Many planners and administrators would agree that research findings often fail to affect planning and decision-making. If research is to lead to improved forest management, field learning must be captured and utilized by policy-makers, forest officers, and community members. This will occur only if information is conveyed in a relevant form to the right people at the right time. Researchers and users should consciously attempt to achieve these goals. The following suggestions for research analysis, communication and dissemination are based on prior experience from a number of countries in South and Southeast Asia. Meetings between researchers and information users permit studies and findings to be fine-tuned to respond to programmatic needs. When applied to forest management conflicts, this process can also facilitate communication flows between rural communities, NGOs and forestry agencies, informing all parties and providing a mechanism for developing collaborative management agreements.

Analyzing and Interpreting Research Findings for Program Development

Volume I describes four short diagnostic appraisals that can be conducted to provide an understanding of community-forest interaction patterns and utilization practices. The community profile gives an overview of the forest management context in space and time, and is designed to convey the knowledge, attitudes and perceived needs of forest communities regarding their ecosystem. The vegetative assessment provides researchers with information regarding species composition, structure, productivity of the forest ecosystem and changes over time. The institutional analysis illuminates the organizational setting within the community and Forest Department, indicating leadership patterns, conflicts, program incentives and disincentives, organizational needs and opportunities. The forest production system assessment generates economic information concerning the benefits and costs of current and proposed management systems.

The integration and interpretation of this information is the most difficult 'and important aspect of the research process. As an interdisciplinary study, information from the natural and social sciences must be synthesized and assessed to suggest improved options for forest management. The analysis and the programmatic recommendations that flow from the studies must be sensitive to the socio-political environments within which communities and FDs operate. To ensure that the final analysis is grounded in this reality, it is imperative that community members and FD staff participate in the process of follow-up discussions, data interpretation and the formulation of recommendations.

Preliminary Analysis

Some preliminary analysis of the research findings should be carried out by the team while still in the field. Additional time should be provided to allow the team at least 4 to 7 days together after each phase of data collection to conduct a preliminary analysis of the information. This initial analysis will serve two purposes. First, the process can identify information and resource people who can further guide subsequent phases of the diagnostic research. Second, preliminary analysis will highlight management issues as they emerge.

It is helpful if preliminary reports begin by describing the objectives of the study and provide a one or two page Executive Summary which lists the key issues and findings. The report should also indicate the research team members, dates, places of information collection, and names of respondents and discussants. Wherever possible, findings should be presented in visual forms such as tables, figures, maps, diagrams, and flow charts to facilitate interpretation. After presenting a summary and reviewing the information collected, the report should expand on each key management issue, providing background on the origin of the problem. This should be followed by a list of recommended follow-up actions. For each phase or component of research, the preliminary report should be discussed with community members and FD staff during follow-up meetings to check their accuracy and discuss their management implications. Comments and suggestions from these meetings should be recorded and used to supplement the report and improve research planning and activities. Village meetings can be conducted in the evening to enable more people to attend, and meetings with foresters can be organized at the Divisional, Circle and State levels. Ideally, structured Working Groups (WGs) will have been formed to review the findings.

By synthesizing learning from the preliminary analysis reports, the team can cross-check information and identify inconsistencies. During the sequential phases of research, information from one study can guide subsequent diagnostic activities (See Figure 40). For example, the community profile which indicates use patterns in time and space can inform data on the economics of production systems, while vegetative data on the per hectare species density can be used to better calculate productivity levels and compare them to harvest levels.

Figure 40: Flow Chart of Diagnostic Research Activities, Analysis
and Decision-Making

Integrated Analysis

Once all four companion studies have been completed, the research team will need to meet for an extended period of time to integrate the findings and formulate management recommendations. As was discussed in the beginning of this manual, forest management problems almost always include ecological, socio-institutional, and economic dimensions. This is true whether considering grazing, fuelwood collection, timber extraction, leaf gathering, or bamboo harvesting systems. For example, women who work as commercial fuelwood headloaders do so based on a strong economic dependency; their activities have significant ecological consequences, and viable solutions will involve strategies that require programs, leaders and organizations that can facilitate more sustainable economic activities. The methods decried in this manual aim to generate the types of information that can suggest ways to balance the economic needs of the community in an ecologically sound manner through local institutions. Integration of the respective analyses can begin to answer questions regarding the economic profitability, equity, and sustainability of existing practices. Finally, current management systems can then be compared with alternative use systems. Based on this process, discussions with community groups and FD field staff can initiate the development of microplans.

A number of diagnostic case studies of this type would allow the research team to begin discussing major management issues across different community-forest-contexts and how policies and procedures might be modified to respond to this learning. Once the integrated report has been drafted and reviewed, a meeting of the Circle and State Working Groups should be called to present the findings and discuss its implications. Based on the recommendations of the Working Group, the FD and other participating government agencies, policy-making bodies and donor groups could consider appropriate actions.

A broad range of applied research questions relevant to JFM systems await investigation. At the national and state level, research is needed to guide the evolution of more supportive legislation, policies and regulations which facilitate the development of participatory resource management. At the field level, JFM studies are needed that can shape the design of joint management agreements, micro-management plans, ecologically sound strategies to enhance natural regeneration and forest productivity, local institution-building, improved processing and marketing extension activities, and community and staff training courses.

A preliminary step in developing a research program is the identification of the ultimate users of the new learning. By involving potential users from the outset in the design of the study, the likelihood that the findings will inform decision-making and planning is enhanced. The creation of a Working Group to guide research provides an institutional mechanism for study group interaction. In India, formal Working Groups have been based in the FD and chaired by the Principle Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF). The PCCF is generally joined by other senior FD officers, including the territorial Conservator in whose area the studies are being conducted, as well as participating researchers and local government and non-governmental organizations who are working with communities.

Initially, while the formation of a Working Group (WG) before initiating diagnostic research may be preferable, in some cases this step may be organizationally infeasible or politically premature. In these areas, the launching of rapid appraisals need not necessarily be delayed, but can be started by a more informal group of like-minded individuals such as an NGO, a small team of resource specialists, or even a motivated FD officer. Preliminary experience is now indicating that findings generated through initial PRA-type studies can pique the excitement of other professionals to participate and lead to the gradual evolution of a more formally structured WG mechanism.

Where the WG has already been established, it should try to meet at least once or twice before the study is initiated to clarify broad objectives of the research, including important management problems and issues. By holding periodic meetings of the WG, the FD and other participating organizations can contribute their input into the research design and implementation phases. Furthermore, their interest in the outcomes will be strengthened. Before each WG meeting, the research team leaders and FD counterparts should develop an agenda for discussion, listing key issues with recommended options or suggested approaches.

A decision should be made in advance to identify a facilitator to present the agenda and steer the discussion, and to select a secretary to carefully record the minutes. The agenda should be kept short enough to be completed during the normal meeting period of the WG, generally not to exceed two hours. If not already determined, a date, place, and time for the WG meeting should be set and sent along with the draft agenda at least two weeks in advance. If necessary, selected members can be briefed about key agenda items prior to the meeting. During the early stages of the research, agendas should highlight ideas regarding management issues, study design, and possible sites. In subsequent meetings, preliminary findings should be itemized, noting future research needs and adjusting the workplan accordingly. As follow-up to each meeting, minutes regarding decisions should be written and distributed. At the end of the research project, findings regarding forest management issues and options, which have already been thoroughly discussed with communities and FD field staff, can be reviewed in the WG and followed by presentation of a draft microplan (see Figure 41).

Figure 41: Steps in Working Group Learning Process

In terms of effective and practical operation, it is essential to follow the agenda closely during the WG meetings. Senior forest officers are usually busy, and it is important to complete the agenda before they are forced to move on to other business. It is helpful to begin the session by reviewing the minutes of the previous meeting, and then to move on to discussions of ongoing research activities and plans. Only one issue should be raised at a time, allowing members sufficient time to discuss the topic. Before proceeding to the next item, decisions requiring further action, the form that action will take, and the individual responsible need to be identified. At the close, of the meeting, all decisions can be reviewed to ensure that the chairman and group members are in agreement and that responsibilities for follow-up are clearly understood. Before adjourning, it may be useful to set a date for the next meeting, typically 4-6 weeks later.

As soon after the meeting as possible, it is important to write up the minutes. They should be short and concise, following the meeting agenda and itemizing key points. Actions to be taken should be highlighted, identifying responsible individuals and detailing the proposed schedule for implementation. The draft minutes should be reviewed for approval with the senior FD officer under whose name they will be sent. Distribution of the minutes no later than a week after the meeting is advisable. Meanwhile, the core research planning group should periodically meet to discuss progress in implementing the actions decided upon. These may include the issuance of new JFM agreements and microplans, extension activities, training programs, procedure modifications, research projects, or even drafting policy amendments.

In addition to the agenda, it is also important for the research support team to utilize maps, charts, diagrams, and other visuals (many of which have been drafted with communities in the field) in order to present their ideas and discoveries to the WG. Graphics can help those not directly involved with the research to better grasp the information, as well as provide a framework for analysis and assessment of programmatic implications. As described in the manual, visuals might include historical transacts or profiles of the forest study area to depict how the landscape has changed, and trend lines indicating fluctuating product availability or biomass levels. Research teams can also develop forest use calendars (on a seasonal, annual, and multi-year basis), activity sequence diagrams for selected non-wood forest products, and labor calendars. To illustrate spatial patterns, village and forest maps are most relevant. Data on the volume and values of forest products might be presented both in line graphs and histograms. As part of the ongoing synthesis and analysis, such diagrams should be prepared in the field as an integral component of the fieldwork. This will also allow the researchers to identify gaps in the data which require follow-up.

The Joint Forest Management Field Methods Manual Series describe a number of strategies to help understand how community and Forest Department partnerships might result in better management of natural forests. A preliminary effort has been made to document existing experiences with participatory rapid appraisals that can provide insights into the processes of community empowerment and transformation of the FD bureaucracy. Such fundamental changes aspire to create new human relationships. By fundamentally redefining power structures, these new relationships can lead to a more equitable, locally-responsive, and sustainable forest management system.

While early field experiences continue to confirm the value of the rapid diagnostic research approaches reviewed in the manual, this by no means negates the need for parallel research of a more conventional and longer-term nature. Ideally, rapid appraisals should be designed as one component to a larger research strategy which encompasses longitudinal studies on ecological sustainability, community-agency institutional stability, and the economics of dynamic forest production systems within the broader socio-political context. Nonetheless, the urgent and very practical need to address forest management problems in most of the developing world has thrown the historic role of traditional research into question. While its value is still acknowledged, the call for immediate and more successful responses to community resource pressures and severe ecological degradation has led to the development and practice of new rapid diagnostic methods based on community participation. Only through further field testing in a range of different situations will researchers, rural people, foresters, and NGOs learn how to more efficiently and effectively understand the complexities of resource management problems and their potential resolution. It is the editors hope that those who employ and test these methods will record their experiences and share them widely with others. In this way, research strategies will become more effective in facilitating the development of truly participatory systems of forest resource management.

Checklist of Indicators for Joint Forest Management

Score Sheet