode of change: Influencing the CFM Project
List of Boxes
Box 1: Illustrative example of an issue raised by the MoEF JFM Network and its impact on policy
Box 2: Illustrative example of the type of advocacy and lobbying done by network of village institution federations
Box 3: An example of how research done by CPF influenced policy change process
iii
List of Abbreviations
AFPRO-Action for Food Production AKRSPI- Aga Khan Rural Support Programme, India APFP-Andhra Pradesh Forestry Project APNGO-Andhra Pradesh Non Government Organisations BOJBP-Bruksh 'O' Jeebana Bandhu Parishad CFM-Community Forest Management CPMNR-Centre for Participatory Management of Natural Resources CWS-Centre for World Solidarity DFO-Divisional Forest Officer DLWG-District Level Working Group EAS-Employment Assurance Scheme FDA-Forest Development Agency FPC-Forest Protection Committee GVM-Gram Vikas Mandal JFM-Joint Forest Management JFPC-Joint Forest Protection Committee MoEF-Ministry of Environment and Forests MoU-Memorandum of Understanding NAEB-National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board NGO-Non Government Organisation NTFP-Non Timber Forest Product NOVIB-Oxfam, Netherlands PCCF-Principal Chief Conservator of Forest PFM-Participatory Forest Management PIA-Public Implementing Agency PI-People’s Institution RFO-Range Forest Officer RUPFOR-Resource Unit for Participatory Forestry SAKSHAM- Sangathan Kshamta Manch SLWG-State Level Working Group SPWD-Society for Promotion of Wasteland Development VIKSAT-(Vikram Sarabhai Centre For Development Interaction VO-Voluntary Organisation VSS-Vana Samrakshan Samiti WB-World Bank WWF-India-World wide Fund for Nature, India NSG-National Support Group
iv
Policy Brief
Understanding the Role of Networks as Connecters in Bridging the Research Policy Gap in Participatory Forest Policy Development in India
Author: Mamta Borgoyary
1. Background and project objective
Forest policies in India have tremendous implications for local livelihoods, as more than 147 million people in and around forests and many million more are dependent on forest for meeting their livelihood and sustenance needs. In the last two decades, forest sector policies in India have undergone a sea change. Several factors can be attributed to this change. The Participatory Forest Management (PFM) networks have played an important role in influencing the policy change process. Their role varied from conducting research and providing useful and timely information to policy makers to lobbying and advocacy. The most important roles of these networks by far have been that of ‘connectors’. PFM networks in India are often credited to have provided a platform that brides the gap between evidence and policy making.
This project investigated whether and how research was used by PFM networks to ‘connect’ field realities to the policy making process and thereby influenced forest policy development in India. Within this broader objective, the role of the following four key factors were specially studied to understand their role and the extent of influence they have in facilitating the research undertaken by networks to feed into the policy making process.
1. Role of Demand driven research- whether there is greater possibility of findings of 'demand-driven research' 1 undertaken by the networks to feed into/influence policy change in PFM
2. Relationship between policy makers and networks- if cordial relationship and regular interactions between policy makers and network increases the probability of research to influence policymaking
3. Quality and credibility of research- whether high 'quality' and 'credibility' of research undertaken by the network is important for research to influence policy
4. Role of connectors- Whether involvement of 'connectors/policy champions' in networks increases the probability of network to influence policy change
The study was conducted at two levels- at the national level three PFM networks were studied- the Society for Promotion of Wasteland Development (SPWD) facilitated Joint Forest Management network, commonly known as the ‘National Support Group’ (NSG), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)-India facilitated Foresters’ Network, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) facilitated JFM Network. The fact that each of these selected networks have different structure and composition, provided an opportunity to understand whether factors like structure and functional design of networks play any role in determining the level of influence networks can have on the policy change process
At the state level, three states were selected for the purpose of the study, viz Andhra Pradesh (AP), Orissa, and Gujarat. Each of these three states offers important lessons for PFM to the country. While Andhra Pradesh has successfully moved from Joint Forest Management (where the government and the people enter into partnership to protect forests) to Community Forest Management (where ownership and responsibility of protecting and managing the forests rests 1 Any research undertaken by the network on demand by either policy makers or donors, e.g. evaluation of government schemes.
v
on the community while the state Forest Departments role is only of a facilitator), Orissa offers an unique example of traditional forest management technique where since generations self initiated forest protection groups are protecting the forests without any support from State Forest Department. Gujarat on the other hand has a rich history of co-operative movement and a vibrant and strong NGO presence in the area of natural resource management. All three states have adopted PFM approach in principle through implementing the JFM programme, though the spread, degree as well as quality of implementation varies significantly. Also the fact that the nature and composition of the networks in these states varies, therefore provides an opportunity for carrying out comparative analysis of networks in terms of structure, functioning style and the related extent of influence each networks can have on the policy making process. In Andhra Pradesh two networks- Vanasamkhya (a federation of Joint forest management committees) and AP NGO networks were studied. In Orissa Orissa Jungle Manch (network of community based forest protection groups formed on the initiative of communities themselves) and SAKSHAM (federations of forest protection groups facilitated by NGOs) and the State Level Working Group (SLWG) of Gujarat (a Forest Department driven initiative to promote multi-stakeholder dialogue).
2. Main Findings
Participatory Forest Management networks in India are emerging as 'connectors' with an important responsibility of connecting evidence based field realities to policy making in the area of forest management in India. As connectors, they have contributed to this process in three significant ways:
• Created awareness on important issues- One of the important contribution of the networks have been on creating 'awareness' on policy relevant issues like importance of participation of women in JFM, value addition and Non Timber Forest Product marketing, importance of ensuring 100% benefit sharing to communities, etc. These networks from time to time have taken up issue specific research and shared the findings with policy makers in meetings, workshops and through documentations. It is also interesting to note that in those cases where the networks have managed to keep the policy makers regularly informed about these issues (sometimes through newsletters, sometimes through notes) in a continuous process, there the influence has been more.
• Provided access to pool of information and 'options': In several cases it has been observed that the policymakers have resorted to these networks to provide them with 'solutions'. For example, in AP, Vanasamakhya has conducted several studies and training materials for the Forest Department, similarly in the case of Gujarat, the CPMNR cell has from time to time provided feedback to the Forest Department on micro level implementation issues.
• Provided a platform for exchange of information and for consultation: This is one of the most important contributions of the PFM networks in India. With the change in the forest management objectives towards being 'people friendly' and 'people need based', this platform served an important purpose. For the first time, policy makers and field practitioners were able to come together and share and exchange information. This platform therefore managed to reduce the gap between 'evidence' and policy. In fact, the process of consultations between policy makers and other stakeholders, facilitated by these networks, has over time helped in reducing the earlier conflicts between them, enabling the policy making process to be more transparent and participatory.
Though 'lobbying and advocacy' remains the main strategy adopted by the PFM networks in India to influence policy change process, research also one of the several tools that these networks use to substantiate the ‘cause’ they lobby for. Depending upon the nature of the network, some use research extensively for this purpose, while others do not. These networks
vi
are also increasingly engaging into 'consultations' with policy makers to influence the policy making process. It emerges from this study, that given the objective and strategies of the PFM networks studied in this project, research does not seem to have any direct impact on policy change. It is found that research done by networks have served either as information, or has led to generation of awareness on contentious issues at the policy level. It is only when networks have widely communicated the research findings, kept the policy makers involved at all stages through informal and formal ways, raised these issues in meetings and consultations, and exerted pressure through media, public hearings etc, that these issues found its way to the policy makers table. Beyond these, the social and political factors seem to have determine whether these issues translate into policy decisions. Some of the important findings can be summarised as:
• Though in theory, the probability of demand driven research feeding into the policy process is high, the findings from this study reveals that even in those cases where research is done on demand by policy makers, it is observed that only those research which are aimed at 'better implementation of existing programmes- like how to make the membership of executive committee of JFM more representative' have been successful interms of translating into actions, while there has been very little impact interms of influencing broader policy level changes,which remained more or less driven by socio political factors.
• For most cases, it was observed that for a policy level change, the level of networking with policy makers and the nature and type of networks are equally important for any level of influencing. For example, in the case of Andhra Pradesh, the vertical and horizontal linkages between the two networks that were studied- Vanasamkhya and AP NGO network. One good example is the role these networks played in introducing CFM in the state-While on one hand CPF-Vanasamakhya undertook couple of research activities to provide field based realities on these two issues, the AP NGO network initiated the dialogue with the WB and the FD regarding the issues of clarity on usufruct rights for VSS and Resettlement and Rehabilitation policies. The fact that these two networks were linked provided the much required horizontal and vertical linkages which helps increase the level of influence networks can have on the policy making process. While on one hand, AP NGO network was performing a role of 'watchdogs for pro poor policies’ mainly on the issue of land rights, by creating pressure on the government through rallies, protest marches, public hearing, press releases etc, CPF-Vanasamakhya was substantiating the protests with ‘evidence based research. Moreover, the fact that CPF-Vanasmakhya not only interacted with the Forest Department at regular intervals, but they had important Forest Department officials on their board. This enabled a regular and continuous flow of information from field to policy.
• Though ‘quality and credibility’ of researchers are an important criterea for policymakers, it is more or less the nature of relationship between the policy maker and the research institution and the level of information dissemination of the research findings that finally facilitates the proces of influencing policy making. For example, most of the sub research groups of the Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development facilitated National Support Group comprised of reputed research organisations in India. Though extensive research on several relevant topics were undertaken by these groups- majority of those issues which were ‘lobbied for’ translated into the policymaking process.
• Having reputed 'champions' known and recognised in the sector as direct or indirect members have facilitated the process of influence.
1
1. Introduction
Forest policies in India have tremendous implications for local livelihoods, as about 147 million people in and around forests and many million more are dependent on forest for their livelihood and sustenance. The adoption of the 1988 National Forest Policy in India triggered off a tremendous policy shift from revenue-oriented forest management objectives to a Participatory Forest Management (PFM) system. However specific directions for initiating PFM in the country were issued by the Government of India only in 1990, and subsequently most states adopted the new approach by issuing state specific Orders, Resolutions and Guidelines. PFM as a programme is still evolving in the country and states are continuously readjusting policies in response to the feedback received from various stakeholders.
In this process of policy shifts, 'PFM networks' in the country have certainly played a key role. Their role in this process of policy shifts have varied from policy advocacy, campaign, research, to providing platforms to various stakeholders to discuss issues of concern. Moreover, the nature and extent of each networks engagement in policy processes has been different and so has been the level of impact each network has had in terms of influencing this process of policy shift.
In the above context, and within the broader context of the ‘RAPID’ programme, there is an urgent need for an in-depth analysis of the role of PFM networks in the PFM policy change process in order to understand where, how and why networks have successfully influenced policy processes and where they could not, and specifically to understand the role of research in this process.
2. Objective and Key Research Questions
The major objective of this study is to understand how and whether participatory forestry networks in India use research in influencing PFM related policy changes at the national and state levels. Within this broader objective, the following key questions will be investigated:
1. How, when and whether networks use ‘research findings’ to influence policy change?
2. What are the factors that facilitates/inhibits PFM networks (and the research undertaken by them) to influence policy change?
a) Political context- how existing political environment largely facilitates/inhibits research findings to influence policy change. The key factors that will be studied under this are- the extent of political environment that is pro-change, the different political contestations on any related issue, institutional pressures and vested interests, attitude and incentives amongst policy makers as well as for the networks for bringing about any change, the scope for manoeuvring policy changes, local history and existing power relations
b) Evidence: How and what determines credibility of the networks- quality of research (i.e. methodological rigour), relevance of research topic, nature and extent of dissemination of research findings.
c) Links: What types of links with policy makers are essential within networks to influence policy change process- whether existence of ‘champions2’ and policy makers in networks matter.
d) External Influences – what role does external forces like donors play in influencing the research agenda of networks? Does donor support/pressure for bringing in change facilitates ‘research findings’ to influence policy change
2 People of prominence, held in high regards by policy makers
2
3. Methodology
3.1. Rationale for selecting PFM networks This study has been undertaken at two levels. At the national level three PFM networks have been studied- the Society for Promotion of Wasteland Development (SPWD) facilitated Joint Forest Management network, commonly known as the ‘National Support Group’ (NSG), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)-India facilitated Foresters’ Network, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) facilitated JFM Network. The fact that each of these selected networks have different structure and composition, provides an opportunity to understand whether factors like structure and functional design of networks play any role in determining the level of influence networks can have on the policy change process
While the SPWD JFM Network is a loose agglomeration of NGOs, activists, academicians, donors and government officials, driven mainly a NGO (SPWD), the WWF facilitated foresters’ network consisted mainly of field forest officials. On the other hand, the MoEF JFM Network has similar composition of members like the SPWD JFM Network, but is driven mainly by the MoEF.
At the state level, three states have been selected for the purpose of the study, viz Andhra Pradesh (AP), Orissa, and Gujarat. Each of these three states offers important lessons for PFM to the country. While Andhra Pradesh has successfully moved from Joint Forest Management (where the government and the people enter into partnership to protect forests) to Community Forest Management (where the ownership and responsibility of protecting and managing the forests rests on the community while the state Forest Departments role is only of a facilitator), Orissa offers an unique example of traditional forest management technique where since generations self initiated forest protection groups are protecting the forests without any support from State Forest Department. Gujarat on the other hand has a rich history of co-operative movement and a vibrant and strong NGO presence in the area of natural resource management. All three states have adopted PFM approach in principle through implementing the JFM programme, though the spread, degree as well as quality of implementation varies significantly.
The nature and composition of the networks in these states varies and therefore provides an opportunity for carrying out comparative analysis of networks in terms of structure, functioning style and the related extent of influence each networks can have on the policy making process. While the Vanasamkhya network in Andhra Pradesh and SAKSHAM in Gujarat are federations of forest protection groups whose formation have been facilitated by NGOs, Orissa Jungle Manch is a network of community based forest protection groups formed on the initiative of communities themselves and were subsequently supported by some NGOs/donors. On the other hand AP NGO Network, is a network of local NGOs working on PFM in the state. The State Level Working Group (SLWG) of Gujarat is on the other hand a Forest Department driven initiative to promote multi-stakeholder dialogue to provide inputs for effective PFM policies in the state. Annexure 1 provides brief description of these networks.
Within the broader objective and the key research questions mentioned above, the following four key factors will be specially studied to understand their role and the extent of influence they have in facilitating the research undertaken by networks to feed into the policy making process.
1. Role of Demand driven research- whether there is greater possibility of findings of 'demand-driven research'3 undertaken by the networks to feed into/influence policy change in PFM
3 Any research undertaken by the network on demand by either policy makers or donors, e.g. evaluation of government schemes.
3
2. Relationship between donors and networks- if cordial relationship and regular interactions between policy makers and network increases the probability of research to influence policymaking
3. Quality and credibility of research- whether high 'quality' and 'credibility' of research undertaken by the network is important for research to influence policy
4. Role of connectors- Whether involvement of 'connectors/policy champions' in networks increases the probability of network to influence policy change
The study is mainly qualitative in nature. To address the key objective and the research questions mentioned above, a number of different methods have been used.
Backward looking approach- we have adopted the 'backward looking approach' wherein based on the secondary desk review, a PFM Policy Change Table was prepared both for at the national and for the three states (for Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Gujarat). See Annexure 2 and 3. This Table traces important changes in policy directions in the area of PFM. As a next step, we looked at the activities of the selected networks and identified few instances/cases of policy change (not necessarily major changes), where networks have (or attempted to have) influenced this process of change. For each of these cases, the role of research is further investigated to understand how (and if) networks used research to influence these changes.
Definition of Research- Based on the review of the identified networks, the definition of 'research' has been broadened in this study to include 'any systematic effort to increase the stock of knowledge', which includes any systematic process of critical investigation and evaluation, theory building, data collection, analysis and codification related to development policy and practice. Therefore it includes research conducted in terms of data collection as well as research more in terms of documenting 'evidence' to lobby/advocate for related policy changes. It therefore also includes action research, i.e. self-reflection by practitioners oriented toward enhancement of direct practice.
Definition of Policy- Policy for the purpose of this study is defined to include 'any purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors’. Policy change therefore could mean broader macro level policy changes formally issued through Government Orders or Resolutions, or could simply mean small (informal) micro level changes in programme implementation (not necessarily reflected through issuance of Government Orders or Resolutions).
A number of different methods have been used to analyze the above mentioned key research
Literature Review- As a first step, available literature/studies on PFM networks - national and the three selected state of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Orissa were reviewed. The main objectives of the literature review was; a) identify major PFM related policy changes to understand and trace the changing PFM policy environment at the national and at the three states, b) to understand the historical evolution of each of the identified networks, their broad and specific objectives, the composition of these networks, focus areas (coverage), and the specific strategies adopted by these networks specifically to influence policy and practice of PFM in the study states and at the national level, c) to identify and link each network to the selected cases of policy change (as identified through the policy change matrix) d) to identify key stakeholders involved with the networks and the PFM policy change process for carrying out the subsequent key stakeholders interview.
Key informant interviews: For a clear and comprehensive understanding of the role of the selected networks in influencing PFM policy change process in the states, key individuals who have been associated with the networks and the PFM policy process change (including key policy makers) were interviewed. The main intention of these interviews was also to be able to discuss and understand the 'use of research' by networks in this process of policy change. The interviews were based on an open-ended checklist. Annexure 4 details the checklist addressed
4
during key stakeholders interview in each state and at the national level. Annexure 5 lists the stakeholders interviewed.
Identification of 'episodes' and 'narratives': Based on the literature review and the information gathered from key stake holder’s interviews, detailed narratives of 'episodes' where attempts were made by the selected networks to influence policy (government and donor)- either through conducting research, or through use of research done by others, were identified.. In all cases, the reasons for successes or failures were also explored
Analysis: Based on the narratives and the identified 'episodes', a detailed draft narrative report has been prepared to understand how networks influence policy change process and particularly the role of research in this process. Also three episodes are discussed in detail illustrating the process. The findings were then shared in a Consultative Workshops4 that was organised in each state.
4. Role of Networks in PFM policy change process
Networks can be defined as platforms or avenues of social learning or collaborative learning, which is a framework for public policy (Buck, et. al, 2001). Social learning helps in conflict resolution among stakeholders and paves in new ideas in policy making. Though the concepts of social learning are still new, networks are among the most familiar and studied.
Networks represent “communities of ideas” where people interact on the basis of both common and conflicting interests’ (Britt, 2002). Networks are like bridges between different stakeholders like donors, policy makers, NGOs and the local communities (target beneficiaries), and helps in connecting and linking micro and macro processes, and incorporating multiple perspectives and capabilities. These linkages are sometimes horizontal (same level) as well as vertical (different levels). These linkages are crucial because the success of local solutions is determined by the policy and institutional environment at the macro level.
Networks do evolve and function in situations where there are compelling demands or incentives for the dominant stakeholders. One such case is community forest management, where benefits from collaborative learning or networking are substantial. These benefits are well recognised and valued by partners like donors / funders, policy makers and civil society (Non Government Organisations (NGOs), especially after the success of community forest management in Nepal and elsewhere in the world.
4.1. History of Participatory Forest Management and the Role of Networks in India
In India, forests play a substantial role in the livelihoods of the poor, with 23% of the geographical area of the country under forests, this resource is a vital source for ongoing consumption needs, environmental services, and products for markets. They also provide goods and services to help rural people to survive through bad harvests, long periods of droughts, seasonal shortfalls and other emergencies. Forest-related livelihood activities also provide many options for livelihood diversification, thus forming an important safety-net for the poor during hardships, as access to forests helps diversify their livelihood base and reduces their exposure to
4 AP consultative workshop was held on 5th January 2005 in Hyderabad attended by key Forest Department officials and network members from AP NGO Network and CPF (total 15 participants). The Gujarat consultative workshop was organised on 13th of November 2004, attended by representatives from the Forest Department, APRSP (I), network members of Netrang (AKRSP-I), CPMNR, Development Support Centre, (total 10 participants) . The Orissa consultative workshop was held on the 22nd of December 2004, attended by key Forest Department officials, Vasundhara, RCDC, MASS, (total 14 participants).
5
risks. There are an estimated 147 million people living close to officially designated forestland in over 170,000 villages, and there is a clear overlap between forest, poverty and tribal maps of the country.
Over the years, with increasing population in the country, the pressure on forests also increased with the result that now more than half of India’s forests is degraded bringing about, on one hand, an ecological crisis and on the other, immense suffering for the forest-dependent people. Even after independence, the Government of India initially continued with the commercial oriented management practices, however it was soon realised that to stop any further pressure from forests, the fuelwood and fodder needs of the local forest dependent communities have to be suitably met. Accordingly, an ambitious Social Forestry Programme was launched in the country with the objective of easing pressure on forests by making available fuelwood, fodder and small-timber for meeting rural communities’ and industrial needs from village commons and private farmlands. The mixed success of social forestry led to an important realization that attempts at more sustainable forest management would prove futile if the major stakeholders- the forest dependent communities- are not involved in the planning and management process. During the same time, in some of the states (Arabari in West Bengal and Sukhomajri in Haryana) new initiatives were taking place involving local people to stop the increasing degradation and deforestation.
In realization of this fact, in 1988, a new forest policy was issued by the government that completely reversed the old trend of revenue oriented forest management. The new policy stressed on managing forests for their environmental and ecological functions and for meeting the subsistence needs of forest fringe people. It has also set a national goal of bringing at least one-third of the country’s area under tree cover. Through this policy, for the first time, PFM was initiated formally in the country.
4.2. Moving towards PFM In 1990, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) stressed upon promoting participatory forest management by issuing the Joint Forest Management (JFM) guidelines for involvement of village communities and voluntary agencies in the regeneration of degraded forestlands (Government Circular No. 6.2 1/89-F.P.). These guidelines formally introduced the Joint Forest Management Programme (JFM) in the country.
Following the 1990 JFM Circular, several states have now issued notifications pertaining to 'formal adoption' of JFM. Currently, 27 states have adopted JFM and over 63,000 FPCs are managing around 14 million-hectare of forestlands5 . Following the learning gained from a decade of implementation of the JFM programme, the year 2000 witnessed first amendments to the JFM guidelines. While the 1990 Guidelines promoted the concept of community participation in forest management, the 2000 Guidelines laid down several provisions to promote equity in participation with a special emphasis on women’s empowerment. It also talked about provision for providing legal back up to JFM committees, which was not there in earlier guidelines. It recommended expansion of JFM mandate to good forests instead of limiting the programme to only degraded forests. The other stipulations of these guidelines were related to issues such as preparation of micro-pan, conflict resolution, recognition of self initiated forest protection groups, plough back funds, and periodic monitoring and evaluation of JFM programme. The 2002 amendments further strengthened the process. The management and utilization of NTFP appears to be the key concern for the policy makers in this guideline. These guidelines also stipulated coordination with Panchayati Raj Institution at the village and the district level to harness benefits from constitutionally recognized local governance system in
5 Source: Winrock International India (2004), Root to Canopy-Regenerating India's Forests Through Community-State Partnerships, New Delhi
6
India. Annexure 2 summarises the main features introduced through different PFM policies at the national level
4.3. Emergence of PFM Networks: Does Research Enable Networks to Influence Policy
4.3.1 National PFM Networks: Social and political context
The dramatic shift in the stated policy objectives from treating people’s needs as 'burden' on forests (National Commission for Agriculture, 1976) to making it 'first charge' on forests took place due to a number of reasons. While on one hand, the importance of peoples' participation in the protection and management of forests was being increasingly realised amongst policy makers, on the other hand, increasing cases of conflicts between the local people and the Forest Department were being reported. This period also coincided with the time when the country was witnessing a movement where NGOs were actively getting involved in the implementation of a programme that was previously being largely dominated by the Forest Department.
During this time, some individuals, representatives of NGOs and foresters dedicated to promoting PFM in Gujarat, Haryana and West Bengal came together and formed an informal network with the aim to implement people friendly PFM. Besides, the members being pioneers in PFM approach, the other common cord binding the network members was that they were all grantees of Ford Foundation.
With the formal passing of JFM Guidelines by the MoEF in 1990, several states came forward to adopt JFM. With the spread of JFM in the country, a need for a formal platform for interaction among stakeholders was strongly felt. Ford Foundation, which was the pioneer amongst donors to promote PFM in the country during that time, was also increasingly supporting the idea of 'networks'. Subsequently, in 1992, the National Support Group (NSG) of JFM was created with financial assistance from the Ford Foundation, New Delhi, with SPWD acting as the secretariat, with the objective to facilitate a national network of stakeholders in JFM for capacity building and information sharing.
The NSG played a major role in influencing the PFM policy transition process in the country during that period. Though the main agenda of NSG was to carry out active lobbying and advocacy on policy relevant issue, research was being used actively to arrive at the agenda. For this purpose, a National Research Network (NRN) comprising of three units6 was created within NSG to carry out research on specific issues i.e. ecological and economic aspects of JFM, institutional aspects related to JFM, gender implications of JFM and several training materials both for the Forest Department and for the field implementers. The members of this network comprised of reputed research organisations in India like the Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal (IIFM), Indian Institute of Sciences (IIS), Bangalore, etc, and also
6 Three research units were set up for this purpose: Ecological and Economic Research Network (EERN) coordinated by the Centre for Ecological Sciences-Indian Institute of Sciences (IISC) at Bangalore. The main focus of this unit was on ecological and economic issues related to JFM. Five academic institutions and six NGOs are members of EERN as its sub-networks; Institutional Research Network (IRN) based in Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM) Bhopal, to coordinate research on new institutional arrangements required under JFM, i.e. issues like institutional effectiveness of JFM and processing and marketing of NTFP through Forest Protection Committee. Later, in 1994, a sub-group on Gender and Equity was created within IRN to develop a common understanding through research on gender and equity issues and for increasing gender and equity sensitivity in the policy and practice of JFM through advocacy and research; Training Research Network (TRN) coordinated by Indian Institute of Biosocial Research and Development (IBRAD) of Kolkata in collaboration with other organizations helped in identifying the training needs under the changed management regime of JFM both for the Forest Department officials and the communities, prepared training material in different languages and conducted training programmes
7
included reputed academicians working in the area, and held in high regard by the policy makers.
Between 1993 and 1998, several rounds of consultations were organised by the NSG centred on policy relevant issues. The network not only provided a platform for various stakeholders in PFM in the state to interact and exchange information, it also facilitated ‘research’ on relevant and controversial issues on PFM, therefore facilitating grass roots realities to guide policy discourses based on these research findings. The networks successfully raised debates on controversial issues like -how to institutionalise FPCs, on the role of women in PFM, how to effectively and sustainably manage the Non Timber Forest Produce (NTFPs). Through research, dissemination, advocacy and lobbying, the network was successful in creating awareness amongst policy makers on several of these often controversial issues. Similarly due to regular and continuous interactions between policy makers and implementers, several grass root level issues and perceptions were exposed both to the policy makers and the implementers, making ‘consultations’ successful. Table 1 below summarises some of the major issues that were raised (mainly based on research undertaken) by the network and which got subsequently reflected through policy changes.
8
Table 1: Issues raised through research by NSG and translated into policies
Issue Raised in meetings Remarks/discussion points Year accepted through policy change
1995 Based on research conducted, the sub-group on Institutional issues raised their concerns and suggested to strengthen the legal aspect of JFM.
Legal back-up to JFM committee
1996 Based on the research findings G Raju pointed out in his presentation in the annual meeting that JFM has no legal back up till date though it has been officially recognized for the last six years.
Guidelines issued on February 21 (No 22-8/2000-JFM (FPD)) provided clause giving legal back up to JFM committees
Membership norms 1996 Madhu Sarin based on works done by G & E sub-group recommended to extend rights to become FPC members to all adults in the village.
The guidelines issued on February 21 (No 22-8/2000-JFM (FPD)) provided detailed membership criteria
Memorandum of Understanding
1996 G Raju pointed out in his presentation absence of MoU between two joint partners.
JFM 2002 guidelines issued on December 24 (No 22-8/2000 –JFM (PFD), pprovided space for signing of MoU between community and Forest Department
9
Women’s empowerment 1995 Research undertaken particularly by the IRN (and subsequently by the G & E group) revealed that:
There were very few women leaders in JFM. These findings were presented by G & E Sub-group based on discussion held in sub-group’s meetings:
Women had limited presence in the FPCs and their participation was limited by the defined role in the programme and heavy burden of work.
Women were not a homogenous category. Thus, gender issues had to look in the context of class and resources/wealth ownership.
Ms Shymala Hiremath presented findings of her study on “Gender & JFM and planning”: which mentioned that most women members seem to have been elected unanimously in meetings. List of committee members was often prepared by the Forest Department. It was also noticed that high caste women were brought in by men to represent their castes.
Based on these findings in her Keynote presentation on Policy Advocacy and Implementation, Madhu Sarin recommended to have 33%-50% women in Management Committee and mandatory presence of women in meetings
Most of the recommendations accepted through the issuance of guidelines for strengthening JFM issued on February 21 (No 22-8/2000-JFM (FPD))
10
1994 A study done by the network revealed that communities initiated forest protection when they felt threat on their subsistence due to deforestation.
Following the presentation, several local forest officers accepted the important role played by these groups, raising the debate on recognising these groups.
Shri D Raju also highlighted that initiative was taken to protect forests in Gujarat even before the issuance of JFM Guidelines in the state.
D N Pandey of Rajanthan F Dept mentioned about the existence of self initiated FPCs in his state.
Recognition of self initiated groups
1996 IRN recommended to recognize the rights of self initiated forest protection groups.
The existence of these groups were recognised in the Guidelines for strengthening JFM issued on February 21 (No 22-8/2000-JFM (FPD))
11
1995 Based on the research carried out by EERN on utilization pattern of NTFP following conclusions were drawn:
The rate of NTFP harvest was found lesser than the potential. On the institutional side, harvest regulations were followed stringently and abuse of regulation was almost absent.
NTFP
1996 EERN based on research conducted by them pointed out that potential of NTFP was much higher than the levels that were being extracted.
IRN based on their research stressed on value addition to NTFP at FPC level.
In her keynote presentation on Policy Advocacy and Implementation, Ms. Madhu Sarin recommended to have proper silvicultural management to maximize NTFP production. She also talked about community ownership of NTFP.
Guidelines for strengthening JFM 2002 issued on December 24 (No 22-8/2000 –JFM (PFD), stressed on capacity building for NTFP management
Panchayat and JFM 1996 IRN recommended to clear role of panchayat and FPC.
The importance of understanding the relationship between penchant and JFM stressed upon in the Guidelines for strengthening JFM 2002 issued on December 24 (No 22-8/2000 –JFM (PFD), 2002
12
Post 1996, the network started receiving several criticisms on its approach and functioning. On one hand while the policy makers felt that the network was acting more as a conglomeration of NGOs working on JFM and was largely insulated from the Forest Department, on the other hand it was also being increasingly felt that there was a visible lack of an open and conducive space for direct participation by federation of village FPCs. Moreover, several internal problems were also surfacing for example, absence of clear guidelines or agreement between NSG and Sub-Network coordinators leading to weak functional linkages between them, sometimes leading to delay in decision-making, inadequate monitoring and non-existence of mechanisms for quality control in research, etc. Most importantly it was being increasingly felt that the Network is not able to view and perform the role of a 'watch dog' as it was originally perceived7. Though the SPWD- JFM network tried to bring about certain restructural changes, yet it did not manage to revive itself with the same vigour. It was during the same time that, Ford Foundation, who was an active supporter of the network shifted its focus away from the network (in terms of Ford Foundations focus area) leading to further collapse of the network8.
While on one hand the criticism and dissatisfaction with NSG was increasing, on the other hand by the year 1997, more than 50% of the Indian states had adopted JFM as one of the mechanisms for forest management by passing official resolution on JFM. Subsequently, many young officers initiated experiments with JFM in various states. However, in the pre-dominantly bureaucratic set up of the Forest Department these young officials found it uncomfortable in discussing these innovative ideas openly. During the same time, some of the Forest Department officers who were influencing and were active in the NSG network like Mr. S S Rizvi, Mr. Arvind Khare and Mr. Promod Tyagi, shifted to WWF India. They then took the initiative to form the WWF Foresters’ Network, with an objective to provide a forum to field level forest officials to discuss the success and failure of JFM. Ford Foundation, which was working closely with the government provided financial support in setting up this Network. Since its formation only one meeting was held in September 1998 in New Delhi during that time. Currently, the network is 'dysfunctional'.
Though the life of the WWF-Foresters network was short, a review of the minutes of the first meeting reveals that most of the issues that were raised during the NSG organised JFM meetings and workshops were discussed in detail during this meeting. For example in the first meeting some of the issues as highlighted in Table 1 above also found place in the foresters discussions- legal status of JFM, project versus programme based approach to JFM, relationship between Panchayat and JFM committees in the wake of the 72nd and 73rd Constitution Amendments, gender equity and financial sustainability etc, which were similar to the issues that were being discussed and debated in the NSG meetings.
By 1998, around 22 states issued JFM Guidelines and had adopted JFM as one of the main strategies for forest management. With this large-scale adoption of JFM, the issue of monitoring its progress and discussing constraints at the central level became critical. Also at the MoEF level there was an increasing feeling that since it was one of the main agency responsible for forest policy, their participation in the network had to be more active and considerable, which they felt was not happening at the NSG. Accordingly, in February 2000, the MoEF officially constituted the Network under the chairmanship of Director General, Forests and Special
7 Review committee report on SPWD, 1997 8 During the interviews carried out with policy makers and some of the resource person who were involved with the network activities, it was explicitly mentioned that the main reason for the collapse of the network was due to the withdrawal of Ford Foundation support.
13
Secretary (Order No 22-8/98-FPD)9. Subsequently, a ‘Stakeholders Forum’ was set up in 2001, with Winrock International India agreed to provide logistical and secretarial services to the JFM Network. The Ford Foundation agreed to provide financial support for the secretariat. The main reason for setting up of the 'Stakeholder Forum' was to provide a neutral platform for all stakeholders, which a government led network may not be able to provide.
For the past five years, the MoEF JFM network has effectively used the experience and knowledge of its members to successful take forward the debates and issues raised in the NSG. One reason for this could be the fact that some of the NSG and the MoEF JFM network members were common. Recently, the MoEF Network has through the secretariat organised multi-stakeholder consultations on controversial issues.
The interesting part of the MoEF JFM Network is that though the network is driven by the MoEF, the Stakeholders Forum has in several cases attempted to push forward the non governmental perceptions (through its own networks with the NGO sector) on controversial issues by organising consultations between NGOs and policy makers in some cases. See Box 1.
The stakeholder forum also undertakes periodic and topical research on policy issues like encroachment and panchayat and JFM Linkages. Attempts are made to disseminate these research findings through newsletters, and during the consultation process. However, for the MoEF, the ‘Stakeholders Forum’ has remained more as a secretariat for organising regular network meetings, and the important role that this Forum can provide in terms of linking field evidence to policy making is not being harnessed as such.
4.3.2Evidence
One of the important factors that can be attributed towards the initial success of NSG in influencing PFM policy change process was its ability to translate systematic grassroots evidence to policy makers at higher levels10 through widespread research on topical issues. The fact that the National Research Unit constituted members of reputed research institutes like IIFM, IIS, and other leading researchers like Ms Madhu Sarin, who were also held in high esteem by policymakers further facilitated the process. Each sub-unit of the National Research Unit systematically carried out field research on relevant issues, which were also systematically disseminated in the form of booklets/reports and shared widely with policy makers during workshops and consultations. Some of the research findings were successful in raising wide spread debates and discussions. See Table 1 for related examples.
On the other hand, the MoEF JFM Network focuses far less on research (as compared to NSG) and more on stakeholder consultation process. Given that the MoEF JFM Network members not only includes research organisations like Indian Institute of Forest Management, Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy, Forest Survey of India, but also representatives from grassroots NGOs, and national level NGOs working in forestry sector. the structure and members of this Network, one can implicitly assume that the ‘consultation process’ that this Network engages in should be able to draw upon the required research policy linkages and provide evidence based policy directions
9 Members of this Network include Deputy Inspector General of Forest Policy, two representatives from grassroots NGOs including one woman, Director of Indian Institute of Forest Management, Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy, Forest Survey of India, representatives from national level NGOs working in forestry, representatives of two young field officers including one woman implementing JFM, five Principle Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) of states. Representatives of the key funding agencies 10 Personal communications with policy makers
14
4.3.3 Links
The fact that the issues raised by NSG were reflected in the agenda of the networks that emerged subsequently reflects the important role a networks’ structure and its linkage with relevant stakeholders plays in influencing the policy process. The fact that the NSG was structured more like an 'advocacy community' with representatives from not only NGOs, academicians, and donors but also policy makers, facilitated the process of influencing policy directions. The fact that the NSG was able to generate awareness and share information on controversial issues through research findings further helped in bridging the gap between field realities and policy making process. Moreover the informal/formal linkage with policy makers and the regular consultation process increases the 'acceptability' of these research recommendations feeding into the policy process. This is evident by the fact that most of the issues that were raised by the NSG were also discussed at the WWF Forester Network, and in the MoEF JFM Network meetings.
4.3.4 External influence
In the last decade or so as the acceptance of ‘community forestry’ as an important strategy for implementation of forest policy was gaining ground, community/participatory forestry development networks were also emerging across nations, and in many cases being actively promoted by donors. In the area of community forestry, networking was emerging as a tool to draw on collective social resources, beyond the nation state of which they are a part of. In
Box 1: Illustrative example of an issue raised by the MoEF JFM Network and its impact on policy. Issue: Encroachment of forest land by villagers In 1995, a Public Interest Litigation was filed by an ex-estate owner in Gudalur, Tamil Nadu, to stop the illicit felling of timber from forests owned and nurtured by his family for generations which was taken away by the government. On November 2001, an interlocutory application (IA 703) was filed regarding the issue of encroachment. In March 2002, the Supreme Court of India ordered 'all chief secretaries for the states of Orissa, West Bengal, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Chattisgarh and Kerela to file a reply to this IA'. In response to the Supreme Court Order, on May 2002, the MoEF, issued a Circular on immediate eviction of all illicit encroachments. This was immensely resisted by the grass root NGOs and also by several activists on land rights. The Stakeholders Forum carried out a small study to assess the impact of JFM on encroachment of forest land to gain an understanding on the issue (Impact of JFM on encroachment of forest land: case study of selected VSS in Vishakapatnam, AP, 2002). Several articles on different perceptions on the encroachment issue along with the findings of the study were published in the quarterly newsletter INFORM (Vol 2, Dec 2002), which is widely disseminated to policymakers and other stakeholders. During the same time, several other evidence based research findings opposing this stand of the government were also being simultaneously disseminated. A stakeholders’ consultation was organised where the senior official from the MoEF was present along with grass roots NGOs who presented their views on the same. The feedback received from this consultation was discussed in the routine JFM Nodal Officers meeting of the MoEF. Policy Implication Further to the letter issued in May 2002 by the MoEF, in December a clarificatory letter was issued by the MoEF asking state governments to constitute committees consisting of officials from Forest, Revenue, Tribal Welfare Departments to identify tribal families having disputed settlements claim. The letter also stressed on the importance of rehabilitation of ineligible encroachers through JFM mechanisms.
15
several of the existing community forestry projects around the world, networking was proving to be important in providing institutional support and promoting recognition of their rights and efforts- for example, in Nepal, a federation of Forest Users Groups (FUGs) exists at the national level to support the activities of the FUGs and acts as a mediator between the government and the communities. Similarly in South Africa, several initiatives of networking are underway especially in the area of natural resource management.
It is therefore not surprising that similar trend was evident in the way PFM was progressing in India and the simultaneous development of PFM networks.
Moreover, Ford Foundation, which was one of the important donors to initiate PFM in the country was actively promoting these networks and was willing to provide financial support for the same. Infact the initial members of NSG were all Ford grantees, who were being supported for carrying out research on PFM issues. Infact one of the objectives behind Ford support to NSG was to facilitate the findings of the research that they supported to feed into the policy process11. It also seems evident that to a large extent the longevity and influence of the studied network was largely shaped/dependent on Ford Foundation Support.
4.4. Emergence of State Level Networks 4.4.1 Social and political context
The issuance of the National Forest Policy of 1988 and the June 1990 Circular, provided the much demanded legal space to adopt PFM especially in those states were PFM was being practiced in various forms since generations. With the formal adoption of JFM as an official forest management programme, formal emergence of PFM networks also came to the fore. For the purpose of this study we look at three states, where PFM networks are playing a major role in the policy transition process.
As in other parts of India, forests in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Orissa were facing the problems of increasing deforestation and degradation. Initially, the state followed a revenue oriented forest management objective, which failed to reverse this trend of deforestation and degradation.
In the 80s, both the AP and Gujarat government attempted to introduce PFM. While in AP, the government started it on a small scale by leasing out degraded forest land to weaker sections of the society for raising fuel wood plantation, in Gujarat the Forest Department took some initiatives to strengthen community participation in forest management through eliciting people’s participation in harvesting of forests through forming Forest Labor Cooperative Societies and involving the local people in Social Forestry Programmes, which was significantly appreciated all over the country. In Orissa, on the other hand Community initiated Forest Management (CFM), existed as early as the 1940s, which was officially recognized in 1985 through the Orissa Village Forest Rules, 1985. It was only in the 90s that these states officially accepted JFM as a government programme.12
Since then, these states have progressed and several policy changes have taken place to strengthen the PFM programme. In fact, AP is considered to be one of the most progressive
11 Personal communication 12 In 1988, the state government of Orissa brought out a resolution to officially involve local people in the protection of natural forests even before the historic National Forest Policy of December 1988. This resolution also allowed the local communities (through formation of forest protection committees) to protect the Reserved Forests surrounding their habitations and conferred some concessions in usufruct sharing to the local people. In May 1990, similar provisions were extended to Protected Forests. In 1993, the state adopted JFM as a scheme for regeneration and protection of forests.
16
states, where it has moved from PFM to Community Forest Management 13 . Annexure 3 provides the policy table listing out the major policy changes that took place in these three states.
Similar to what happened at the national level, PFM networks in these three states also evolved somewhat in line with the national level networks, although the reasons behind the evolution of the state level networks varies to some degree.
At the state level, two types of PFM networks emerged, one that is a federation of village level forest protection committees, generally facilitated by NGOs associated in the implementation of the official JFM programme in the state, for example Vanasamakhya in AP, Saksham in Gujarat14. These networks of village level institutions federating at the state level are working more towards strengthening the village institutions and accordingly lobby for micro level changes to strengthen JFM implementation efforts. See Box 2 for illustrative examples of how Vansamakhya efforts to bring about micro level changes in the implementation of the JFM programme were immediately addressed by the policy makers.
The fact that often these types of networks are facilitated by NGOs who have strong research base (CPF in the case of Vanasamakhya and VIKSAT in the case of SAKSHAM) explains the emphasis these networks give to research as one of its strategies to influence PFM policies and strengthen the livelihood of the forest dependent communities. Both CPF and VIKSAT carry out topical research activities, which is published and widely disseminated to the public including the policy makers. The learning's from these research activities by the facilitative NGOs are often used for lobbying and policy advocacy by these networks. See box 3 for one such example.
13 In community forest management system, people have been given more ownership and management control over the resource, as opposed to the state dominance in JFM. 14 Vanasamakhya is a federation of village forest protection committees' facilitated by the Centre for People's Forestry (CPF) - an offshoot of the Centre for World Solidarity (CWS) - a NGO. Established in 1992, CPF initially was part of the JFM wing of the CWS, which was involved in promoting JFM activities in collaboration with 35 NGOs in 12 districts since 1996. The JFM wing later on formally established itself as an autonomous non profit organisation in 2002, with a mission to work towards grounding sustainable forest management mechanisms, with special emphasis on developing livelihood security of the marginalised sections along with the forest-dwelling/dependent communities (CPF 2003). The CWS-JFM network programme with 35 NGOs in 12 districts of the state has been involved in the facilitation and nurturing of the local federations (range / section and mandal levels between 1998-2000). SAKSHAM (Sangathan Kshamta Morcha) is an informal network of federations of village institutions involved in forestry, promoted by VIKSAT (Vikram Sarabhai Centre for Development Interaction) a local NGO in Gujarat that is facilitating initiation and strengthening of people’s institutions.
Box 2: Illustrative example of the type of advocacy and lobbying done by network of village institution federations. In the first meeting between VSS members and the Forest Department, Vanasamakhya put forward a memorandum demanding changes based on their experience in the field, which evoked positive response. Some of issues/problems raised in the memorandum were addressed immediately by giving instructions to the field staff. These include (CPF, 2002):
o Cutting order and permit to sell bamboo were granted in the Kittalpadu VSS, Pathapatnam range, Srikakulam district, based on the request of Vanasamakhya.
o Action has been taken on the issue of DRO assault on the local VSS members. o The case of land grabbing reported in Tellapadu VSS of Kavali range, Nellore district was
addressed. o The issue of parallel network formation by the local FD officials in Anantapuram range in
Anantapuram district is resolved.
17
The other type of PFM network that emerged in the studied states is more or less structured like think tanks, and functions like 'watch dogs'. These networks therefore seem to emerge more due to 'concern' of the domination of those in power over those who are powerless- in this case the forest dependent marginalized rural communities. The genesis of the AP NGO Network is one such example.
In 1992, when the World Bank announced the intention of initiating a five year project on promoting JFM in AP, a group of 37 NGOs (those mainly operating at the state level) who were in one way or the other associated with the forestry sector came together to initially brainstorm and think of ways to ensure that peoples concerns were adequately covered in the programme. Moreover, in AP, ownership of land especially forest land has always been a contentious issue and was a major reason of conflict between the state and the people, and in many cases these NGOs were actively involved in the negotiations that were taking place between the people and the Forest Department. This reinforced their realisation that lobbing is important so that the interest of the people is not dissolved during the design/implementation of the programme. During those initial years, few of the network members (essentially some of the big NGOs who were in direct contact with the policy makers) conducted several informal meetings with the Forest Department as well as the World Bank in their individual capacities and managed to convey their concern on the design of the proposed JFM project15 . Due to their constant lobbying (both formal and informal), for the first time, NGOs were more actively used in the implementation of JFM project of World Bank. Moreover members of this informal network were taken in as members of the State Forestry Committee, District Forestry Committee, and the ITDA committee. Several other factors facilitated this process, besides the fact that the state government and the World Bank was very keen to implement the programme, at the national level, the JFM circular provided space to include NGOs in the implementation of the programme. In 1994, the network was formally set up in the name of State Committee on JFM with over 100 NGOs. Centre for World Solidarity (CWS), Oxfam India Trust and AFPRO have since then facilitated the formation of the network presently the network has 300 NGOs spreading in 16 districts and supported by district level networks in 14 districts. These NGOs are coordinated at the state level with the help of a secretariat based in Hyderabad. Over the
15 One of the major concern conveyed by these NGOs was that the major investment of the programme was focussed on infrastructure development and salaries for the Forest Department and lacked similar focus on the promotion or development of village level interventions
Box 3: An example of how research done by CPF influenced policy change process Since the initiation of JFM in the state, the issue of Non Timber Forest Produce (NTFP) marketing had remained a bone of contention. On one hand as per the new policy 100% rights over NTFPs were given to the communities on the forest land that they were protecting, on the other hand, as per Government Order, complete monopoly rights over NTFP marketing was given to Girijan Cooperative Corporation (GCC) a government undertaking, whose clientele were only tribal members. Since the state was to implement the CFM programme (supported by the World Bank), CPF based on its experience and feedback received from field took up this issue The CPF carried out a study- VSS sustainability and the role of GCC (NTFP marketing) in the state during November 2002 to March 2003, where views from VSS members, NGOs, Forest Department and GCC officials were elicited. CPF widely disseminated the findings of the study. Later the findings were presented to all stakeholders during a state level meeting on April 2002. As a followup to the discussion, CPF requested the Forest Department to incorporate a clause favouring VSSs and their networks in the agreement signed by GCC and FD, which is done every year. The Forest Department responded favourably and a new clause was included in the agreement with GCC regarding marketing of value addition by the VSS members.
18
years the network got financial support for its activities from various organisations like Oxfam India Trust, CWS-NOVIB, Christian Aid, Action Aid and the Forest Department. The network was registered in December 2001 with a new name viz., AP NGO’S Committee on PFM. The network formally registered itself as an independent body in 2001, and currently has 11 executive committee members, of which nine are from district NGOs. It is interesting to note that the two PFM networks in the state are linked (CPF and some district level NGOs who are members of Vanasamakhya are also members of the AP NGO Network), thereby providing a good example of horizontal and vertical linkages necessary for networks to influence policy change.
Similarly to the evolution of the AP NGO Network in AP, in the state of Orissa, in 1982, 22 villages situated around Binjhgiri and Malati hillock in the Mayurbhanj district came together and formed a single organisation to protect the forest and rehabilitate the hillocks, and named it 'Brukshya O Jeevana Bandu Parishad (BOJBP)16. Over the years several villages in different clusters around the district adopted the ‘BOJBP’ approach for organising themselves to protect large areas of forests. In 1991, the idea to form a district level forum was first discussed with an objective of creating a platform that would help the villages involved in forest protection to sit together and share their experience. This, it was felt, would bring unity, strengthen their sense of belongingness and facilitate learning. By, 1995, district forums in other areas also emerged. At the same time, the Oxfam support in the area had increased. It was also being increasing realised that a state level forum for discussion and dialogue to increase pressure for relevant policy change needs to be evolved. All these led to the formation of the Orissa Jungle Manch, a state level forum of NGOs, individuals and Community based organisations in the year 1999, supported and facilitated by Regional Centre for Development Cooperation (RCDC) vested with the responsibility of coordinating research, information dissemination and documentation activities for the forum. Though this network is a very recent development, the way it is structured provides enough potential for the use of research done by the local NGO members like RCDC and Vasundhara to provide the missing link between research and policy. Also the fact that community organizations are members of this network increases the probability of evidence-based realities to feed into the policy process.
Political will as well as political circumstances has a major impact on the level of influence networks can have on the policy process. In the case of AP, at the political level, there was a movement for decentralised reforms, due to which even at the department level several changes were taking place to put decentralised management systems in practice. Moreover, in the Forest Department of Andhra Pradesh several officers in their individual capacities were interested in promoting the PFM concept and were actively engaging in the consultation process with PFM networks. In several cases, they were even taking active help from these networks in not only gaining feedback from the field but also involving them in program designing and training of materials for the Forest Department. Contrary to this, in the case of Orissa, there was increasing conflict between the Forest Department and the community based forest protection committees. While the Forest Department was refusing to accept the traditional community based forest protection communities, and wanted to implement the JFM programme all over the state, these community organisations were refusing to accept the JFM programme. Currently, attempts are being made to reduce this conflict and the role of the Orissa Jungle Manch becomes vital at this point.
Gujarat was one of the first state which through its first GO on JFM had formed a state/district level Working Group, with both policy makers (Forest Department) and NGOs as members to set in a process of active consultations in an amicable manner so as to enable a smooth and pro people forest policy in the state. However, the network came under severe criticism on account of the fact that the committee was more or less driven by the Forest Department. In 1999 the
16 INFORM (2001), Volume 1, No 1,Winrock International India
19
state forest department established a JFM Cell to work independently, with support from Aga Khan Foundation (India). To maintain the independency of the JFM Cell, it was decided that the JFM Cell will include members from not only the government and NGOs, but will also include the academicians and other professionals who have expertise in the area of natural resource management. In 2002, the JFM Cell was renamed as the Center for Participatory Management of Natural Resources (CPMNR). The CPMNR gives extensive emphasis on research and dissemination, on conducting institutional, technical, commercial research to promote and strengthen JFM in the state. The research undertaken by the unit is mainly demand driven (as per the need of the SLWG). For example, based on the need as identified by the SLWG, CPMNR has conducted research on prescribing need based silvicultural models, feasibility analysis for JFM on both ecological and institutional issues, developed training strategy for JFM program in Gujarat state, developed JFM Evaluation Form, developed micro plan format, developed working scheme formats. The cell through the research carried out by CPMNR has been able to bring about changes in the implementation of the programme, and raising debates and awareness amongst policy makers especially on pro poor PFM policies. However, though CPMNR has contributed significantly to the PFM policy process in the state in documenting people’s issues in JFM, unfortunately nothing much has moved further in terms of action at the policy level.
4.4.2 Evidence
The fact that most of these state level PFM networks are working with village level institutions and are in one way or the other involved in the implementation of the PFM programme itself has given them the advantage of linking evidence based research findings into policy discussions. As has been discussed in the earlier section, the role of the facilitative NGO in providing this link is more than the network itself. For example, CPF based on individual research done by them are using the platform provided by the network to lobby for pro poor policies. On the other hand networks that are more or less structured like 'think tank' like AP NGO network, do not focus so much on research or on documenting 'evidence' to lobby for change. Though recently there is an ongoing effort to focus on documenting 'evidence' to support their lobbying and advocacy activities. What also emerges, as an important factor in determining the level of influence these 'evidence based research recommendations' have on policy makers is the communication strategy adopted by the networks. It is evident from our study, that in those cases where active consultations have taken place and the research recommendations are widely disseminated to policy makers, the impact has been much more positive. We discuss this in detail in the section on 'episode cases' below.
4.4.3 Links
In the case of AP, both the Vanasamakhya and the AP NGO Network suitably links themselves, providing a very good example of horizontal and vertical linkages required by a network to impact policy change. Though unlike the case of the national level networks, policy makers are not members of these networks, the fact that these networks make constant efforts (both formal and informal) to invite them to the meetings has not only raised the level of awareness of controversial issues, but also makes the policy makers gain insight into the field realities. In the case of the networks studied in Gujarat, though formally the links exists, however they have not been able to utilize the benefit of this linkage, as a result therefore, the SLWG has remained more or less a government pushed initiative which conducts meetings, while the CPMNR is functioning more like a secretariat, which carries out extensive research, which are discussed in workshops, but unfortunately has not been able to influence the policy decision. In the case of Orissa Jungle Manch, which is recently formed, there lies ample potential to make use of the interlinkages it provides through its membership portfolio which includes policy makers, NGOs and community institutions.
20
4.5. Narrative of Identified Episodes: Networks as Connectors in Bridging Research Policy Gaps
PFM networks in India have played a major role in the policy transition that has taken place in the forestry sector in India. A review of the networks studied in this project reveals that these networks have provided the much required platform to discuss and bridge the gap between evidence and policy, thereby serving as 'connectors' between field realities and policy making, which otherwise would be lacking, Infact, it is very clear that before the existence of these networks, forest policy in India were far more removed from field realities, thereby leading to massive degradation and deforestation. Moreover, with the change in the forest management objective from revenue generation to meeting the livelihood needs of the marginalised communities, the role of these networks become more vital.
Though the main objective of these networks are to lobby and advocate for pro people policies in the forestry sector, some of these networks have efficiently used research to achieve the same. In most cases, research (documentation, case studies, notes etc) has been directly or indirectly used to support their lobbying and advocacy activities. In the section below we discuss three such cases where these networks have used research to lobby for policy change.
Case 1: Increased role of women in JFM
Case 2: Better Management and Utilisation of NTFPs
Table 2 below presents a snapshot of how policy level changes evolved to include more active involvement of women in JFM and a move towards better management and utilisation of NTFPs. Though the 1990 MoEF Guidelines promoted for the first time the concept of community participation in forest management, but issues related to equity in participation especially of women remained unspoken. Similarly on the issue of rights over NTFP to forest fringe people, the 1990 guidelines indirectly mentioned it but did not clearly define the details as to how to actualise this.
The issuance of the 1990 guidelines evoked debates at several levels. Moreover, field evidence was pointing towards the need for incorporating women more actively in the programme for its success. Similarly on the issue of NTFP rights, there were several questions on the actual implications of the rights guaranteed under the 1990 guidelines. These issues were being raised and debated in several of the NSG consultation meetings by partner NGOs. Accordingly, the Gender and Equity group of the National Resource Centre of NSG carried out several studied to investigate the issue of gender aspects of JFM programme, Simultaneously, the EERN carried out several studies on the ecological and economic aspects of NTFP management. These findings were shared and widely disseminated through publications and through presentations during the NSG annual meetings, where policy makers and donors also participated. The constant debate and information sharing that took place during these meetings and workshops where policy makers were also present, enabled the debate to continue even after the NSG became dysfunctional and featured in the debates that was taking place amongst policy makers (for example discussions on these two issues took place even in the foresters network. The policy impact was visible after four years when the 2000 guidelines provided enough space for women’s participation in the JFM programme and also realised the importance of NTFP marketing.
21
Table 2: Episode of change- Increased women's involvement in PFM and better utilisation of NTFPs.
Forum Time Issues raised on Women's participation
Issues raised on NTFP
National Network on JFM housed at SPWD
Annual Meeting of 1995
Experiences of JFM practitioners from the field revealed that there were very few women leaders in JFM. A series of studies were undertaken by the G&E group (sub group of the National Research Centre of the NSG) to investigate this issue and to understand the implication thereby.
Following findings were presented by G & E Sub-group based on discussion held in sub-group’s meetings
- Women had limited presence and their participation was limited by their role, expectations and heavy burden of work.
- Women were also not a homogenous category. Thus, gender issues had to be looked in the context of class and resources/wealth ownership.
Based on the research carried out by EERN on utilization pattern of NTFP following conclusions were drawn:
The rate of NTFP harvest was found lesser than the potential.
On the institutional side, harvest regulations were followed stringently and abuse of regulation was almost absent.
Annual Meeting of 1996
In her Keynote presentation on Policy Advocacy and Implementation, Madhu Sarin recommended to have 33%-50% women in Management Committee and mandatory presence of women in meetings. These recommendations were based on 'evidence' based research carried out by the G&E group.
EERN based on research conducted by them pointed out that potential of NTFP was much higher than the levels that were being extracted.
IRN based on their research stressed on value addition to NTFP at FPC level.
In her keynote presentation on Policy Advocacy and Implementation, Madhu Sarin recommended to have proper silvicultural management to maximize NTFP production. She also talked about community ownership of NTFP.
22
Foresters’ Network Meeting of May 1998
Women’s equity in JFM Committees were discussed in detail by foresters
Standing Committee Meeting
Meeting held on April 8, 1999
Dr Ram Prasad, Director, IIFM recommended for active participation of women in JFM.
Final recommendation of the Standing Committee
50% of JFM General Body members should be women & presence of 50% women in GB meeting should be made mandatory.
Policy changes in JFM Guidelines
2000 o A minimum membership of 50% membership of women in General Body and 33% in Management Committee
o One of the posts among the President, Vice-President and Secretary has to be filled up by women
o Minimum quorum for women in GB and MC meetings should 50% and 33% respectively.
o Stressed on capacity building for NTFP management
Various factors contributed to this. The fact that important policy makers (high officials involved in policy making from the MoEF) and donors (who were actively involved in supporting the JFM programme in the country) were also members of the network further facilitated the process of translating this issue into a policy change process. The members of the Gender and Equity group (like Ms Madhu Sarin, G Raju, Ms Hiremath) and the Economic and Ecological Research group (Centre for Ecological Studies, Bangalore) had important influence mainly on the donors, which enabled the issues to be highlighted. Further with the formation of the WWF Foresters networks some of these policy makers carried forward this debate to this network, and the fact was reiterated by the field level Forest Department officials, which made it easier to be accepted at the policy level. Even the MoEF JFM cell had the same members, where the issue was again raised and discussed. The fact that Ford Foundation supported all these networks and was in support of increasing the role of women in JFM, in a way facilitated the process of this issue to be taken up at a policy change. Though it is very difficult to attribute the research done to substantiate the lobbying and advocacy done on these two issues by the NSG as the main factor that enabled these policy changes, since policy making is includes a much larger political context, the fact that these research activities raised the awareness of the issue at the policy making level was reiterated by the policy makers whom the project team interviewed.
23
Case 3: Influencing the CFM Project of the World Bank and related Policies
Table 3 below provides a snapshot as to how PFM networks influenced the design and implementation of the CFM project in the state. By the time the second phase of the World Bank project was to be implemented, both the networks in AP- AP NGO Network and CPF-Vanasamakhya had created enough space for themselves in the PFM policy making process. Their active and effective participation during the first phase of the project was widely recognised by both the policy makers and the donors involved.
Based on the experience gained from the implementation of the first phase of the project, several concerns were being raised mainly on the issue of Resettlement and rehabilitation issue and the issue of incremental value in usufruct rights given to the people, PFM networks in the state were pushing for changes in these areas. While on one hand CPF-Vanasamakhya undertook couple of research activities to provide field based realities on these two issues, the AP NGO network initiated the dialogue with the WB and the FD regarding the issues of clarity on usufruct rights for VSS and Resettlement and Rehabilitation policies. The fact that these two networks were linked provided the much required horizontal and vertical linkages which helps increase the level of influence networks can have on the policy making process. While on one hand, AP NGO network was performing a role of 'watchdogs for pro poor policies’ mainly on the issue of land rights, by creating pressure on the government through rallies, protest marches, public hearing, press releases etc, CPF-Vanasamakhya was substantiating the protests with ‘evidence based research’. A series of regional workshops were then conducted in consultation with the Forest Department to get feedback from the VSS. Based on the discussions the FD agreed to make the necessary changes and removing the conflicting statements. Accordingly, the FD brought out an addendum regarding usufruct rights (see box 1), which was circulated during the meetings and consultations.
The final consultative meeting on usufruct rights (GO no. 13) and R&R policy was organised by FD at the state level during August (18th) 2003. All the stakeholders (VSS representatives, NGOs, FD officials) that have participated in the earlier consultations along with the senior FD officials participated in the meeting. The Addendum was presented for a feedback from the participants. A panel consisting of FD officials and development workers gave its final view after taking the feedback.
The consultation on R&R followed the same pattern, except for the panel, which consisted of the advisory board members of the R&R. The FD had chalked out the methodology and the selection of panel members in consultation with the network. After a number of joint meetings, the R&R policy is finalised and the GO is on its way.
In the second phase of the project, Vanasamakhya played an active role in terms of carrying out field-based research to advocate changes in the new project. These research works were very well documented and widely disseminated to the policy makers and donors as well as to the other interested communities at large. The network also actively garnered the support from outside the states, by organising workshops on the issues. The result being that most of the recommendations of the network consultation were accepted by the policy makers.
24
Table 3: Episode of change: Influencing the CFM Project
Time Strategy adopted by the network Policy decision
1996-2000 Several small research undertaken by Vanasamakhya to highlight the impact of JFM, and how to improve the benefit of the programme from the implementation point of view
Involved in designing of the R&R policy under the CFM project- Vanamakhya and AP NGO Network organised several consultations at various levels, which were documented in a form of minutes and circulated widely, Vanasamakhya also published the proceedings of the consultations
2000 New guidelines drafted for the CFM, based on the consultations and circulated for comments
2000-2004 Regional and state level consultations with policy makers on the draft GO 13
Vanasamakhya through documentation advocates 100% share of local communities, and actively supported by AP NGO Network
GO 13 issued
Addendum issued in 2004 as part of GO 13 agrees 100% share of communities on all NTFPs, all intermediate yields obtained from silvicultural operations in natural forests, all timber and bamboo (including bamboo plantations) except in case of plantations, in the case of teak plantations within VSS area, whose age is known, twice the proportionate yield harvested (including yield from thinning) with reference to age of the plantation and the period of maintenance by the VSS, in the case of other plantations, whose age is known, 50 percent of harvest (including thinning) of the period of management of plantation by VSS is less than 50 percent of the rotation period and 100 percent of volume harvested if such period of management by the VSS is more than 50 percent of rotation period of the plantation, and all the timber obtained from second and subsequent rotations of all plantations.
5. Conclusions
Influencing the policy making process is a challenging task since policy making process in itself is a complex process and policy choices are determined by political, social and economic factors. Therefore it is important for stakeholders who are mainly outside the political domain to understand that the policy decisions are not made by a single person and cannot be implemented in isolation. Policies and programmes are the cumulative result of conflict and cooperation among many actors, principally politicians, bureaucrats and external interest groups17. 17 Garret et al (undated), Policy research and the policy process: Do the twain ever meet?, Gatekeeper series No 14, IIED, UK.
25
To influence policymaking is therefore a process in itself and is seldom a onetime effort, and it requires different types of interventions at different stages in the policy making process. For example, while at one stage by providing reliable information to policy makers one can help in raising awareness and thereby influencing policy decisions, at another stage, lobbying and pressure can actually force the policymakers to 'listen'. Organising consultations between policy makers and conflicting group of stakeholders can in some cases lead to policy changes. The key factor determining the level of influence therefore is to identify these 'opportunities' and to be able to contribute 'timely' and 'appropriately' to this dynamic and complex process at every stage in a balanced manner.
In India, forestry sector policies have undergone a sea change in the last two decades. Though social and political factors did play a role in reversing the change in forest management objectives from being 'revenue oriented' to moving towards 'people need based', the PFM networks that emerged during the same time played a significant role in contributing to the policy change process.
The PFM networks in India have emerged as important 'connectors' that keep the policy makers connected to 'evidence from field' through various ways, which is particularly important for policies dealing with people. From active lobbying and advocacy, to research and consultations, these networks have attempted through various ways to influence the policy change process to make it ' pro poor'. As connectors, they have contributed to this process in three significant ways:
• Created awareness on important issues- One of the important contribution of the networks have been in terms of the 'awareness' that it has created on several issues like importance of participation of women in JFM, value addition and NTFP marketing, importance of ensuring 100% benefit sharing to communities, etc. These networks from time to time have taken up issue specific research and shared the findings with policy makers in meetings, workshops and through documentations. It is also interesting to note that in those cases where the networks have managed to keep the policy makers regularly informed about these issues (sometimes through newsletters, sometimes through notes) in a continuous process, there the influence has been more.
• Provided access to pool of information and 'options': In several cases it has been observed that the policymakers have resorted to these networks to provide them with 'solutions'. For example, in AP, Vanasamakhya has conducted several studies and training materials for the Forest Department, similarly in the case of Gujarat, the CPMNR cell has from time to time provided feedback to the Forest Department on micro level implementation issues.
• Provided a platform for exchange of information and for consultation: This is one of the most important contributions of the PFM networks in India. With the change in the forest management objectives towards being 'people friendly' and 'people need based', this platform served an important purpose. For the first time, policy makers and field practitioners were able to come together and share and exchange information. This platform therefore managed to reduce the gap between 'evidence' and policy. Infact, the process of consultations between policy makers and other stakeholders, facilitated by these networks, has over time helped in reducing the earlier conflicts between them, enabling the policy making process to be more transparent and participatory.
26
To conclude, PFM networks in India are emerging as 'connectors' with an important responsibility of connecting evidence based field realities to policy making. Though 'lobbying and advocacy' is the major strategy adopted by the PFM networks in India to influence policy change process, research is one of the several tools that these networks use to substantiate the issues that they lobby for. Depending upon the nature of the network, some use research extensively for this purpose, while others do not. For example, NSG at the national level, had a dedicated research centre working on relevant issues to come up with 'evidence' based recommendations, similarly, CPF- Vanasamkhya carries out extensive research and wide dissemination of the findings before organising consultations with the policy makers, On the other hand, AP NGO network, stresses on lobbying and advocacy, and consultations, without the similar emphasis on research per se. Though most of their advocacy is based on 'evidence' from field experience, they however do not research and document them like Vanasamakhya. Moreover the vertical linkage it has with vanasamkhya provides them with the required 'evidence based research' support. The current MoEF JFM network, though designed to focus on 'consultations', yet by its very structure provides the space for research done by the network members, which it hopes to flow in the debates and consultations that it will facilitate.
As discussed earlier, policymaking is a dynamic and complex process. Therefore to measure impact of research on the policy change process is a difficult challenge. It emerges from this study, that given the objective and strategies of the PFM networks studied in this project, research does not seem to have any direct impact on policy change. It is found that research done by networks have served either as information, or has led to generation of awareness on contentious issues at the policy level. It is only when networks have widely communicated the research findings, kept the policy makers involved at all stages through informal and formal ways, raised these issues in meetings and consultations, and exerted pressure through media, public hearings etc, that these issues found its way to the policy makers table. Beyond these the social and political factors determine whether these issues translate into policy decisions. For example, most of the stakeholders interviewed in this project (including policy makers) felt that 'though the nature of urgency for change' does play a role in how quick a particular recommendation gets translated into policy change, but ultimately the most important factor that influences recommendations to translate into policy change depends on the level of advocacy/pressure created to turn it into a political and social urgency. Even in those cases where research is done on demand by policy makers (e.g. research done by CPMRN in Gujarat), it is observed that only those research which are aimed at 'better implementation of existing programmes' have been successful in translating into actions, while there has been very little impact interms of influencing broader policy level changes. Moreover, for a policy level change, another factor which is equally important is the type of 'networking' done and the 'links' the network has. Having reputed 'champions' known and recognised in the sector as direct or indirect members have facilitated the process of influence, for example, in Gujarat, the policy makers recognises SAKSHAM due to the fact that VIKSAT is facilitating the network. In the case of Andhra Pradesh, AP NGO network was able to create initial space for itself because of members like Mr Gopal and Dr. Vittal Rajan, who are held in high esteem by the Forest Department.
With a year of PFM in practice in the country, the responsibilities of these networks assume more significance as promoters of 'evidence based policy decisions'. The scope of using research effectively towards fulfilling this responsibility needs to be more carefully and consciously knitted into the existing strategy of these networks. The potential is immense, what is required is a more focussed and targeted approach to use the advantage effective research can provide towards meeting their objectives.
27
Bibliography
Britt Charla (2002), Community Forestry Comes of Age: Forest-User Networking and Federation-Building Experiences from Nepal, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Ph.D. Candidate; Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University.
Buck L. E., Wollenberg E., and Edmunds D. (2001), “Social Learning in the collaborative management of community forests: Lessons from the field”, Chapter I in Social Learning in Community Forests, (e.d.,) Eva Wollenberg; David Edmunds; Lonbe Buck; Jeff Fox and Sonja Brodt, A Joint Publication of CIFOR and the East-West Centre.
Centre for People's Forestry (2003) Livelihoods Rights through Forestry (Women, tribals, dalits and other resource poor), Hyderabad, July 2003.
Edwards et al (2001), Facilitating support networks for community forestry development, workshop proceedings organised by RECOFTC in collaboration with DFID, Oxford University, UK, April 9-21 2001.
Garret et al (undated), Policy research and the policy process: Do the twain ever meet?, Gatekeeper series No 14, IIED, UK.
INFORM (2001), Quarterly Newsletter on Community Forestry Volume 1, No 1, Winrock International India
INFORM (2001), Quarterly Newsletter on Community Forestry, Volume 2, Winrock International India, New Delhi
International Network of Forests and Communities, (2002), Global Forest, Global Citizens- a discussion paper series on the future of forests and communities.
Ministry of Environment and Forest, State of Forest Report (1999), Government of India
Reddy et al (2004), Participatory Forest Management in Andhra Pradesh: A Review, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad.
SPWD (1997), Review Committee Report, New Delhi
VIKSAT, Annual Report, 2002-03.
Winrock International India (2004), Root to Canopy-Regenerating India's Forests Through Community-State Partnerships, New Delhi
http://www.viksat.org/saksham.html
28
Annexure 1: Comparative description of PFM Networks Name of
the Network
Type of network Functional Structure Objectives Main Strategies Likely impact on policy process
Actual Impact on policy process
National SPWD-JFM Network
Advocacy Coalition- representatives from major stakeholders like Forest Department, NGOs, donors, academecia, etc
Wheel-SPWD as secretariat, representatives from NGOs, academic & research institutions, MoEF, State Forest department, other state govt. Departments andDonors
To facilitate a national network of stakeholders in JFM for capacity building and information sharing,through: • Research and research
support • Training support, support
to NGOs • Documentation, publication
and information exchange • Organizing workshop and
exposure visits.
• Lobbying and advocacy on policy relevant issues through various platform like workshops and meetings
• Issue based research work through setting up three units18:
Triggering of debates on controversial issues resulting in change in policies and practice Enhanced awareness of change among implementers Bridging of information gap between policy makers and implementers
44 44 4
18 Three research units were set up for this purpose: Ecological and Economic Research Network (EERN) coordinated by the Centre for Ecological Sciences of the Indian Institute of Sciences (IISC) at Bangalore. This network focused its research on ecological and economic issues related to JFM. Five academic institutions and six NGOs are members of EERN as its sub-networks. EERN along with its sub-networks conducted researches on issues like practices and modes of forest management with focus on NTFP and other biomass production and also NTFP based income generation activities; Institutional Research Network (IRN) was created with Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM) based in Bhopal to coordinate research on the issue of research on new institutional arrangements required under JFM, i.e. issues like institutional effectiveness of JFM and processing and marketing of NTFP through FPC. Later, in 1994, a sub-group on Gender and Equity was created within IRN to develop a common understanding on gender and equity issues and for increasing gender and equity sensitivity in the policy and practice of JFM through advocacy and research; Training Research Network (TRN) coordinated by Indian Institute of Biosocial Research and Development (IBRAD) of Kolkata. TRN in collaboration with other organizations helped in identifying the training needs under the changed management regime of JFM both for the Forest Department officials and the communities, prepared training material in different languages and conducted training programmes
29
WWF-Foresters' Network
Epistemic community-with members from Forest Department who collaborated on specific JFM related issues
Pyramid- with the aim to further strengthen the JFM programme; this network has no links with grassroots workers- NGOs/communities
To enable foresters to interact and discuss on ways to strengthen and effectively implement the JFM programme in the country.
Frequent and regular meetings
Change in policy and sharing of knowledge on better implementation of the programme
6
MoEF JFM Network
Partial Epistemic community: Besides the FD, there are other members from NGOs and academicians, but the network is mainly driven by the Ministry of Environment and Forests
Pyramid- with the aim to further strengthen the JFM programme;
To act as a regular mechanism of wider consultation between various agencies engaged in JFM and to establish a constant feedback mechanism from various stakeholders to guide policy formulation.
Meetings, consultations and workshops on relevant issues
Triggering of debates on controversial issues resulting in change in policies and practice
4
Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh NGO Network
Advocacy Coalition: Includes NGOs who work together and lobby for better implementation of PFM in the state
Wheel- one secretariat in the centre, and other NGO members from the district level
To promote participatory community forest management with integrated natural resource management, equity and gender concerns, and to bring in pro poor and forest dweller friendly policies.
Lobbying and Advocacy, Capacity Building Networking, Research and Dissemination
Triggering of debates on controversial issues resulting in change in policies and practice Enhanced awareness of change (in policies) amongst implementers Active watch dogs
44 44 44
Vanasamakhya
Advocacy Coalition: Federation of village level forest protection committees
Wheel- One NGO in the centre as the coordinator and then members ranging from block to district level
To emphasise people's rights over forest and natural resources and their conservation and management by increasing peoples' role in conservation and management of forest resources and biodiversity through institutional strengthening of the forest protection.committees.
Lobbying and advocacy, Participatory Action Research, Networking: Capacity Building, Documentation and information dissemination, Consultations
Enhanced awareness of change (in policies) amongst implementers
Change in practice
Enables the voice of the communities to reach policy makers therefore polices to be more realistic and implementable
4 44 44
30
Gujarat State/District level working group CPMNR
Epistemic community-with members state/district level Forest Department who collaborated on specific JFM related issues
Pyramid- with the aim to further strengthen the JFM programme in the state
To promote participatory approaches and disseminate learning in the field of natural resources through providing a common platform where the government and the NGOs can interact.
Research and Dissemination Consultative/facilitative workshops
Change in policy Sharing of knowledge leading to better implementation of the programme
6 4
SAKSHAM
Advocacy Coalition: Federation of village level forest protection committees
Wheel- One NGO in the centre as the coordinator and then members ranging from block to district level
To facilitate, initiate and strengthen people’s institutions in natural resource management.
Meetings and interactions, Documentation and publication, Exposure visits, and Networking
Triggering of debates on controversial issues resulting in change in policies and practice Enhanced awareness of change (in policies) amongst implementers Better micro level rules for effective protection of forests
4 4 44
Orissa Orissa Jungle Manch
Communication for social change- members from village forest protection committee with the aim for social change
Web-Emphasis on downward linkages with broader participation of communities
To organise mass mobilisation to promote pro poor forest policies favouring the interest of the marginalised forest dependent communities.
Meetings of members, training and capacity buildings, lobbying and advocacy
Enhanced power to negotiate with government Better micro level rules for effective protection of forests
4 4
Note: 44 indicates very high impact, 4indicates average impact, 6 indicates no impact
31
Annexure 2: National Level PFM Policy Change Table
Policy/Guidelines Salient features National Forest Policy, 1988 • Enunciated three imperatives - Sustainability, Efficiency and People’s participation.
• Provided first time policy space for massive people’s movement with involvement of women for protection of forests.
• First time recognized that the basic objective of forest management is also to meet the fuelwood, fodder, minor forest produces and small timber requirement of the rural and tribal population.
• Accepted the symbiotic relationship between tribals and forest. • Replaced contractor system for timber harvestation with tribal cooperative/Govt Cooperative/ Govt Corporation. • Introduced sustainable management and exploitation of NTFP.
Guidelines on Involvement of village communities and Village Organisations in the Regeneration of degraded forests lands, 1990
• Stressed on developing partnerships between communities and forest departments, facilitated by NGOs when helpful;
• Provided access and benefits to forest usufruct only to communities organized into village institution under-taking regeneration, with equal opportunity based on willing participation;
Guidelines for strengthening JFM issued on February 21 (No 22-8/2000-JFM (FPD))
• Provided legal back up to the forest protection committees. • Provided uniform nomenclature for JFM committees across the states. • Evolved specific membership criteria. • Women’s empowerment. • Extended JFM in good forest areas on pilot basis. • Preparation of Microplan in JFM made mandatory. • Recognised self initiated forest protection groups. • Introduced the concept of ploughing back of funds for regeneration of resources. • Introduced transparent mechanism for benefit sharing among different stakeholders. • Introduced monitoring and evaluation in regular interval.
Guidelines for strengthening JFM 2002 issued on December 24 (No 22-8/2000 –JFM (PFD), 2002
• Signing of MoU between community and Forest dept • Relationship with Panchayat • Capacity building for NTFP management
National Afforestation Programme”: a participatory approach to sustainable development of forests (Centrally Sponsored scheme) Operational guidelines for the tenth five-year plan(Forest Development Agencies)
• Creation of Forest Development Agencies (FDA) for implementing centrally sponsored afforestation & other forestry related programmes.
• FDAs are to be registered as Federation of all JFM committees at the division level. • Signing MoU between FDAs and JFM committees • Microplan, key to developing FDA’s workplan. • Provision for Entry Point Activities. • Funds will be directly transferred from National Afforestation and Eco-development Board (NAEB) to the concerned
FDA. • Monitoring and evaluation of FDA’s performance in regular interval.
32
Annexure 3: Major PFM Policy Change Table of AP
Year Policy Salient Features
1992 FORESTS – Forest Lands – Joint Forest Management – Constitution of “VANA SAMRAKSHNA SAMITHI” for Protection and Development of Degraded Forests - GO Ms No. 218, dt: 28.8.1992
JFM formally introduced in all districts of AP. Main features include • Formation of VSS, with the Range Officer as the Ex-Officio member of the samithi and the managing
committee
• Overall implementation of JFM is the responsibility of the Range Officer with active assistance and participation of the Samiti.
• Priority to local people's needs and requirements during planning process
• NGOs to provide interface between the government and the people (the only role of NGOs as identified in this order is to help in the formation of the VSS)
• Local forest officer to ground and monitor the programme
• Samiti ensured usufructory rights: non reserved items to be provided free of costs (leaf and grass, fodder, thatch grass, groom grass and thorny fencing material); on reserved items right to collect and sell to the GCC against payments; on timber and poles 25% of harvestable products for self consumption.
1993 FORESTS-Forest land- State Level Committee- Andhra Pradesh State Forestry Committee and District level forestry committee, for the purpose of implementation of JFM in the state of AP, Constitution of committee GO Ms No. 181, dt: 24.8.1993 GO Ms No. 183, dt: 24.8.1993
Constituted a State/distict level Committee of AP comprising of members from other departments and two representative from NGOs, with the following functions:
• Provide coordination amongst various departments of the state connected with the implementation of JFM
1993
Forest- Forest land-Joint Forest Management-Revised Order GO Ms No. 224, dt: 11.11.1993
Introduced specific instructions on constitution of VSS and managing committee:
• All sc/st members of a hamlet/village/cluster of village automatically becomes member of Samiti.
• Membership of Samiti increased from 6-10 to 10-15 of which 30% to be women
• Include representative from NGOs and others depending upon the need, village administrative officer/development officer/village teacher
• Increased usufruct rights of VSS
• Increased share of benefit to 50% on timber and poles to VSS (on harvestable products for self consumption)
33
1996 Joint Forest Management- Improvement of Degraded Forests GO Ms No 173, dt:7.12.1996
Further increased usufruct rights of VSS
• Among Reserved items, in case of Beedi leaf- 50% of the net income from increased yield over and above the average yield of 5 yrs will be distributed amongst VSS members
• 100% share in timber and bamboo harvested from regenerated degraded forests after adjusting expenditure incurred on regeneration
1997 Forest- Joint Forest Management- Improvement of degraded forests- amendment to certating provision of GO on the sharing mechanisms GO Ms No 115, 25.9.97
Amended the above GO No 173) and proposed that from income earned from sale of beedi leaf ordinarily 50% of the ner amound after deducting harvesting and transportation costs will be given to the Samiti and incase the required amount id more than 50% of the income, proposal needs approval of the general body of the VSS.
1998 Forest Department- Joint Forest Management- Sanction of incentives to VSS for apprehending smuggling of forests GO No 21, dt:5.3.98
Incentives to VSS members in case of apprehending smugglers transporting forest produce illegally:
• if competent authority compounds the case, 25% of the Compound fee collected will be paid to VSS unless the compound fee is fully collected and remitted to the Government treasury
• incase the case is not compounded by competent authority. VSS will be sanctioned 25% of the value od the produce as incentives.
2000 Incentives to VSS members for apprehending smugglers of forest produce-enhancement of incentives from 25% to 50% GO Ms No 43
In case of apprehending smugglers transporting forest produce illegally:
• if competent authority compounds the case, 50% of the Compound fee collected will be paid to VSS unless the compound fee is fully collected and remitted to the Government treasury
• incase the case is not compounded by competent authority. VSS will be sanctioned 50% of the value od the produce as incentives.
34
2000 Forests- Joint Forest Management- Involvement of industries in supporting VSS in rejuvenation of degraded forest areas GO Ms No 112
The government agreed in principle to involve industries in supporting VSS in regeneration of degraded forest area subject to: • The VSS members benefit more when compared to present situation and that forests must get rejuvenated • Basic structure of VSS as defined in GO Ms No 173 shall not be distributed • Tripartite agreement amongst VSS members, the participating industries and the state government • Terms and conditions of tripartite agreement in accordance with the FCA 1980 and GO Ms No 173 • Industry to provide financial and technical inputs to VSS • No leasing and transfer of forest lands/standing forest produce to industries • Adequate precaution to maintain biodiversity • Regeneration as per approved micro plan • Industries to take up marketing of forest produce
2002 Community Forest Management Project- AP Forest Department GO No. 13, dt:12.2.2002
Introduced CFM in the state
35
PFM Policy Change Matrix of Gujarat Year Policy/Guidelines Salient features
1st March, 1991 Involvement of village communities and voluntary agencies for regeneration of degraded forest lands FCA-1090-125-V(3)
• Developing partnerships between communities and forest departments, facilitated by NGOs when helpful;
• Access and benefits to forest usufruct only to communities organized into village institution under-taking regeneration, with equal opportunity based on willing participation;
• Constitution of district and state level committees
30th July, 1993
(Circular issued by FD)
Recommendation for simplified procedure to harvest tree from own land. Formation of a committee for giving harvesting permission SFT-1292-M-96-V.2
Simplified procedure were set for harvesting of trees from own land so that tree cover in the area can be increased. Village Sarpanch’s recommendation was acceptable for carrying out harvesting operations.
19th March, 1998
(Circular issued by FD)
Inclusion of forestlands in the micro watershed under the scheme of Watershed Development SAVYO/Mon12/B/6891-6/1997-98
It was recommended that any Project Implementing Agency other than Forest Department may undertake soil and water conservation work on forest lands, comes under the watershed scheme.
27th July, 1994 Regeneration of Forest with involvement of NGOs and Villagers
Harvesting share for the communities was settled at 50% irrespective of whether the forest land was being supported through a government initiative or through donor funded project initiative.
36
PFM Policy Change Matrix of Orissa Year Guidelines/Resolution Changes
1988 Resolution for Protection of Reserved Forest areas by the Community19 Dated Bhubaneswar the 1st August, 1998 No. 10F (Pron) 47/88/17240/FFAH
The first government guidelines recognizing community’s role in forest protection. • Accepting the role of rural community in protection of forests, the Resolution proposed to assign adjoining
Reserved Forests (excluding RF notified under Section 18 (1) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972) to villagers. • A Forest Protection Committee with a minimum of eight members will be formed under the supervision of the
DFO. - The committee should include as far as possible representatives from SC, ST, women and landless groups. - The Sarpanch of the GP and the local Forester shall be the Chairman and Convenor of the Committee - The ward member, Revenue Inspector, VLW and a maximum of three such other persons nominated by
GP • The FPC will be responsible to protect forests from fire, illicit felling, thefts of forest produce and encroachment • In lieu FPC members will be entitled to take small timber and firewood for household consumption but not for
sale or bartar - Requirement of the small timber will be worked out and distributed by FPC - Firewood shall be apportioned among the HHs depending on supply and real demand - A permit will be issued to two members of the FPC for removing small timber and firewood from RF
1988 Addition to the Resolution on Protection of Reserved Forest Areas by the Community dated Bhubaneswar the 13th October, 1988 No. 10F (Pron) – 47/88/23638/FFAH
Instead of nomination of non-official members by the GP, this Resolution recommended selection of non-official members in consultation with local villagers in an organized village meeting.
1988 Modification to the Resolution on Protection of Reserved Forest Areas by the Community dated Bhubaneswar 14.12.88 No. 10F (Pron) – 47/88/27328/FFAH20
Regarding benefit sharing the current Resolution clarified that villagers will be entitled for meeting their bonafide needs of small timber and firewood from RF free of costs in place of paying royalty as prescribed in the Rules on Schedule of Rates for Forest Produces in Orissa 1977
1990 Resolution on Protection of Reserved Forest and Protected Forest Areas by the Community and enjoyment of certain usufructs by the Community No. 10F (Pron) 4/90/29525/FFAH, Bhubaneswar, dated 11.12.1990
Resolution enlarged the scope by including Protected Forests instead of only Reserved Forests, and recommended for the formation of Village Level Forest Protection Committee in villages adjacent to Protected Forests.
19 It was issued by Mr P K Mohanty 20 Issued by J K Mohapatra
37
Year Guidelines/Resolution Changes
1993 Notification on Protection of reserved forest and protected forest areas by the community and enjoyment of certain usufructs by the community (Notification No. 16700-10F(Pron) – 20/93-F&E dated 3-7-1993)
Notification issued by the state forest department for implementing JFM scheme with following provisions: • While 1988 and 1990 Resolution stipulated community participation in peripheral Reserved and Protected
Forests, the ambit of JFM, according to this Notification, is only the degraded Reserved and Protected Forests. • Vana Samrakshana Samiti (VSS) will be formed in a General Body meeting convened by Gram Panchayat under
the supervision of DFO/Range Officer/Forester • For a group of villages/hamlets located adjacent to a single forest patch, only one VSS should be formed. • Two members including one woman from every HH should be members of VSS • Forester should be the ex-officio Secretary of the VSS • 10-15 members Executive Committee will be elected for tenure of two years including Naib Sarpanch
(Chairman), Ward members, Forester and Forest Guard, NGO representative selected by DFO and three women. • Forester and FG will not have voting rights. • VSS members will help FD in carrying out silvicultural operation along with other responsibilities like
protection etc • GB/Samiti can remove any non-official member of EC in case of unsatisfactory performance • Forester being Member Secretary will prepare the agenda and maintain minutes of EC meetings • EC will be the first forum to resolve any conflict • By forming a sub-committee of JFM, Gram Panchayat would monitor the progress and appraise the DFO about
the working of VSS • Government will bear the expenditure incurred in JFM • In lieu of protection, members will be eligible for following usufruct. Unlike 1988 Resolution, nothing is
mentioned that members can use these only for household consumption but not for sale or bartar. - Fuelwood, fodder etc will be available to members free of cost - Leased out MFP, if collected, has to be delivered to agency/lessees against the collection charge - EC will distribute products coming out of silvicultural operation equally among the members - Either produce or net sale proceeds from final harvest will be distributed among the VSS and FD in 50:50
ratio • An MoU with detail description of duties and rights of VSS and FD will be signed betn FD and VSS • 10 members Steering Committee at the state level will monitor, guide and direct JFM programme in the state
38
Year Guidelines/Resolution Changes
1994 (Aug) Corrigendum
• Regarding forest area assigned to a Committee, 1988 Resolution didn’t stipulate any limit but only mentioned about assigning peripheral Reserved Forest area either following the compartment line or natural boundary like nalla, bridges etc. Notification of 1993, later, put a ceiling on assigning forests under JFM to a maximum of 200 ha, the Corrigendum revised this limit as “about 200 ha”.
• There was no mention about quorum required for General Body/Samiti meeting in any of the Resolutions/Modifications issued before 1993. Notification of 1993 set the quorum as 60% for the GB meeting. The present Corrigendum reduced minimum quorum requirement for Samiti meeting to 40%.
• 1993 Notification specified mandatory presence of two-thirds members for Executive Committee members. However, the present Corrigendum mentioned that no quorum will be required for holding EC meeting but Naib Sarpanch or his/er nominee should convene the meeting.
1994 (Dec.) Resolution
• Resolutions of 1988, 1990 and 1993 envisaged community participation in Reserved, Protected and degraded forests respectively. 1994 Resolution, for the first time, mentioned specifically about village woodlots or Social Forestry block plantation raised under SIDA assisted project (1984/94) brought under JFM.
• Usufruct from the first harvest including final felling would be 100% for community but subsequent sharing will be according to JFM resolution, which is 50% of the products or net sale proceeds.
1996 Resolution on Incentives to villagers for protection of forests and conferment of right to usufruct in respect of forests protected by village (Order No. 22180/FE Bhubaneswar dt. 30.9.96)
• It was felt by the policy makers that unsatisfactory progress was achieved in case of community involvement in forest protection till 1996 due to uncertain tenure of the villagers on forests and its products. Therefore, the current Resolution proposed to declare forests under community protection as Village Forests
• In addition to usufruct like leaves, fodder, grasses, thatch grasses, broom grasses, brush wood etc mentioned in 1993 Resolution, the current Order mentioned about community’s eligibility to gather bamboo and wood free of costs from forests.
• Instead of only collection right (as mentioned in 1993 Resolution), the present Order conferred the right to possess, storage and process NTFPs but has to be sold to lessees, agents or authorized officials at pre-determined prices.
2000 Policy on procurement and trade of non-timber forest produce
• Gram Panchayat both in the scheduled and non-scheduled areas will have the authority to regulate purchase, procurement and trading in MFP.
• In forest area, where VSS has been formed, VSS and its members will have priority over the Gram Panchayat in the matter of collection and disposal of MFP
• Individuals interested in MFP trade has to be registered with the concerned GP for each season • The trade of kendu leaves and sal seed will continue to be controlled by the state government • MFP having high medicinal value will not be leased out for commercial exploitation except exceptional cases. • For all MFP, the concerned committee will set a minimum procurement price for each collection season.
39
Annexure 4: Check lists for field-work
Checklist to be addressed to FD- Andhra Pradesh (no frontline staff)
• What are the major policy changes that has taken place in AP PFM
• What role does the PFM Networks play in PFM policy process in the state (Pro-active, lobbying/advocacy, research, etc?)
• Do you engage with the PFM networks? How often? For what?- for research, for policy discussions/debates, for feedback on policy changes, for practical/field learning, due to pressure from networks, etc? What is your perception of AP NGO Network and Vanasamakhya? Do you think that they play any role in PFM policy making process? Explain.
• What is the form of interaction with networks-formal/informal? Describe the process
• On what basis do you judge the credibility of the network? Based on what criteria do you decide to involve with the networks?- quality of research/input, personal networking/any other?
• Can you identify any specific episode (of policy change) where networks have played a positive role in influencing policy change in the State? (Especially in terms of research/advocacy). If no why? If yes
a. Who initiated it? (donor/project need, FD, MoEF)?- If it was initiated by you, what was the reaction of the larger community (donors, CBOs, NGOs and experts on PFM) regarding the need for this policy change and the input required from the network?
b. On what basis did you select/associate with the networks?
c. What role did the network play?
d. Describe the entire process of 'episode change'
e. What are the specific measures that you took to maintain 'quality' input from the networks?
f. How timely/topical and implementable/realistic was the inputs provided by the networks? Explain.
g. In this specific case, was the problem identification (as identified by the network) objective?
h. Was specific solutions provided for the problems by the networks?
i. What are the feedback mechanisms (are there any?) from the policy makers?
• How often has policy makers invited the networks to especially undertake research for better PFM policies? Give some recent examples. For each of these
a. What was the need for this research input?
b. On what basis did you select the network to associate with?
c. Was the problem identification (as identified by the network) objective?
d. Was specific solutions provided for the problems by the networks?
e. How big was the research? a single report, or a compilation of case studies?
40
• Based on our literature review, the following episodes have been identified where networks seem to have influenced/played an pro-active role in policy change? Do you agree with that?
a. Role in G O No. 173, 1996 ( where AP NGO network, played a role in including NGOs in state forestry committee, district forestry committee, ITDA committee, and VSS management committee).
b. Role in CFM guideline of 2000 (getting NGO representation into policy making bodies, enhancing usufruct rights of the VSS to 100%)
c. Role in R &R related policies of the WB CFM project
d. Role in better functioning of GCC.
• In the scale of 1- 10 where would you rank ' quality and credibility' as a factor that enables it to translate into policies
• In the scale of 1- 1021 where would you rank ' demand driven research' as a factor that enables it to translate into policies
21 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest rank
41
Checklist for AP NGO Network
• Background of Formation of AP NGO Network
o Why was it formed?
o Who initiated it?
o Who supported it?
o Main activities
o Main difference between the pre and post registration phase (institutional and activity/focus wise)
• Under the main function of the secretariat- to act as clearing house of JFM and to facilitate interaction between NGO and FD) what are the main activities that have been undertaken so far?
• What is the role of the Network in PFM policy advocacy? What kind of role has it played- has it acted more as ‘watch dog’ or it has been more ‘pro active and has adopted participative role acting as consultative groups in bringing about changes in the policy process?
• How often do you (secretariat) interact with the government? What is the mode? Is it formal or informal? How often?
• Have there been instances where you have been particularly asked by the government/donor to facilitate/undertake research on specific PFM policies? If yes : ( trace the evidence of policy to practice document supported by the Intercooperation)
a. What was the need for this research input?
b. Why do you think you were approached for the study?
c. Did you agree with the project objectives? Did you suggest changes in objectives? Was it accepted by the donors/government?
d. How well were your suggestions taken by the donor/government? Did any policy change take place due to this?
e. How big was the research? a single report, or a compilation of case studies?
• Based on our literature review the followings have been quoted as your influence in bringing about policy change? Do you agree?
o Role in GO No. 173, 1996 ( where AP NGO network, played a role in including NGOs in state forestry committee, district forestry committee, ITDA committee, and VSS management committee).
o GO No. 13 nominating NGOs to district and state forestry committee.
o Role in CFM guideline of 2000 (getting NGO representation into policy making bodies, enhancing usufruct rights of the VSS to 100%)
o Role in R &R related policies of the WB CFM project
o GO No 112 ( stop the involvement of NGOs)
o Role in better functioning of GCC.
• In which case for each of these incidences answer the followings:
o What was the origin/history of these 'episodes'?
42
o Who initiated it? If it was initiated by you what was the reason behind it? Was it initiated on external demand? Who funded it? If yes by whom and why? (Was it on demand by policy makers, donors, network members etc)?
o What was the origin/history of these 'episodes'?
o How often did the network and policymakers meet/interact during these 'episodes'?
o What was the nature of interaction- quantity (number of interactions, meetings, publications etc), and nature of interactions- meetings/workshops, working groups, presentations, publications, formal/informal etc.?
o Were the policy makers involved in the 'episodes' at the start, during and after the process? In what manner?
o Was there any ‘important’ person involved in these episodes that facilitated the impact on the policy orders?
• In the scale of 1- 1022 where would you rank ' demand driven research' as a factor that enables it to translate into policies
• How do you distinct your role to that of Vanasamakhya?what role do you think they have played in the policy process?
22 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest rank
43
Checklist for Donors (Intercooperation)
• Background and history of support to PFM in AP
• Information on Support to AP NGO Network
o Since when have you been supporting AP NGO network? why
o What activities do you majorly support
o What was the main reason for support to the network (was it donor policy or is it because it is effective)
o What role do you play in the network activities?
o How do you evaluate their performance?
o What is the feedback mechanism
• What role do you think that AP NGO network/Vanasamakhya play in terms of influencing PFM policy process in AP?
• What is the form of interaction with the network
• Based on our literature review, the following episodes have been identified where networks seem to have influenced/played an pro-active role in policy change? Do you agree with that?
a. Role in GO No. 173, 1996 ( where AP NGO network, played a role in including NGOs in state forestry committee, district forestry committee, ITDA committee, and VSS management committee).
b. Role in CFM guideline of 2000 (getting NGO representation into policy making bodies, enhancing usufruct rights of the VSS to 100%)
c. Role in R &R related policies of the WB CFM project
d. Role in better functioning of GCC.
• If yes what do you think are the main factors that have facilitated the AP NGO network to influence policy? (political-socioeconomic reforms, credibility, methodology, and links between policymakers and networks)
• Have you ever asked the network to undertake any policy research for you? If yes, can u relate the process- what research, how well did the network address the objective and how implementable were the suggestions?
• In the scale of 1- 10 where would you rank ' quality and credibility' of research as a factor that enables it to translate into policies
• In the scale of 1- 1023 where would you rank ' demand driven research' as a factor that enables it to translate into policies
• In your views what enables network to influence policy process?
o Political environment- reforms and the right environment for PFM policies (Demand driven)
o External factors- like donor pressure, socio economic factor
23 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest rank
44
o Credibility of the network- quality of work, good methodology (for research) etc
o Networking- regular (formal/informal) networking, eminent people in the networks, etc
45
Checklist for Federation members for focus group discussion
1. Name of the Respondent(s):
2. Name of the village/taluka:
3. Name of the Federation:
4. Your area of operation/ jurisdiction? How many groups/ FPCs/ etc. do you have/ represent?
5. Period of its existence: (has your membership grown after formation? How much?)
6. Is it registered? If yes, under which Act? (If yes, get a copy of the MoA and Rules)
7. Is there any written Bye-law of the Federation? Organizational structure?
8. How did you frame rules and regulations in Bye-laws?
9. Frequency of meetings? See meeting records, level of attendance, gender-wise? Meeting minutes etc.
10. How do they get funds?
11. What type of activities Federation carries out? Are you familiar with Govt. Orders etc. on JFM? Do you have copies? English/ Gujarati?
12. How do you communicate between yourselves and with other groups in the federation?
13. Is Federation interacting with any NGO or facilitated by any NGO?
14. What is the role of NGO in functioning of Federation?
15. How does NGO facilitate the functioning of Federation?
16. What is the frequency of meeting with NGO?
17. How do you frame/have you framed rules and regulation on following subjects: • Protection methods • Levying fines? Their use? • Harvesting rules, enforcement? • Benefit distribution • Any other (would get lead from Q 11 on Federation’s activities)
18. Why and how were these rules framed? Are these rules formally signed and agreed with Federation members/Forest Dept (with whom?)/reflected in your Bye-laws?
19. Have you ever changed the rules? How often? What was the need for initiating these changes?
20. Who initiated these changes?
21. With whom do you interact in Forest Dept and how frequently? Or How many meetings/interactions did you have with following forest department officials during last month, 2 months, 6 months, 1 year, two years, longer?
• Forest Guard (names?) • Range Officer • Divisional Forest Officer • Conservator of Forests • Chief Conservator of Forests
46
• Any other
22. How has been the response/ receptivity of these officials to you/ your representatives? (Did they listen and try to understand your concerns/ problems?)
23. Can you remember any officer with whom interaction was easy, fruitful?
24. Have there been instances when the Federation members put forth a demand, which was not heard by the Dept?
25. What was the reason given for turning down Federation’s demand? (as above)
26. Has federation raised issues with FG/DFO/CF/CCF/any other on following issues? When? (does anyone remember?)
• Obtaining bonafide needs of small timber and firewood from RF free of cost instead of paying royalty (changes brought in Dec 1988 GR)
• Removing ceiling on assigning forests under JFM to a maximum of 200 ha (Aug 1994 GR)
• Reducing the minimum FPC quorum requirement to 40% (Aug 1994 GR) • Eliminate the clause of mandatory presence of two third members for Executive
Committee meetings (Aug 1994 GR) • Bringing forests under SIDA assisted Social Forestry under JFM (Dec 1994 GR) • To make available bamboo and wood free of cost (1996 GR) • Issues related to collection, management and utilization of NTFPs (1996 and 2000 GRs) • Removing Forest Guard as Ex-officio Secretary of Executive Committee • Any other
27. Did you raise any of the above issues with other federations/ NGOs? Details:
28. Has anybody visited your fed/ office and talked to you about these issues? When? Who?
29. Have any fed representatives attended FD or other Network meetings? When? Where? What happened?
30. Have any federation members attended any training concerning JFM? Other? How long back?
31. What have been the impacts of changes mentioned above on: (and how do you measure/ understand these changes?)
• Forest protection • Federation’s activities • Livelihoods • Access to usufructs? • Harassment by FD staff?
32. Did you discuss any of the above issues mentioned in Q 26 in meetings with NGO?
33. What have been the issues raised in meetings with NGO (last one years)?
A separate meeting with forest field staff whose names figure in this exercise would be useful to hold and get their side of the story. It is important to track down and meet such staff.
47
Checklist for Forest Field Staff
1. Name of the respondent:
2. Number and name of the Federation within your jurisdiction:
3. Do you attend Federation meeting? How many meetings of Federation you have attended during last 6 months/ one year?
4. Did Federation invite you for their meetings?
5. How do you perceive your role in functioning of these Federations?
6. Were you involved in framing Bye-laws for Federation?
7. Are you familiar with govt Orders etc on JFM? Do you have copies of these Orders in English/Gujrati?
8. Do you remember any issues related to JFM with which Federation members approached you?
9. How do you take up these issues? Do you resolve these in discussion with Federation or you take up these issues to Range Officer/DFO before taking any decision?
10. Did you refer any issues raised in Federation meetings to District Level Working Group?
11. Did you raise any issue in Federation meeting?
12. How do you see the impact of these Federations on:
- Forest protection
- FPC functioning
- Livelihoods
13. How do you see the overall role of these federations on functioning of JFM in your area?
48
Checklist for Key Policy-makers A. IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDENT
1. Name of the respondent:
2. Official designation (present):
3. Name of the Institution:
4. What have been your involvements with PFM activities?
B. NATURE OF INVOLVEMENT/INTERACTION WITH FEDERATION
5. Are you a regular member of any Network/Federation?
6. If not, have you ever attended Network/Federation’s meeting on invitation?
7. How many meetings of the Network/Federation you attended during last one year?
C. ROLE OF RESEARCH IN POLICY MAKING
8. How do you rate the role of research outputs in changing PFM policies in India?
9. Which type of research has been more relevant for changes proposed in 2000 or 2002 JFM Guidelines? Basic research or policy oriented research?
10. Do you have in-house research facilities or you outsource based on your requirement?
11. If outsourced, how many times you involved Networks/Federation for conducting research?
12. Do you have regular budgetary allocation for undertaking research related to PFM policy?
D. ROLE OF FEDERATION IN POLICY CHANGES
13. How do you perceive the role of national and state level Networks/Federations in implementation of PFM including policy changes?
14. What is the nature of interaction between you (policy makers) and Networks/Federations?
15. Do you think that researches undertaken by SPWD/RUPFOR have helped you in proposing changes in PFM policies proposed so far?
16. If yes, can you identify episode(s) in various PFM policies proposed at the national and state levels, which was influenced by the initiative or research conducted by Network/Federation?
17. If yes, was it initiated by the Network/Federation or by you or by any other donor? Who provided financial support for the research?
18. Do donors consult you when they commission policy related research?
19. Can you identify occasion(s) when you solicited help of Network/Federation to provide research inputs into policymaking process?
49
20. In the scale of 1-1024 where would you rank “demand driven research” as a factor that enables it to translate into policies.
21. Do you think that presence of particular person(s) in Network/Federation facilitated communication between policy makers and Networks/Federations and increased credibility?
22. In the scale of 1-1025 where do you rank “quality and credibility” as a factor that enables it to translate into policies?
23. Can you identify instance(s) when you were unable to use research inputs into policy processes? And why?
24 1 being the lowest 25 1 being the lowest
50
Checklist for Key Network members
A. IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDENT
1. Name of the respondent:
2. Official designation:
3. Name of the Network/Federation:
4. What has been your nature of involvement in Network?
B. INTERACTION WITH POLICY MAKERS
5. What all activities Network undertake on a regular basis or what are the mandates of Network?
6. How do you interact with policy-makers?
7. Do you make informal contacts with policy makers?
8. Are you a member of any committee or do you participate in seminars, workshops organized by policy makers?
9. Do you think presence of any particular person helps interacting with policy makers?
10. Do you undertake research activities related to PFM on a regular basis?
C. IMPACT OF NETWROK’S RESEARCH ON POLICY
11. Have you undertaken any policy related research?
12. If yes, who initiated those researches? Network or policy makers or other donors?
13. Who provided the financial support?
14. Did you organize pre-meetings with policy makers to plan and identify the scope of research?
15. Did you discuss the progress or preliminary findings of research with policy makers?
16. Do you send all final research reports to policy makers?
17. Do you remember occasion when policy makers requested to undertake research on particular policy related aspect?
18. Can you identify episodes when recommendations of research conducted by Network have been incorporated in PFM policies?
19. If yes, what are the factors for success?
20. How do you rank following factors in the scale of 1-10
- Regular interaction with policy makers
- Consultation with policy makers from the beginning till the end
- Quality and credibility as a factor that enables it to translate into policies
21. Can you identify episodes when recommendations of research by Network were not incorporated in policy process?
22. If yes, can you identify the factors behind it?
51
Annexure 5: List of stakeholders interviewed
List of stakeholders interviewed at the national level SPWD - Vanita Suneja MoEF - Mr Jagdish Kishwan - IG, National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board
Mr S K Ratho, Asst Inspector General of Forests, NAEB, J V Sharma, Deputy Inspector General (Forest Policy), Ministry of Environment and Forests, Dr. Sanjay Kumar, DIG Forests & Director, National Afforestation & Eco-development Board
List of stakeholders interviewed in Andhra Pradesh Forest Department- Mr Ramesh Kalghuti, CCF JFM programme, SD Mukherjee (retired PCCF), AP NGO Network- Mr Srinivas, Mr Sowmitri, Centre for Environmental Concern- Mr S Gopal Inter cooperation- Mr Vinod Gaud AP NGO Network: Mr Sowmitri, Mr Srinivas Mr Venkat Reddy, Ms Bhanuja, Ms Parvathy, Ms Anuradha, Mr Jaganatth Consultant (Ex OXFAM employee)- Ms Malathi SAMATA- Mr Ravi CPF- Dr Surya Kumari, Mr Suresh, Mr Srinivas Vanasamakhya- 19 members Yakshi- Mr VijayBhaskar, Mr Madhusudhan List of stakeholders interviewed in Orissa Networks: Mayurbhanj Swechhasevi Samukhya (MASS), Baripada; Orissa Liberal Association for Movement of People (OLAMP), Bangriposi; Jangal Surakhya Mahasangha, Nayagarh.
MASS( Mayurbhanj Swechhasebi Samukhya) Bibekananda Patnaik, President, Mass. OLAMP(Orissa Liberal Association for Movement of People)- two local members Nayagarh Jangal Surakhya Mahasangha.- three local network members Forest Department: P.N.PadhiCCF, Nodal, Dr D Swain, CF Baripada and FD Tiger Reserve, . Jitendra Kumar, DFO, Baripada, D.B.Roy, D.F.O. Nayagarh. List of stakeholders interviewed in Gujarat Meeting with Federation “Van Kisan Vikas Sangh (VKVS)”, Netrang, Gujarat (promoted by AKRSP) Meeting attended by: 1. Maganbhai Jadhavbhai Vasava (President) 2. Pravin Jadhav (Program Asst, SWC, AKRSP)
52
3. Shantilal Vasava (Secretary) 4. Ms. Khatiben Dhiruben Choudhary (Member) 5. Ms. Ramilaben Vasava (Member) 6. Ms. Hiruben Vasava (Member) 7. Surendrabhai Vasava (Executive Committee [EC] member) 8. Lakshmanbhai Vasava (Executive Committee member, Secretary of Water Users
Association under Participatory Irrigation Management, Secretary of Gram Vikas Mandal [village level institution])
9. Motibhai Vasava (Member) 10. Sanal Kumar (Master worker) 11. Morey (AKRSP) 12. Dhaneshwar Pandey (AKRSP) Meeting in village Babda, Meeting in village Sakra, Tal Valia, with members of The Sakra Gram Vikas Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Gram Vikas Mandal (GVM) members Meeting in village Rukhal-Attended by 18 villagers (including 4 EC members and President of GVM); 13 men and 5 women members AKRSP- Mr. Apoorva Oza, CEO, AKRSP GEER Foundation (CPMNR), Gandhinagar- Mr. Dhirajbhai Bhalani, Convenor, Mr. C N Pandey, Head, GEER Foundation Forest Department- Mr. Pradeep Khanna, Mr K C Pant
JBICI Discussion Paper Series Number Author(s) Title Date
1 Eiji Ogawa The US Dollar in the International Monetary System after the Asian Crisis
2/2002
2 Sayuri Shirai Banking Sector Reforms in India and China: Does
India's Experience Offer Lessons for China's Future Reform Agenda?
3/2002
3 Takatoshi Ito Is Foreign Exchange Intervention Effective?:The
Japanese Experiences in the 1990s 6/2002
4 Sayuri Shirai The Impact of IMF Economic Policies on Poverty
Reduction in Low-Income Countries 8/2003
5 Eiji Ogawa
Kentaro Kawasaki Possibility of Creating a Common Currency Basket for East Asia
9/2003
6 Eric Hillebrand
Gunther Schnabl The Effects of Japanese Foreign Exchange Intervention: GARCH Estimation and Change Point Detection
10/2003
7 Keisuke Orii A New Regression Approach to Early Warning
Systems: With Emphasis on Different Crisis Types between East Asia and Latin America
12/2003
8 Shigeru Ishikawa Supporting Growth and Poverty Reduction: Toward
Mutual Learning from the British Model in Africa and the Japanese Model in East Asia
3/2005
9 黒崎 卓 一時的貧困の緩和と円借款への期待 1/2006
10 杉村 美紀 山田 満 黒田 一雄
マレーシアの高等教育における日本の国際教育協力 6/2006
11 Fe Sanchez Bridging Research and Policy towards Innovation in a
Public Sector Bureaucracy: the case of the Philippine Department of Agrarian Reform
7/2006
12 Winrock
International India Understanding the Role of Networks as Connecters in Bridging the Research Policy Gap in Participatory Forest Policy Development in India
7/2006
13 African Energy Policy Research Network
How to Influence Policy in the African Energy Sector – A Guide for Researchers
7/2006
Discussion Paper 及びその他の刊行物は、国際協力銀行ホームページからダウンロードすることができます。
http://www.jbic.go.jp/japanese/research/
ISSN 1347-9148
