Forest Management in India: Bringing a Network Back to Life

In India, forests are a main source of livelihood and income for some 315 million people, nearly one-third of the country's total population. The majority is very poor, and for a long time they were deprived of their rights and fair access to these natural resources. As traders and the government heavily exploited the forests, they became increasingly degraded. Animosity between local communities and the nation's forestry department was constant. Then, in 1988, a new policy made it possible for India's forests to be managed by the government and the people together. The result was the introduction of joint forest management in 1990.

Under the program, villages organize committees that work with government foresters to prevent or halt forest degradation in exchange for rights to non-timber forest products and a share of revenues from timber harvesting. Since its initial success in West Bengal, joint forest management has spread to 27 of India's 29 states and involves more than 63,600 village committees.

The Ford Foundation initially supported joint forest management in two states and later assisted the efforts of 25 non-governmental organizations to start a network for information exchange and policy advocacy. By the end of 1996, the network had grown to more than 150 members, ranging from nongovernmental, research and academic institutions to a few forestry agencies. The Delhi-centered network faltered, however, when pressed to respond to the demands of new members from all over the country. Also, the network had neither effective links to grass-roots institutions nor regular channels to forestry policymaking processes.

The following is adapted from a video produced by GrantCraft, which provides practical advice' for grant makers. It reflects the experiences of Doris Capistrano, then a Ford Foundation program officer and now deputy representative in the New Delhi Office, two foundation program assistants, and key partners, all of whom worked together to revitalize the stalled network. The participation were: Nayana Bose and Radika Johri, former program assistants; Kinsuk Mitra and Sushil Saigal, both of Winrock International India India; Madhav Karki, of the International Development Research Centre, and V. K. Bahuguna, Inspector General of Forests for the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

The video, produced by Junko Chano, is available at the GrantCraft Web site at
www.grantcraft.org

Opening Things Up

Doris Capistrano: When I joined the Ford Foundation's New Delhi office in 1997, I inherited a portfolio with about two decades of history. It covered the work of perhaps the best institutions and individuals working in forest management at that time. The joint forest management network, however, remained dominated by large intermediary NGOs. They were very committed, very active NGOs that advocated on behalf of, but did not really represent, grass-roots groups.

There were tensions within the network, between the close-knit inner core and other network members. The fact that issues being raised when I came on board were the same as those raised five or six years before indicated a lack of real progress. It was apparent that some changes were necessary. We, therefore, started a process of consultation to decentralize the network, expand the grass-roots base outside Delhi, strengthen links with policy processes at different levels, and encourage partner institutions and individuals to help implement the changes.

Nayana Bose: The first meeting was certainly not pleasant because people were worried that their control was going to be taken away. They did not understand what the new structure was going to be like and what responsibility they would have. It was important to reassure everyone that it was all going to work out well, to detail the reasons why decentralization was necessary, what the current problems were, what the future challenges were going to be, and what the new structure would look like. And we did that.

Capistrano: Several steps were involved. One was to help groups and individuals understand the logic of decentralized networking. It wasn't too difficult to explain the need for more effective networking to facilitate local empowerment and democratized and responsive governance of natural resources. Then one could argue that it is important to evolve structures that would allow all of this to happen. A network tightly controlled from Delhi simply would not allow that.

Jump Start

Capistrano: Grass-roots organizations usually require assistance in conceptualizing a project, putting together proposals for funding, and facilitating travel. The foundation clearly could not do that directly for a large number of small organizations. Yet we did not want to miss out on assisting at that level. So, to accommodate these small groups, we funded a small-grants facility at Winrock International India India. The facility provides small grants to such organizations to help them get started and their programs up and running. At the same time, we created a resource unit to provide information, research and logistical support for discussions of forest policy by multiple stakeholder groups. This unit is currently hosted by Winrock International India India.

Kinsuk Mitra: At Winrock International India we work with a prospective grantee a lot before a proposal is finalized. Very often grantees have bright ideas, but they are not trained to prepare work schedules and budget schedules, so we talk to them and help them shape the proposal. This kind of nurturing relationship with small NGOs is very rewarding. The local groups feel there is someone in Delhi who is interested in them. That itself is a big motivation for them to do more. It's not that you have to keep track of every penny and how they are accounting for it. Financial trouble has been the least of our worries.

Sushil Saigal: Another way is to promote information sharing between different people in the field. India is such a big country that there are a lot of good things happening in different nooks and corners. One way to share with others what's happening is through an electronic newsletter and a printed version.

Madhav Karki: People are looking for success stories, for approaches that can be replicated. If you do a good project in Kerala and you share your information with a large number of researchers, then you are doing a service that will help people to solve their problems.

Connecting the Dots

Capistrano: As the regional networks evolve, they are defining their own agendas and priorities. At the national level, we work hard to make sure that networking connects effectively with the policy process. Over the past year and a half we have been working with the Ministry of Environment and Forests to set up official mechanisms so that various stakeholder groups, including Ford Foundation grantees, can participate in decision making. The ministry has now set up an official forum for such groups that will meet at least twice a year to advise the government on all aspects of joint forest management policy. The first meeting was at the Ford Foundation's New Delhi office. In the past, meetings presided over by the ministry were held only at the ministry, under very regimented and controlled conditions. We suggested that for groups to be able to participate more freely, the meetings should be held outside the ministry, and the ministry agreed.

Radika Johri: That was the first time that the ministry and the various groups came together to talk about collaboration and a wider consultative process. My impression at the outset was that the different parties were rather defensive. But Doris really acted as a facilitator. She got people to open up, to talk about their concerns, and about what they thought was needed for the program. In the end, there was a lot of enthusiasm about forming a wider partnership.

V.K. Bahuguna: It was an amazing success. I think people now realize that they cannot carry forward joint forest management by just criticizing each other.

Capistrano: We've had several meetings of the official forum and the ministry is finding it more and more useful because it is a way of bringing in voices that they would otherwise not hear. The ministry has also taken steps to respond to a number of issues raised in the forum by NGOs and grass-roots organizations. Dr. Bahuguna has been a key player in these recent changes in policy and practice.

Saigal: The ministry has limited human resources and even now they are not very flexible about doing certain studies. The new idea is that with Ford support, the Winrock International India unit will assist the ministry. When the network says that they want to make a policy decision about, for example, the representation of women on the committees, or whether something is likely to work or not, the unit will do a short study for them with short turnaround time–a month, say. Then that information will be given to the network and the policy makers, and they can base policy on that.

Reflecting on the Grant Maker's Role

Capistrano: My job involved meeting with all of these groups, providing technical assistance, and in many cases just asking critical questions. A lot of my work involves one-on-one discussions, not necessarily in planned meetings or in the office. Sometimes they happen while waiting for a flight at the airport, or traveling to a meeting, or on long bumpy drives from village to village.

The role of the foundation in this case is to bring together the parts of institutions that are able to collaborate well. Some of our grantees have worked better with some groups than with others. We try to bring together groups that are potentially able to engage with each other productively. Not that they must share the same point of view, but they should at least be able to have a constructive dialogue and then work together on important issues.

Sometimes that starts with a visit to a location where groups are thrown together simply because they have to figure out an itinerary or work out certain logistics: Who takes the vehicle, who picks up whom from where, who goes where, and so on. In many cases these things become the beginning of productive relationships.

The relationship between grantees and the foundation can never be equal because of the nature of grant making and grant receiving. But think it is really important for people to be able to speak their minds without being penalized. We are not interested in people agreeing with what we are saying simply because we are saying it. We are truly interested in what people think.

The effort to decentralize the network, to bring in new players and new partners, is really an effort to bring in groups and individuals who do not think like us. If we don't do that, we will simply be preaching to the converted, and we will be no better off than when we started.