41 9/24/03 4:32 AM Page 1

Center for International Forestry Research Center for International Forestry Research

CIFOR Occasional Paper publishes the results of research that is particularly significant to tropical forestry. The content of each paper is peer reviewed internally and externally, and published simultaneously on the web in downloadable format (www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/papers).

Contact publications at [email protected] to request a copy.

CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks

Synthesis Report of the Project ‘Learning Lessons from International Community Forestry Networks’ The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) was established in 1993 as part of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in response to global concerns about the social, environmental and economic consequences of forest loss and degradation. CIFOR research produces knowledge and methods needed to improve the well-being of forest-dependent people and to help tropical countries Marcus Colchester manage their forests wisely for sustained benefits. This research is done in more than two dozen countries, in partnership with numerous partners. Since it was founded, Tejaswini Apte CIFOR has also played a central role in influencing global and national forestry policies. Michel Laforge Alois Mandondo Neema Pathak

CIFOR is one of the 16 Future Harvest centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Donors The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) receives its major funding from governments, international development organizations, private foundations and regional organizations. In 2002, CIFOR received financial support from the African Timber Organization, Aracruz Celulose SA - Brazil, Asian Development Bank, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Conservation International Foundation, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Ford Foundation, France, German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Indonesia, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Japan, Korea, MacArthur Foundation, Netherlands, Norway, Peruvian Institute for Natural Renewable Resources (INRENA), Philippines, PI Environmental Consulting, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Sweden, Switzerland, The Overbrook Foundation, Tropical Forest Foundation, USA, United Kingdom, United Nations Environment Programme, United States Forest Service, United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, World Bank, World Conservation Union (IUCN), World Resources Institute and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

ISSN 0854-9818

© 2003 by Center for International Forestry Research All rights reserved.

Front cover photos: Marcus Colchester, Nandini Sundar, Edmond Dounias, Carol J.P. Colfer Back cover photos: Edmond Dounias, Christian Cossalter, Marcus Colchester, Adi Seno

Center for International Forestry Research Mailing address: P.O. Box 6596 JKPWB, Jakarta 10065, Indonesia Office address: Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bogor Barat 16680, Indonesia Tel.: +62 (251) 622622; Fax: +62 (251) 622100 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org

Recycled paper Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks

Synthesis Report of the Project ‘Learning Lessons from International Community Forestry Networks’

Marcus Colchester Tejaswini Apte Michel Laforge Alois Mandondo Neema Pathak

iPages_OP-41.p65 1 9/27/2003, 10:56 AM ii CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41

Contents

Acronyms v Acknowledgements vi Abstracts 1 Introduction 1 Methods 1 Selection of case studies 2 Limitations 3 Organising the Findings 3 Community Forestry: Origins and Trajectory 4 Wider agendas 5 Changing models of community forestry 6 Networking for Change 7 The emergence of market based approaches 8 Network strategies 10 Conflict management or structural reform? 10 Hybrid vigour 12 Hybrid hubris 12 Synergies 13 The Tool Box 13 Digital divide 13 Newsletter overload? 14 Face to face meetings 14 Exchanges 14 Communications strategies 14 New tools 15 Languages 15 iii

Internationals and Locals 15 International-local linkages 15 NGOs and communities 16 International Policies and National Change 16 Money Matters 17 Carbon fixation: global markets 17 Community forestry as development 17 Network survival 18 Networks as devices to capture money 18 Dancing with donors 18 Donor points of view 18 Evaluation 19 Network collapse 19 Governance Dilemmas 19 Membership 20 Governance structures: to formalise or not 20 Does size matter? 21 Staff stability 21 Choices not rules 21 Trust 22 Linking with Social Movements 22 Towards Conclusions 25 Annex I. Terms of Reference 44 Annex II. Connecting to the Networks 45 Endnotes 46 Bibliography 47 iv CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41

Tables Table 1. Changing visions of community forestry 6 Table 2. The Emergence of International Community Forestry Networks 8 Table 3. Networking Tools 13

Figures Figure 1. Mapping change 11

Boxes Box 1. Definition of Terms 2 Box 2. Why Network? 9 Box 3. Operating Principles for Strategic Network Catalysts 24 Box 4. Learning Lessons from China 27 Box 5. Learning Lessons from Indonesia 28 Box 6. Learning Lessons from India 29 Box 7. Learning Lessons from Uganda 31 Box 8. Learning Lessons from Cameroon 32 Box 9. Learning Lessons from the Forest Action Network 33 Box 10. Learning Lessons from the Forests, Trees and People Programme 34 Box 11. Learning Lessons from the Asia Forest Network 35 Box 12. Learning lessons from the Rural Development Forestry Network 36 Box 13. Learning Lessons from the Central American Indigenous and Peasant Coordinator of Communal Agroforestry 37 Box 14. Learning Lessons from the Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific 38 Box 15. Learning Lessons from the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests 39 Box 16. Learning Lessons from the World Conservation Union’s Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management 40 Box 17. Learning Lessons from the Forest Stewardship Council 41 Box 18. Learning Lessons from the World Rainforest Movement 43 v

Acronyms

ACICAFOC Central American Coordination for Indigenous and Peasant Community Agroforestry AFN Asia Forest Network AMAN Alliance of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (Indonesia) ASOSODE Association of Communities for Development (Costa Rica) CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBFM Community-Based Forest Management CF Community Forestry CIFOR Centre for International Forestry Research CSD Commission on Sustainable Development DFID Department for International Development ECOSOC Economic and Social Council FAN Forest Action Network FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FD Forestry Department FECOFUN Federation of Community Forestry Users in Nepal FKKM Indonesia Consultation Forum on Community Forestry FSC-SWG Forest Stewardship Council-Social Working Group FTPP Forests, Trees and People Programme GTA Amazonia Working Group (Brazil) HKM Community Forestry Permit (Indonesia) IAITPTF International Alliance Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests ICRAF World Agroforestry Research Centre IFF Intergovernmental Forum on Forests IIED International Institute for Environment and Development IPF Intergovernmental Panel on Forests IPO Indigenous Peoples’ Organisation ITTO International Tropical Timber Organisation IUCN-CIFM World Conservation Union - Community Involvement in Forest Management JFM Joint Forest Management M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products RDFN Rural Development Forestry Network RECOFTC Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNOFOC National Union for Community Forestry (Mexico) UNFF United Nations Forum on Forests WRM World Rainforest Movement

iPages_OP-41.p65 5 9/27/2003, 10:56 AM vi CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to recognise the valuable contributions of very many people who made this study possible through workshops, interviews and written comments. We would like to thank the following: Jeff Campbell, Ford Foundation; Penny Davies and John Hudson, DFID; Purabi Bose and Steve Rhee, CIFOR; Rowena Soriaga, AFN; Helen Gillman and Thomas Enters, FAO; Mary Melnyck, USAID; Heleen van den Hombergh, Novib; Tasso Rezende de Azevedo, IMAFLORA; Daphne Thuvesson, FTPP Newsletter; John Kabogoza, Makerere University; Mohan Hirabai Hiralal, Vrikshamitra; Prof. Xu Jianchu, Centre for Biodiversity and Indigenous Knowledge; Zhou Heng Fang, Yunnan Forestry Department; He Wen Hua, Prefecture Forestry Bureau in Shangri- La (Zhongdian); Yuan Zheng Dong, Shangrila Town Forestry Bureau; Wang Li, Nixi Township Forestry Station; Zhuiduo Wang Dui, Tibetan Village of Tang Dui, Nixi Township; Shen Xue Wu and Luo Li Xin, Yi Village of Jiulong Zhai; Li Bensheng, Liu Zhao, Ms. Han, Liu Ying Jie and Mao Fang Fang, Yunnan Provincial Forestry School; Zhao Juncheng, Xuan Yi, Kang Yunhai and Mo Wencun, Yunnan Academy of Social Sciences; Chen Fan, Yunnan Environmental Monitoring Centre Station; Li Chun, Kunming Branch of the CITES Authority; He Pi Kun, FCCDP; Zhao Yaqiao, CDS; Yi Shaoliang, Chen Fang, Lai Qingkui and Li Xianzhong, South West Forestry College; Ben Hillman, Australian National University; Ai Xihui, Kunming Institute of Botany; Tri Nugroho, Nonette Royo and Eva Castana, DFID Multistakeholder Forestry Project; Longgena Ginting, WALHI; Sandra Moniaga, HuMa; Farah Wardani; Dian Raharjo and Ujjwhal Pradhan, Ford Foundation; Muayat Ali Mushi, KpSHK; Laurel Heydir, Asia Forestry Network; Martua Sirait, Lisken Situmorang and Chip Fay, ICRAF; Nurka Cahyaningsih, WATALA; M. Natsir, Afrinaldi and Pino Kasubdit, DPKAT, DEPSOS; Lis Nainggolan, World Bank; Erna Rosdiana, DPHK, Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops; George Sitania, Emil Kleden and Rukka Sombolinggi, AMAN; Upik Djalins, NRM; Mia Siscawati, RMI; Sandra Moniaga, HuMA; Boedhi Wijardjo, Raca Institute; Aisyah Sileuw, Smartwood Asia-Pacific; Kacong, Alin Fitriyani, Dwi Rahmad Muhtaman, Endah Prasmusanti, LATIN; Nina, KKIP; Sigit, BCI/jk36S, Nuripto, PLASMA; Erizal, Bioforum; Liz Chidley, Down to Earth; Kate Schreckenberg, Gill Shepherd and John Palmer of ODI, Chimere Diaw, Frank Matose, Rene Oyono, Godber Tumushabe and Jaap Vermaat; Prof. Somsak Sukwong, Dr. Cor Veer, Poom Printhep, Karen Edwards, Michael Viktor, Somchai Manopironnporn, Pearmsak Makarabhirom and Dr. Vitoon Viriyayasakulthorn, RECOFTC; Witoon Permpongsacharoen, TERRA; Patrick Durst, FAO; Kaji Shreshtra, FECOFUN; Dani Munggoro, LATIN; Yolande Fouda, Michael Vabi, Alaian Djiegoue and Louis Djomo; Christian Asanga, Thomas Mainimo, Denis Yisa, Hilda Ngek, Celina Munguo, Tata Grace Mban and Samuel Kunkavi Ngek of the Kilum-Ijim Project; Cyprain Jum; Godber Tumushabe, Patrick Kivumbi, Oluka Akleng, Helen Gakwaya, Fred Wajje, Gorettie Nabanoga, Grace Bazaaya, Frank Muhereza, Agrippinah Namara, Mr Kauka; Simon Nampindo; Joseph Ndawula; Eileen Omosa, Jack Omondi, Tom Were, Eric Bosire, Nancy Sambu and Sammy Carsan, Forest Action Network; Jeff Sayer, Tom McShane, WWF; Simon Rietbergen, Dagmar Timmer, Stewart Maginnis, and Bill Jackson, IUCN; Dr. Angana Chatterji, Arlen Salgados,, Peter Walpole, Rowena Soriaga, , Mark Poffenberger and Kate Smith- Hanssen, AFN; May Blanco, Noel Crucio and Sylvia Miclat, Environmental Science for Social Change; Mark Sandiford, UNDP/EC Small Grants Programme for Operations to Promote Tropical

iPages_OP-41.p65 6 9/27/2003, 10:56 AM vii

Forests – South East Asia; Anders Tivel; Anna Sherwood; Erik Nielsen; Francesca Gentile; Linda Mitchell; Manuel Paveri; Marilyn Hoskins; Olivier Dubois; Seema Arora-Jonsson; Sophie Grouwels; Tanaka Hiroyuki, Hivy Ortiz Chour; Tariq Aziz, Tiger Conservation Programme, WWF-India; VK Bahuguna, Ministry of Environment and Forests; Amita Baviskar, Dept. of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics; Seema Bhatt; Doris Capistrano, Ford Foundation; Dr Kevin Crockford, Rural Livelihoods Adviser, DFID-India; VB Easwaran; Arvind Khare, Development Alliance; Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group; Dr Kinsuk Mitra and Sushil Saigal, Winrock International India; Dr Sayeed Rizvi; Madhu Sarin; Dr Virinder Sharma, Environment Adviser, DFID India; Shekhar Singh, Indian Institute of Public Administration; Nandini Sundar, Bansuri Taneja, Pramod Tyagi, Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development; Jitendra Agarwal, Addl. Secretary to the Chief Minister; Shahbaz Ahmed, IFS; Ramanathan Balakrishnan; Sudeep Banerjee, IAS; Prodyut Bhattacharya,Prof. PK Biswas, Deep Pandey, Suprava Patnaik, Dr. Rekha Singhal and Dr. RK Singh, Indian Institute of Forest Management; MN Buch and RC Saxena, National Centre for Human Settlements and Environment; Ashim Chowla, DFID; Rakesh Diwan; Dr PB Gangopadhyay, IFS; Anwar Jafri, Eklavya; Dr Yogesh Kumar, Samarthan Centre for Development Support; Madhuri, JagrutAdivasi Dalit Sangathan; Anurag and Shamim Modi, Shramik Adivasi Sangathan; Anil Oberoi, IFS; Dr HS Pabla, IFS; Vijay Panda, Adivasi Mukti Sangathan; Dr Gopa Pandey, IFS; Dr Ram Prasad, IFS; BMS Rathore, IFS; Prof VS Rekhi, National Law Institute University; BD Sharma, Bharat Jan Andolan; Sunil, Kisan Adivasi Sangathan; Dr Ajit Kumar Banerjee; Udayan Banerjee; Prof. Balram Bose, Regional Centre, National Afforestation and Eco-Development Board; Mitali Chatterjee, Prof. SB Roy and Ganesh Yadav, Indian Institute of Bio-Social Research and Development; Dr RN Chattopadhyay, Rural Development Centre, Indian Institute of Technology; Abhijeet Choudhary, IFS; S. Das, Ramakrishna Mission Lokasiksha Parishad; KC Gayen; Aren Ghosh, IFS; Dr AK Ghosh, Centre for Environment and Development; Subhabrata Palit; Narendra Kumar Pandey; Lipika Ray; VK Yadav; Bhanu & Ravi, Samatha; Bharti Sundar; K. Siva Prasad and Amrut Kumar Prusti, Action For Food Production; K.S. Gopal, Centre for Environment Concerns; M.V. Sastri and Suryakumari, Centre For World Solidarity; Madhu and Sagari Ramdas, ANTHRA; P. Jamalagga and P Jamalayua, A.P Sheep & Goat Breeders Association; R. Rajamani; Ramesh G. Kalaghatki, IFS ; S.D. Mukherjee; S.K. Chhottray, IFS; Dr V. Santharam, Rishi Valley Education Centre; PV Satheesh, Deccan Development Society; Satya Srinivas and VR Sawmithri, AP NGOs Committee on JFM; Surendra Pandey, IFS; Suresh Jones, National Tree Growers Coop Federation; Vinod Goud; Y.L.Nene, Asian Agri-History Foundation; Joy Dasgupta and Arindam Datta of College of Juridical Sciences; Rohit Raina of IIFM; Andre de Freitas, IMAFLORA; Virgilio Viana, University of Sao Paulo; Patricia Roth; Nilson Texeira Mendes; Magana Cunha, PESACRE; Marcos Vinicius de Oliveira, EMBRAPA; Pedro Bruzzi, CTA; Carlos Vicente; Luis Meneses, WWF; Maria Jose Gontijo, IIEB; Westphalen Nunes, Fundo Nacional de Meio Ambiente; Luciano Matos, FASE; Paulo Amaral, IMAZON; Domingos Macedo, PROMANEJO; Jorge Rebouca; Dawn Robinson, Daniel Aranciba and Larianna Brown, FSC; Ricardo Carrere, Ana Filipini and Teresa Perez, WRM; A. Cascante, Sith Ying Sanchez and Alberto Chinchilla, ACICAFOC. We would also like to thank the Peer Review team - Mary Hobley, Janis Alcorn, Madhu Sarin and Louise Goodman. To David Kaimowitz, Carol Colfer, Lini Wollenberg, Rahayu Koesnadi and Dina Hubudin of CIFOR who oversaw the entire project and who have been keen-minded guides throughout, we offer special thanks. None of these can be held responsible for the interpretation that follows.

iPages_OP-41.p65 7 9/27/2003, 10:56 AM Meal sharing during collective activities symbolizes mutual aid and reinforces social cohesion. Tikar farmers, Central Cameroon. (Photo by Edmond Dounias)

iPages_OP-41.p65 8 9/27/2003, 10:56 AM Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 1

Abstract Community forestry has transformed over the past 25 years from being an experimental means of providing wood-fuel for the rural poor to a community-led movement demanding reform of the forestry sector. International networks to promote community forestry, which emerged at very different moments in this history with different visions, goals, targets and participants, have played a key role in this transformation. Based on a review of seven countries and ten networks, the study compiles the main lessons learned from this experience in terms of advocacy effectiveness, communications techniques, network governance, relations with donors and linkage to social movements. The increasing mobilisation of community-based organisations means that supportive NGOs and government agencies now need to play a different role to the one they gave themselves 25 years ago.

Introduction Since the 1978 World Forestry Congress, for International Development and the Ford community forestry has become a major theme Foundation. Under the project, researchers in international forestry debates. The idea that were contracted to review eight countries’ forests should primarily be managed to meet experiences with international community people’s needs, especially the needs of the rural forestry networks. We were also asked to poor, has struck a strong chord with many review the activities of eight international developing country governments and community forestry networks to try to distil out development agencies. Just how this is best the main lessons that could be learned from their achieved and reconciled with the other demands experiences.1 for forest resources by industry, for export and Our task was to review these experiences by urban populations, has secured less unanimity to assess how much ‘value-added’ they have and not just because of different national provided, or could potentially provide, to situations. To what extent should forests be activities at the local and national level, as well devolved to local control, and be owned and as their ability to advocate for community managed by local communities? Ideas that were forestry at international levels. The project’s inconceivable to mainstream foresters 30 years central objective was to increase the ago are become commonplace topics of effectiveness and efficiency of international discussion today. efforts to support community forestry. The Formal and informal networking to promote project has attempted to synthesize the lessons community forestry has played an important part emerging from these networks, with the aim in the spread of these ideas, and development of then sharing these lessons as widely as agencies have invested a substantial amount of possible. A subsidiary aim was to help improve funding to stimulate this sharing of experiences. the programmes of the development agencies Since the mid-1980s, a number of formalised that support community forestry and help CIFOR international networks have sprung up to establish better links with the community promote community forestry and the rights of forestry world. forest dependent people. They have sought to As conceived, the project was emphatically do this in very diverse ways, with very different not an evaluation of the networks and country mixes of people, and with very different experiences. It has thus adopted an open, objectives. What have been the results? What collaborative, information-sharing approach lessons can we learn from nearly two decades designed to promote ‘social learning’ about of networking? How can these efforts be built community forestry networking. on and improved? What are the prospects and pitfalls ahead? Methods This report synthesises the findings of a Prior to engaging in the research, the team met year and a half long CIFOR project, which was with a number of others, to develop a shared designed to answer these questions. The methodology for the investigation. A Methods research programme titled ‘Learning Lessons Workshop resulted in: agreed definitions for key from International Community Forestry terms used in the study (see Box 1); an agreed Networks’ was funded by the U.K. Department framework for investigating the effectiveness 2 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

of networking; a series of questionnaires for only limit on the selection of the country studies use by the researchers; proposed formats for imposed by the funders was that they had to national workshops; and a general outline for be developing countries. The aim therefore was the case study reports to follow. It was agreed to select countries spread across the various that all the studies should take care to continents with a wide range of experiences contextualise information about international with networks and community forestry, a variety networking and its effects, and not focus too of community forestry regimes, and experiencing narrowly on the actual activities of networks differing degrees of donor interest. Cost, alone.2 language, and researcher familiarity with the countries was also taken into account. The result Selection of case studies was the selection of Mexico, Brazil, Cameroon, The Methods Workshop also selected the range Uganda, India, Nepal, Indonesia and China. For of countries and networks for investigation. The security reasons, the Nepal study subsequently

Box 1. Definition of Terms

Community Forestry. For the purposes of the Network. A network was defined as a mechanism review, the study used a broad definition of for the two-way sharing of information, experiences, community forestry. It was not limited to the power and/or resources between previously distinct management of forests by communities for timber or discrete entities (persons, communities or production or just for commercial purposes, but groups) having a common objective. Networks also included community management for non- range from informal, unnamed interpersonal webs timber forest products, subsistence, wildlife, to formalised, named and structured mechanisms biodiversity conservation, as well as for information sharing and coordinated action. environmental, social and religious purposes. International networks are distinguished from Likewise, the scope of the survey included international organisations in that all the activities measures to promote community management by of members of organisations are considered part customary and traditional means as well as through of an organisation’s plan of activities, whereas local and introduced innovations. network members only act within an agreed framework towards certain agreed goals being Forests. The study used a very broad definition of otherwise autonomous. forests and was not limited to ‘natural’ forests but included managed woodlands, woodlots and small International. An international network is one plantations. whose activities and members are in more than one country. (A national organisation receiving Degree of control. The study recognised that a funding from overseas is not therefore continuum exists between state-owned international.) exclusionary forms of forest management at one end of the spectrum, and community-owned Measuring effectiveness. The effectiveness of forests, in which the State intervenes little if at all in community forestry networking can be measured forest management and use at the other end. In in terms of the degree to which it has succeeded between are various forms of shared management in promoting:

where the community has different degrees of l empowerment—inclusive decision-making, control of management and benefits. The study including marginal voices;

focused on the extent to which forest management l equitable income generation and livelihood has shifted in favour of local control. strategies in communities;

l access to, and control of forests by, the local Community. The study did not attempt a critique communities;

of the problematic concept of community but l ecological sustainability and conservation;

recognised that some forms of community l two-way flows of information in appropriate forestry actually purposefully disaggregate caste- forms and languages. and class-divided communities into discrete user groups with the intention of ensuring that The study did not presume that objective criteria marginalised sectors have access to resources, exist for assessing sustainability or conservation and so that village elites do not monopolise and gave emphasis to local perceptions of what benefits. needs to be conserved and sustained. Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 3

was dropped and three states of India were initial focus on technical concerns has studied instead. expanded to address the broader Nine networks with a variety of framework hindering community approaches, aims and target groups, including management. regional and global networks were also chosen: l Networking for Change traces the Coordinadora Indigena y Campesina de emergence of international community Agroforesteria Comunitaria (or Central American forestry networks during this same period. Coordination for Indigenous and Peasant Information sharing and training Community Agroforestry, ACICAFOC); Forest approaches have been followed by Stewardship Council’s Social Working Group campaigning groups championing structural (FSC-SWG); World Conservation Union’s Working reforms, culminating in the emergence of Group on Community Involvement in Forest grassroots movements pressing their own Management (IUCN-CIFM); World Rainforest demands for change.

Movement (WRM); Rural Development Forestry l The Tool Box summarises the main tools Network (RDFN); Forest Action Network (FAN); or techniques that the networks use to Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for achieve their aims and picks out the main Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC); Asia Forest lessons that have emerged.

Network (AFN); and the Forests, Trees and People l Internationals and Locals examines the Programme (FTPP). extent to which the international networks are able to link to local actors or Limitations accommodate their interests and From the beginning, the project also took stock perspectives in their work. of its inherent limitations. The budget limited l International Policies and National country field visits to 12 days and network Change summarises the experiences with investigations to 7 days for each study, with network advocacy for international policy brief periods of time also allocated to writing reform. Although international agreements up each study. It was recognised from the outset now give prominence to community that the studies would be anecdotal and forestry, they have not yet had much impressionistic in nature and would not yield discernible effect at the national level. data amenable to statistical or rigorous l Money Matters looks at the financial comparative analysis. aspects of community forestry and networking. Is community forestry Organising the Findings sustainable without subsidies? Are networks This survey pulled together information from a viable without donors? How do the financial huge diversity of sources. The countries and constraints affect the power politics of networks that we chose to look at are extremely networking? diverse in their character, and the studies that l Governance Dilemmas examines the resulted were also varied. This diversity is as institutional challenges networks face to much a reflection of the different backgrounds, meet their multiple aims and obligations. interests, and training of the authors, as of the Different kinds of networks favour different different networks and local situations that we structures: all face the same dilemma that examined. All the studies, however, show the while members want accountability and extreme complexity of the networking democratic decision-making, yet all also endeavour and the multiple webs of causality favour flexibility and responsiveness. Can and interaction in which they are part. they have both?

Notwithstanding this inter-relatedness, the l Linking with Social Movements examines discussion which follows attempts to make sense the very different situation that exists now of this profusion of information under eight main that social movements pressing for subject areas, while seeking to highlight critical community forestry are present on the connections that exist between the various international stage. How do networks topics. A final section of conclusions brings the support community-based organisations report to a close. without occupying their political space and l Community Forestry: Origins and substituting their voice for those in whose Trajectory provides a thumbnail sketch of interests they claim to speak?

the evolution of community forestry from l Towards Conclusion draws all these lessons the 1970s to the present, showing how the together. 4 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Community Forestry: the middle of the 19th century in India, Burma and Indonesia and later elsewhere.5 Origins and Trajectory From the start, colonial foresters had to Human beings living in communities have been struggle with the reality that forests being dependent on forests for their livelihoods for arrogated to the colonial state as forest reserves tens of thousands of years. Archaeological were in fact owned, inhabited, used, and evidence reveals that people have been managed by indigenous peoples. Curtailing the managing forests for sustained timber production, rights of these peoples inevitably sparked through practices such as coppicing and rotational resistance that either had to be suppressed harvests, for at least six thousand years and quite through forced removals, fines, exactions and likely much longer.3 However, forestry as a worse punishments, or accommodated by science emerged in Europe during the early years permitting certain forest-based activities to of the industrial revolution as a response to forests continue as privileges subject to strict controls.6 being cleared for agriculture and for fuelwood Experiments with Karen villagers in Burma, and timber for burgeoning industries. Scientific allowing them to interplant their crops between forestry as conceived by those early foresters teak seedlings which they were charged with sought to remove forests from the control and managing and protecting, the so-called taungya use of local communities and place them under system, are often cited as among the earliest the control of official bodies with the principal examples of community forestry.7 aim of ensuring sustained supplies of timber to Despite the resistance to state control, the strategic industries.4 This same model of prevailing belief was sustained that industrial scientific forestry was then imposed on the forestry was justifiable in the public interest as overseas dominions of the colonial powers from it would generate jobs, wealth and development

Links between international networks and national and local levels need to be improved to enhance the benefits for the rural poor. (Photo by Edmond Dounias) Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 5

that would promote general prosperity.8 According groups, either through co-management schemes to ‘wake theory’, scientific forestry geared to as in India’s Joint Forest Management (JFM), service the needs of industry would bring in its through leases such as the Forest Stewardship wake environmental and economic benefits to Agreements in the Philippines and, later, the wider society. By sustaining stands of trees, Indonesia’s Community Forest Permit (HKM), or industry would be generating employment in through actual transfers of tenurial rights as in environmental services and forestry operations Nepal.12 At the same time, appreciation grew as well as downstream industries. It was only in that rural communities’ own knowledge, the 1970s that these beliefs began to be widely institutions, management systems and practices challenged by professional foresters themselves. were not only well adapted to their environments Growing evidence was hard to deny that but also highly adaptable to changing commercial forestry was responsible for circumstances. This strengthened arguments for widespread forest degradation and loss, that it greater devolution of authority to local caused serious harm to local communities communities.13 providing relatively little, mostly temporary, employment, and was enclavistic, bringing little Wider agendas sustained benefit to society as a whole.9 The 1980s also saw the emergence of wider social The Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (FAO) movements demanding ecological justice and a VIIIth World Forestry Congress in 1978, titled curb on destructive development schemes.14 ‘Forests for People’, is often identified as the Growing public concern about the escalating rates turning point when mainstream foresters gave of tropical forest destruction,15 were fuelled by international recognition to the importance of targeted campaigns, which linked up with developing forests in ways that directly benefit campaigns for the recognition of the rights of local communities. Spurred by early forestation indigenous peoples16 and highlighted the social experiments being carried out on collective farms and environmental impacts of World Bank-funded in China and to establish collective woodlots in projects such as dam building in the Philippines, South Korea,10 institutions such as the FAO and road building and forest colonization schemes in World Bank adopted policies aimed at Brazilian Amazonia, and transmigration in complementing industrial forestry in natural Indonesia.17 These laid the ground for forests with schemes to encourage poor international campaigns for an overhaul of forestry communities to plant trees—and reap the policies of institutions like the World Bank and benefits—in degraded forests, ‘wastelands’, FAO, focusing initially on the Tropical Forestry village woodlots, along field boundaries, and on Action Plan. The emphases of these campaigns their farms. In the 1970s and early 1980s, was exposure of the underlying political ecology substantial investment and grant aid was directed of forest destruction in order to justify the to developing countries, especially in Asia, to demands of social movements calling for radical implant schemes of social forestry. Many of these reforms in policy, aid, trade, debt relief and land schemes such as those in Nepal and later tenure regimes and give space for local Cameroon were donor-led and did not spring from alternatives, such as community forestry.18 community demands. Intergovernmental policy-making about Early experiences quickly taught lessons, forests had to wait until the late 1980s before though not all were quick to learn them. Not all there was official recognition that the wastelands are wasted; many are essential to the overwhelming majority of industrial logging in livelihoods of the very poor. Fields farmed for the tropics was unsustainable.19 International trees may displace landless labourers and attention meantime focused on the social impacts sharecroppers. Risk-averse poor people may see of logging in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo, where growing trees just for fuel, rather than planting Dayaks were being arrested for blockading logging multi-purpose species, as an extravagant way to roads in defense of their ancestral lands.20 Efforts use scarce land and labour. Without secure rights, to bring about forestry reform through the poor and marginal groups gain little from International Tropical Timber Organisation were, woodlots. Forestry officials need retraining to however, rebuffed.21 In the run-up to the Earth relinquish control of trees and harvests.11 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Southern governments As a result of these lessons, the late 1980s reacted strongly against what they perceived to and early 1990s saw the development of more be unilateral efforts to impose standards on participatory forms of forestry, which shifted tropical forestry without similar measures being management responsibility to local forest user taken to control forestry in the North. The Rio 6 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Summit thus saw a reassertion of the principle At the same time, the community forestry of national sovereignty over natural resources and debate can also be seen to have significantly a legally non-binding statement of principles was widened its agenda. Community forestry actors agreed to apply to all types of forests.22 NGOs now focus as much attention on the reform of responded by focusing their attention more the national and international policy frameworks evenly on temperate and boreal forests.23 that constrain or make possible community However, calls for the International Tropical forestry as on the delivery of ideas, resources, Timber Organisation (ITTO), to broaden its and practical advice to foresters and mandate to encompass boreal and temperate as communities. This shift in emphasis of the key well as tropical timbers were again rebuffed, issues and major activities addressed by this time by the North.24 community forestry advocates can be represented in a highly simplified table (see Table 1). Changing models of community The working definition of community forestry forestry adopted at the outset of this investigation These broader changes in debates about forestry, thus proved to be far too broad, according to coupled with an exponential increase in many of our interviewees. The case studies from understanding of both the immediate and framing China, Indonesia, India, and Uganda all noted that obstacles to successful community control of key actors in the networks and community forests,25 have brought about a general change forestry movements repudiate government in civil society’s perceptions of what is community notions of what community forestry is, explicitly forestry. Since the 1980s, the emphasis has noting that China’s social forestry programme, gradually shifted from a focus on community Indonesia’s HKM, or India’s Joint Forest forestry as a technical innovation—in which Management (JFM) are not real community knowledge about forest management is passed forestry. Even members of the Madhya Pradesh down to farmers, and authority is shared with or Forestry Department noted that JFM was not really devolved to them—to one with a focus on the community forestry. In Uganda, the split between validation or revival of customary systems of these two approaches is institutionalised at the forest management controlled by communities. government level with the Ministry of Agriculture Correspondingly, the forestry focus itself has overseeing agroforestry, while the Ministry of shifted from woodlots and reforestation to natural Forestry oversees community-based timber forest management and natural regeneration. A extraction in natural forests. focus on promoting tree-planting for timber and Within regions, differences in community fuelwood supplies has likewise shifted to multiple forestry also are very apparent. In Brazil, civil use forestry, non-timber forest products, and the society advocacy in the 1980s started with a promotion of wider livelihood strategies. preoccupation with shifts in power and control over forests—goals which have been to a significant extent achieved through the slowing Table 1. Changing visions of ‘community forestry’ down of colonization schemes, the recognition Reforestation Model Customary Rights Model of indigenous peoples’ land rights, and the setting Technical innovation Customary knowledge up of extractive reserves. The networks in the state of Acre, for example, are now moving Reforestation/plantations on Natural forest management/ towards a greater focus on community forest ‘wasteland’ regeneration management for timber and away from the Timber and fuelwood Multiple use, sustainable original emphasis on non-timber forest products. livelihoods The exception does however also prove the rule. Collaborative management Local control A major focus in Brazil also is on promoting Training Collaborative learning workable market conditions so that community forestry schemes can be economically self- Forest management Governance reform sustaining. Successful community forestry thus Conflict management Land rights and agrarian reform requires both adequate frameworks (policies, Silviculture Exposing underlying causes tenure regimes and markets), and solutions to Forest department reform National policy reform the practical problems of forest management (technical know-how, viable community Consensus building Advocacy institutions, and workable relations with forestry Multi-stakeholder approaches Connecting with social departments and the local administration). movements Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 7

In Tang Dui, a Tibetan village in western Yunnan, government reforestation programmes encourage the replanting of upland fields with fruit trees, with the assistance of a community forestry project funded by the Ford Foundation (Photo by Marcus Colchester)

RECOFTC and then stimulating the emergence of Networking for Change regional networks in Central America and Africa. The international community forestry networks Although structurally quite different, the AFN reviewed in this study emerged at very different emerged with similar broad aims, substantially moments in this history and in response to very out of the early experiences of professionals diverse challenges and perceived needs. The working in Asia, as a means of sharing lessons earliest networks such as the RDFN and RECOFTC among promoters of community forestry in were formed principally as mechanisms for different parts of Asia.26 sharing the growing knowledge and experiences By contrast, other networks reviewed in this of community forestry among professional study came into being as part of the broader social foresters and students, through information and environmental movements pressing for more dissemination and training. While RECOFTC radical reforms. The WRM was created explicitly focused on sharing the message within Asia, the as a response to the FAO, the U.N. Development RDFN, which has a long record of academic Programme, and World Bank’s Tropical Forestry excellence, gave a strong emphasis to transferring Action Plan, which was seen by NGO campaigners the experiences and lessons learned in Asia to as a fundamentally flawed attempt to impose the practitioners in Africa, where community forestry old model of industrial forestry on developing started somewhat later. The FTPP, which was countries with inadequate consideration for the generated within the bureaucratic FAO, aimed rights and interests of local communities. A number to spread knowledge and ideas more broadly, of other networks also coalesced later with the principally through a lively newsletter with a light primary aim of challenging the framework in which and popular style, and also through other forestry was implanted and pressing for reforms publications, meetings and capacity building. It of global forest policies being debated at the secured budgets to promote the development subsidiary bodies of the U.N.’s Commission on of networks in the regions, first linking up with Sustainable Development. A temporary NGO 8 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Table 2. The Emergence of International Community Forestry Networks Date Events Networks Key objectives/context 1978 World Forest Congress Community forestry achieves first international exposure 1985 RDFN Share technical insights among practitioners 1985 Regional FAO meeting RECOFTC Train community forestry practitioners in Asia 1986 FAO/WB/UNDP/ WRM Campaign to counter top-down forestry and support community rights WRI launch TFAP

1987 FTPP Information sharing, developing tools, promotion of national initiatives 1991 ACICAFOC Link community-based organisations and promote community forestry 1992 UNCED AFN Share lessons learned from community forestry experience in Asia 1992 UNCED IAITPTF Political alliance of indigenous forest peoples demands recognition of rights

1993 ITTO rejects FSC Promote independent voluntary certification with attention to labelling in 1991-02 human rights

1995 IPF FAN Promote national and regional forest policy reform 1996 IPF IUCN-CIFM Promote Community Forestry in International Forest Policy regime 2002 WSSD Global Promote policy reform to favour community-based and indigenous Caucus on forestry CBFM

coalition hosted by the WRM and the IUCN- getting the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests Netherlands was, at least temporarily, successful to take into account indigenous rights.29 in focusing intergovernmental attention on the A cumulative result of all this advocacy was underlying causes of deforestation.27 Regional that future policy-makers could no longer limit networks such as FAN, which also emerged at this forest policy debates to negotiations between time, joined in these efforts. At the same time a governments and with the private sector. The more focused community forestry lobby, voice of communities also had to be taken into coordinated by the IUCN secretariat in Gland, account.30 The emergence of national forest users’ invested huge efforts in documenting the associations such as the Jan Sangharsh Morcha, a advances in community forestry achieved over coalition of tribal organisations in India, the the past 15 years and getting the Assembly of the Poor in Thailand, FECOFUN in Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) to make Nepal in 1995, and AMAN in Indonesia in 1999 can declaratory proposals for action in favour of be seen as part of this mould-breaking trend.31 community forestry. (See Box 2) The creation of the Global Caucus for Community- The early 1990s also saw the emergence onto Based Forest Management, set up in the context the global stage of new networks that were of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, genuinely rooted in community organisations is another step in this process.32 (See Table 2) themselves. In 1991, in Central America, ACICAFOC was established by a coalition of The emergence of market based indigenous and peasant associations to press for approaches reforms in favour of communities. The following As noted, concern about the impact of logging year, the International Alliance of Indigenous and on forests became an international issue in 1980s, Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests also with much of the attention focussed on tropical established itself, led by the effective regional forests. In the mid-1980s, NGOs from Thailand, indigenous peoples’ coalitions which had emerged Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines called in Amazonia and the Philippines in the mid- for a moratorium on tropical forest logging, which 1980s.28 The Alliance positioned itself around a led supportive NGOs in developing countries to strong human rights agenda and was successful in call for boycotts of tropical timber imports and Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 9

Box 2. Why network?

But why network anyway? Networking, as an activity, is not an l Secure funding (donors need clear agencies with specific end in itself but a means to an end. The main reasons given goals—networks need to reassure members that money for networking that emerge from the case studies and raised in their names is well used);

workshops are the following: l Cost effective financing to reach a maximum number of beneficiaries;

l Share information and experiences; l Create a sense of identity among distant partners who l Share resources and expertise; share a common vision;

l Identify hot topics; l Or contrarily, create a mechanism for forging a common l Avoid the repetition of mistakes; understanding among diverse actors with very different l Building consensus; viewpoints.

l Establishing shared values;

l Research; Do networks have a ‘natural life’? A number of l Publish findings and results; commentators suggested during this investigation that l Give people confidence in their work; networks have a natural cycle, being born to achieve a certain l Building up recognition and self-esteem; shared goal, often catalysed by a charismatic individual or l Encouraging younger people to take up the issues; organisation. The networks evolve, grow to include a wider l Create a framework for local actors; range of members, and then gradually fizzle out because: the l Provide a platform for the voiceless; original goal is achieved; the context changes; membership l Counter threats; becomes diffuse; goals become too general or ambitious; l Build credibility. structures become over-formalised; or mutual trust weakens. Networks then die a ‘natural death’. Our study neither confirms Most networking on community forestry is informal. People nor denies this observation but does suggest that at the least share information and interact without the need to formalise the periodicity of this natural cycle would vary greatly from case their connections. Informal networking was repeatedly noted to case. It may indeed be logical for some networks set up for as a preferable form of networking as it encourages creative very specific, short-term objectives to fold up once those innovation, without formality, obligations, and legal constraints. objectives are achieved. The IUCN-CIFM, set up to ensure A number of country and network case studies urged the virtues attention was paid to community forestry in intergovernmental of keeping networks as informal as possible, especially for forest policy fora, has logically come to term once the IPF and advocacy work. The finding is confirmed by a review that the IFF had passed their resolutions. On the other hand, other FAO undertook of the 135 networks in which its own staff have networks with more ambitious or long term goals can be been involved: ‘the effectiveness of networks is not necessarily observed going through cycles of transformation; specific influenced by the extent to which it is formalised’.33 actions and campaigns may come to an end but the enduring Formalised networks, as institutionalised arrangements commitments of members and their underlying goals carry such as the ones this review has examined, emerge from the networks forward into new phases of work. Yet, other informal connections for a number of additional reasons: commentators warned against networks trying to spread themselves too thin. A common message we heard is networks l Secure legitimacy for new approaches (in some countries that try to achieve too much often fail. Trying to do everything informal networking may even be illegal); means you do nothing. the labelling of timber to reveal its provenance. was that, in 1993, after some 18 months of hectic Many of these same NGOs took their concerns to preparations, those civil society and industry the International Tropical Timber Organisation groups founded the Forest Stewardship Council. (ITTO), where they called on governments to Expectations were high that the FSC’s label timber and develop mechanisms to trace principled insistence on adopting social standards timber from forest to consumer. These ideas were in line with international human rights law would rejected by the ITTO, especially by Southern give a market advantage to small-scale producers governments who felt that such measures would and community forests. The reality is, however, lead to unfair discrimination against tropical that the relatively low premium offered for timber. Faced with government resistance, NGOs certified timbers has meant that industrial-scale and some of the more progressive elements in logging, benefiting from economies of scale, has the timber industry pushed ahead with proposals cornered the emerging niche market for certified to promote voluntary labelling. This was to be timbers. Notwithstanding, certification continues based on the certification of forests, according to be favoured in some regions, notably Central to agreed standards independent of governments, America and Brazil, as a way of providing along the same lines as certification pioneered recognition of community forestry and securing for the promotion of organic farming. The result access to global markets even though it may be 10 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

dependent on significant grant aid to help deforestation—have formed part of this advocacy. communities get their forest management systems Emphasis has shifted towards advocacy for up to certifiable standards. Such interventions national policy reforms, implying much greater may not be without their own problems however. mobilization of civil society to overcome An extensive review of certified community resistance to change, and correspondingly, the forests carried out for International Institute for need for stronger links with social movements. Environment and Development found that: Although networks broadly share a similar vision of what is needed to effect change towards Certification has invariably been externally community forestry (see Figure 1), they have driven, often by donors, who have enabled chosen very different approaches towards communities to meet these challenges with achieving this reform, depending on national significant subsidies that can undermine political processes and the make up and sustainable commercial decision-making by proclivities of members. Different networks community enterprises.34 have focussed efforts on very different pieces of the puzzle, reflecting their different histories Optimistic expectations that FSC and ideologies. Historically, relatively few certification also would open up political space networks focussed on national policy reform, but for marginalised communities to get their voice many are increasingly recognising that this is what heard in national standard-setting and assessments is needed today. of industrial operations have not been fully borne out either. There are still doubts about whether Conflict management or structural certification will, on balance, provide a useful reform? multiplier mechanism to secure community rights Many of the networks have promoted conflict in forests. The indications are that the potential management as an integral part of their service of the approach varies substantially depending to communities.37 They do this even though some on local and regional circumstances. A detailed of them accept that: review of certification in Sweden and Indonesia, for example, concluded that certification cannot Ideally, one should work towards the replace the need for reforms in policy frameworks resolution of each and every conflict; and, where these frameworks are unsuitable, will however, providing ultimate resolutions is only have a marginal effect until such changes not an easy matter. True resolution may occur.35 More recent reviews demonstrate how require sweeping political, economic and easily community voices and even NGOs can be other changes at the national and even marginalised in FSC processes, when the national global level, such as formal recognition of policy framework is hostile and tenurial rights indigenous land rights, land reform, insecure. In these circumstances added vigilance devolution of authority, or the reduction is needed to ensure that certification provides or curtailment of certain economic real political space for reform rather than activities.38 legitimizing the perpetuation of the status quo.36 Yet our survey found that some organisations Network strategies are critical of conflict management, insofar as Given their very different objectives, it implies getting local communities to reconcile backgrounds, constituencies, targets and styles, themselves to existing power structure and tenure the strategies adopted by the different networks regimes, when what they are calling for are major to effect reform are also very different. Yet, institutional reforms. notwithstanding this variety, our survey suggests Figure 1 illustrates schematically the way that there is a growing sense of frustration among some national and international networks all the networks with the slow pace of reform envisage their promotion of community forestry and the extent to which forest department and framework reform. Starting on the ground, bureaucracies retain control of forests. This has the aim, often through pilot projects, is to assist spurred many of the networks, especially those targeted communities to secure control over linked to or embedded in social movements, to forests resources, which are then backed up by advocate for more far-reaching reforms. More efforts to scale up from these local experiences radical and analytic examinations of the vested to reach additional communities. Local interests opposing community control of forests— networking, exchanges, and institution-building and investigations of the underlying causes of form part of this work. Many of the national Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 11

Figure 1. Mapping change 12 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

networks and a few international networks see Hybrid vigour part of their role also being to provide support Some of the networks studied are composed of for local struggles, using their national and a wide mix of interest groups: community-based international advocacy skills to heighten the organisations; indigenous peoples; NGOs; leverage and profile of local actors who face academics; donor agencies; government officials. specific threats to their rights and livelihoods. This is especially valued in networks that seek to Grassroots mobilization of community-based build consensus among different players who start organisations is also supported as a means of from quite different perspectives and pressing for reform from the bottom-up. experiences. For example the Indonesia However, this may not be enough to promote Consultation Forum on Community Forestry (FKKM) changes in the legal, political, and institutional in Indonesia was founded explicitly to build a frameworks that hinder community forestry and shared vision among academics, NGOs, and so are backed up by national networks and government officials about ways forward to coalitions, which press for policy reforms promote community forestry. through targeted advocacy at the national level. At the international level RECOFTC, FTPP, Other networks prioritise awareness-raising, and AFN have also adopted the same approach. consensus building and retraining of forestry These ‘hybrid’ networks start with recognition officials to encourage forestry departments to that not all their members will share a view about adopt more participatory approaches more the best ways to accommodate the interests of sensitive to local needs and rights. rural communities and indigenous peoples in However, the international networks forestry. However, the expectation is that through recognise that national frameworks are in turn, dialogue, information exchange, workshops, to a greater or lesser extent, influenced by shared training, and carrying out pilot schemes, international pressures. Advocacy for common ground can be found that will encourage international policy reform, changes in officials to accept the feasibility of community international law, targeted aid, and market forestry and effect reforms to make this possible transformation may encourage or pressurize on a wide scale. Even if debates do not yield national frameworks into forms more amenable unanimity, mutual respect can develop so long as to community forestry. Different networks have opponents can see that their different points of prioritised very different parts of this puzzle. view are at least being understood, if not Some have focused on the forest policy-making accepted. The survey carried out in India elicited processes of the United Nations Commission on several comments from interviewees who were Sustainable Development and subsidiary bodies. critical of the failure of the international networks Others have prioritised legally binding to reach (and teach) Forest Department officials, international treaties such as the Convention on which is a significant omission since a major Biological Diversity and various human rights barrier to reform is the resistance of forest instruments. Still others have targeted the World officials to increased community control over Bank and other international financial institutions, forests. while for others targeting private sector agencies and pressing for market reforms have Hybrid hubris been given priority. The study found that hybrid networks find it hard Just how networks position themselves to maintain their broad platforms if they engage within this changing framework determines to in partisan advocacy on behalf of local a great extent how they then interact with communities and social movements. For example, government agencies, the private sector, and the FTPP regional network in East Africa, FAN, communities themselves. A fundamental choice publicised a video with voices of Maasai herders for networks at their formation is to decide claiming a so-called participatory plan for the whether or not they should include government Ngorongoro Game Reserve was, in fact, not so officials within their membership or not. As participatory. The international organisation that noted below, many of the international networks supported the plan protested the video and do not, in fact, reach through from the caused serious repercussions in the FAO’s international level to grassroots communities headquarters in Rome. In the same way, when either through local and national institutions or the FTPP secretariat supported the Federation directly. of Community Forestry Users in Nepal’s campaign to stop Nordic companies gaining forestry concessions in community forestry areas in Nepal, Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 13

similar tensions and divisions surfaced. These Table 3. Networking Tools tensions were among a large number of factors One way tools Two way tools that contributed to FAO eventually closing down • Newsletters • Correspondence the FTPP network. Indeed, some of the mainstream foresters within the FAO even • Publications • Email newsletters, characterised the FTPP presence in the forestry listservs and department as an ‘invasion of socialists’. The discussion groups closure of the FAO’s Community Forestry Unit soon • Resource centres • Assemblies or annual followed, despite donor government appeals to meetings keep it going. • Web sites • Regional meetings A conclusion of this study is that networks • DVDs, CD-ROMs, • Workshops with strong advocacy goals are rarely able to function for long as multi-stakeholder networks • Press releases • Exchange visits because it is hard for NGOs and activists to share • Public radio and • Training courses their tactics and judgments with government and television intergovernmental officials. Staff in RECOFTC, • Other mass media • Field projects which has a broad mix of government and non- • Research government in both its membership and the composition of its board, have had to be very circumspect in their engagement in local struggles. The Tool Box They now seek to act as host institution to a Although networks have very diverse functions regional association of community forest users, and ways of interacting, the actual tools they which may be structurally difficult. all use are surprisingly similar. Commonly used Members of community organisations express tools encountered during the investigation are resentment at community forestry networks that listed in Table 3. are fence-sitters and do not commit themselves As suggested in the table, the tools can be to supporting the communities in whose interests divided into two sets. One-way tools are they claim to speak when the communities come appropriate for reaching large numbers (hundreds into conflict with government officials. As one or thousands) of participants. However, while workshop participant put it: they are suitable for disseminating large amounts of information, they are not best suited to Networks have created dreams for encouraging feedback, dialogue, and shared communities but they run away when we decision-making. Two-way tools are useful for face a problem. Do they link with us or reaching much smaller numbers of people at any with the Forestry Department? one time and they encourage dialogue, interaction, and joint decision-making. With the According to this view, community forestry exception of occasional (and usually very networks that lack real links with the communities expensive) large assemblies, most of these two- and do not take their lead from them are way tools are not well suited to stimulating shared unacceptable. communication and joint decision-making among groups much larger than about 50 people at any Synergies one time. This suggests that it is hard for An alternative view is that advocacy networks, interactive, two-way networks to include large information sharing networks, and capacity numbers of people—on a sustained basis—in shared building networks all have their place. Support decision-making and interactive planning. for partisan campaigns needs to be complemented with consensus building platforms. One of the Digital divide surprises of this investigation is the extent to There have been expectations that the new which the networks act in isolation from each technologies would help overcome limitations other, given their apparent complementarity in on networking. Certainly, email is highly valued terms of functions and perceived shared goals. for its convenience and ease of use by many Greater synergy and coordination between network secretariats. Indeed, for those with the networks seems to be called for. The creation of right training and infrastructure, email does offer the Global Caucus on Community Based Forest a relatively cheap and simple means of Management, discussed later in this article, may communication over great distances. It suffers provide an opportunity for this. major deficiencies however. 14 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

l It excludes all those without telephone lines. necessary, at least for the most active and core

l It excludes all those who are not computer members. Virtual networks rarely survive without literate. these get-togethers.

l It often substitutes for more personal and Workshops examining specific issues are also interactive means of communication. highly valued but networkers stress the

l Unless specific measures are taken it importance of having follow-up mechanisms to discourages the use of several languages. ensure that decisions can be turned into joint

l Email overload can easily happen. action. Workshops are useful as fora for information exchange, but ideally, should not be Our investigation suggests that over-reliance ends in themselves. on email is one of the major weaknesses of Global networks find that information networks. The case studies reveal that, in sharing and planning relevant joint actions practice, sustained email networking as a means intercontinentally is difficult because local and of shared communication and decision-making national contexts are so very different. Regional rarely reaches below the national level and tends meetings are often more productive in developing to limit participation to those from middle-class, joint strategies because local contexts tend to educated, and/or urban backgrounds. be more similar. This is not to argue that email should be rejected. The technology is here to stay, and as Exchanges telecommunications improve it is bound to Contrary to our expectations, the case studies become more widely available in rural areas. show that direct exchanges between countries Acquisition of cheap computers and the training and regions are highly valued. Face-to-face of local organisations may be a logical next step meetings between farmers, who can examine for networks seeking to reach below the national actual practices, are practical and educational. level in some countries. Nevertheless, the findings Mixed groups of visitors, including government suggest that if local communities are to be officials and community members travelling actively engaged in strategy and decision-making, together, can also break down hierarchies and networks cannot rely on email but must make help build shared visions. alternative arrangements for effective communications. Communications strategies A number of other common concerns emerged Newsletter overload? about communications. The most serious is that, Newsletters provide a valued means of sharing in general, the networks seem to lack clear information and sustaining a sense of shared communications strategies. Weaknesses include endeavour among network members. For the following. example, readership surveys carried out by the

WRM and FTPP (the two networks surveyed with l Most networks are under-resourced and thus the largest newsletter circulation—9,000 and facilitators lack capacity and time to provide 12,000 respectively) show that those newsletters agile and detailed responses to local actors.

are highly valued. However, in the course of this l Information extraction from the local study concerns were expressed that newsletters membership is not complemented by tend to become ends rather than means, are adequate feedback back to the local level.

expensive and time-consuming, and that there l Outputs for international advocacy are not are too many of them. This is especially the case simplified or adjusted enough for local actors with email newsletters, with which many people to use. Many publications were criticized for felt overwhelmed. being too technical and academic and not well targeted to promote desired changes.

Face to face meetings l Individual members rarely place the In the end however, there are no substitutes for publications they receive in libraries and face-to-face meetings for generating a genuine resource centres, further limiting the sense of shared purpose and decision-making. As availability of materials to other actors. one workshop participant put it: ‘two-way means Information networks should target libraries, four eye’. Face-to-face meetings are crucial to resource centres and academies if they want maintaining network coherence and to building to reach larger numbers of people.

good personal relations and trust. Annual meetings l Workshop participants also emphasize the appear to be the minimum amount of interaction need for networks to make more use of Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 15

popular means of communication and Our survey echoes the conclusions of Manuel mobilization—rallies, demonstration, Chiriboga. He reviewed international NGO sloganeering, and posters were all noted for campaigns in Latin America that were directed their effectiveness. at the World Bank and found:

New tools Transnational NGO networks appear to be Some relatively new tools that are increasingly strongly biased towards Northern leadership being used by networks also deserve highlighting. and concerns, information does not flow These include: adequately from North to South, accountability to Southern members is l Participatory mapping of community systems limited, and risks incurred in global of land use and traditional forest-related campaigns are not distributed equally.39 knowledge, which has proved a powerful tool on which to build local management capacity and dialogue with government officials; Internationals and Locals l Public radio, videos, films, DVD, and drama One of the strongest impressions that comes from as means to reach local communities for whom the case studies in this review is of the great the written word carries less well than oral difficulties international networks have in culture; reaching the local level. Obstacles created by l Two-way radios, which have provided vital inadequate analysis of local contexts, limited links for rural communities in Amazonia, linking targeting of partners, inappropriate their widely dispersed villages into communications, language barriers, resource federations and so to international processes. constraints, cultural differences, and capacity For unclear reasons, two-way radios are not limitations confront all networks. widely used in other regions. Some of the global networks such as the Languages IUCN-CIFM, RDFN, and FTPP were clear from the outset that they did not expect to directly reach Considering the cultural diversity in most of the the local level. The cost however may have been networks, the extent to which networks limit to generate a heightened sense of exclusion among their communications to a single language, mostly the target beneficiaries. Many of the other English, is surprising. Of the networks surveyed, networks do, however, aspire to link to the local only FTPP, RDFN, and WRM were found to level while recognizing that this is a huge routinely publish in several languages, yet many challenge. of the other networks admitted that they needed Ascertaining the extent to which to translate more of their materials. Likewise in international networks are having an effect at meetings and workshops, we found that routinely the local level is by no means easy. Many ideas there were inadequate provisions for translation, and experiences seem to trickle down to local a lack which seriously discouraged informed actors even though their provenance is unknown. participation. Clearly, the high costs of translation On the other hand, many local actors are and interpretation are factors. Donors that support dismissive of international networks without networks must recognise that translation and really knowing what the networks offer or intend, interpretation are vital to interactive and suggesting the presence of more profound democratic intercontinental and regional communications barriers. International networks networking. need to raise wider awareness of what they can However, the studies suggest that financial offer and what their ideologies are. constraints alone do not explain the reluctance The strongest and most common criticism of networks to work in several languages. In of the networks we heard at the local level is effect, if not always in intention, network that the networks tend to plan and make decisions communications are being targeted at donors and from the top down. This relates both to the way policy-makers. Many networks seem content to they are funded (see Money Matters below) and limit effective participation to an educated elite, their governance structures (see Governance). educated in the western style. They are not putting communication with community based International-local linkages organisations high in the network priorities, nor In general, few of the international networks and, are they promoting community engagement in even, surprisingly few of the regional networks, decision-making. actually communicate directly with or involve 16 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

community-based organisations. However, this because of the way they substitute their voice problem is not limited to international networks. for those of local people or take over the political A finding of this survey was that even relatively space of indigenous peoples and local few of the national community forestry networks communities. Hybrid networks of farmers, have good links to the community level. indigenous peoples’ organisations, and NGOs need Inadequate vertical linking between local to clarify roles and responsibilities to avoid communities and community forestry networks clashes. Northern networks likewise are often is a prevalent problem not limited to the criticized for being blind to local realities in the international level. South. Many local actors we interviewed were Many international networks rely on ‘national sceptical that the international networks could focal points’ to link to the national level and so ever really engage with local networks on an equal through to the local levels. However, a finding basis. To many local activists the international of this survey is that these focal points are rarely networkers seem very remote. As one adequately resourced to carry out the two-way interviewee in India tactfully put it, ‘You are sharing role that is ascribed to them. Thus they talking about big ships, we are a small boat’. often act as barriers or bottle-necks rather than These perceptions, valid or not, pose formidable as facilitators of communication. Common barriers to effective two-way networking. complaints are that:

l Regional members, who attend international meetings, engage in exchanges and receive International Policies and publications and other outputs, are relatively National Change poor at sharing materials with their peers in- country. Even less gets shared with the The highly politicised nature of global forestry grassroots groups. negotiations, in which forests have become a

l Communication bottle-necks at the level of political football in a wider intergovernmental the leadership of national networks limits tussle for additional aid and better terms of trade the usefulness of international networks as for the South and technology transfer, has meant they impede lessons being learned in both that forest policy is not subject to a legally binding directions. instrument. Advocacy at the international level

l Some national focal points have made huge has shifted between a wide array of more or efforts to channel information and decision- less influential international fora that have making upwards and downwards. It may be appeared to offer means for leveraging change thankless work however. In networks where in target countries—the World Bank especially in institutions are chosen as focal points, people the early 1980s, Tropical Forestry Action Plan (FAO, suggest that it would be better to have World Bank and UNDP) in the later 1980s, the individuals as focal points. In networks which International Tropical Timber Organisation in the rely on individuals, people suggest that it late 1980s and early 1990s, the Commission for would be better to have organisations. Sustainable Development and its subsidiary bodies (IPF and IFF) in the 1990s, now the United Nations Three main conclusions emerge from this. Forum on Forests and, lately, the World Bank again. The Convention of Biological Diversity and

l International networks should not rely solely the Framework Convention on Climate Change on focal points to reach national and local also offer scope for forest-related advocacy. members. Several of the networks examined in this

l Focal points should be selected based on their review, including WRM, IUCN-CIFM, AFN, FAN, record of inclusive communications, and IAITPTF, and ACICAFOC, have invested a significant adequately resourced to carry out their amount of time and effort in these policy functions. discussions. A question for this review to answer

l Appropriate means should be developed to has been: has there been value added as a result? make focal points accountable to national Although ascribing credit to any one agency members and constituents. for any particular change or activity is highly problematic, it is possible to point to concrete NGOs and communities changes in projects, processes, and approaches NGOs seem curiously unaware of the extent to which have resulted from the overall advocacy which they are resented by local level actors intent. The revamping of the Tropical Forestry Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 17

Action Plan, certain reforms in World Bank policies land tenure, and traditional forest-related and procedures, ITTO guidelines, some of the knowledge by deploying language adopted in Proposals for Action of the Intergovernmental these agreements. Panel on Forests and the Intergovernmental Forum The main challenge for the international on Forests, all are examples of changes that can networks now is to help their national level be ascribed, at least in part, to advocacy inputs. members to develop their advocacy for reform Those are quite impressive achievements, so as to make the most of international level especially considering the slender resources of gains. the networks.40 However, the extent to which any of these achievements has led to change at the national Money Matters level, let alone on the local level, is harder to Community forestry may have endured in various discern. IUCN-CIFM and AFN express disappointment forms for thousands of years. In today’s global at the limited extent to which IPF/IFF Proposals markets, with skewed tenure regimes, for Action have been implemented, and both inequitable subsidy systems, and destructive wound down their international advocacy following resource extraction being the norm, sustainable that experience. The country reviews show that community forestry often is uncompetitive and national governments have been slow to amend economically unviable in market terms (though their forest policies. In cases where they have it remains crucial to local livelihoods and done so, multiple factors have led to change, markets).42 Especially in Latin America and Africa, making it difficult to single out the influence of where agrarian systems are relatively less any specific international agency, much less trace involuted than Asia43 and where connections to this influence back to the advocacy efforts of global markets more direct, the promotion and international networks. Yet it may be premature revival of community forestry may require to judge that these efforts have been wasted. At substantial start-up funds. If structural and market the international level, the networks sustained reforms do not soon follow, recurrent costs may pressure during the later phases of the also require continuing financial support or Intergovernmental Form on Forum (IFF) on the subsidies. The community forestry movement is need for governments to implement agreed actions in search of money. and to carry out participatory national reporting of progress made. As a result, the mandate of the Carbon fixation: global markets UNFF, set up to carry on the IFF’s work, does now The need for new mechanisms to finance focus on implementation and on receiving and community forestry has led to a search for new assessing reports. For all its deficiencies, a market mechanisms to reward communities for mechanism gradually is being established that may maintaining forests. One option has been to pay allow civil society to discuss national forestry communities that maintain forests for supplying reform processes in the international arena and ‘environmental services’. Institutions like ICRAF use this political space to press for change. and CIFOR have even started promoting International agreements and discourses do community forestry as a means of capturing also provide new advocacy opportunities for carbon in the expectation that communities can national networks to deploy their own efforts to benefit from the so-called Clean Development secure reforms in country. For example, the Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, which important gains made by indigenous peoples in allows Northern polluters to offset continuing securing recognition of their rights in international emissions of global warming gases in exchange instruments and agreements has tangibly led to a for paying for carbon sequestration projects in shift in attitudes, advocacy efforts, and even developing countries.44 national laws and policies in Latin America and, 41 to a lesser extent, Asia. The country case studies Community forestry as development note other examples where standards, concepts Convinced that community forestry is potentially and procedures agreed at the international level a just and environmentally prudent means of have opened up new political space and promoting development and alleviating poverty, possibilities for dialogue at the national level. It the major donor agencies have put substantial remains to be seen if similar gains can be achieved money into community forestry in various at the local level. It may be possible to influence countries with varying results. In some countries, national forest programmes so they give more community forestry has been tolerated or attention to community forestry, participation, 18 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

promoted by national governments as a means to secure funds for core costs and outreach of capturing aid monies, but at the same time it costs (translation and interpretation, has been institutionally and politically insulated communications, focal point services, and from wider reforms in the forest sector or social the expenses of members’ participation).

policy. Community forestry risks becoming an l Prefer to fund specific projects and product- enclave industry and not a sustainable reform. oriented activities with predetermined outcomes and measurable results, as opposed Network survival to process-oriented activities.

As previous studies have shown, networks cannot l Are trend driven. Donors’ preferences are survive without continued donor support.45 The constantly shifting, meaning that networks majority of the networks examined feel obliged are always reinventing themselves in to offer their publications and services free to response to donor preferences (clear their members to ensure that they reach the evidence of how donor-driven networks can right people. Of the networks examined, only be). Networks have grown quite skilful at UNOFOC in Mexico and ACICAFOC actually demand this and also shuffle from one donor to a financial contribution from their members. The another. Observes one interviewee: suggestion is that even though these contributions ‘Networks recycle donors whilst donors may be token in comparison with the overall recycle networks’.47 operating costs, they do promote a sense of ownership of the network among members and These pressures combined have also make network secretariats feel more contributed to a number of problems. 46 accountable to them. l Networks have tended to be top-down, secretariat-driven and output-focused.

Networks as devices to capture money l North–South tensions are exacerbated where The financial realities of community forestry in a network secretariat is based in the North.

particular and networking in general have had l Networks have become project oriented and profound effects on the nature of the community short-term rather than strategy and process forestry networks. Since communities are seeking focused.

additional financing and the networks supporting l Long-term reforms based on supporting them are seeking funds to ensure their own grassroots movements have been eschewed survival, there are real the risks that these as donor dependence has curtailed support processes get driven by donors. for controversial mobilization and advocacy.

In Acre, Brazil, for example, community l Networks have favoured ambitious top-down forestry networks have emerged substantially as policy reforms which have lacked community a mechanism to develop markets and lobby for engagement.

subsidies for community forestry products. Other l The concerns of local communities and networks, in Brazil (e.g., GTA) and Meso-America national members take second place to the for example, have been promoted by community- concerns of donors.

based organisations and NGOs as mechanisms to l Accountability mechanisms are the reverse capture funds for ‘projects’. Inevitably, this of what is desirable with networks and their means that networks have become organisations secretariats feeling more accountable to that manage funds. The networks may be set up donors than to members. with the aim of avoiding patronage and control Indeed, the researchers were left asking by intermediaries but end up replicating the very themselves, do networks survive so long as they patron-client relations they were designed to serve the needs of their members or only as avert. As an activist noted in Uganda, the long as they serve the needs of their patrons? dependency on donors that results, erodes the networks’ autonomy. Donor points of view Of course not all donors are equally guilty of Dancing with donors these impositions. Indeed some of those The studies revealed many concerns about the interviewed in this survey or who participated ways donors deal with networks. Among the in the workshops did not recognise themselves observations and concerns about donors are in these characterizations, though conceding that they: they might apply to others. That these

l Are reluctant to fund the real costs of perceptions exist should not be doubted. The networking. In particular, networks find it hard existence of these perceptions, valid or not, Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 19

challenges donors to reform the way that they of the networks do not even try to carry out interact with and support networks. detailed self-evaluation. Those that do, despite A particular challenge for donors is to find the difficulties, are often more self-critical and means of supporting networks over the longer aware of their shortcomings and thus able to term, without requiring excessive formalisation improve their functioning, responsiveness, and and bureaucratisation—without obliging effectiveness.49 networks to be ‘logo carriers’ and self-promoters Yet even evaluation mechanisms can get claiming success for every successful campaign distorted. If networks fear that donors will cut outcome, when in fact successful partnerships funding if any problems are identified, evaluations among and between networks will grow better will inevitably cover up problems to avoid losing if they can assume more modest profiles. It is support. How can donors encourage honest obvious that donors have to demand financial evaluation processes so that lessons are learned, accountability of networks and cannot write feedback mechanisms optimised, and blank cheques for networks to do whatever they accountability to members encouraged? Long please. Donors are right to point out that largesse term partnerships and the build up of mutual trust without targets or proof of performance has may be the only answer. encouraged the emergence of inefficient and even corrupt leadership systems that are Network collapse unaccountable either to donors or members.48 The prospects of these long term partnerships However, novel methods for donors to support developing are not entirely rosy. Many of the and evaluate network processes rather than networks we reviewed are either currently in project-oriented activities do seem to be financial crisis due to the lack of donor support required. Some donors may be prepared to or, at best, face financial difficulties. We accept greater risk in financing networks as long identified a widespread pattern of withdrawal as there is up front risk analysis that shows the of donor support, which suggests some underlying networks are not complacent or heedless about fatigue or fashion change among donors which the challenges they face. has made them less enthusiastic about funding networks than in the past. Evaluation The survey reveals that one of the major contributions that donors make to networks is to demand performance evaluations using innovative Governance Dilemmas and participatory methods. The case studies show Since the 1970s, an estimated 20,000 that, where done right and with adequate transnational civil society networks have come engagement of network members, these into being, and although studies show that evaluations provide important opportunities for accountability is the key to the long term health secretariats to become accountable to their of networks, relatively few of these have members and reappraise their structures, democratic systems of governance and strategies, and priorities. We found broad accountability. Are networks trying to have it agreement that participatory monitoring and both ways, demanding standards of evaluation processes should also be built into accountability from governments and the private network programmes to encourage feedback and sector, which they are not prepared to adhere experience sharing. to themselves?50 Evaluations are not always easy however. Suggested indicators that international Training and information activities are much networks should use to assess their accountability easier to self-evaluate in terms of their to the grassroots include the following: effectiveness. Indicators are self-evident in terms of numbers of trainees, workshops, publications, l demonstrable benefits to constituents; communications, etc. Target groups can provide l shared information, including local feedback on the usefulness of these services and knowledge; get a clear sense of how responsive other l representation in advocacy and network members of the network are to their own inputs. decision-making;

Advocacy work (and other activities with less l partnerships with poor and marginal groups; tangible results, such as awareness raising) is, l accurate and objective research; however, much harder to assess, and this l monitoring and evaluation by Southern difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that many groups.51 20 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

This review of international forestry political circumstances in 2003 are quite different networks highlights the major dilemmas that from 1985. New mechanisms that ensure the confront networks in choosing governance participation of community based organisations structures that suit their main goals, functions, must be considered if networks are not to forfeit target groups, funders, and political context. Like their credibility. other studies it finds that bottom-up networking is possible but requires more time, resources, Governance structures: to and investment than are often available.52 formalise or not FSC, ACICAFOC, IAITPTF, and FAN do give their Membership members a vote and have elected boards, yet it A general finding is that the global, as opposed is not clear that these ostensible mechanisms of to the regional, international networks tend to democracy really create accountability in the be Northern dominated (the exception is the network as a whole and of its secretariat to the WRM). Few of the networks studied are led by, members. Indeed, few of the networks have or give prominence to, community-based clear mechanisms to ensure that members have organisations or indigenous peoples. Most are control, or a strong say, in network decision- dominated by concerned academics, NGO making on a regular basis. For this to be achieved, activists and practitioners. Lacking grassroots networks must formalise and develop complex members or participants, inevitably makes it decision-making procedures in which members harder for networks to be responsive to can participate. community visions and priorities. Some of the networks have gone down that Many of the networks, especially the hybrid route, but such institutional formalisation of ones, are open to all interested parties, since networks comes at a high price—and not just their main goals are to share information and financially. Formal mechanisms—to ensure build consensus based on a common transparency and financial accountability to understanding. However, with the single members—make networks less agile, top-heavy exception of the FSC, none of the networks with bureaucratic trammels, and expensive. appears to have included the private sector in Members warn of the problem of formalised their operations, although IUCN-CIFM had network secretariats ‘becoming NGOs’, which intended to link with the private sector when paradoxically are then perceived as being originally conceived. disassociated from their membership. The risks Of the networks reviewed, the WRM is are that in instituting formal structures of exceptional in not having general members. The accountability, means become ends and networks WRM, acting more as a social movement than a become organisations.54 formal network, recruits support through a wide- Networks that handle large budgets from a reaching mailing list without pretending that the central secretariat seem especially prone to the readers somehow have a lien on the secretariat, accusation of being top-down and authoritarian. which is instead governed by a small steering In these cases transparent accounting—letting the committee. members see the books—is necessary to maintain However, although the other networks do trust. However, it may be preferable to have members, few actually give their general encourage decentralised funding of network members a say in decision-making. Those that components to ensure autonomy and to avoid do give their members a vote, such as ACICAFOC, the build up of large centralised bureaucracies IAITPTF, FAN, and FSC,53 have developed with concomitant power tussles for control of membership criteria that are designed to ensure lucrative posts. For example, the study of FAN that all members have a joint commitment to a suggests that it found the FTPP’s formalised shared vision. Most networks however, seem to institutional structures to be quite dominating recruit members organically through personal and led to it developing a very project-oriented webs of contact and trust. way of working. Community organisations challenge Unusual among the networks surveyed, WRM international community forestry networks to be and AFN have consciously chosen to have loose more open. If the members of the networks are process-based, rather than project-based, not the local communities, then the question must networking with a minimum of formal structures be posed. Do the networks work for the benefit and procedures. Those networks are highly of their members or for the communities? informal and personalised. The downside is that Networks must take account of the fact that the those more informal networks may more easily Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 21

be charged with being unaccountable clubs, from Staff stability which other civil society groups feel excluded. Potentially, international networks can act as We conclude that there is no correct solution important reservoirs of experience. They can for networks. The choice of how and how far to become the institutional memories of social formalise is a tricky one. We suggest that the movements and civil society in general. Some of important lesson is that the choices be made in the case studies show that this key function of a way that is as inclusive and open as possible. If the networks is much valued by members. Some participants choose informality and an absence of this knowledge can be recorded and made of rules to ease communications and promote available through the normal tools and transferred dynamic action-oriented partnerships, they need directly through workshops, exchanges, and to be aware of the possible pitfalls of that choice. training (see Table 3). But networks can suffer Conversely, they also need to know the possible disruption when key members leave and this pitfalls of formalisation. reservoir of experience is lost. Informal networks are particularly vulnerable as networks structures Does size matter? are built up around personal relations and not Clearly, the size of networks has a bearing on these institutional structures. choices, with larger networks being obliged to The key role that individuals play in creating formalise more than the smaller networks, which and sustaining networks is also widely remarked can afford to be more personal and informal. But on in the survey responses. Many of the most the networks’ size may not be so much the number successful networks were founded around one or of its newsletter readership or its members so a small number of charismatic activists who much as the size of its budget, project portfolio, sustain the networks through their energy and and secretariat. For example, the FTPP and WRM vision. Yet those networks are most vulnerable both have built up very large readerships (12,000 when key individuals leave. They also are most for FTPP’s newsletter and 9,000 for WRM’s).55 open to the charge of being top-down and However, they are at opposite extremes in terms doctrinaire. of their budgets and numbers of staff. In those terms, the FTPP was the largest and WRM the Choices not rules smallest of the networks surveyed. Most of the lessons learned from this survey Autonomy is crucial for networks. The survey highlight that international networks have to shows that those networks that were able to make informed choices about strategies and establish themselves independently of other structures. There are no universal rules that can institutional hosts or free themselves of such links be invoked as all decisions will be highly over time, tended to be those able to develop contingent on aims, targets, membership, and healthy, interactive internal processes. On the backgrounds. The most important general lesson other hand, those located within formal seems to be that networks should consciously bureaucracies and large organisations, even think through their structures and functions to though they sometimes benefited from having ensure that they have certain characteristics: access to existing infrastructure, resources, information and contacts, were also those that l Clear aims and agreed upon methods; were most constrained and secretariat driven. l Clear and strategic targeting of focal points, Suspicions, well-founded or not, of the active members, audiences, and ‘policy connections between the secretariat and the host makers’; organisation, clouded relations with the l Informed constituencies; membership and undermined trust. In the case l Well-judged decisions about when to include of the FTPP, the host organisation intervened mixed constituencies and when to give each decisively in the workings of the network, which sector its separate space; was one of the reasons that eventually led to its l Reasoned governance structure; closure. Some of the experiences of FTPP call to l A coherent communications strategy with mind the conclusion that the FAO itself drew about multi-directional flow of communication and networks in 1992: ‘Long term external support with adequate budgets for translation, simple is essential for network development, but tools, and face-to-face encounters among key excessive inputs of money or personnel by actors; sponsors will work against the development of l Participatory mechanisms to ensure feedback, self-reliance and a genuine network spirit’.56 in which monitoring and evaluation may be key; 22 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

l Donor commitment to core funding, offering of voluntary action to change society. This programmatic support for flexible but seeming paradox can be explained by the evaluated outputs, and with adequate fact that the power of voluntary action resources for national and local two-way arises not from the size and resources of sharing; individual organisations, but rather from l Mechanisms to follow up international the ability of the voluntary sector to advances with national- and local-level actions coalesce the actions of hundreds, or even and advocacy; millions, of citizens through vast and l Strategies for collaboration and interaction constantly evolving networks These with other international, national, and local networks are able to encircle, infiltrate, networks; and even co-opt the resources of opposing l Clear sharing of responsibilities among bureaucracies... In growing numbers they members, including financial responsibilities. are joining forces with and learning from the experience of established social Trust movements. As we learn more about the In the end you can have as many rules and nature of true movements, we realise that procedures as you want, but once trust breaks they are not defined by organizational down its hard for a network to recover. structures —David Korten 1992

Like activists in many other sectors,57 Linking with Social advocates of community forestry have recognised that the main challenges to the adoption and Movements spread of community forestry come from vested The small size and limited financial interests—those who benefit from the present resources of most NGOs make them unlikely system, which gives them preferential access to challengers of economic and political forest resources and forest lands. The promotion systems sustained by the prevailing of community forests implies a transfer of both interests of big governments and big resources and power in favour of local business. Yet the environment, peace, communities. In most national contexts, the human rights, consumer rights and women’s empowerment of communities implies the movements provide examples of the power disempowerment of others who contest their

Village women of Romwe meet to discuss community action. (Photo by Carol J.P. Colfer) Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 23

rights of access to, and control of, forests. delivery of aid while at the same time lending Although it is conceivable that these shifts of legitimacy through their participation to policies control over resources can be effected through and programmes that the development agencies the provisions of generous aid financing, in impose. Howell and Pearce perceive real risks practice enduring shifts in power are rarely that new forms of social exclusion will result from sustained without strong mobilization of the this process. social groups that benefit from the change.58 In The more radical social movements, other words, community forestry is a highly according to Howell and Pearce, are more overtly political, even radical, project, and the politics opposed to the ‘Washington consensus’ (which of representation, by which communities assert favours neo-liberal economics). Those groups also their rights and assume control of forest are often sceptical of state actors and seek to resources, is a central consideration. build what they characterise as ‘alternatives to Since the late 1970s, when the global capitalism’. Many of the civil society groups trace community forestry movement can be discerned their origins back to the radical social movements to have had its origins, the relationship of civil of the 1970s and 1980s, but have since transformed society with development agencies and States into increasingly formalised social organisations, has undergone a major transformation. Civil and, having adopted sectoral, single issue society has emerged as a significant even agendas, now find themselves less well inserted necessary player in development dynamics. As than they used to be in the mass movements. Michael Edwards reminds us, civil society, However, they remain more closely aligned to however, ‘is an arena and not a thing and the mass movements than do the mainstream although it is often seen as the key to future organisations.60 progressive politics, this arena contains These insights prompt real questions for different and conflicting interests and those observing the community forestry agendas’.59 In committing ourselves to support any movement. Which, among the many networks one network or social process among so many it is and NGOs that champion community forestry, are important to take stock of their diverse agendas the mainstream civil society institutions that are and interests: which among the plethora of letting themselves be co-opted by the emerging civil society voices clamouring to be development agencies and substituting their heard should we rightfully attend to most? Are voice for the voice of the wider society? Which some authentic and representative and others not? are the more radical social movements, more Howell and Pearce suggest that many closely aligned with the mass organisations, who development agencies are turning to civil society assert alternatives to capitalist development? And, organisations as substitutes for state agencies. To more importantly, do the communities make up the ‘democratic deficit’, to avoid costly themselves feel comfortable being supported by and time consuming negotiations with weakened, either of these political currents? downsized, and structurally-adjusted government One of the most coherent social movements offices, and in order to dodge corrupt to have emerged globally over the past 20 years, counterparts development agencies are choosing one which has made the most evident gains in to work with civil society groups that conform terms of reforms of international law and national to their normative expectations of what civil policy and which in a number of countries has society groups should be like. The language of already secured real transfers of land, wealth and ‘participation’ and ‘partnerships’ has become the power, is the movement of indigenous peoples. norm. Despite coming from a multitude of different Howell and Pearce detect two broad cultural and historical circumstances, and groupings of civil society organisations: notwithstanding very real tensions, divisions, and ‘mainstream’ organisations and more ‘radical’ differences among the various groups, the ones. Mainstream civil society works essentially indigenous peoples’ movement has successfully within the current framework to promote socially retained a shared agenda throughout the past 20 responsible capitalism. This mainstream conforms years. Central to its success has been its to an increasingly stereotyped notion of civil undeviating insistence on the right to self- society, accepting NGOs as legitimate vehicles determination, as a result of which it has been to speak for society as a whole. Such groups are vigilant in ensuring that supportive NGOs and favoured as partners by the development other civil society groupings remain just that, agencies as they can readily be co-opted, supportive, but are never allowed to substitute contracted to act as economical channels for the their voices for the peoples’ themselves. The 24 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

ability of this social movement to secure adequate in effectively partnering with and stepping up funds for major intercontinental meetings several the actions of social movements. There may be times a year has contributed importantly to the a need for hard talking between the various civil build up of mutual trust and a shared vision and society actors to explore these tensions. strategy. Of the networks studied, only ACICAFOC and This experience may teach some important IAITPTF see themselves as mechanisms for lessons for the community forestry movement. representing community groups. Although both As noted, the 1990s has witnessed the emergence networks are legally constituted as organisations, of coalitions of community based organisations both function as political alliances that respect for whom community forestry is a major concern. the autonomy of their members. ACICAFOC grew A number of the regional and national networks out of a trades union and peasant movement that examined in this review were born out of this had become closely linked to party political mobilization, including ACICAFOC in Central structures and patronage systems. ACICAFOC’s America and UNOFOC in Mexico. In Brazil, the initial achievement was to break free from these national networks promoting community forestry historical shackles. grew out of the social movements of Indians, Ten years ago, David Korten offered nine rubber tappers, and civil society, which mobilised principles to networks seeking to ‘catalyse’ the in the 1980s to oppose the central government’s actions of social movements. and international financial institutions’ plans to open up the Amazon to road-building, colonization, loggers, mines, dams, and Box 3. Operating Principles for 62 ranches.61 Strategic Network Catalysts Other NGO networks such as the WRM and 1. Maintain a low public profile. Emphasize FAN purposefully set out from their inception to the commitment and contribution of other forge links with those social movements. For organisations to the network’s goals. example, the WRM was linked to a number of Measure own success by effectiveness in social movements, for example, those opposing making others stronger and more development of industrial plantations, shrimp successful contributors to these goals. aquaculture, dams, and mines. Most of the other 2. Recognise the differing motivation and networks, because of their institutional bases and resources of the groups engaged in the hybrid composition, were less suited to directly network. partnering with social movements. 3. Look at those who have the most direct The review finds that most networks now and compelling interest in the outcome agree that strengthening their ties with the social to provide sustained leadership. movements that support community forestry may 4. Continuously scan the environment for be an important next step if their work is to be opportunities to engage new participants effective. The IUCN-CIFM’s unfunded second-stage who bring new perspectives and may proposal envisions building this tie in a Coalition appeal to additional segments of the for Change. RECOFTC likewise is examining the public. possibility of acting as a locus for a proposed 5. Do not take on any function that another regional Association for the Promotion of Good group can perform. Facilitate linkages and Forest Governance in Asia that will link NGO fill temporary gaps not serviced by other networks with social movements of forest user organisations. groups. In July 2002, at the Bali PrepCom meeting 6. Work through existing communications for the World Summit on Sustainable networks and media to reach large Development, groups such as RECOFTC, FAN, audiences efficiently. WRM, and CICAFOC joined the Global Caucus for 7. Help other groups find their own sources Community-Based Forest Management to of funds, but don’t become a funder. strengthen their coalition with the community 8. Keep staff and budget small to assure forestry social movement. flexibility, avoid competing institutional How well are the international community interests, and maintain dependence on forestry networks suited to social action? Given effective action from others. the difficulties they have linking to local 9. Use protest actions to position the communities and given the limitations imposed movement to advance a proactive on their ways of working by donor constraints, agenda. it appears that the networks face real challenges Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 25

During the Lessons Workshop, which focuses as much on legal, political, and market concluded this study and which reflected on the transformations as on technical innovations and case studies and an early draft of this report, local management considerations. There is indeed concerns were voiced that the international a risk that in focusing on the upstream governance, networks could compete with the emerging social policy, and market conditions that frame movements for political space. It was noted that livelihood strategies, too little attention will be in India, civil society voices were already actively paid to local needs, local particularities, and substituting themselves for, and even community realities. Thinking globally is no delegitimising, local voices such as the Mass Tribal substitute for acting locally. The need is for both Organisations of Central India. On the other hand, and for the global and national reform agendas some workshop participants warned against to be driven by local visions and local voices. exaggerating the capacity of the social The international community forestry movements. In many countries, it was noted, networks that this study focused on have emerged social movements remain weak or may lack at very different moments in this trajectory, and political space altogether. Many will need a lot have started with very different goals, visions, of support if they are to find political space and priorities, and participants. One of the most grow. ‘But once they do grow, then networks encouraging aspects of this evolution has been must learn to stand aside’, voiced a participant. the emergence of networks better linked to, and Moreover, warned another, ‘If networks can’t even run by, community-based organisations support social movements, they should at least themselves. The trend towards locally run leave them alone and not interfere or prejudice networks requires additional support, and other their growth’. networks must do much more to link to these But does the discourse of community forestry new initiatives, standing aside to let them grow really constitute the basis for a joint platform when required. However, it would be naïve to for future reforms? For some, the term community conclude that, the earlier networks have all run forestry will always imply that communities should their course or exhausted their potential. The continue to be subject to the rules and need for training, information exchange, ministrations of western forestry laws and awareness-raising, international advocacy, and outmoded forestry departments.63 If what consensus-building still exists, especially for communities are seeking is food security, land countries where social movements remain weak security, and the right to choose the most or suppressed. The challenge for the older environmentally appropriate vegetation cover networks is to adapt to these changing and natural resource management regime to suit circumstances so that they act as supporters and their needs, then framing their demands in terms services to community organisations, relinquishing of community forestry may only limit their options any pretensions they may have had to act as and separate them from other social movements practitioners, conflict managers, representatives, making the same fundamental demands for land, or forest managers. livelihood, and a rights-based approach to The ways that international networks have community development. contributed to community forestry are very diverse. Few networks can claim to have had direct impacts at the local level, except through Towards Conclusions a handful of pilot projects, but then few of the The community forestry of today is radically networks sought to achieve change this way. different from the community forestry that was Rather, most of the networks have focused on promoted by foresters 25 years ago. Not only has providing information and services to national the model of community forestry changed— level actors to raise awareness, build consensus, towards one that gives far more emphasis to and to arm them with the information, arguments, rights, local control, customary institutions, and knowledge, techniques, resources, and skills traditional knowledge—but the framework for needed to promote national and local change. discussions about community forestry has also These contributions have been so various and transformed. Today community forestry is diffuse, and often, indirect, that drawing up a analysed and discussed as one of many elements balance sheet of the costs and benefits of in local livelihoods and as one of several networking is impossible. There seems to be no components in the national and international denying that the collective result of all this frameworks that control its implementation. networking has been helpful in many countries Advocacy in favour of community forestry now and crucial in some others, especially those where 26 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

donors also exert considerable influence. The need to think through carefully their gains attributable to the networks in international communications strategies to ensure they do forest policy-making are both more evident and reach those they claim to include. Face-to-face less certain, as for the most part these gains have meetings and exchanges, due investment in not yet discernibly influenced national policy translation and interpretation, and the modest reforms let alone had local effects. Not enough use of newsletters as ends not means have proved seems to have been done to insert these their worth and need adequate financing, while international policy gains into national reform some of the new technologies and techniques platforms. A cumulative result of all this seem worth experimenting with further. networking and advocacy has been a growing This study also has highlighted the challenge global acceptance of the validity of community facing global networks in connecting to national forestry. New ideas of how to promote it have and local levels. Networks have relied too much opened up space to local communities to reassert on a single national or regional focal point for their rights, revalidate their institutions and communications. Networks need to more fully customs, and adapt to changing conditions. develop communication using these focal For the networks themselves some key points, but also find other, complementary lessons do emerge. Consensus building networks means of linking to national and local actors. that seek to include actors from communities, The lessons for donors also are challenging. NGOs, and government do have an important role Community forestry and community forestry to play. However, they need to recognise their networking do require sustained support if they limitations and distinguish themselves from locally are not to whither away. More support is needed driven networks that are run by community to build up social movements and community representatives. Supportive NGO networks that based networks, even those critical of seek to act in solidarity with local communities government and aid agency policies. The and social movements must also take care not to challenge is to support the networks in ways that substitute themselves for local actors. promote accountability without imposing artificial Networks also need to recognise the goals, targets, and structures. Support needs to inherent limitations of the networking endeavour be long term and demand less pre-programmed and not exaggerate the extent to which they are outputs, for good processes rather than results- genuinely democratic and inclusive. De facto focused projects, and for inclusive sharing and networks cannot effectively include more than decision-making as much as for specific around 50 individuals or organisations in routine publications and pre-determined advocacy goals. collective decision-making, even though they can Participatory monitoring and evaluation to help reach thousands through modern communication networks reflect on the extent to which they tools. Larger assemblies and congresses can set are being effective and are genuinely reaching networks’ strategic directions and broad goals, those they seek to include has proved its worth. but, if networks are to remain agile, trust in a Now that participation has become a norm smaller group of leaders is essential. Every in development discourse and even practice, the network needs to accept that there is an inherent time has come for a much more critical tension between maintaining informality and evaluation of the form of this participation. Multi- flexibility and adopting structures and decision- stakeholder decision-making, new partnerships, making processes that ensure transparency and and routine engagements with civil society all accountability. In choosing their governance promise new opportunities for local actors to structure, networks need to weigh the pros and have their voices heard. But these same cons of different ways of working and have clear processes are creating new divisions and reasons for whatever structures they choose. possibilities of social exclusion. The community Maintaining trust and links with and between forestry networks and the social movements that communities requires substantial investments of they claim to support, both need to be vigilant time and resources. Over-reliance on computers to ensure that they engage in these processes and the Internet—email and the Web—for astutely, using political space that is offered in communications will exclude the effective ways that do not legitimise unacceptable participation of community organisations in many practices and exclude the rural poor in whose countries for the foreseeable future. Networks name community forestry is advocated. Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 27

Box 4. Learning Lessons from China64

Context China’s south-western province of Yunnan is a government’s policy changes. mountainous area of high biological and cultural The main challenges now facing community diversity that was annexed into China relatively late forestry in Yunnan are achieving national policy reform in Chinese history. The province has lost over two- and building local capacity and awareness in both thirds of its original forest cover and lost half of what communities and the forestry bureaux. Recent remained in the last 50 years. Ethnic minorities make government moves to allow village level democracy up about a third of the population of the province but and to slim down the administration offer predominate in forested areas. Chinese policy towards opportunities to give farmers greater initiative. ‘minority nationalities’ at first recognised their right Perhaps minority areas, where indigenous forest- to to self-determination, but since liberation has related knowledge is retained and where there is oscillated between assimiliationist and integrationist nominally more autonomy, offer hopeful beginnings. approaches. Despite strong central government control, the law grants ethnic minorities an important measure Networking experience of cultural and institutional autonomy at the local level. Laws restricting civil society organisations are quite Nationally, forest policy has been highly centralised strict in China. Informal social mobilization and and geared towards timber production. Over harvesting networking is not allowed. NGOs either incorporate driven by quotas has depleted forests and has led to as associations under government bodies or as private serious soil erosion and local impoverishment. The corporations with obligations to pay at least some government has also blamed it for causing flooding tax. Despite these limitations, an incipient provincial and massive loss of life in the lowlands. Mass forestation level network has evolved promoting participatory efforts have been disappointing. Since 1998 the approaches to development and forest management. government has banned logging in Yunnan, allowing However, efforts to promote a national level only very restricted cutting for domestic use. community forestry network have been less successful. Imprudent natural resource use is linked to the Although Yunnan has had a relatively limited doctrine of State ownership of all lands and forests experience with international community forestry and the imposed structure of village collectives. Since networks, local actors provided insightful lessons and the late 1970s, the government has progressively suggestions about how such networking should be devolved management and use-rights of land, and then improved. forests, to local farmers. Massive increases in agricultural The main lessons that emerge from the Yunnan production have resulted, but the lesser degree of study are the following: autonomy granted farmers with respect to forest land,

combined with the top-down quota system, inadequate l Government notions of what constitutes community supervision capacity, poor delineation of forests, and forestry are quite different from the NGO the slower rate of return on investment have frustrated perception;

social forestry initiatives. Farmers’ scepticism that l Linguistic, political, and technical difficulties devolved tenure would give them real rights over create formidable obstacles to participation in timber has been confirmed by the logging ban. At the international networks. Hence the main same time, in Yunnan, many upland farmers are being engagement in these networks is through select obliged to plant trees instead of grain on their higher academics and individuals;

fields with the aim of limiting run-off. The simultaneous l Involvement in networks has introduced valued loss of grain for subsistence and income from timber new participatory methods into natural resource has hit farmers hard. The losses have not been made development thinking;

up with subsidies and grain handouts. l Monitoring and evaluation of network functioning Local activists distinguish between the is a vital tool in ensuring their local relevance;

government’s social forestry and the community forestry l Networks now need to link more to local that has been promoted since the late 1980s by the communities and have more active feedback Ford Foundation, international development assistance mechanisms;

projects, and the international networks—notably l Networks should not become mechanisms for RECOFTC. Despite major advances in awareness raising, attracting consultancies and funding, but should training, the development of forestry school courses take account of the real costs to members of and curricula, and despite numerous educational pilot participation;

projects, community forestry has not yet taken off in l Publications should be targeted at libraries and the province. This can only come when the central resource centres not just individuals. 28 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Box 5. Learning Lessons from Indonesia65

Context Indonesia is two things—a unified country and a supported. The Ford Foundation itself sought to plurality of distinct peoples governed by their own promote change within the parameters set by customs. The tension between these two underlies government policy while at the same time many of the problems and challenges that Indonesia’s encouraging the introduction of new concepts about forests and peoples face today. Having once been community forestry from overseas. fully forested, and home to nearly one-fifth of the world’s biodiversity, Indonesia is now badly Networking Experience deforested and rates of forest loss continue to The main national networking efforts were started increase, exacerbated by recent steps to decentralise in the late 1990s with two approaches. One control of forests to district authorities. approach favours inclusive dialogue with Indonesia exemplifies to an unusual degree the government. The other advocates a more radical intrinsic political, social, and institutional reform that would secure community rights and weaknesses of ‘scientific forestry’. A centralised recognise the value of customary knowledge approach to forest management has denied systems. None of these efforts have been well community rights, favoured the emergence of a linked to grassroots organisations. The recent corrupt elite, established a technocratic forestry emergence of a social movement of indigenous bureaucracy, and overseen a sustained over- peoples could change this. Community mapping has harvesting of timber and misallocation of forest lands proved a useful tool. for over 50 years. The resulting political economy International networks have been important of logging has created huge barriers to those in training, introducing new concepts and helping promoting community forestry. Additional obstacles local actors invoke international standards. are erected by the government’s ethnocentric and However, national players are critical of the extent assimilationist social policies towards forest to which these networks impose their own agendas dwellers, a land tenure system that provides very and priorities. The international networks also fail weak recognition of customary rights, and forest to connect with local communities. There is a tenures which deny collective rights to forest lands. considerable amount of suspicion of the real The government’s community forestry motives and values of Northern-based networks. programme only really got going in the 1990s. The following are some of the lessons from Despite setbacks, this programme has established a the Indonesian experience: co-management approach allowing communities that

incorporate as cooperatives to gain 25-year l To be more effective the international networks leaseholds on unencumbered state forest lands. The need to attend more to local realities, adopt programme has been applied primarily in degraded agile working methods that give control to local forest areas and among migrant farmer communities. partners and styles of communications tailored Indonesia’s experiment with decentralization now to suit local needs;

poses the main uncertainty to the future of l Advocacy support for local communities should community forestry in the country. Since the fall of also be accompanied by capacity building Suharto in 1998, successive administrations have support;

vacillated between devolving control of land use l Networks should avoid dependency on national decisions to the districts and then trying to recover focal points in linking to community that control. organisations;

Community forestry has been promoted in l Until it is clearer who is going to win the tug- Indonesia by a number of agencies, notably the Ford of-war for control of forests being waged Foundation but also inter-governmental organisations, between the district and national aid agencies, and NGOs. Networking has been an administrations, it is hard to guess what kind important part of this process. However, during the of networking approaches will be most Suharto dictatorship, the scope for NGOs to promote effective. radical changes in forest policy was limited and most aid agencies were very cautious about what they Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 29

Box 6. Learning Lessons from India66

Context gone further in entrusting forest resources to About 23 percent of India’s land area is classified community control, but these measures remain largely as forest, most of which is administered by the unimplemented. The most important international Forest Department. About 100 million people live agreement regarding natural resource management in India’s forests with a further 275 million living ratified by India is the Convention of Biological nearby and who are dependent on forest resources Diversity. A fall-out of this is the proposed Biological in one way or another. In the 19th century, colonial Diversity Bill, emphasizing community participation rulers took-over forests for state commercial use in decisions on biodiversity use and conservation. A and installed a model of natural resource National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan required management that excluded local inhabitants. A by the Convention of Biological Diversity and recently similar mindset continued after Indian formulated, has been a unique and ambitious attempt independence. This severely restricted the access at participatory planning. Thus, the overall policy of locals to resources on which their livelihoods environment in India has been moving towards were based and effectively removed all becoming more conducive to community forestry, responsibility of communities to look after their though the success of its implementation is highly natural surrounds. Thus, local people have often debatable with varying outcomes. Much depends on become hostile to official management of forests. political will. While communities have never stopped using forests unofficially since their livelihoods depend National Networking on it, they have suffered much hardship and India has had long experience with NGO activism and harassment. In many cases, forests were seen as networking. Two notable attempts at creating a the property of an insensitive government, national-level community forestry network have mainly something to be used and exploited, often with focused on promoting and steering the development great hostility towards Forest Department of JFM. The National JFM Network, hosted by an NGO, officials. A lack of dialogue and trust between the evolved in the 1990s and generated various subnetworks two sides has exacerbated the situation. Poor concerned with different aspects of JFM. It aimed to management and over-harvesting has led to rapid include NGOs and forest officials. The network lapsed forest deterioration. However, examples have by the end of the 1990s. A second National JFM Network been emerging about communities who have was launched in 2000 by the Ministry of Environment independently taken the initiative to protect vast and Forests with the aim of bringing together NGOs tracts of forests to meet their livelihood needs, and Forestry Department officials for dialogue. The with remarkable results. first network was widely acknowledged to have made The 1970s was the decade of social forestry, a significant contribution to popularising JFM across meant to promote the use of public and common the country and facilitating the exchange of research lands to meet the fodder and fuel subsistence and experiences of JFM. Opinion is more divided about needs of village communities, and thereby lighten the second network, which has been criticized by the load on government forests being used for some people for being too bureaucratic. Two of the industry. Over the decade, the government states studied also had a history of state-level became aware that it was not possible to protect networking. forests without local co-operation. By 1988, there was a greater devolution of powers to local International Networking communities to manage forests, reflected in the International networks in India have focused mainly Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme. JFM on sharing ideas and information (e.g., FTPP), is the management and conservation of a forest promoting policy analysis and documentation (e.g., by local communities and Forest Department AFN), and capacity building (e.g., RECOFTC/FTPP). officials, through joint committees and with Apart from a few examples of local level activity (e.g., communities entitled to a share in usufructs. There in Orissa), international networks have neither sought are diverse opinions regarding JFM with serious nor achieved direct local level impacts. Overall, concerns raised about the lack of true sharing of national actors consider the impact of international decision-making powers with local communities. networks to have been small. Nevertheless, they have Legal reforms in recent years (e.g., Panchayat or been appreciated by the academics, NGO Extension to Scheduled Areas Act of 1996) have representatives, and Forestry Department officials who 30 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

have been involved in their meetings, mailing been made to target the Forestry Department lists, and training courses. Most interviewees felt at an institutional level. This misses out a key that international networks had a valuable role to powerful player in the community forestry play in information dissemination, capacity scenario.

building, providing inspiration and exposure, and l There may be an assumption by networks that building contacts. However, most people felt that targeting a few key individuals and institutions national and local networks are far more relevant will ensure a wider network influence via a for leading to changes on the ground. Some other horizontal and vertical domino effect. However, key findings on international networks follow. given the vagueness regarding international network impacts at grassroots and policy levels, l More effort needs to be made to communicate and the fact that networking was largely in local languages if a wider impact is to be confined to a narrow clique of people, this does achieved. not seem to be a safe assumption.

l The most glaring gap in international network l International networks may be seen as less activity was that there did not seem to be any relevant than national ones because they are attempt to create formal links with national or viewed as top-down processes as opposed to local networks, even where local networks need-based, context-driven networks. Foreign were strong and vibrant. Linking with local origins can also give rise to suspicions regarding networks would add value to an ongoing process the political agenda of networks.

and reach a pre-existing local base of l The study did not reveal much evidence of community forestry actors. international networks taking a context-driven l International networks may have had an indirect approach. Activities did not seem to be role in promoting community forestry at the sufficiently shaped by an awareness of policy grassroots and policy levels by influencing some contexts, political contexts, local networking, people who work at these levels. They have attitudes to foreign activity, and the dynamics impacted mainly on larger NGOs and institutions, between key actors in community forestry. researchers and academics. Efforts have not Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 31

Box 7. Learning Lessons from Uganda67

Context Over 70 percent of Uganda’s forests and woodlands than 100 hectares, and even in those, Forest are privately owned. Current community forestry Department officials are responsible for issuing approaches are focused on nationally protected permits and collecting revenue—with revenue forests, which are mainly institutionalised through sharing arrangements skewed against the local collaborative forest management. authorities. Recently, a policy has been put in Most of the collaborative forest management place that broadens the scope of community initiatives operate through project-based forest management to emphasize community approaches. Restricted project timeframes forestry on private lands as well as multiple uses constrain tracking of processes across time, and and multiple users. The policy describes the conditions associated with donor support roles of the various stakeholders including inevitably erode autonomy. Most of the projects facilitators under whom networks fall. are implemented at localised sites, which limits The underlying causes of the policy and the relevance of lessons learned nationwide. legal shifts cannot be attributed to one factor Waves of political and fiscal decentralization in isolation but to the cumulative effect of many have swept across Uganda resulting in the creation interacting factors. of a nationwide superstructure of bodies for decentralised government. But much still needs Networking Experience to be done to give these bodies a democratic A variety of networks exist in Uganda at orientation. different levels. They have the potential for Some environmental management has been cross-level exchanges, but generally decentralised primarily through the imposition of collaboration among them is weak.

environmental committees on administrative and l A formalised approach was viewed as a local government structures. However, the liability to networking because it leads to management still lacks necessary elements for tension the network and its members as well democratisation. For instance, the emphasis must as eroding their identity and autonomy.

shift from mere benefit-sharing towards greater l No networking tool is necessarily better or local decision-making and control. There needs worse than the other, and networking tools to be accountability to the local level. In order work best in combination with other tools to create more credible incentives, community rather than in isolation.

dividends need to be more meaningful in terms l In terms of vertical and horizontal links, no of per capita value, and remittances need to be structure appears better than the other. more regular and predictable. These elements are They may complement each other, with the especially relevant for schemes at the forest question being, perhaps, that of balance.

margin. l Strategic points of intervention including Environmental decentralization to local awareness raising, capacity building, and authorities is still highly circumscribed and they advocacy are synergistic components of the appear to be under tight administrative and fiscal whole process of seeking to influence control of the Forest Department. Local change. authorities are only allowed to control forests less 32 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Box 8. Learning Lessons from Cameroon68

Context supportive law and its decree, and vests too much Cameroon is a large, culturally diverse country that has discretionary power in state-level actors at the expense of a varied vegetation mosaic consisting of humid forests, the communities. Overall, the implementation of community savanna grasslands with montane forest patches, and a forests in Cameroon appears to take the focus and resources semi-arid Sahelian zone. The moist tropical forests are away from other community forestry activities, particularly by far the most economically important of these vegetation those practised by communities outside the humid forest categories, being a source of commercially valuable timber zone. species. For the entire colonial period and subsequently up to the mid-1990s, the forests of Cameroon were Networking Experience managed through a centrally-directed structure and A state-aligned local network formally institutionalises process, which expropriated resources and control over community forests in Cameroon. Though its ‘civil society them from local communities, and excluded such plus state’ outlook is seen as enhancing delivery in terms of communities from accessing forest resources as well as policy and grassroots impact, the partnership is seen as economic benefits accruing from them. considerably eroding the network’s autonomy. Not A variety of interacting factors including donor surprisingly, the network still has not crafted a broader vision pressures, international economic interests, local political of community forestry that transcends the insular concept considerations, sheer weight of local tenurial and use of community forests where the forest management is in pressures, as well as pressure from civil society partnership with state institutions. movements— including international and local community There is a sizeable complement of other local, regional, forestry networks—ushered in a pro-people trend in policy, and international networks operating in Cameroon, which which culminated in the enactment of the 1994 forest offers considerable scope for cross-scale insights and law and its complementary decree of application. Forest- synergies, but unfortunately, coordination among all these sector reforms immediately preceding the 1994 law networks is considered weak. The various networks have included a zoning plan that divided forests into two zones: different combinations of intervention domains (e.g., a permanent zone exclusively owned and managed by awareness raising, capacity building, etc.), with those that the state; and a non-permanent zone owned by the state have wider intervention areas being seen as building on but used and managed by a variety of other actors ‘internal synergies.’ Although those focusing on fewer areas including municipalities, private individuals, and local may result in ‘high specialization,’ some form of coordination communities. was suggested to enable filtering of specialised insights to The 1994 law entitles communities to benefits of other networks and contexts. the forests through community forests, which are excisions The various networks use different combinations of of the non-permanent forest estate not exceeding 5000 networking tools, depending on their priorities and resource hectares. The community forests are managed in endowments. No particular combination of tool was partnership with the state through management plans necessarily considered better or worse than the other, but and agreements. Communities derive economic benefit developing tools that enable more effective contact with from the commercial exploitation of the forests as well grassroots communities was emphasized. as directly drawing resources for their subsistence needs. Some form of formal linkage or coordination unit was Decentralised forest management in Cameroon is suggested as a way of ensuring that the activities of local rather restricted because of the size restriction of networks feed into the scope of the work of international community forests, which are already confined to the networks, as well as minimizing duplication among the non-permanent zone. Communities often inherit networks. A suggestion risked by one informant related to secondary forests of diminished economic value because the establishment of an official clearing house for tracking they’ve been salvaged by logging companies. This often and monitoring, the ethics and mechanics of which are open puts the communities in conflict with the companies. to debate. The management plans further restrict harvesting, which No fundamental contradictions were noted between diminishes more the benefits to the community. government policy and the agendas of international Decentralisation through the conferment of community forestry networks, at least in terms of the community forests has only resulted in conditional envisioned objective functions like decentralization, community empowerment without addressing the sustainable management, poverty alleviation and community fundamental issues of ownership and control of forests empowerment and participation. Some of the contradictions and the land on which they grow. Moreover, the process were seen to arise from differences in emphasis, with of establishing community forests is long and costly, riddled networks accused of often sensationalizing issues instead of with implementational contradictions between the engaging government in positive dialogue. Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 33

Box 9. Learning Lessons from the Forest Action Network69

The Forest Action Network (FAN), based in Nairobi, service complements some of FAN’s other strategies Kenya, is a networking organisation created in 1995, including awareness raising. initially to coordinate activities of the global multi- FAN implements several regional and national donor Forest Trees and People Programme for East programmes in collaboration with other networks and and Southern Africa. The programme’s broad organisations. It participates in several international objective was to address the problem of ‘insufficient policy forums including the Inter-Governmental Panel local control over the management of natural on Forests and has an observer status at some United resources, and over policy, administration and Nations meetings. Its membership draws from a broad legislation pertaining to natural resource canvas of organisations at the local, national, and management’. To meet this and other related regional levels. objectives, the following themes were identified and In this study, FAN’s prominent strengths were implemented in the East and Southern Africa Region: readily seen as advocacy for policy change, conflict management; forestry and food security; networking, and its information service. Other participatory processes; farmers’ initiated research strengths also were noted: using varied scales of and extension; and networking and institutionalisation. intervention to allow for cross-scale insights; FAN has used a variety of strategies and activities extending the scope of community forestry by placing to meet the objectives and themes. It not only has emphasis on commercial values of non-timber forest advocated for policy change, but also has actively products instead of just subsistence values; focusing entered the policy making process by organizing on institutionalising gender awareness, sensitivity, and stakeholders’ workshops that incorporated responsiveness in natural resource management; community perspectives into the draft Kenya Forest developing a capacity for self evaluation and strategic Bill, and by actively contributing to the drafting of planning; and linking to a variety of networks, fora, the Bill. In order to enhance its own capacity and organisations, and individuals. that of its collaborating partners and communities, The following were among the reported FAN has been involved in exchange visits, field challenges and constraints: a reporting format that demonstrations, training, and resource mobilization. does not adequately reflect its regional character; an As part of its information and networking strategy, over-reliance on donor funding; dominance of vertical FAN is involved in the following activities: organizing linkages and upward accountability at the expense of relation building workshops at a range of levels; grassroots-level horizontal linkages and downward producing and distributing three newsletters; accountability; challenges of phasing and sequencing distributing natural resource management videos, of strategies for influencing and transacting change; a books and other publications; organizing radio skewed membership structure; and a not well-targeted programmes on a range of natural resource dissemination strategy. These are highlighted as management themes; and recently, establishing a opportunities for building strength in the future. formal resource centre (library). The information 34 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Box 10. Learning Lessons from the Forests, Trees and People Programme70

The Forests, Trees and People Programme (FTPP) l Communication Strategy: A formal communication was launched in 1987. Its global headquarters was strategy to provide clear guidelines on knowledge lodged in the FAO in Rome, with support from a management and to create multi-directional flows multi-donor trust fund. FTPP worked through of communication seems vital in a large diverse regional and national institutions in Asia, Latin network such as FTPP. Since key questions of America, Africa, and Europe, ending operations communication were not formally strategised, in December 2002. The FTPP had three main problems in collaboration between components objectives: (1) to develop tools, methods, and occurred. However, the strategy followed by the approaches for participatory forestry; (2) to publication unit was largely a success, though there strengthen the ability of local and national seemed to be a lack of a strategy for translating institutions to work in participatory forestry and material.

related fields; and (3) to share information and l Monitoring and Evaluation: Not having a formal experiences on innovative methods and monitoring and evaluation strategy led to a lack of approaches. It was never an objective for FTPP clarity regarding the impacts of FTPP, particularly to directly target grassroots communities. It was at grassroots level. Tools of monitoring and felt that a wider impact could be achieved by evaluation need to be developed that take into working with institutions and organisations, which account processes as well as products, since many would then work with local communities either network activities are process-oriented.

directly or through local partners. The main tools l Leadership: Mechanisms of functioning should not of networking were: (1) annual and regional be reliant on the presence of one particular meetings; (2) regional visits by headquarter staff; individual and his or her style of working, but on and (3) publications, newsletters, web sites, and institutionalised strategies and mechanisms. This is training materials produced regionally and by the more conducive to long-term sustainability and global headquarters. FTPP aimed to be a building of institutional memory and continuity.

decentralised network with decisions taken jointly l Institutional Arrangements: The flexibility and by regional focal points and the global decentralisation that FTPP needed may have been headquarters. The vision was that Southern actors limited by being housed in a large, bureaucratic should be partners, not beneficiaries. This was a organisation. Infrequent face-to-face contact valuable approach to networking, respectful of between members may have been a problem in diverse voices and experiences. terms of building up personal relationships. The size While the study revealed conflicting opinions of FTPP and the high cost of bringing all members on most issues, FTPP was perceived by several together was a significant factor.

interviewees to have been a vibrant process, l Donors: Donors need to be more willing to learn particularly in its earlier years. The main findings lessons from network experiences and to include that emerged from the study are as follows: their own actions in the analysis. They also need to demand more substantial reporting in order to gauge network impacts. Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 35

Box 11. Learning Lessons from the Asia Forest Network71

The origins of the Asia Forest Network (AFN) go l Providing free publications is an important back to the early 1980s when exchanges on networking strategy and is a valuable service community forestry issues between small multi- provided to members.

disciplinary groups were facilitated by the Ford l Face-to-face exchanges are more effective than Foundation. The AFN was formally created in 1992 publications in terms of learning lessons and with an objective to provide a forum for exchanging building relationships between members. Hence knowledge on community forestry, gaining a broader AFN’s emphasis on regional meetings and vision of shifts in forest management policies and workshops with limited numbers of participants.

practices, developing appropriate tools for l AFN operations are lean and modest. Operating community forestry implementation, and guiding with relatively small amounts of money helps policy reform. Findings are communicated at global, openness and honesty in the relationship with regional, and national levels. Until 2000, the AFN partner members since money is not the main operated from California in the U.S., but since then focus of the relationship. The secretariat is clear most activities have shifted to headquarters in the that it does not want ‘big’ funding as this would Philippines. Network members are planners, require more structured work plans and would researchers, and scientists from a range of Asian not be flexible in terms of strategies.

NGOs, universities, and government agencies. l A network needs a strong leader as a driving Membership has included local communities over force, but as a network matures, and as the the years, but in general, local communities are aims get more rooted, a strong leader can give reached through partner members. more room for a wider base of leadership to The informal and highly personalised nature of ensure sustainability and fresh perspectives.

AFN is one of the chief characteristics of the network l The AFN has built up gradually based on and is a guiding principle in its administrative commitment and personal equations rather than structure, recruitment of members, implementation as a project-oriented network created on the of activities, and monitoring and evaluation, etc. basis of the availability of funds and Activities include annual regional meetings, field infrastructure. This indicates that the AFN may workshops, country working groups, development be a network that is sustainable in the long run.

of field methods, cross-visits, information l Networks, particularly small ones like AFN, need dissemination and documentation of case studies. to be strengthened to sustain involvement in AFN also has a significant publications list. Currently resource intensive processes such as its activities are focused on five Southeast Asian international agreements.

countries. l More inclusive networking could take place if Some of the main findings that emerged from language translation was built into all budgets the AFN experience follow. as a priority activity. 36 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Box 12. Learning lessons from the Rural Development Forestry Network72 Having been formed in 1985, the Rural Development be covering mostly ephemeral issues that received Forestry Network (RDFN) is one of four specialist coverage in other media. networks run by the Overseas Development Institute, RDFN relies on donor funding, which—because and covers areas such as agricultural research and of reduced allocations to forest sector portfolios, extension, rural development forestry and shifting priorities of donors, and increased humanitarian practice issues. The network’s competition for soft money among many forestry objective is to provide a tool to enable exchange organisations—has been shrinking over the years. of ideas between researchers, practitioners in the The regional preference of one donor saw the field, and donors in the North on topics relating to network engaging with the ‘completely new the role of forests in people’s livelihoods. The Rural universe’ of South America, well beyond the zones Development Forestry Network brings together 2900 of the network’s traditional strengths. The wider members from over 120 countries, with the geographical focus, nevertheless, gave the network composition of the membership regulated by an a better comparative scope in addition to providing affirmative recruitment policy that favours members an arena in which the network could engage with a from developing countries. The requirement that new target audience, instead of concentrating on members contribute their own materials to the ‘converting the converted.’ Interviewees from the network, and the active soliciting of papers from network suggested fund raising strategies such as a them, provides a limited degree of two-way multi-donor approach that provides adequate information flow. However, the network’s policy fallbacks, better packaging of proposals, and information focus has meant that interaction with improving cost effectiveness through the generation grassroots members has not been a key objective. of multiple products from single sets of information. Mailings on topical community-forestry related The significance of cost-recovery was less issues is RDFN’s major networking tool. Usually, emphasized. mailings include a synopsis on the issue under RDFN’s highly centralised structure was seen consideration and a complement of four or five as a detriment to contact with its grassroots working papers, usually case studies. Despite its stakeholders. While the structure was seen mainly richness and depth, the case study material is of due to the network’s limited financial capacity, limited relevance to some members, particularly survey respondents recognised the need for more those from South America, a region that does not active partnerships with the regions. It was share the same colonial experience with India and envisioned that such partnerships could be crafted Africa where the network has a longer history. This in such a way as to fulfil multiple roles including survey identified possible ways of enhancing the enhancing contact with the grassroots, providing relevance of mailings: mailings based on cross- quality feedback, providing some form of external sectoral issues of common interest; or a quota system advisory service, and involving more members in of issues coverage. The network discontinued the the network’s decision making processes. production of a newsletter, which it considered to Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 37

Box 13. Learning Lessons from the Central American Indigenous and Peasant Coordinator of Communal Agroforestry73

The Central American Indigenous and Peasant a small secretariat. Through this network, ACICAFOC: Coordinator of Communal Agroforestry (ACICAFOC) carries out training through local level workshops; was born out of a 1991 regional meeting to promote promotes exchanges between member organisations; community forestry, organised by the National participates in regional and international policy fora; Peasant Forestry Board of Costa Rica, an and carries out community-level projects in territorial organisation designed to help smallholders access mapping, forest management planning, and protected government reforestation subsidies. With decisive area co-management. It also promotes action- support from the FAO’s Forests, Trees and People orientated research and has initiated attempts to Programme, community organisations continued ensure that rural women are involved in decision- their regional interchanges, eventually coalescing making and forest management. as the networking body now known as ACICAFOC. ACICAFOC also links its members to other ACICAFOC also salvaged elements from a previous international networks. It is a member of the Forest but collapsing regional network of small farmer Stewardship Council, was a regional partner in the organisations, the Association of Communities for IUCN-CIFM project and is a regional member of the Development (ASOSODE), and linked to new newly emerged Caucus for Community-based Forest partners in the region with the help of the regional Management. ACICAFOC also is jointly implementing IUCN bureau. ACICAFOC thus emerged as one of regional projects with international financial the few community-based federations of the institutions such as the World Bank and Global region and is increasingly seen by regional Environment Facility. governments and international agencies as an Key lessons from the ACICAFOC experience include authentic interlocutor that can bring community the following.

concerns to international fora and help ensure that l It’s success has been dependent on unusually dialogue, technical assistance, and financial committed executive director

resources reach down to communities through a l Its increasing involvement in advocacy at minimum of intermediaries, while assisted by a international forest policy debates, without clear substantial informal network of supportive NGOs, objectives, has detracted from giving attention technical advisers, and other fellow travellers. to the smaller and weaker members of the network.

ACICAFOC is formally incorporated as a l Participation in regional fora has created political regional organisation, governed by a general space for country members to raise, and engage assembly of self-selected delegates from 65 in, dialogue with governments about issues that member organisations, which range in size from are hard to address at national level such as land being single community cooperatives to regional tenure and indigenous territorial claims

peasant federations and which pay a membership l The creation of national offices distanced members fee of US$100/year. Ten organisations, however, from network communications rather than dominate ACICAFOC activities. Since March 2002, promoting their participation.

aspiring members are screened to ensure that they l Electronic and telephoned-based communications are genuinely rooted in the communities. The are inadequate means for good two-way general assembly sets overall priorities for the information sharing with grassroots groups.

organisation and elects a board and a general l Capacity-building of membership organisations is facilitator, who acts as the executive director of the primary need. 38 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Box 14. Learning Lessons from the Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific74

The Regional Community Forestry Training Centre view the partnership as useful, but do not lament the for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC) was established FTPP’s demise once the FAO-led network had outlived as a university institute in the mid-1980s and its usefulness. Some staff are also critical of the FAO’s redefined as an international organisation in 2000. lack of commitment to community forestry. It has played a prominent part in the promotion of Networking has been particularly important to community forestry in Asia through training, RECOFTC’s vital work in Thailand, where it has capacity building and experience-sharing, and as a engaged very closely with the alliance of community centre of technical expertise. During the 1990s, organisations pressing for policy reform in that the Centre became over extended but it has now country. This has been an important learning been streamlined with a greater emphasis on the experience for RECOFTC. need for strategic synergy between its various As well as admitting its own shortcomings as a programmes. Between 1992 and 2002, RECOFTC networking agency, RECOFTC is also constructively also acted as the regional focal point for the FAO’s critical of networking efforts of other international Peoples, Forests and Trees Programme (FTPP). It networks. As information providers, other networks relies on Northern donors for the major part of its are seen as useful, but they have been less effective recurrent, core costs. in supporting community-based organisations pressing Twenty years of active engagement promoting for reform in the region. community forestry have taught the centre many Some of the key lessons that emerge from the important lessons, which have led to a change in RECOFTC experience are the following: its approach and even of its conception of

community forestry. From being essentially a l Training has been and continues to be a vital training centre for the technicalities of tree activity in promoting community forestry and both husbandry, RECOFTC has transformed into a learning helps and is helped by networking;

organization that promotes a wide range of systems l Networks can promote multi-stakeholder dialogues of forest management by communities. The centre and platforms, which are needed as part of conflict now emphasizes the importance of national policy, resolution processes;

institutional and governance reform to allow l More emphasis is needed regionally on political community forestry to flourish. and legal reform to modify the framework in which RECOFTC is run by a government dominated community forestry is being established;

board and its main partners are, about equally, l Land tenure reform requires more attention from governmental and non-governmental organisations. the networks, meaning more emphasis is needed It retains close links with the Thai Royal Forestry on analysis and country engagement;

Department, while its formal and informal l Developing advocacy strategies and local networks also embrace a wide range of players, engagements is hard for a hybrid network that including alumni from its training courses, networks includes both governmental and civil society of field project partners, community-based actors;

organisations, and NGOs serviced through the FTPP l Closer links with emerging social movements are network. RECOFTC is a prolific publisher and required to help promote change;

distributes key materials in some of the national l Links should be as direct as possible and include languages of client countries. Its web site is used mechanisms for feedback;

widely. l Although informal networking is preferable, Networking has been an important, but never formalisation may be required to legitimise actors’ central, part of RECOFTC’s work. Looking back on involvement and strengthen the sense of shared years of engagement with the FTPP, RECOFTC staff endeavour. Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 39

Box 15. Learning Lessons from the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests

Following the release of the Brundtland Report in 1986, authority to an elected international coordinating and in preparation for the U.N. Conference of committee which makes decisions on behalf of the Environment and Development, indigenous peoples’ members between conference meetings. organisations carried out extensive networking to The Alliance has established close ties with prepare a joint platform that would give their concerns supportive networks such as the World Rainforest a high profile at the 1992 Rio summit. At a planning Movement and Global Forests Coalition and made meeting organised by the World Rainforest Movement substantial inputs into the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel in Penang in 1992, indigenous peoples from the Pacific, on Forests, including running an intersessional meeting Asia, Africa, and Central and South America decided in Leticia, Colombia. It participated in a similar process to establish the International Alliance of Indigenous and at the International Forum on Forests to focus attention Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests, a coalition of on the underlying causes of deforestation, and the autonomous peoples’ organisations based on a shared Alliance now is a focal point for indigenous peoples in charter of demands. relation to the U.N. Forum on Forests. The Alliance also The Alliance has its roots in the global movement is involved in the Global Caucus on Community Based for indigenous peoples, which has been pressing for Forest Management and promotes indigenous recognition of indigenous rights to land and to self- participation in the Convention on Biological Diversity determination. The movement first sought access to and World Parks Congress. the United Nations as colonized peoples and has since Key lessons that emerge from the Alliance’s sought redress of violations of indigenous peoples’ experience include:

human rights at the U.N. Human Rights Commission l Concerted advocacy can result in significant policy and its subsidiary bodies. Since 1983, a working group gains, but these are slow to feed back to the national on indigenous populations, open to any indigenous level;

representatives has met annually in Geneva and its l Environmental policy processes are weakly linked deliberations have led to drafting of the Declaration to parallel standard-setting processes related to on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (1993) and the human rights;

establishment of the U.N. Permanent Forum on l International policy work must be linked to parallel Indigenous Issues under the Economic and Social Council efforts to promote regional, national, and local (2002). capacity building to avoid grassroots groups being The Alliance, which has its own secretariat left behind;

(currently in Chiang Mai), has the dual mandate of l Email communications and newsletters are promoting the rights of forest dwelling indigenous ineffective communications tools in reaching peoples in international fora and of strengthening community-based organisations;

regional networks of indigenous peoples. It is governed l NGOs must respect the political nature of indigenous by a conference of regionally elected representatives, organisations and demands;

which has met approximately every three years. The l Substantial and sustained financial support is required conference sets strategic objectives, reviews reports to ensure transparent, participatory decision-making from the regions and committees, and delegates its at an intercontinental level. 40 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Box 16. Learning Lessons from the World Conservation Union’s Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management75

Building on a Ford Foundation initiative to promote Working Group had little lasting engagement with international forest policy reforms that favour regional networks or community social movements community forestry, an international network calling following the publication of the reports. The Meso- itself the Working Group on Community Involvement American and African processes were developed with in Forest Management was created in 1996 with extra funding, which allowed for much more the World Conservation Union (IUCN) acting as interactive processes, more inputs into regional network secretariat. advocacy and more local capacity-building. The goals of the network were to accelerate a The main members of the network were process of two-way learning between nations and described as ‘highly experienced individuals who across regions, channel the lessons learned from have often acted as change agents and leaders’. Two- successful local experiences into global policy thirds were from the north and predominantly from making, promote decentralization of forest NGOs, government, and intergovernmental management, and influence donors to give greater organisations. There were few direct links with support to community forestry. The U.N. community-based and indigenous peoples’ Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) was chosen organisations. The governance structure was light as the main target for advocacy. The Working Group and secretariat-driven. Members did not take up emphasized the need to amplify civil society efforts to devolve authority to a steering committee. demands for a greater role in forest management, Self-evaluation was built into the network’s analyse regional and national trends in policy functioning and resulted in useful lessons being drawn evolution, identify the main obstacles to reform, for an improved second phase, which, however, was assess the role of the private sector, and document not funded. More focus on regional advocacy and means of transition towards greater community capacity building with much stronger grassroots control of forests. The group chose to focus its membership and engagement in decision-making action on six regions. were all proposed. The Working Group met at least twice a year Other lessons from the network experience between 1996 and 2000, when funding for the include the following: network more or less dried up. Most network

meetings were in the margins of IPF and l Technical publications have limited usefulness and Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) meetings should be complemented with simpler stand-alone and efforts were focused on advocating the adoption summaries for wider dissemination and advocacy of official language supportive of community use;

involvement in forest management. This advocacy l Publication in the major U.N. languages is vital was successful, although the IPF and IFF Proposals for effective intercontinental linkages

for Action have not yet been widely implemented l More engagement with local social movements is at the national level. necessary if regionally targeted advocacy is to The Working Group also sponsored regional have legitimacy and be effective in promoting studies on the status of community forest change;

management, which resulted in five detailed l Centralised, secretariat-driven networks end up regional profiles in book format—on North America, having passive members; more engaged and Meso-America, Western Europe, South Asia, and accountable governance mechanisms are needed;

Southeast Asia. Four other reports on Eastern and l Self-evaluations provide crucial moments for Southern Africa were also produced. These regional reflection and to check the networks’ value to profiles contain a wealth of valuable information the membership;

about community forestry but are too detailed and l Information dissemination should target libraries discursive to serve immediately as tools for and resource centres and not just individuals, advocacy. However, with the exception of Meso- NGOs, and offices. America and Eastern and Southern Africa, the Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 41

Box 17. Learning Lessons from the Forest Stewardship Council76

In response to international concerns in the 1980s forestry operations (principally in Central America and about the impact of logging on forests, particularly Mexico) providing an important set of experiences tropical forests, and the refusal of from which others can learn. intergovernmental agencies to promote the Notwithstanding, FSC has taken a series of labelling of timbers, NGOs and some of the more measures through concerted networking to try to progressive elements in the timber industry address these market failures and incorporate the developed proposals to promote voluntary forest needs of a broader range of forest users into its product labelling. This led to the creation of the certification policies and procedures. In the mid- Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in 1993. This 1990s, FSC members mandated the creation of a social Mexico-based NGO developed a global scheme working group to promote membership of the social for the certification of forests, according to chamber, and to formulate a strategic plan for dealing agreed standards, independent of governments. with social issues. Vigorous efforts were made to FSC is a ‘chambered’ membership recruit more members from communities, trades organisation designed to be governed equally by unions, social justice organisations, and indigenous members from economic, social, and peoples. A still-active bilingual (English/Spanish) email environmental groups. FSC stakeholders list of 170 was set up. In 1998, FSC developed ‘group developed global standards for environmentally certification’, which allows groups of small-scale responsible, socially beneficial, and economically producers to jointly apply for certification and thus viable forest stewardship. Those standards are share administration and inspection costs. By 2002, adopted and modified by national initiatives for almost 1 million hectares of forests, from over 7,500 application in specific countries. Nonetheless, individual forest operations in 23 countries had been consensus building in national fora has proved certified under this scheme.80 During this same lengthy and requires heavy investment of time period, FSC also invested considerable effort in and resources from participants. Marginal and poor devising a social strategy that was based on the social groups have not been able to afford the recommendations and requests collected at previous time and resources needed to engage in these face-to-face meetings such as the 2001 annual processes effectively. For this and other reasons, conference, Certification for the People. The strategy national standard-setting has thus tended to focus was developed via extensive consultations with FSC on developing standards appropriate for large, and members, national initiatives, email circulars, and by not small-scale, producers.77 Additionally, the using other networks such as RECOFTC’s newsletter. requirements of independent certifiers to see FSC expects that further networking will be crucial documented management plans, the costs of to the successful application of this strategy. certification inspections, and problems linking In 2002, FSC also launched a new initiative called small-scale producers to concerned consumers ‘Increasing Access to Certification for Small and Low have discouraged some community forestry Intensity Managed Forests’ (SLIMFs Initiative). This operations from getting certification. initiative seeks to provide guidance on interpreting While the earliest FSC certificates in the standards and management requirements for small- tropics were for community forestry, certification scale operations, make information about certification grew most rapidly among public and private processes and standards more accessible and landowners as FSC funders, board members, and intelligible, and simplify the documentation system the secretariat gave priority to developing a of certification inspections and audits. Those significant market share for FSC certified timber. objectives are now to be tested in field trials. By 2000, over 90 percent of FSC certified forests Interested stakeholders are kept informed via regular were managed by public bodies, individuals, and review committee briefings. corporations—not communities.78 Most certified FSC’s experiences with networking bring out the community operations had been supported by following lessons. substantial grant-funded technical assistance. In general, certification, as a tool for market-based l Considerable investment in translation and reform, has not worked well for communities in information servicing is required to keep networks its early phases.79 Nonetheless, around 50 FSC active and working in two directions. certificates have been issued to community 42 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

l Face-to-face meetings are crucial if stakeholders groups (social, environmental, and technical issues are to be addressed and economic, each with a North and South division), developed in any depth. in practice decision-making processes favour those

l A major challenge is finding cost-effective with higher education, technical knowledge, access means of incorporating the views of to communication, and financial resources.

resource-poor NGOs and community l Overcoming this de facto inequality either requires organisations into policy development. Email capacity-building of southern and resource-poor networking and consultation processes may social groups or novel mechanisms of decision- not be the best way to reach them.81 making, which give proper weight to local and

l Bringing marginalised social groups into indigenous knowledge, languages and discourses.

networks, national initiatives, and l FSC’s formalised governance system and complaints certification processes requires grants (self- procedures have nevertheless provided important financing is not an option in most cases). In political space for community-based organisations most national initiatives, community and indigenous peoples, which they have used participation is minimal. effectively to address serious problems. Supportive

l Although the governance structure of FSC NGOs and grant financing have proved necessary allows for voting equality among the six to make use of these apertures. Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 43

Box 18. Learning Lessons from the World Rainforest Movement82

The World Rainforest Movement (WRM) was born WRM seeks to change policy through mobilising from two NGO conferences held in Penang, public opinion and information dissemination rather Malaysia in the mid-1980s that focused on the than through direct negotiation in policy fora. It destruction of the rainforests and the global engages in many active campaigns in solidarity with environmental crisis.83 Much of the impetus for local struggles and produces a widely distributed the creation of the group came from the perceived electronic newsletter in French, Spanish, Portuguese, need to develop a common critique of top-down and English that reaches some 9,000 subscribers. official solutions to the deforestation crisis; While concerned about the risks of civil society being solutions that exclude civil society, indigenous co-opted by, and thus legitimising, intergovernmental peoples, and forest-dwellers in particular. WRM’s policy making processes, WRM nevertheless hosted thinking crystallised in the form of the Penang the Joint Initiative to Address the Underlying Causes Declaration in 1989 accompanied by a popular of Deforestation and Forest Degradation at the document that explained the underlying causes of Intergovernmental Panel and Forum on Forests and the forest crisis, the flaws in official solutions, now acts as host to another NGO network—the Global and the need for an alternative approach based Forests Coalition. WRM also coordinates NGO advocacy on securing the rights of local communities.84 Initial directed at policy reform at the Convention on efforts of the group focused on exposing the Biological Diversity, the Commission on Sustainable inadequacies of the Tropical Forest Action Plan and Development, the U.N. Forum on Forests, and the the International Tropical Timber Organisation, Framework Convention of Climate Change. explaining the need for land security and agrarian WRM interacts actively with other networks such reform to address deforestation and highlighting as the Taiga Rescue Network, Industrial Shrimp Action the threat posed to forests by industrial monocrop Network, OilWatch, Forests Movement Europe, and plantations.85 The group also provided campaign joined the recently formed Caucus for Community- support for the Dayak peoples of Malaysian Borneo Based Forest Management. WRM is seen as a Southern- (Sarawak) who sought to secure their land rights based movement that prioritises a Southern in the face of an aggressive timber exploitation constituency and is directed by Southern NGOs with regime that denied their rights.86 At the same time support from NGOs based in the North. Although WRM the group embarked on a special programme to acts to support community forestry, it does this mainly promote networking among forest peoples, which by seeking to promote framework change rather than led to a third major conference in Penang supported by addressing directly community forest management by WRM members, but controlled by indigenous regimes. peoples organisations. The meeting led to the Key lessons from the WRM experience include establishment of an autonomous intercontinental the following.

indigenous umbrella organisation—the International l Two-way networking can be achieved with a Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the minimally formalised governance structure. 87 Tropical Forests. l Direct support for local struggles through campaigns WRM has chosen to present itself as a social is highly valued by local organisations but to be movement without a formal membership structure successful requires a heavy investment in local and decision-making. It has nevertheless been level networking, field visits, and sustained obliged to secure legal status as a non-profit information flow.

organisation; it has set up a steering committee l Social movements that advocate against human made up of committed NGO members who share rights abuses cannot readily accommodate the WRM’s goals in order to pool ideas and make governments in their networking activities.

strategic decisions; and it has established a small l Synergies between networks can help strengthen secretariat originally based in Penang and now in advocacy and improve cross-sectoral policy Montevideo. reform. 44 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Annex I. Terms of Reference

The CIFOR project, titled ‘Learning Lessons l Helping poor people retain and obtain access from International Community Forestry to existing forest resources, generate new Networks’, was funded by the Department for resources, and earn greater incomes from International Development (DFID) and the Ford the resources they have; and

Foundation. Under the project, researchers l Protecting and regenerating forest were contracted to review eight countries’ ecosystems and biodiversity, and reducing experiences with international community environmental degradation. forestry networks and also review the activities of eight international community The project’s specific objectives are to: forestry networks. A peer review/advisory

team, comprised of Mary Hobley, Janis Alcorn, l Synthesize the lessons emerging from Madhu Sarin and Louise Goodman, was international community forestry networks contracted to react to the research findings through a collective process, emphasizing and contribute to the Lessons Workshop. The these networks’ ability (or inability) to project has been handled as part of CIFOR’s provide ‘value-added’ to local and national Adaptive Collaborative Management processes and to advocate for community programme initially under Carol Colfer and then forestry at international levels;

under Lini Wollenberg. The director of CIFOR, l Share these lessons with the main David Kaimowitz, took a central role in stakeholder groups mentioned above;

conceiving and then overseeing the project. l Improve the programs of bilateral and multilateral agencies and foundations that As given in the project outline, the stated support community forestry, with particular purpose of the project was to: emphasis on grant-making by the Ford Review the experience with international Foundation and DFID;

networks designed to promote community l Help CIFOR and other international research forestry, to assess how much ‘value-added’ they organisations that support community have provided or could potentially provide to forestry design an effective strategy for activities at the local and national level and working with international community their ability to advocate for community forestry networks. forestry at international levels. The project’s central objective is to increase the Provide inputs into the design of a Global effectiveness and efficiency of international Summit for Pro-People Forest Reform.88 efforts to support community forestry with the aim of:

l Promoting transparent, accountable, and democratic decision-making processes concerning forests that incorporate the views of the poor, women, indigenous peoples, and ethnic minorities; Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 45

Annex II. Connecting to the Networks

For further information about networks Forest Stewardship Council: www.fscoax.org mentioned in this review try the following web sites or email contacts: IUCN Working Group on Community Involve- ment in Forest Management: http:// ACICAFOC: www.acicafoc.org www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/special/cifm/html

Asia Forest Network : Rural Development Forestry Newsletter: www.asiaforestnetwork.org www.odifpeg.org.uk/publications/rdfn

CIFOR: www.cifor.cgiar.org RECOFTC: www.recoftc.org

Forest Action Network: http://www.ftpp.or.ke World Rainforest Movement: www.wrm.org.uy Forest Peoples Programme: www.forestpeoples.org Global Caucus for Community-Based Forest Management: [email protected] Forests, Trees and People Programme: www.fao.org/forestry/FON/FONP/cfu/cfu-e.stm http://www.polux.sdnp.org.pa/~rfc/ http://www.cnr.org.pe/fao/index.htm http://www.cnb.net/~ftpp-fao/welcome.html http://www-trees.slu.se/nepal/ watchindex.htm 46 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Endnotes extensive publications and training materials on this theme, which is a favourite of the FAO. 38 Means and Josayma et al. 2002 Vol 1:5 1 See Annex 1 for the Terms of Reference. 39 Chiriboga 2001: 73. 2 Colchester 2002a. 40 See Keck and Sikkink 1998 and Fox and 3 Rackham 1986:73, 382. Brown 1998 for in depth reviews of some of 4 Westoby 1987. these advocacy campaigns. 5 Guha 1991; Bryant 1997; Peluso 1992; 41 Colchester 2001. Westoby 1987. 42 Unsustainable community forestry, of course, 6 Gadgil and Guha 1993. may be quite profitable, for a time! 7 Jordan, Gajseni and Watanabe 1992. 43 Geertz 1963. The term ‘agricultural 8 Hobley 1996 involution’ describes the internal, very 9 Westoby 1987 complicated material and moral economies 10 Westoby 1987; Arnold 2001. that have developed in highly populated and 11 Hobley 1996; Arnold 2001. intensively cultivated areas. 12 Colchester 1992a; Hobley 1996. 44 Eg Smith and Scherr 2002. 13 Arnold 2001. 45 FAO 1992. 14 Tayor 1995. 46 RECOFTC is currently reconsidering how it 15 Caufield 1985. can market its training services. 16 Davis 1977; Bodley 1982; 1988. 47 See Uganda report. 17 Bello, Kinley and Elinson 1982; Rich 1985; 48 Chase Smith 1995. Colchester 1986; Mikeswell and Williams 49 For discussions see Davies 2001; Roche 2001; 1992. Earl Carden and Smutylo 2001. 18 Peet and Watts 1996; Bryant and Bailey 1997; 50 Edwards 2001:4-5 Keil et al. 1998. 51 Clark 2001. 19 Poore 1989. 52 Cf Brown and Fox 2001: 53-55. 20 Colchester 1989; WRM/SAM 1990. 53 The original aim had been to examine the 21 Colchester 1993. FSC-Community Forestry Working Group and 22 Kolk 1996. not the FSC as a whole. 23 Dudley, Jeanrenaud and Sullivan 1995 54 Indeed a number of the ‘networks’ studied 24 FoE/WRM 1994; Gale 1998. are in fact organisations in formal, legal 25 Utting 1993; Barraclough and Ghimire 1995; terms. Gibson, McKean and Ostrom 2000. 55 Fernandez 2002. 26 Poffenberger 1990. 56 FAO 1992:8. 27 Verolme and Moussa 1999. 57 Eg Keck and Sikkink 1998. 28 Alliance 1996. 58 Britt 2002. 29 IAITPTF and EAIP 1997; Griffiths 2002. 59 Edwards 2001:1. 30 Humphreys 1996. 60 Howell and Pearce 2001. 31 Britt 2002; Apte and Pathak 2002. 61 Mendes 1989; Shoumatoff 1991; Keck and 32 WRM 2003. Sikkink 1998:140-142; Cardoso 2002. 33 FAO 1992. The FAO study defines a network 62 Korten 1992:43. He drew these lessons from as a ‘voluntary cooperative arrangement examining the effective tactics of the Thai among individuals and/or institutions in NGO ‘Project for Ecological Recovery’. two or more countries, set up for a period 63 These views are particularly strongly felt in of at least several years, to carry out jointly Asia, where the notion of ‘forest’ is certain specified activities for the purpose considered a legal fiction and ‘forestry’ has of direct exchange of relevant techniques become a term synonymous with and experiences on common development expropriation and imposed management. issues’. 64 Colchester 2002d. 34 Thornber and Markopoulos 2000:2. 65 Colchester 2002c. 35 Elliott 2000: xix, 232; see also Elliott and 66 Apte and Pathak 2002. Schlaepfer 2001a, 2001b. 67 Mandondo 2002a. 36 Counsell and Loraas 2002; Colchester, Sirait 68 Mandondo 2002c. and Wijardjo 2003. 69 Mandondo 2002b. 37 RDFN, RECOFTC, FTPP and FAN all have 70 Apte 2002a. Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 47

71 Apte 2002b. Aliadi, A. et al. (eds.) 1999 Kembalikan Hutan 72 Mandondo 2002d. Kepada, Rakyat. Penerbit Pustaka Latin, 73 Laforge 2002c. Bogor. 74 Colchester 2002e. Andasputra, N. and Vincentius, J. (eds.) 1995 75 Colchester 2002b. Mencermati Dayak Kanayatin. Institute of 76 Laforge 2002a. Dayakology Research and Development, 77 Robinson and Brown 2002; Counsell and Pontianak. Loraas 2002; Draft Social Strategy. Anderson, B. 1983 Imagined Communities. Verso, 78 Rezende de Azevedo 2001. London. 79 Thornber and Markopoulos 2000:2. Anon.1992 Forestry project profile no.12: Forests, 80 Robinson and Brown 2002. Few of these are Trees And People – Phase II. Pamphlet. FAO community forestry schemes however. Forestry Department, Rome. 81 For example while there are many Anon.1994 Meeting of the JFM network, 14-16 developing country members of the SLIMF’s September 1994. Unpublished. SPWD, New review committee, over 90 percent of Delhi. respondents to a recent SLIMF questionaire Anon.1997 Forests, Trees and People Programme were from developed countries. (FTPP): Global component internal 82 Laforge 2002d. evaluation (March 1997). Unpublished. CFU/ 83 SAM 1987; APPEN and SAM 1988. FAO. Rome. 84 WRM 1989. Anon.1997 Forests, Trees and People: Overview 85 Shiva 1987; Colchester and Lohmann 1990; of 1997 evaluation. Unpublished. FTPP/FAO. Colchester 1993; Colchester and Lohmann Rome. 1993; Carrere and Lohmann 1996. Anon. 1997 Forests, Trees and People: SLU internal 86 WRM 1989. evaluation. Unpublished. FTPP/FAO. Rome. 87 Colchester 1992a. Anon.1997 FTPP New directions overview – 88 CIFOR funding application to Ford Towards the next phase of steering Foundation and DFID. Bogor, 2001. committee (June). Unpublished. FTPP/FAO. Rome. Anon.1998 Joint Forest Management update. SPWD. New Delhi. Bibliography Anon.1998 East Kalimantan, Indonesia: Documen- tation of rattan gardens as a sustainable man- Acworth, J., Ekwoge, H., Mbani, J.M. and Ntube, agement system. Environmental Science for G. 2001 Towards participatory biodiversity Social Change and AFN. Philippines. conservation in the Onge-Mokoko forests of Anon.1999 Pamphlet on training course on par- Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry ticipatory forest resource assessment and Network Paper 25D. Rural Development planning. RECOFTC. Bangkok. Forestry Network, Overseas Development Anon.1999 Proceedings of the VIth annual network Institute, London. meeting of the National Network of Joint Agarwal, A. 1998 The house that Digvijay built. Forest Management. 24 February. SPWD. In: Down to Earth. December 31. New Delhi. New Delhi. Agrawal, A. and Ribot, J. 1999 Accountability and Anon.1999 Tribals, NGOs protest against World- decentralization: A framework with South Bank funded M.P. Forestry Project. In: The Asian and West African cases. Journal of De- Pioneer. 25 November. veloping Areas 33:473-502. Anon.1999 Annex-IX: Response to the MTOs report Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C. 1999 Enchantment to the country director, India, World Bank. and disenchantment: The role of commu- In: Project Completion Report: Annexure. 29 nity of natural resource conservation. World September 1995 to 31 December 1999. Development 27: 629-649. Madhya Pradesh Forestry Project. Madhya Ahikire, J. 2001 Decentralization and the gender Pradesh Forest Department. Bhopal. question: Issues at hand and the way forward Anon. 2000 International Centre for Community for NGO district networks. DENIVA Forestry. IIFM. Bhopal. Information Bulletin No 4. DENIVA, Kampala. Anon. 2000 CFU internal evaluation for post 2001. Alcorn J. and Royo N. (eds.). 2000 Indigenous Unpublished. 22 May. CFU, FAO, Rome. social movements and ecological resilience. Anon. 2000 Community forestry publications. PeFoR Discussion Paper. BSP-Kemala. Catalogue. FTPP/FAO, Rome. 48 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Anon. 2000 Community forestry unit: for Southeast Asia: Guide to Program Communication strategy overview. Support. Asia Forest Network, European Unpublished. CFU/FAO Forestry Department, Commission, USAID, Philippines. Rome. Anon. n.d. Philippine working group on Anon.2000 Facilitating collaborative arrangements community-based natural resource in community forestry: Report of the 9th management. Booklet. ESSC. Quezon City, Review and Planning Meeting of the Forests, Philippines. Trees and People Programme in Asia. Daman, Anon. n.d. Supporting natural regeneration Nepal, 21-25 March. through community management. AFN, USA. Anon. 2000 FTPP communication strategy Anyonge, C.H. and Nugroho, Y. 1996 Rural development status report. FTPP Annual populations living within logging concessions Global Facilitators Meeting and Steering in Indonesia: A review of social development Committee Meeting, Tanzania, November programmes and a case study from South 2000. Unpublished. FTPP/FAO, Rome. Kalimantan. Ministry of Forestry and ENSO Anon.2000 Post-2001 Strategy Taskforce Forest Development Oy Ltd, Jakarta. Workshop. Rome, Italy. Unpublished. FTPP/ APPEN/SAM 1988 Global Development and FAO, Rome, 28-31 August. Environment Crisis: Has Humankind a Future? Anon. 2000 Status report of Panchayati Raj Asia-Pacific Peoples Environment Network institutions in Madhya Pradesh: 1995-2000. and Sahabat Alam Malaysia, Penang. Executive Summary. Samarthan Centre for Apte, T. 2002a Lessons from the Forest, Trees Development Support, Bhopal. and People Programme Network. Manuscript. Anon.2000 Supplemental documents to the Apte, T. 2002b Lessons from the Asia Forestry implementation completion report on a Network. Manuscript. credit in the amount of SDR 39.4 million to Apte, T. and Pathak, P. 2002 India report. India for Madhya Pradesh Forestry Project. Manuscript. World Bank. Arnol, J.E.M. 2001 Forests and people: 25 years Anon. 2000 Biodiversity conservation in West of community forestry. FAO, Rome. Bengal. Wildlife Wing, Directorate of For- Arora-Jonsson, S. 1997 Forests Trees and People ests, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata. networking. Unpublished. Department of Anon.2001 Front opposes funding agencies. In: Rural Development Studies, SLU, Uppsala, Hindustan Times. January 18. Sweden Anon. 2001 Report on forest firings in Dewas. Arora-Jonsson, S. 2000 Networking for dialogue Unpublished. People’s Union for Democratic and action: An example from the Forests, Rights. Trees and People Programme. In: FTPP Anon.2001-02 Joint Forest Management in Madhya Newsletter. No.40/41. December 1999 / Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh Forest Department January 2000. FTPP, Sweden. Anon. 2001 Joint Forest Management: Performance Atok, K. et al. (eds.) 1998 Peran Masyarakat report 1999-2001. Ramakrishna Mission Dalam. Tata Ruang. Pembinaan Pengelolaan Lokasiksha Parishad, Kolkata. Sumbar Daya Alam Kemasyarakatan, Pebruari. Anon. 2001 Joint Forest Management: A critique Auzel, Ph., Nguenang, G.M., Feteke, R. and based on people’s perceptions. Samata, Delvingt, W. 2001 Small-scale logging in Hyderabad. community forests in Cameroon: Towards Anon. n.d. Asia Forest Network: supporting natu- ecologically more sustainable and socially ral regeneration through community man- more acceptable compromises. Rural agement. AFN, California. Development Forestry Network Paper 25F(I). Anon. n.d. IBRAD in forestry. Pamphlet. IBRAD, Rural Development Forestry Network, Kolkata. Overseas Development Institute, London. Anon. n.d. Forests, Trees And People Phase II: Badan Kesejahteraan Sosial Nasional 2000 Panduan Self-help development, sustainable Umum: Pengembangan Kesejahteraan Sosial management and use of forests and trees at Komunitas Adat Terpencil. DPKAT, Badan the local community level. Pamphlet. FTPP/ Kesejahteraan Sosial Nasional, Jakarta. FAO, Rome. Bandopadhyay G., Madhuri, S. Modi A. 1999 Re- Anon. n.d. Community Forest Management Sup- port of the joint mission on Madhya Pradesh port Project 2000 for Southeast Asia. Pam- Forestry Project. Unpublished. phlet. AFN, Philippines. Barber, C.V. 1999 The case study of Indonesia. Anon. n.d. Community Forestry Support Project World Resources Institute, Washington. Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 49

Barber, C.V. and Churchill, G. 1987 Land policy in in the forest zone – The role of shifting ag- Irian Jaya: Issues and strategies. Government riculture on Mt Cameroon. Rural Develop- of Indonesia and UNDP / IBRD Project INS/ ment Forest Network Paper. RDFN, ODI, Lon- 83/013. don. Barber, C., Johnson, N and Hafild, E. 1994 Breaking Brown, D. and Schreckenberg, K. 2001 the logjam: Obstacles to forest policy reform Community Forestry: Facing up to the in Indonesia and the United States. World challenge in Cameroon. Rural Development Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Forestry Network Paper 25a. Rural Barr, C. 2002 Banking on sustainability: Structural Development Forestry Network, Overseas adjustment and forestry reform in post- Development Institute, London. Suharto Indonesia, WWF/CIFOR. Bryant, R.L. 1997 The political ecology of forestry Barraclough, S. and Ghimire, K. 1995 Forests and in Burma 1824-1994. University of Hawaii livelihoods: the social dynamics of defor- Press, Honolulu. estation in developing countries. MacMillan Bryant, R.L. and Bailey, S. 1997 Third world po- Press, London. litical ecology. Routledge, London. Barrow, E., Clarke, J., Grundy, I., Ruhombe- Budiardjo, C. and Liem Soei Liong, S.L. 1988 West Jones, K. and Tessema, Y. 2002 Whose Papua: the obliteration of a people. Tapol, power? Whose responsibilities? An analysis London. Revised edition. of stakeholder power and responsibilities in Budiman, Arief (ed.) 1990 State and civil society community involvement in Eastern and in Indonesia. Monash University, Victoria. Southern Africa. IUCN, Gland. Burns, P. 1989 The myth of Adat. Journal of Legal Beinart, W. 1984 Soil erosion, conservationism Pluralism 28:1-127. and ideas about development: A Southern Burns, P. 1999 The Leiden legacy: Concepts of African exploration. Journal of Southern law in Indonesia. PT Pradnya Paramita, African Studies, 11: 52-83. Jakarta. Bello, W., Kinley, D and Elaine Elinson, E. 1982 Cardoso, C.A. 2002 Extractive reserves in Development debacle: the World Bank in Brazilian Amazonia: Local resource the Philippines. Institute for Food and management and the global political Development Policy and Philippines Solidariry economy. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Network, San Francisco. Burlington. Bharati and Patnaik, M. 1998 Joint Forest Carrere, R. and Lohmann, L. 1996 Pulping the Management in Andhra Pradesh. AP NGOs South: Industrial tree plantations and the Committee on JFM, Hyderabad. world paper economy. World Rainforest Bhattacharya, P. 1995 Emergence of forest Movement and Zed Books, Montevideo and protection by communities: Kudada, South London. Bihar, India. Community Forestry Case Study Chatterji, A.P. 1996 Community forest Series CM002/95. RECOFTC and AFN. management in Arabari: Understanding Bangkok. sociocultural and subsistence issues. SPWD, Bhattacharya P, Sen, H.B. and Mitra B. 2002 New Delhi. Experiences from Madhya Pradesh: Rural Chattopadhyay R.N. et al. 1995 Probings into the practitioners’ network. In: Wastelands News. history of community forestry in Nayagram November 2001-January 2002. SPWD, New and assessment of its present status. PFM Delhi. Study Series 1. Rural Development Centre, Bodley, J. 1982 Victims of progress. Benjamin IIT, Kharagpur. Cummings, Menlo Park. Caufield, C. 1985 In the rainforest: Report from Bodley, John (ed.) 1988 Tribal peoples and de- a strange, beautiful and imperiled world. velopment issues: A global overview. Heinemann, London. Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View. Chidley, L. 2002 Forests, People and Rights. Down Britt, C.D. 2002 Changing the boundaries of forest to earth - the international campaign for politics: Community forestry, social ecological justice in Indonesia, London. mobilization and federation-building in Nepal Chinchilla, A., Garrido, S., Aguilar, N., and Salas, viewed through the lens of environmental A. 2000 Comunidades y Gestion de Bosques sociology and PAR. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell en MesoAmerica. CICAFOC, UNOFOC, IUCN, University. Gland. Brocklesby, M.A. and Ambrose-Oji, B. 1997 Nei- Chiriboga V, Manuel 2001 Constructing a Southern ther the forest nor the farm... livelihoods constituency for global advocacy: The 50 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

experience of Latin American NGOs and the to Community Forestry Networking in World Bank. In: Edwards, M. and Gaventa, Indonesia. Manuscript. G. (eds.):73-86. Colchester, M. 2002d Community forestry in Choudhury, B.C. and Mudappa, D. 1995 Wetland Yunnan (China): The challenge for networks. conservation and management in Andhra Manuscript. Pradesh – A report for Andhra Pradesh-World Colchester, M. 2002e Learning lessons from the Bank Forestry Project Integrated Protected RECOFTC experience with community Area System Development. Wildlife Institute forestry networking. Manuscript. of India, Dehradun. Colchester, M. 2000f Indigenous Peoples and Clark, J. 2001Ethical Globalization: The dilem- Biodiversity Conservation: Sector Review mas and challenges of internationalizing civil for the Biodiversity Support Program:Global society. In: Edwards, M. and Gaventa, G. Overview and South and South East Asia (eds.):17-28. Review. Report for Biodiversity Support Coglianese, C. and Nicolaidis, K. 1996 Securing Program, Washington, DC. subsidiarity: Legitimacy and the allocation Colchester, M. (ed.) 2001 a survey of indigenous of governing authority. John F. Kennedy land tenure: A report for the land tenure School of Government, Harvard University. service of the Food and Agriculture Organi- Colchester, M. 1985 The World Bank ignores hu- sation. FAO, Rome. man suffering and is in breach of interna- Colchester, M. and Lohmann, L. 1990 The Tropical tional law. The Ecologist 15 (5/6):286-289. Forestry Action Plan: What progress?. World Colchester, M. 1986a Unity and diversity: Rainforest Movement, Penang, Malaysia. Two Indonesian policy towards tribal peoples. editions. The Ecologist 16 (2/3):89-98. Colchester, M. and Lohmann, L. (eds.) 1993 The Colchester, M. 1986b The struggle for land: tribal struggle for land and the fate of the forests. peoples in the face of the Transmigration World Rainforest Movement and Zed Books, Programme. The Ecologist 16 (2/3):99-110. Penang and London. Colchester, M. 1986c Banking on disaster: Colchester, M., Sirait, M. and Wijardjo, B. 2003 International support for the Transmigration implementation of FSC’s Principles No. 2 to Programme. The Ecologist 16 (2/3):99-110. 3 in Indonesia: Obstacles and possibilities. Colchester, M. 1989 Pirates, squatters and WALHI and AMAN, Jakarta. poachers. The political ecology of Colfer, C.J. P. 1995 Beyond slash and burn: Build- dispossession of the native peoples of ing on indigenous management of Borneo’s Sarawak. Survival International and INSAN, tropical rainforests. New York Botanic Gar- London and Petaling Jaya. den, New York. Colchester, M. 1990 The International Tropical Colfer, C.J.P. with Dudley, R. 1997 Timber Organisation: Kill or cure for the Shifting cultivators of Indonesia: Marauders rainforests ? The Ecologist 20(4):166-173. or managers of the forest? Rice production Colchester, M. 1992a Global Alliance of indigenous and forest use among the Uma’ Jalan of East peoples of the rainforests. Forests, Trees and Kalimantan. FAO, Rome. Peoples Newsletter 18:20-25. Colfer, C.J.P and Byron,Y. (eds.) 2001 People Colchester, M. 1992b Sustaining the Forests: the managing forests: The links between human community-based approach in South and well-being and sustainability. Resources for South-East Asia. Discussion Paper 35. the Future and CIFOR, Washington, DC and United Nations Research Institute for So- Bogor. cial Development, Geneva. Colfer, C.J.P and Resosudarmo, I.A.P. (eds) 2001 Colchester, M. 1993 The International Tropical Which way forward? Forests, policy and Timber Organisation: Kill or cure for the people in Indonesia. John Hopkins Univer- rainforests ? In: Simon Reitbergen (ed.) The sity Press. Earthscan Reader in Tropical Forestry. Counsell, S. and Loraas, K. (eds.) 2002 Trading in Earthscan, London 185-207. credibility: The myth and reality of the Colchester, M. 2002a Towards a Methodology for Forest Stewardship Council. Rainforest the Study. Manuscript. Foundation UK, London. Colchester, M. 2002b Lessons from the IUCN Crouch, H. 1978 The Army and politics in Working Group on Community Involvement Indonesia. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. in Forest Management. Manuscript. Dasgupta, J. 2001 Community conserved areas in Colchester, M. 2002c Bridging the Gap: Challenges West Bengal. Unpublished. Kalpavriksh Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 51

Environmental Action Group, Pune. forest management: What, Centre for Dasgupta K., Sethi N. and Mahapatra R. 2001 Poor International Forestry Reaserach, Younde, little rich states. In: Down to Earth. January Cameroon. 15. New Delhi. Diaw, M.C.; Assoumou, M.H., and Dikongue, E. Dauvergne, P. 1997 Shadows in the forests: Japan 1997 Community management of forest and the tropical timber trade in South East resources: Conceptual developments and Asia. MIT Press, Los Angeles. institutional change in the humid forest zone Dauvergne, P. 2001 Loggers and degradation in of Cameroon. Paper presented at the EPHTA the Asia-Pacific: Corporations and – Ecoregional Programme for the Humid and environmental management. Cambridge Subhumid Tropics of Africa, Launching of the University Press, Cambridge. Forest Margins Benchmark, Yaounde Hilton, Davies, R. 2001 Evaluating the effectiveness of May 26-27, 1997. DFID’s influence with multilaterals. Part A Didik S. 1999 Hak Hak Penguasaan Atas Hutan di review of NGO approaches to the evaluation Indonesia. Fakultas Kehutanaan Institut of advocacy work. Cambridge, UK. Pertanian, Bogor. Davis, S. H 1977 Victims of the miracle: Didik S. 2000 Hutan Rakyat di Jawa Peranya dalam Development and the Indians of Brazil. Perekonoima Desa. Fakultas Kehutanaan Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Institut Pertanian, Bogor. DBHK 2001 Perkemnagun Hutan Kemasyarakatan: Didik S. and Darusman, D. 1998 Kehutanan Sampai dengan Mei 2001. Departmen Masyrakat: Beragan Pola Partisipasi Kehutanan, Direktorat Jenderal Rehabilitasi Masyarakat dalam Pengeloloaan Hutan. Lahan Dan Perhutanan Sosial, Direktorat Bina Fakultas Kehutanaan Institute Pertanian, Hutan Kemasyarakatan, Jakarta. Bogor DEPHUT 2001 Keputusan Menteri Kehutanan Djeumo, A. 2001 The development of Republik Indonesia: Tentang Penyelenggaraan community forests in Cameroon: origins, Hutan Kemasyarakatan. Nomor 31 Tahun current situation and constraints. Rural 2001. Departemen Kenhutanan, Jakarta. Development Forestry Network Paper 25BI, DEPSOS 2002a Secercah Mentari Pagi. DPKAT, Rural Development Forestry Network, DEPSOS, Jakarta. Overseas Development Institute, London. DEPSOS 2002b Pedoman Teknis Usaha Perlindungan Djoh, E. and van de Wal, M. 2001 Gorilla-based Komunitas Adat Terpencil. Manuscript. DPKAT, tourism: A realistic source of community DEPSOS, Jakarta. income in Cameroon? Case study of villages DEPSOS 2001a Pedoman Umum Pelaksanaan of Koungoulou and Karagoua. Rural Pemetaan Sosial Komunitas Adat Terpencil. Development Forestry Network Paper DPKAT, DEPSOS, Jakarta. 25E(III). Rural Development Forestry DEPSOS 2001b Pedoman Umum Pengukuran Network, Overseas Development Institute, Indikator Kinerja Keberhasilan Program London. Pemberdayaan Komunitas Adat Terpencil. Djuweng, S. 1997 The dominant paradigm and DPKAT, DEPSOS, Jakarta. the cost of development. Some implications DEPSOS 2001c Standardisasi Monitoring dan for Indonesia. Institute of Dayakology EvaluasiKebijaksanaan Komunitas Adat Research and Development, Pontianak. Terpencil. DPKAT, DEPSOS, Jakarta. Djuweng, S. 1997 Indigenous peoples and land- Devi, S. 1992 Is No-one listening? In: FTPP use policy in Indonesia. A Dayak showcase. Newsletter. No.18. SLU, Sweden. Institute of Dayakology Research and de Beere, J. and McDermott, M. 1989 The Development, Pontianak. Economic value on non-timber forest Djuweng, S. et al. (eds.) 1998 Kalimantan. The products in South-East Asia. Dayak of Kalimantan Who are they? The IUCN(Netherlands), Amsterdam. Dayak: Culture, Nature and Peoples. Vol.1, DFID 1999 Indonesia: towards sustainable forest May 1998. management, final report of the Senior Dove, M.R. 1985 The agroecological mythology Management Advisory Team and the of the Javanese and the political economy Provincial Level Forest Management Project, of Indonesia. Indonesia 39:1-30. 2 vols, Department for International Driciru, F.F. 2002 What works and does not work Development, UK, and Department of with local/international community forestry Forestry, Jakarta. networks and the networking business: Diaw, M.C. n.d. Anthropological institutions and Experiences from the Uganda Forest 52 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Department. Paper presented at the Eghenter, C. 2000 Mapping peoples’ forests: The Workshop on Learning from International role of mapping in planning community-based Community Forestry Networks. Faculty of management of conservation areas in Forestry and Nature Conservation, Makerere Indonesia. PeFoR Discussion Paper, University, 11 July 2002. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D’Silva, E. and B. Nagnath. 2002 Behroonguda: A DC. rare success story in joint forest manage- Ekoko, F. 1997 The political economy of the 1994 ment. Economic and Political Weekly. Feb- Cameroon forestry law. Paper presented at ruary 9, 2002. the African Regional Hearing of the World DTE 1991 Pulping the rainforest. Down To Earth - Commission on Forests and Sustainable The International Campaign for Ecological Development, Yaounde, May 1997. Justice in Indonesia, London. Eldridge, P. 1990 NGOs and the State in Indonesia. DTE 1999 Indonesia’s indigenous peoples form new In: Budiman A. (ed.) State and civil society alliance. Down to Earth Bulletin, Special in Indonesia. Centre for Southeast Asian Issue, October 1999. Down to Earth - the Studies, Monash University, Clayton 503-536. International Campaign for Ecological Justice Elliott, C. 2000 Forest certification: A policy in Indonesia, London. perspective. CIFOR, Bogor. DTE 2001 Certification in Indonesia: A briefing. Elliott, C. and Schlaepfer, R. 2001a The advocacy Down to Earth - the International Campaign coalition framework: Application to the for Ecological Justice in Indonesia, London. policy process for the development of forest Dudley, N., Jeanrenaud, J.P and Sullivan, F. 1995 certification in Sweden. Journal of the Bad harvest? The timber trade and the European Public Policy 8(4):642-661 degradation of the world’s forests. Earthscan, Elliott, C. and Schlaepfer, R. 2001b Understanding London. forest certification using the Advocacy Earl, S., Carden, F. and Smutylo, T. 2001 Outcome Coalition Framework. Forest Policy and mapping: Building learning and reflection into Economics 2:257-266. development programs. IDRC, Ottawa. Enters, T., Durst, P.B. and Viktor, M. (eds.) 2000 Edwards, K. and Veer, C. 2001 Sustainable forest Decentralization and devolution of forest management in Yunnan: First Phase management in Asia and the Pacific. Workshop and Field Workshop Report. RECOFTC Report No. 18, Bangkok. RECOFTC, Bangkok. FAO 1992 Technical cooperation networks, FAO, Edwards, K., Hideyuki, K. and Veer, C. 2001 Rome. Facilitating support networks for community Fay, C., Sirait, M. and Kusworo, A. 2000 Getting forestry development. Workshop the boundaries right: Indonesia’s urgent need Proceedings Organised by RECOFTC in to redefine its forest estate. International Collaboration with DFID and Oxford Centre for Research in Agro-Forestry, Bogor. University, UK, April 9-12 2001. RECOFTC, Fernandez, E. 2002 World Rainforest Movement: Bangkok. Processing of the survey carried out among Edwards, M. and Gaventa, G. (eds.) 2001 Global the readers of the bulletin. Manuscript. citizen action. Earthscan, London. Florus, P. 1998 Pemberdayaan Masyarakat. Institute Edwards, M. and Gaventa, G. (eds.) 2001 Intro- of Dayakology Research and Development, duction. In: Edwards, M. and Gaventa, G. Pontianak. (eds.):1-16. FOE/WRM 1992 The International Tropical Timber Egbe, E.S. 1998 The range of possibilities for Agreement; Conserving the forests or community forestry permitted within the chainsaw charter? A critical review of the framework of current Cameroonian first five years’ operations of the legislation.Consultancy Report presented to International Tropical Timber Organization. the Community Forestry Development Friends of the Earth and World Rainforest Project. Community Forestry Development Movement, London. Project, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Forest Action Network 1995 Forest Action Network Yaounde. annual report 1995. Forest Action Network, Egbe, S. 2001 The law, communities and wildlife Nairobi Kenya. management in Cameroon. Rural Forest Action Network 1996 Forest Action Network Development Forestry Network Paper 25E(I). annual report 1996. Forest Action Network, Rural Development Forestry Network, Nairobi, Kenya Overseas Development Institute. Forest Action Network 1996 Forest Action News Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 53

4, January 1996. Forest Action Network, Indonesia. Forest Watch Indonesia, World Nairobi, Kenya. Resources Institute and Global Forest Watch, Forest Action Network 1997 Forest Action Network Bogor and Washington. annual report 1997. Forest Action Network, Gadgil, M. and Guha, R. 1993 This fissured land: Nairobi, Kenya. An ecological history of India. Oxford Forest Action Network 1999 Forest Action Net- University Press, Delhi. work annual report 1999. Forest Action Net- Gale, F. P. 1998 The tropical timber trade regime. work, Nairobi, Kenya. MacMillan Press, London. Forest Action Network 2000 Forest Action Network Gardner, A., DeMarco, J. and Asanga, C. 2001 A annual report 2000. Forest Action Network, conservation partnership: Community Nairobi, Kenya. forestry at Kilum-Ijim, Cameroon. Rural Forest Action Network 2000 Forest Trees and Development Forestry Network Paper People members’ register: Africa, English 25H(II), Rural Development Forest Network, speaking members. Forest Action Network, Overseas Development Institute, London. Nairobi, Kenya. Gayfer, J. 2001 RECOFTC Institutional Review: Forest Action Network 2001 Forest Action Network Final report. LTS International, Edinburgh. strategic plan 2001-2005. Forest Action Geertz, C. 1963 Agricultural involution: The Network, Nairobi, Kenya. processes of ecological change in Indonesia. Forest Action Network 2001 Forest Action News, University of California Press, Berkeley. October to December 2001. Forest Action Gibson, C. C., McKean, M. and Ostrom, E. (eds.) Network, Nairobi, Kenya. 2000 People and forests: Communities, Forest Action Network n.d. FTPP in Anglophone institutions and governance. MIT Press, Africa. Forest Action Network. Nairobi, Cambridge MA. Kenya. Gillman, H. n.d. FTPP communication strategy Forest Department, 2002 Proceedings of a development: Lessons learned. Unpublished. workshop to review collaborative forest FTPP/FAO. Rome. management in the Forestry Department. Gillman, H. n.d. FTPP international readership Forestry Department Headquarters, 18 March survey: Costs and benefits. Unpublished. 2002. FTPP/FAO. Rome. Forest Sector Coordination Secretariat 2001 Voices Government of Cameroon, 1998 Manual of from the field: Review of forestry initiatives procedures for the attribution, and norms in Uganda. Volume 1, Synthesis Report. Forest for the management of community forests. Sector Coordination Secretariat, Kampala, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Yoaunde Uganda. Cameroon. Fomete, T. 2001 The forestry taxation system and Government of India 1990 Circular No. 6-21/89- the involvement of local communities in F.P. Sub: Involvement of village communi- forest management in Cameroon. Rural ties and voluntary agencies for regeneration Development Forestry Network Paper 25BII, of degraded forest lands. Ministry of Envi- Rural Development Forest Network, ronment and Forests. Overseas Development Institute, London. Government of India 1996 The Provisions of the Fomete, T. and Vermaat, J. 2001 Community for- Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled estry and poverty alleviation in Cameroon. Areas) Act, 1996. Rural Development Forestry Network Paper Government of Madhya Pradesh 1991 Order No. 25H(I), Rural Development Forest Network, 16/4/10/2/91 of 10.12.1991. Overseas Development. Government of Madhya Pradesh 2001 Resolution Fon Ngum III 2001 The Oku forest – our life our No.F16/4/91/10-2, dated 22 October 2001: future. Forests Trees and People Newsletter Amended Resolution to seek cooperation of 45: 19-21. people in protection and development of Fox, J.A. and Brown, L.D. (eds.) 1998 The forests. struggle for accountability: the World Bank, Government of Uganda 2001 The Uganda Forest NGOs and grassroots movements. MIT Press, Policy. Ministry of Water, Lands and Cambridge MA. Environment. Republic of Uganda, Kampala. Fuller, J. 1998 Participatory resource assessment Government of West Bengal 1997 Resolution A. and planning, India 1998 RECOFTC / IIFM/ No. 1118-For/D/6M-76/65. Usufruct Right for IBRAD /SPWD Course Review. Unpublished. Arabari Socio-Economic Project. 7th March FWI, WRI, GFW 2002 The state of the forest: 1997. 54 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Grandin, B.E. 1999 Results of the Forests, Trees IAITPTF and EAIP 1997 Indigenous peoples par- and People Programme international ticipation in global environmental negotia- readership survey. FTPP/FAO. Rome. tions. International Alliance of Indigenous- Griffiths, T. 2001 Consolidating the gains: Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forest and Eu- Indigenous peoples’ rights and international ropean Alliance with Indigenous Peoples, forest policy making. Forest Peoples London and Brussels. Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh. IUCN 1997 Seeking connections: Linking learning Guha, R. 1991 The unquiet woods: Ecological with policy formulation: A proposal of the change and peasant resistance in the Working Group on Community Involvement Himalaya. Oxford University Press, Delhi. in Forest Management to the British Depart- Guhathakurta P. and Roy S. 2000 Joint Forest ment for International Development. Manu- Management in West Bengal: A critique. script. WWF-India. New Delhi. IUCN 2000a Annual meeting report. February 2000, Haeuber, R. 1993 Indian forestry policy in two New York City. Manuscript. eras: Continuity or change? Environmental IUCN 2000b From learning to action: building coa- History Review, Spring: 49-76. litions for change: a proposal of the WG on Haryanto, I. (ed.) 1998 Kehutanan Indonesia Pasca CIFM. Manuscript. Soeharto: Reformasi Tanpa Perubahan. IUCN 2002 Working Group on Community Involve- Penerbit Pustaka Latin, Bogor. ment: Seeking Connections Project: Final Hasann, S., Awang, S.A., Mungorro, D.W., report. Manuscript. Nugroho, Y. 1998 Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Jeanrenaud, S. 2002a Communities and forest Hutan Nasional. Fakultas Kehutanaan Institut management in Western Europe. IUCN, Pertanian dan FKKM, Yogyakarta. Gland. Herz, C. 1992 Networks: Answering a need or Jeanrenaud, S. 2002b Report to IUCN Forest Con- just a fashion? In: FTPP Newsletter. No.18. servation Programme. Outputs from consul- SLU, Sweden. tancy, March 2001- June 2001. Manuscript. Herz, C. and Hoeberichts, A. 2000 The FTPP Johnson, N. and Cabarle, B. 1993 Surviving the potential, a communication strategy that cut: Natural forest management in the humid makes a difference. In: FTPP Newsletter tropics. World Resources Institute, No.40/41. December 1999 / January 2000. Washington, DC. FTPP, Sweden. Juwono, P.S.H. 1998 Ketika Nelayan Harus Sandar Hirsch, P. (ed.) 1997 Seeing forests for trees. Dayung. Studi Nelayan Miskin di Desa Environment and environmentalism in Thai- Kirdowono. KONPHALINDO, Jakarta. land. Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai. Kahin, A.R. and Kahin, G.M. 1995 Subversion as Hobley, M. 1996 Participatory forestry: the Process foreign policy: The Secret Eisenhower and of change in India and Nepal. Overseas Dulles debacle in Indonesia. The New Press, Development Institute, London. New York. Hobley, M. and Rietbergen, S. 2000 Working Group Kanyesigye, J. and Muramira, E. 2001 on Community Involvement in Forest Man- Decentralization, participation and agement ‘Seeking Connections’ Project: Re- accountability: Analysing collaborative view of progress (October 1997- Decem- management models from Mt Elgon National ber 1999) & Action Plan January to March 31 Park and Mabira Forest Reserve in Uganda. (DFID) and December 31 (Ford) 2000. Manu- Paper prepared for the World Resources script. Institute. Centre for Basic Research, Holleman, J.F. (ed.) 1981 Van Vollenhoven on In- Kampala, Uganda. donesian Adat Law. Konninklijk Institut Voor Keck, M. and Sikkink, K. 1998 Activists beyond Taal-, Land- en Volkekunde, Martinus Nijhoff, borders: Advocacy networks in international The Hague. politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Hooker, M.B. 1978 Adat law in modern Indonesia. Keil, R., Bell, D., Penz, P. and Fawcett, L. (eds.) Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur. 1998 Political ecology: global and local. Howell, J. and Pearce, J. 2001 Civil society and Routledge, London. development: A critical exploration. Lynne Klein, M., Salla, B. and Kok, J. 2001 Attempts to Rienner Publishers, Boulder. establish community forests in Lomie, Humphreys, D. 1996 Forest politics: The evolu- Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry tion of international cooperation. Earthscan, Network Paper 25F(II), Rural Development London. Forest Network, Overseas Development Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 55

Institute, London. Community-based forest management and KPPH 2001 Medampingi Masyarakat Kamp;ung national law in Asia and the Pacific. World MenjalaiProses Belajar Bersama dalam Resources Institute, Baltimore. Pengelolaan Hutan. Gabungan KPPH, P3AE, Lynch, O.J. and Talbott, K. 1993 Balancing acts: Jakarta. Community-based forest management and Kolk, A. 1998 Forests in international national law in Asia and the Pacific. World environmental politics: International Resources Institute, Baltimore. organisations, NGOs and the Brazilian Mahapatra, R. 2000 Seeking reliance. Down To Amazon. International Books, Utrecht. Earth. September 15. Centre for Science Korten, David 1992 NGO Strategic networks: From and Environment, New Delhi. community projects to global Mahapatra R, Das, B. and Verma, P. 2001 Forest transformation. Forests, Trees and People war. Down to Earth. December 31. New Newsletter 18:40-44. Delhi. Laforge, M. 2002a Learning lessons from the Forest Malleson, R. 2001 Opportunities and constraints Stewardship Council. Manuscript. for community based forest management: Laforge, M. 2002b Community-based forestry and Findings from the Korup forest, South-West networks in Brazil. Manuscript. Province, Cameroon. Rural Development Laforge, M. 2002c Learning lessons from the Forestry Network Paper 25G(II). Rural Central American Coordination of Indians and Development Forestry Network, Oversseas Peasants for Community Agroforestry. Development Institute, London. Manuscript. Mambo, O. 2000 Mount Cameroon Project, Buea. Laforge, M. 2002d Learning lessons from the World Presentation at the Community Forestry Rainforest Movement. Manuscript. Network General Assembly Meeting 6-7 June Laforge, M. 2002e Mexico case study. Manuscript. 2000. Hilton Hotel, Yaounde. Lane, C. n.d. Ngorongoro Voices: Indigenous Mamdani, M. 1996 Citizen and subject: Maasai residents of the Ngorongoro Conser- Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late vation Area in Tanzania give their view on colonialism. Princeton, Princeton University the proposed general management plan. Press. FTPP/SLU. Rome. Mamdani, M. 1999 Historicizing power and re- Langoya, C.D. 2002 Situating community forest sponses to power: Indirect rule and its re- management within the broader forestry form. Social Research 66: 859-884. context of Uganda. Paper presented at the Mandondo, A. 2002a Learning lessons from workshop on Learning from International international community forestry networks Community Forestry Networks. Faculty of – a synthesis of Uganda country experiences. Forestry and Nature Conservation, Makerere Manuscript. University, 11 July 2002. Mandondo, A. 2002b Lessons learnt from the Forest Laungaramsri, P. 2002 Redefining nature: Karen Action Network. Manuscript. ecological knowledge and the challenge to Mandondo, A.2002c Learning Lessons from the modern conservation paradigm. Chiang international community forestry networks Mai. – a synthesis of Cameroon Country Lescuyer, G., Emerit, A., Mendoula, E.S. and She, Experiences. Manuscript. J.J. 2001 Community involvement in forest Mandondo, A. 2002d Lessons learnt from the RDFN. management: a full scale experiment in the Manuscript. South Cameroon forest. Rural Development Markopoulos, M. 1998 The impacts of certification Forestry Network Paper 25c. Rural on community forestry enterprises: A case Development Forestry Network, Overseas study of the Lomerio Community Forest Development Institute, London. Management Project, Bolivia. IIED, London. Lev, D.S., 2000 Legal evolution and political Means, K., Josayma, C with Nielsen, E. and authority in Indonesia: Selected essays. Viriyasakultorn, V. 2002 Community-based Kluwer Law International, The Hague. forest resource conflict management: A Lynch, O. and Harwell, E. 2002 Whose natural training package. RECOFTC, FTPP and FAO, resources? Whose common good? Towards 2 Vols, Rome. a new paradigm of environmental justice Mendes, C. 1989 Fight for the forest: Chico and the national interest in Indonesia. ELSAM, Mendes in his own words. Latin America Jakarta. Bureau, London. Lynch, O.J. and Talbott, K.1995 Balancing acts: Mikeswell, R. and Williams, L.F. 1992 International 56 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Bank and the environment. Sierra Club Nandi M.K. and Gayen K.C. 2002 Joint Forest Books, San Francisco. Management in West Bengal: Experience and Mogaka, H., Siomons, G., Turpie, J., Emerton, related issues. Unpublished. L. and Karanja, F. 2001 Economic aspects of Ndemere, P. 2002 Trends in forest policy in Uganda community involvement in sustainable for- with an emphasis on underlying drivers, and est management in Eastern and Southern Af- the impact of local/international community rica. IUCN, Nairobi. forestry networks. Paper presented at the Muhereza, F.E. 2002 Environmental workshop on Learning from International decentralization and the management of Community Forestry Networks. Faculty of forest resources in Masindi District. Paper Forestry and Nature Conservation, Makerere prepared for the World Resources Institute. University, 11 July 2002. Centre for Basic Research, Kampala, Uganda. Ngwasiri, C.N. 1998 Land tenure and resource Murphree, M. Communities as institutions for access within some WWF-CPO conservation resource management. Centre for Applied sites: An analysis of the legal context and Social Studies, University of Zimbabwe. traditional land tenure systems. Consultatncy Munggoro, D. W. et al. 1998 Intervensi Perhutanan report submitted to WWF-CPO. WWF, Sosial. Lembaga Alam Tropica Indonesia, Cameroon Programme Office, Yaounde. Bogor. Nkwatoh, A. 2000 Korup Project and community Munggoro, D. W. et al. 1999 Menggugat Ekspansi forest: The ace and bridges on the way. Industri Pertambangan di Indonesia LATIN, Paper presented at the Community Forestry Bogor. Network General Assembly Meeting. Hilton Murphree, M.W. 1990 Decentralising the Hotel, Yaounde, 6-7 June 2000. proprietorship of wildlife resources in Nurse, M.C., McKay, C.R., Young, J.T. and Asanga, Zimbabwe’s communal lands. Centre for C.A. 1995 Biodiversity conservation through Applied Social Sciences, University of community forestry in the montane forests Zimbabwe. of Cameroon. RDFN Paper 18c, Winter 1994 Murphree, M.W. 1999 Enhancing sustainable use: B Spring 1995. Incentives, politics and science. Berkeley Olsen, K.B., Ekwoge, H., Ongie, R.M., Acworth, Workshop on Environmental Politics. J., O’Kah, E.M.and Tako, C. 2001 Community Working Paper 2/99. Institute of International wildlife management model from Mount Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry Murray Li, T. 1999 Transforming the Indonesian Network Paper 25E(II). Rural Development uplands. Marginality, power and production. Forestry Network, Overseas Development Harwood Academic Publishers. Institute, London. Murray Li, T. 1999 Compromising power: Opanga, P. 2002 An assessment of the performance Development, culture, and rule in Indonesia. of networking and institutionalisation as Cultural Anthropology 4(3):295-322. implemented by FTPP Kenya. Forest Action Murray Li, T. 2000 Articulating indigenous identity Network, Nairobi, Kenya. in Indonesia: Resource politics and the tribal Ostrom, E. 1990 Governing the commons: slot. Comparative Studies in Society and Institutions for collective action. Cambridge History 42(1):149 - 179. University Press, Cambridge. Murray Li, T. In press Masyarakat Adat, difference, Palin, D and Garforth C. 1996 Review of the rural and the limits of recognition in Indonesia’s resources and poverty research programme Forest Zone. Modern Asian Studies. at the Overseas Development Institute. Namaalwa, J. and Agasha, A. 2001 A brief country Report for the Natural Resources and report for Uganda on forest management Environment Department of the Overseas systems and the involvement of local Development Administration. Overseas communities. Faculty of Forestry and Nature Development Administration, London. Conservation. Makerere University, Kampala, Palit, S. 1972 Protection of forests in Purulia Uganda. District. In: West Bengal Forests. Vol.2 (2- Namara, A. and Nsabagasani, X. 2001 Decentralised 3), June-September. Government of India, governance and the wildlife management West Bengal. sector: Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. Palit, S. 1996 JFM Genesis pre-dated Arabari Paper prepared for the World Resources scheme. In: Wastelands News. August - Institute. Centre for Basic Research, October. SPWD. New Delhi. Kampala, Uganda. Palit, S. 1999 Bonds of amity: Joint forest Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 57

management in West Bengal has come to Poffenberger, M. 2001 The resurgence of com- stay. In: Wastelands News. February - April. munity forest management in the jungle SPWD. New Delhi. Mahals of West Bengal. In: Arnold, D. and Palit S., Singh N., Sarin M., Ravindranath, Guha, R. (eds.) Nature, culture, imperial- Capistrano, D. 1997 Report of the JFM ism: Essays in the environmental history of Network Review Committee. SPWD. New South Asia. OUP, New Delhi. Delhi. Poffenberger, M. (ed.)1990 Keepers of the forest: Pathak, N. 2002 Implications of existing and Land management alternatives in South-East proposed laws and policies on community Asia. Kumarian Press, West Harwood. forestry initiatives on India. In: INFORM Poffenberger, M. (ed.) 1996 Communities and Information e-bulletin on participatory forest forest management: With recommendations management. Vol.2, No.1, Jan-March 2002. to the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests. RUPFOR. Winrock International India. New IUCN Working Group on Community Involve- Delhi. ment in Forest Management. IUCN, Wash- Patnaik, S. 1998 Conservation Assessment and ington, DC. Management Planning Workshop for Non- Poffenberger, M. (ed.) 2000a Communities and Timber Forest Products in Madhya Pradesh. forest management in Southeast Asia. IUCN, Ford Foundation (New Delhi), Dept. of Gland. Science and Technology (Govt. of India), M.P. Poffenberger, M. (ed.) 2000b Communities and State MFP Co-op. Fed. Ltd. (Bhopal), M.P. forest management in South Asia. IUCN, Council of Science and Technology (Bhopal). Gland. Peet, R. and Watts, M. 1996 Liberation ecologies: Poffenberger, M. (ed.) 2002 Community Forest Environment, development and social Management Support Project 2000: movements. Routledge, London. Intermediate Technical Report, January – Peluso, N.L. 1991 The ironwood problem: December 2001. Submitted to the European (Mis)management and development of an Commission, January 2002. AFN, Philippines. extractive rainforest product. Conservation Poffenberger, M. and McGean, B. 1994 Policy Biology 6(2):1-10. dialogue on natural forest regeneration and Peluso, N.L. 1992 Rich forests, poor people. Re- community management. Asia Forest source control and resistance in Java. Cali- Network Workshop Proceedings, 2-4 March fornia University Press, Berkeley. 1994. Honolulu, Hawaii. (Research Network Peluso, N.L. 1992 The Political ecology of ex- Report No.5). AFN, USA. traction and extractive reserves in East Poffenberger, M. and McGean, B. (eds.) 1996 Kalimantan, Indonesia. Development and Village voices, village choices: Joint forest Change, October. management in India. Oxford University Peluso, N.L. 1992 Rich forests, poor people. Press, Delhi. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Poffenberger, M. and Singh, C. 1996 Communities Penelon, A. 1997 Community forestry: It may and the State: Re-establishing the balance indeed be a new management tool, but is it in Indian forest policy. In: Poffenberger, M. accessible? Two case studies in Eastern and McGean, B. (eds.) Village voices, forest Cameroon. International Institute of choices: Joint Forest Management in India. Environment and Development, Forestry OUP, New Delhi. Participation Series No. 8. International Poffenberger, M. and Selin, S. (eds.) 1998 Institute of Environment and Development, Communities and forest management in London. Canada and the United States. IUCN, Gland. Persoon, G. 1985 From affluence to poverty: The Poffenberger M, McGean, B. and Khare, A. 1996 ‘development’ of tribal and isolated Communities sustaining India’s forests. In: peoples. In: Boer, L., Bujis, D. and Galjart, Poffenberger, M. and McGean, B. (eds.) B. (Eds.) Poverty and interventions: Case Village voices, forest choices: Joint forest studies from developing countries, Leiden management in India. OUP, New Delhi. Development Studies No. 6, Institute of Poffenberger, M., Josayma, C., Walpole, P. and Cultural and Social Studies, Leiden University Lawrence, K. 1995 Transitions in forest 89-110. management: Shifting community forestry Poffenberger, M. 1990 Joint management for for- from project to process. Proceedings of the est lands: Experiences from South Asia. Ford Fourth Annual Meeting of the Asia Forest Foundation. New Delhi. Network, 2-6 April 1995, Philippines. 58 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Research Network Report No.6. AFN, USA. the Association of Retired Forest Officers. Poffenberger, M., Walpole, P., D’Silva, E., Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Lawrence, K. and Khare, A. (eds.) 1997 Rezende de Azevedo, T. 2001 Catalysing changes: Linking government with community An analysis of the role of FSC forest resource management: What’s working and certification in Brazil. Prepared for what’s not. Report of the 5th Asia Forest EnviReform Conference - Hard Choices, Soft Network Meeting, 2-6 December 1996, Law: Voluntary Standards in Global Trade, Surajkund, India. Research Network Report Environment and Social Governance – No.9. AFN, USA. Toronto, November 8-9, 2001. Manuscript. Poore, D. 1989 No timber without trees: Ribot, J.C. 1999 Decentralisation, participation Sustainability in the tropical forest. Earthscan and accountability in Sahelian forestry: Legal Publications Ltd, London. instruments of political administrative Rackham, O. 1986 The history of the countryside. control. Africa 69:23-65. JM Dent, London. Rich, B. 1985 Multilateral development banks: Raina, R. 2001 Study on networks in community Their role in destroying the global forestry in India. Unpublished. environment. Ecology Law Quarterly Raina, R. 2002 Study on networks in community 12(4):681-745. forestry in India. Indian Institute of Forest Robison, R. 1986 Indonesia: The rise of capital. Management, Bhopal. Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Rangachari, C.S. and Mukherji, S. D. 2000 Old Robinson, D. and Brown, L. 2002 The SLIMFs roots new shoots: A study of Joint Forest Initiative: A progress report. Increasing Management in Andhra Pradesh, India. Access to FSC Certification for Small and Winrock-Ford Book Series. Winrock Inter- Low Intensity Managed Forests. Forest national and Ford Foundation, New Delhi. Stewardship Council, Oaxaca. Rangaswami, S. 1998 Rishi Valley experiment. Roche, C. 2001 Partnering for development results Hindu Folio, September 1998. – an NGO perspective. Oxfam, UK. RECOFTC 2000 Regional Community Forestry Manuscript. Training Center for Asia and the Pacific. Roy, S.B. 1998 A Report on the various trainings RECOFTC Review 1998-2000. conducted in different parts of India to RECOFTC 2001 Facilitating support networks for promote Joint Forest Management. community forestry development. Workshop Presented at the National Support Group Proceedings organised by RECOFTC in Training Network Meeting, 15 – 17 April 1998. collaboration with DFID and Oxford IBRAD, Calcutta. University, UK, 9-12 April 2001. RSPB 2002 Briefing Paper for the Sixteenth Session RECOFTC 2001 RECOFTC annual report. of the Subsidiary Bodies to the Climate RECOFTC 2001 The RECOFTC strategic plan: Change Convention, Bonn, 5-14 June 2002. Strengthening community forestry and RSPB and Birdlife International, Sandy. improving forest governance in Asia and the Ruiz-Perez, M., Ndoye, O., and Eyebe, S. 1999 Pacific. Non-wood forest products and income RECOFTC 2001 RECOFTC into the future. generation. Unassylva 198 (Vol. 50): 12-19. RECOFTC 2001 Collaborative support program SAM 1987 Forest resources crisis in the Third plans: RECOFTC Program Strategy and Plan, World. Sahabat Alam Malaysia, Penang. October 2001- September 2004. Strategic Awang, S. A. 2001 Gurat Hutan Rakyat di Kapur Planning Task Force and RECOFT Partners, Selatan. DEBUT Press, Jakarta. RECOFTC, Bangkok. Sarin, M. 1996 From Conflict to Collaboration: RECOFTC 2001 RECOFTC Program Strategy and Institutional issues in community Plan, October 2001- September 2004: management. In: Poffenberger M. and Strengthening community forestry and McGean B. (eds.) Village voices, forest improving forest governance in Asia and the choices: Joint Forest Management in India. Pacific. Strategic Planning Task Force and OUP. New Delhi. RECOFT Partners, RECOFTC, Bangkok. Sarin, M. 2001 De-democratisation in the name RECOFTC 2002 Towards an association for good of devolution? Findings from three States in forest governance in Asia. RECOFTC proposal India. Unpublished. to Ford Foundation, April 2002. Sarin, M. 2001 Summary Report: Jan Sunwai (Public Reddy, M.P. 2002 A promise unfulfilled. In: Reddy, Hearing) on Forest Rights at Village Indpura, K.B.R. (ed). 2002. Vana Premi: Journal of Harda District, 26 May 2001. Unpublished. Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks 59

Sarin, M. n.d. Who is gaining? Who is losing? decisions for the Bimbia Bonadikombo Gender and equity concerns in Joint Forest Forest, Cameroon. Rural Development Management. Unpublished. Forestry Network Paper 25H(III). Rural Sarv, M., Leon, L., Alimi, R., Mlenge, W., Development Forestry Network, Overseas Shrestha, K. and Hoskins, M. 2002 Linking Development Institute, London. Community Forestry Initiatives Globally Tengnas, B., Pelinck, E., and Warin, U.R. 2001 (LinCFIG) – Platform planning process. RECOFTC 2001-2004: An appraisal of Unpublished. strategies, plans and funding requirements SEAFMN 1993 Communities and forest of the Regional Community Forestry Training management in East Kalimantan: Pathway to Cerntre for Asia and the Pacific carried out environmental stability. Centre for Southeast for Swiss Agency for Development and Asia Studies, University of Berkeley, Cooperation (SDC) and Swedish California. International Development Cooperation Sharma, A. and Ramanathan, B. n.d. Joint Forest Agency (SIDA). Management in Harda: A status study. WWF- Thoolen, H. (ed.) 1987 Indonesia and the rule India. New Delhi. of law: Twenty years of the ‘New Order’ Sharma, A. and Ramanathan, B. n.d. Joint Forest Government. International Commission of Management in Jhabua: A preliminary Jurists and Netherlands Institute of Human documentation. WWF-India. New Delhi. Rights, Frances Pinter (Publishers), London. Sharma, K. 2001 Draconian shades in The Hindu. Thornber, K. and Markopoulos, M. 2000 January 21. Chennai. Certification: Its impacts and prospects for Shiva, V. 1987 Forestry crisis and forestry myths community forests, stakeholders and – a critical review of ‘tropical forests: A call markets. IIED, London. for Action’. World Rainforest Movement, Thuvesson, D. 1992 An important letter from the Penang. editor. In: FTPP Newsletter No.18. SLU. Shoumatoff, A. 1991 Murder in the rainforest: Sweden. the Chico Mendes story. Fourth Estate, Trirahganon, R. (ed.) 2000 Training Report: London. Community-based tourism for conservation Singh, RV. n.d. Forests and wastelands: and development, Nepal 11 February – 10 Participation and management. Ford March 2000. Organised by RECOFTC and TMI. Foundation, New Delhi. RECOFTC, Bangkok. Smith, J. and Scherr, S. 2002 Forest carbon and Tukahebwa, G.B. 2001 The quest for good local livelihoods, forest trends and CIFOR. governance in Uganda : The role of NGO Washington, DC and Bogor. district networks. DENIVA Information Sonwa, D., Weise, S., Tchatat, S., Nkongmeneck, Bulletin 4. DENIVA, Kampala. B., Adesina, A.A., Ndoye, O. and Gockowski, Utting, P. 1993 Trees, people and power. J. 2001 The role of cocoa agroforests and Earthscan, London. community forestry in southern Cameroon. Vabi, M. 2002 Framework for improving forest Rural Development Forestry Network Paper legislation on community forestry: Drawing 25G(I). Rural Development Forestry inspiration from the situation in Cameroon. Network, Overseas Development Institute, Paper presented for the poster session of London. the 2nd International Workshop on Sundar, N., Jeffrey, R. and Thin, N. 2001 Branching Community Forestry in Africa, Arusha out: Joint Forest Management in India. International Conference Centre, Tanzania, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 18-22 February, 2002. Taylor, B.R. 1995 ecological resistance Vabi, M., Ngwasiri, C.N., Galega, P.T. and Oyono, movements: The global response of radical R. 2000 The devolution of management and popular environmentalism. State responsibilities to local communities: context University of New York Press, Albany. and implementational hurdles in Cameroon. Taylor, G. and Johansson, L. 1997 Our voices, our World Wide Fund for Nature, Yaounde. words and our pictures: Plans, truths and Vainio-Mattila. 1993 Forests, Trees and People videotapes from Ngorongoro Conservation Network Evaluation - My question is: Are Area. In: FTPP Newsletter No.30. SLU, we making an impact? (Evaluation of the Sweden. FTPP Network and Newsletter by the English Tekwe, C. and Percy, F. 2001 The 4Rs: A valuable Speaking Members in 1993). SLU. Sweden. tool for management and benefit sharing 60 CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo & Neema Pathak

Van De Wal, M. and Djoh, E. 2001 Community 2001.Forest Action Network, Nairobi, Kenya. hunting zones: First steps in the Westoby, J. 1987 The Purpose of forests: The decentralization of wildlife management, follies of development. Basil Blackwell, observations from the village of Djaposten, Oxford. Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry Westoby, J. 1989 Introduction to world Forestry. Network Paper 25E(IV). Rural Development Basil Balckwell, Oxford. Forestry Network, Overseas Development Wily, L. A. and Mbaya, S. 2001 Land, people and Institute, London. forests in Eastern and Southern Africa at the Venkateshwarlu, D. and Srinivas, K. 2001 Trou- beginning of the 21st century: The impact bled wasters: Status of tank management in- of land relations on the role of communities stitutions in rainfed areas of Andhra Pradesh. in forest future. IUCN, Nairobi. SDC/IC NGO Programme, Andhra Pradesh, Wright, W. 1999 Final Report on the Review of Hyderabad. the Basic Agrarian Law 1960. Indonesia: Land Verolme, H. and Moussa, J. 1999 Addressing the Administration Project. underlying causes of deforestation and forest WRM 1989 Rainforest destruction: Causes, effects degradation: Case studies, analysis and policy and false solutions. World Rainforest recommendations. Biodiversity Action Movement, Penang. Network, Washington, DC. WRM 2003 Community-based forest management: Viktor, M. (ed.) 1996 Income generation through Articles published in the WRM Bulletin. WRM, community forestry. RECOFTC Report No. 13, Montevideo. Bangkok. WRM/SAM 1990 The battle for Sarawak’s Viktor, M., Lang, C. and Bornemeier, J. (eds.) forests. World Rainforest Movement and 1998 Community forestry at a crossroads: Sahabat Alam Malaysia, Penang. (2nd Edition). Reflections and future direction in the Yadav, G. 2002 Latest Brief Report on the Training development of community forestry. Network in Joint Forest Management. IBRAD. RECOFTC Report No. 16, Bangkok. Unpublished. Viktor, M. and Barash, A. (eds.) 2001 Cultivating Yadav G., Roy, S. and Chowdhury S. 1998 Progress forests: Alternative forest management in community forestry in India. In: Victor M, practices and techniques of community Lang C & Bornemeier J (eds.) Community forestry. RECOFTC Report No. 17, Bangkok, forestry at a crossroads: Reflections and Thailand. future directions in the development of Wagaba, F.X. 2001 The Local Government Act community forestry. (Proceedings of an 1997: Issues for NGOs. DENIVA Information International Seminar held in Bangkok, Bulletin No. 4. DENIVA, Kampala. Thailand, 17-19 July 1997. RECOFTC Report Wallace, J., Parlindungan, A.P., and Hutagalung, No. 16. Bangkok. A.S. 1997 Indonesian land law and tenures – Zerner, C. 1990 Community rights, customary Issues in land rights. Land Administration law and the law of timber concessions in Project. Government of the Republic of Indonesia’s forests: Legal options and Indonesia, National Planning Agency and alternatives in designing the commons. National Land Agency, Jakarta. Manuscript. Wamboi, J.F. 2001 Forests, Trees and People Zerner, C. 1992 Indigenous forest-dwelling Programme (FTPP) Kenya activities since communities in Indonesia’s Outer Islands: 1995: Farmer initiated research and Livelihood, rights and environmental extension and food security. Forest Action management institutions in the era of Network, Nairobi, Kenya. industrial forest exploitation. Paper for Were, T. 2001 Conflict management and Forest Sector Review, World Bank, resolution: A review of FTPP activities as Washington, DC. understood and implemented in Kenya and the Eastern and Southern Africa region by the Forest Action Network from 1995- CIFOR Occasional Paper Series

1. Forestry Research within the Consultative Group on International 22. Una de Gato: Fate and Future of a Peruvian Forest Resource Agricultural Research Wil de Jong, Mary Melnyk, Luis Alfaro Lozano, Marina Rosales Jeffrey A. Sayer and Myriam García 2. Social and Economical Aspects of Miombo Woodland Management 23. Les Approches Participatives dans la Gestion des Ecosystemes in Southern Africa: Options and Opportunities for Research Forestiers d’Afrique Centrale: Revue des Initiatives Existantes Peter A. Dewees Jean-Claude Nguinguiri 3. Environment, development and poverty: A Report of the 24. Capacity for Forestry Research in Selected Countries of West and International Workshop on India’s Forest Management and Central Africa Ecological Revival Michael J. Spilsbury, Godwin S. Kowero and F. Tchala-Abina Uma Lele, Kinsuk Mitra and O.N. Kaul 25. L’Ímpact de la Crise Economique sur les Populations, les Migration 4. Science and International Nature Conservation et le Couvert Forestier du Sud-Cameroun Jeffrey A.Sayer Jacques Pokam Wadja Kemajou and William D.Sunderlin 5. Report on the Workshop on Barriers to the Application of Forestry 26. • The Impact of Sectoral Development on Natural Forest Research Results Conservation and Degradation: The Case of Timber and Tree Crop C.T.S. Nair, Thomas Enters and B. Payne Plantations in Indonesia • (Indonesian edition) Dampak Pembangunan Sektoral terhadap 6. Production and Standards for Chemical Non-Wood Forest Products Konversi dan Degradasi Hutan Alam: Kasus Pembangunan HTI dan in China Perkebunan di Indonesia Shen Zhaobang Hariadi Kartodihardjo and Agus Supriono 7. • Cattle, Broadleaf Forests and the Agricultural Modernization 27. L’Impact de la Crise Économique sur les Systèmes Agricoles et le Law of Honduras: The Case of Olancho Changement du Couvert Forestier dans la Zone Forestière Humide • (Spanish edition) Ganadería, bosques latifoliaods y Ley de du Cameroun Modernizatción en Honduras: El caso de Olancho Henriette Bikié, Ousseynou Ndoye and William D.Sunderlin William D.Sunderlin and Juan A.Rodriguez 28. • The Effect of Indonesia’s Economic Crisis on Small Farmers and 8. High quality printing stock - has research made a difference? Natural Forest Coverin the Outer Islands Francis S.P. Ng • (Indonesian Edition) Dampak Krisis Ekonomi Indonesia terhadap 9. • Rates Causes of Deforestation in Indonesia: Towards a Resolution Petani Kecil dan Tutupan Hutan Alam di Luar Jawa of the Ambiguities William D. Sunderlin, Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo, Edy Rianto, • (Indonesian edition) Laju dan Penyebab Deforestasi di Indonesia: Arild Angelsen Penelaahan Kerancuan dan Penyelesaiannya William D. Sunderlin and Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo 29. The Hesitant Boom: Indonesia’s Oil Palm Sub-Sector in an Era of Economic Crisis and Political Change 10. Report on Discussion Forum on Irformation Services in the Asia- Anne Casson Pacific and AGRIS/CARIS in the 21st Century and Asia-Pacific Regional Consultation 30. The Underlying Causes of Forest Decline Michael O. Ibach and Yvonne Byron Arnoldo Contreras-Hermosilla 11. Capacity for Forestry Research in the Southern African 31. ‘Wild logging’: The rise and fall of logging networks and Development Community biodiversity conservation projects on Sumatra’s rainforest frontier Godwin S. Kowero and Michael J. Spilsbury John F. McCarthy 12. Technologies for sustainable forest management: Challenges for 32. Situating Zimbabwe’s Natural Resource Governance Systems in the 21st century History Jeffrey A. Sayer, Jerome K. Vanclay and R. Neil Byron Alois Mandondo 13. Bosques secundarios como recurso para el desarrollo rural y la 33. Forestry, Poverty and Aid conservación ambiental en los trópicos de América Latina J.E. Michael Arnold Joyotee Smith, César Sabogal, Wil de Jong and David Kaimowitz 34. The Invisible Wand: Adaptive Co-management as an Emergent 14. Cameroon’s Logging Industry: Structure, Economic Importance Strategy in Complex Bio-economic systems. and Effects of Devaluation Jack Ruitenbeek and Cynthia Cartier Richard Eba’a Atyi 35. Modelling Methods for Policy Analysis in Miombo Woodlands 15. • Reduced-Impact Logging Guidelines for Lowland and Hill A. A Goal Programming Model for Planning Management of Miombo Dipterocarp Forests in Indonesia Woodlands • (Indonesian edition) Pedoman Pembalakan Berdampak Rendah I. Nhantumbo and Godwin S. Kowero untuk Hutan Dipterocarpa Lahan Rendah dan Bukit di Indonesia B. A System Dynamics Model for Management of Miombo Plinio Sist, Dennis P. Dykstra and Robert Fimbel Woodlands Ussif Rashid Sumaila, Arild Angelsen and Godwin S. Kowero 16. Site Management and Productivity in Tropical Forest Plantations A. Tiarks, E.K.S. Nambiar and Christian Cossalter 36. How to Know More about Forests? Supply and Use of Information for Forest Policy 17. Rational Exploitations: Economic Criteria and Indicators for K. Janz and R. Persson Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests Jack Ruitenbeek and Cynthia Cartier 37. Forest Carbon and Local Livelihoods: Assessment of Opportunities and Policy Recommendations 18. Tree Planting in Indonesia: Trends, Impacts and Directions Joyotee Smith and Sara J. Scherr Lesley Potter and Justin Lee 38. • Fires in Indonesia: Causes, Costs and Policy Implications 19. Le Marche des Produits Forestiers Non Ligneux de l’Afrique • (Indonesian edition) Kebakaran Hutan di Indonesia: Penyebab, Centrale en France et en Belgique: Produits, Acteurs, Circuits de Biaya dan Implikasi Kebijakan Distribution et Debouches Actuels Luca Tacconi Honoré Tabuna 39. Fuelwood Revisited: What Has Changed in the Last Decade? 20. Self-Governance and Forest Resources Michael Arnold, Gunnar Köhlin, Reidar Persson and Elinor Ostrom Gillian Shepherd 21. Promoting Forest Conservation through Ecotourism Income? A case 40. Exploring the Forest—Poverty Link: Key Concepts, Issues and study from the Ecuadorian Amazon region Research Implications Sven Wunder Arild Angelsen and Sven Wunder

Recycled paper 41 9/24/03 4:32 AM Page 1

Center for International Forestry Research Center for International Forestry Research

CIFOR Occasional Paper publishes the results of research that is particularly significant to tropical forestry. The content of each paper is peer reviewed internally and externally, and published simultaneously on the web in downloadable format (www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/papers).

Contact publications at [email protected] to request a copy.

CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41 Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks

Synthesis Report of the Project ‘Learning Lessons from International Community Forestry Networks’ The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) was established in 1993 as part of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in response to global concerns about the social, environmental and economic consequences of forest loss and degradation. CIFOR research produces knowledge and methods needed to improve the well-being of forest-dependent people and to help tropical countries Marcus Colchester manage their forests wisely for sustained benefits. This research is done in more than two dozen countries, in partnership with numerous partners. Since it was founded, Tejaswini Apte CIFOR has also played a central role in influencing global and national forestry policies. Michel Laforge Alois Mandondo Neema Pathak

CIFOR is one of the 16 Future Harvest centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)