One of the most important functions of the Asia Forest Network is providing a forum for professionals from governments, development agencies, NGOs, and universities to exchange experiences and gain a broader vision of regional shifts in forest management policies and practices. AFN meetings provide a rare opportunity for practitioners to step back from routine tasks to meet with colleagues from neighboring countries and gain new perspectives regarding the immense changes taking place around the public forest domain, and to see the roles they are playing in the process. Over the course of five regional meetings, the AFN, as a body of concerned individuals from nations of the region, has created a clearer picture of the forces drawing communities into public lands management and reshaping state agencies, and of the challenges faced in this process. The research and discussions of Network members illuminate strong parallels in the way country forest policies, which largely excluded community participation in management for decades, are being reformed to re-engage forest user groups. This broader understanding of the past and emerging vision of future directions that public lands management may take are extremely useful to those individuals who are acting as change agents in their own countries and who are influential in shaping new policies and programs.
The meeting identified the following regional trends:
Policy, procedural, and professional reforms are badly needed in many forest agencies. Flexible funding is required for designing and implementing new collaborative management systems. Staff reorientation and capacity building within forest departments require high priority. Greater transparency and openness should be created within forest agencies, with promotion based on merit to reduce corruption. Greater clarity is essential in defining the roles of forest agencies, local government, and forest management groups, with strategies to improve communication and facilitate joint decision making.
Greater attention needs to be given to promoting natural regeneration as a method for ecological restoration. Forest re-establishment costs through natural regeneration are frequently only 5 to 10 percent of those of monoculture plantations, yet development agencies and forest departments still channel the majority of their funding into costly plantings of fast growing species. These resources could fund national strategies involving new policies and extension programs to encourage, support, and empower rural communities to establish closure over degraded and threatened natural forests, halting disturbances and facilitating regrowth.
During 1996, Asia Forest Network secretariat activities brought attention to India's lively and emerging joint forest management program. Village Voices, Forest Choices was published by Oxford University Press, and brings together the experiences of 14 professionals who chronicle India's public lands management transition. Grassroots Forest Protection was completed shortly after the book and published in the AFN monograph series. Research Network Report #7 documents the history of forest protection committee formation in the states of Orissa, West Bengal, and Bihar, the heartland of this grassroots movement. Asia Forest Network members also worked with the World Conservation Union (IUCN) to help bring community forestry experiences to the attention of the United Nation's Inter- governmental Panel on Forests (IPF). The AFN contributed to an IUCN Publication entitled Communities and Forest Management that examined global trends and forwarded recommendations to the IPF.
In 1997 the Asia Forest Network will continue to focus its attention on documenting, analyzing, and communicating ongoing transitions in public forest lands policy and practice. Illuminating strategies and experiences that improve forest management through greater involvement of communities will remain a primary goal of the Network. The Network will also create opportunities for professional exchanges between the region's countries through formal meetings, cross-visits, and publications. Some new areas of Network development include exploring possibilities for smaller sub-regional meetings over the coming three years including for South Asia, upland Southeast Asia, and insular Southeast Asia. The Network will also continue to assist in the formation of country-level community forest working groups to synthesize field learning, inform policy makers, and monitor ongoing transitions.
The Network publication program anticipates the completion and distribution of the following volumes in 1997.
This report documents a process of mediation that is allowing greater community participation in the management of a state-protected area on the island of Hawaii. The case describes the issues and process that guided the Natural Areas Working Group, comprised of local community members, representatives from environmental organizations and the staff of state agencies. The account verifies the effectiveness of mediation in facilitating collaborative planning, even in contexts where conflicting interests exist.
These easy-to-use techniques for participatory community forestry inventorying, planning and monitoring are designed by and especially for forest agency staff. The manual outlines a process for identifying community-forest spatial relationship, demarcating boundaries, and creating micro-level management plans.
This AFN country case study examines recent shifts in national forest policies, and then explores how they are influencing community forest interactions among ethnic minority communities living on the margins of Bavi National Park and along the Da River in the northwestern province of Son La.
Published by the AFN's Southeast Asia regional office in Manila, the newsletter selects one major topic for each issue and has already discussed community forestry issues in India, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines, as well as reporting on AFN meetings and activities. Currently the Newsletter is being published six times each year.
jointly published by the Asia and U.S. AFN offices, the series will examine the effectiveness of emerging community forest management policies, and review experiences from development agency projects.
Developed at the University of California at Berkeley, this new home page at http://wwwigc.apc.org/afn/provides a history of the Network, its goals, activities and membership.
The multi-country representation (50% from India, and the remainder from overseas) and a mix of participants (Forest Department staff, NGOS, academics, and community leaders) worked out well.
There was good country group dynamics, particularly within the Philippine and Indonesia teams, and interaction among various country teams including the Southeast Asia group coming together on the uplands issues, which cut across geographical boundaries.
Discussion groups were effective, generating broad recommendations. These general recommendations could be sharpened further by a small group of experts (e.g., benchmarking organizational changes).
Country reports helped reveal the evolution of community forestry changes in policy and practice-particularly in Nepal, Philippines, and Thailand, providing a perspective on broad regional trends.
Formulation of practical plans for follow-up by participants. These include staff exchange to be arranged by the Philippines participants for their Indian counterparts to study experiences in forming national support groups. Also exchanges were discussed between Nepal and Philippines and Nepal and India. Follow-up on developing benchmarks on organizational change in the Forest Departments is also planned by EDI, ODA, and CIFOR. Nepal and India (Andhra Pradesh and Kerala states) have shown interest in testing these benchmarks in their Forest Departments.
Exposure to first-timers. Cambodia and the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh were exposed to an international workshop on community forestry for the first time. Those participants plan to follow up on some of the recommendations from the workshop.
The workshop agenda, structure, and focus was excellent. The guidelines for panel discussions and instructions for moderators were very clear. The moderators did a good job. The panel discussion on donors' programs, in particular, was very useful, though additional time was required.
The multi-country participation and the mix of participants was good.
The location of the workshop away from New Delhi, India's capital, was appreciated. It was a good idea to have accommodation and conference at one location.
Uneven participant preparation. Though guidelines for presentations and group discussions were prepared and distributed in advance, several participants did not come well prepared. A number of formal presentations were of poor quality. Several recommendations from group discussions similarly were fairly general. In the future, organizers should try to obtain a month in advance the papers that are to be formally presented by participants; this would help to review the papers and offer advice on presentation.
Group domination. The 50:50 formula (50 percent Indians, 50 percent others), though well-intentioned, resulted in Indian participants tending to dominate the group and plenary sessions. This issue generated several complaints from non-Indian participants (see below). In the future, representation from the host country should be restricted to, perhaps, a third. Moderators and session chairpersons should be briefed on some of the cultural nuances to avoid domination by any one group.
Limited time. While the structure for the workshop won praise, the limited time (10 minutes) allotted to each speaker turned out to be inadequate. Few speakers were able to do justice to the topic within the limited time. In the future, the number of speakers and topics should be reduced and the time allocated to each presenter increased to 20 minutes.
Coordination problem. Overlapping responsibilities led to occasional confusion. Posting an assignment sheet in the seminar hall, spelling out the responsibility of each member of the organizing committee, would have been helpful to the participants.
Workshop venue. Holding the workshop outside Delhi was a good idea. The physical location of Surajkund was wonderful. Unfortunately, the daily wedding receptions in the evenings disrupted the bonhomie among participants and occasionally their sleep. In the future, it would help if one of the organizers spends a few days at the venue prior to reserving the place for a workshop.
Inadequate time. At least 10 participants mentioned that the time allotted for presenters was insufficient to do justice to their topic.
Group size too large. The total number of people who came to the workshop exceeded 80, though at least 60 people were in attendance at any one time, limiting more intimate dialogue.
Location problems. Among the issues mentioned were a "lack of consideration of technology" in the conference hall; microphones did not work well; good slides and pictures were needed for country presentations; and too much time spent on bussing people around.
Country representations should be equitable. The large contingent from India created problems.
Structured, well-facilitated discussions on a few topics. Several topics and many speakers with limited time did not find favor with participants. It was suggested that presenters should be properly guided and that country teams should do a better analysis of the problems in their presentation.
More group discussions for a longer time period. The preference was for issue- oriented discussions involving several countries.
Participants commented favorably on AFN; it was seen as a "relevant body to influence governments" on forest policy, "inter-country forum," and as a mechanism to "provide a positive direction" to its members. "AFN is going in the right direction"; its objectives are "more clear than in early years."
Workshops should be held regularly - Nepal was suggested for the next meeting site. AFN could support a 'comparative analysis" of community forestry in the Asia region reviewing each country's strengths, weaknesses, direction, and constraints. Management and technology issues should also be included in the agenda, suggested two participants. Overall, it was a "well done, wonderful workshop."
Deputy Chief of Reforestation Office Department of Forests and Wildlife MAFF. 40 Preah Norodom Blvd. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Tel/Fax. 00855 23-360661
|
|
|
No. |
|
|
1. |
Sustaining Southeast Asia's Forests, June 1992. |
|
2. |
Community Allies: Forest Co-Management in Thailand, August 1993. |
|
3. |
Communities and Forest Management in East Kalimantan: Pathway to Environmental Stability, August 1993. |
|
4. |
Upland Philippine Communities: Guardians of the Final Forest Frontier, August 1993. |
|
5. |
Proceedings of the Policy Dialogue on Natural Forest Regeneration and Community Management, April 1994. |
|
6 |
Transitions in Forest Management: Shifting Community Forestry from Project to Process, August 1995 |
|
7 |
Grassroots Forest Protection: Eastern Indian Experiences, March 1996 |
|
8 |
Facilitating Collaborative Planning in Hawai'i's Natural Area Reserves, December 1996 |
Field Methods Manual, Vol. I. Diagnostic Tools for Supporting Joint Forest Management Systems, 1992.
Field Methods Manual, Vol. II. Community Forest Economy and Use Patterns: Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) Methods in South Gujarat, India, 1992.
Case Study Training Modules Series, Bangkok: Asia Forest Network and RECOFTC, 1995
Village Voices, Forest Choices: Indian Experiences in joint Forest Management, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996.
1. This country review is based on the paper by Hijiang Xu, "Forest Resources in China"
2. "Forest Restoration in Asia: An Overview," Worldwide Fund for Nature-India, New Delhi, 1996
3. "Forest Restoration in Asia: An Overview," Worldwide Fund for Nature-India, New Delhi, 1996
4. This case draws primarily from A.L. Joshi, "Community Forestry in Nepal: 1978 to 2010"
5. This country report includes information from Ma Sok Tha, "Community Forestry in Cambodia."
6. Seth Mydans, 'To Control Cambodia, Rivals Are Stripping It Bare," The New York Times, December 22,1996.
7. Global Witness, "Cambodia, Where Money Grows on Trees, " October 1996.
8. Global Witness Investigation, September 1996.
9. New York Tunes, "To Control Cambodia, Rivals Are Stripping It Bare, "December 22,1996.
10. New York Times, "To control Cambodia, Rivals Are Stripping it Bare," December 22,1996.
11. This summary is based on Nguyen Huy Dung, "Country Report of Vietnam," and Vo Tri Chung, "Indigenous Peoples Development Plan."
12. General Statistics Office, "Statistical Data for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries." Hanoi. Statistical Publishing House, 1994.
13. This section draws on Sushil Saigal, "Country Report of India," Ajit Banejee, "Inaugual Address," and Patnaik, Barik, and Shukla, "Arunachal Pradesh."
14. This section draws on Sushil Saigal, "Country Report - India," Ajit Banejee, "Inaugural Address," and Patnaik, Barik, and Shukla, "Arunachal Pradesh."
15. This country review is based on B.D. Nasendi and Ismayadi Samsudin, "Recent Development in Community-Based Forest Management Policies and Operational Activities in Indonesia."
16. This review summarizes the paper of Komon Pragtong, "Community-based Forest and Water Resource Management."
17. This text is based on Ernie Guiang, "Guiding National Transitions in Forest Management: Some Experiences from the Philippines.'
18. This discussion is drawn from presentations by Romy Acosta, Kaji Shrestha, A.L. Joshi, S.K. Pande, S. Palit, C.G. Mishra, R.C. Sharma, D.N. Pandey, and S.D. Mukhejee.
19. "Forest Restoration in Asia: An Overview." Worldwide Fund for Nature - India, New Delhi, 1996.
20. "Forest Restoration in Asia: An Overview." Worldwide Fund for Nature - India, New Delhi, 1996.
21. This section draws on presentations by Jeff Campbell, Janet Sealey, Delbert Mcluskey, Ramesh Mukulla, and Irshad Khan.
22. This summary is based in part on presentations by Madhu Sarin, C. Raju, Neera Singh, and Sankarsan Hota. It draws on contributions by Karen Lawrence, Angana Chattejee, and Alison Schwarz.