Project Rationale:

Formal and informal networking to promote community forestry has played an important part in the spread of community forestry during the last two decades and the development agencies have invested a substantial amount of funding to stimulate this sharing of experiences.

Since the mid-1980s, a number of formalized international networks have sprung up to promote community forestry and the rights of forest dependent people. They have sought to do this in very diverse ways, with very different mixes of people, and with very different objectives. What have been the results? What lessons can we learn from nearly two decades of networking? How can these efforts be built on and improved? What are the prospects and pitfalls ahead?

Under this project, two donors requested CIFOR to review several countries’ experiences with international community forestry networks. We were also asked to review the activities of a number of international community forestry networks to distill the main lessons that could be learned from their experiences.

Objective:

The project’s objective was to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of international efforts to support community forestry. The project attempted to synthesize the lessons emerging from these networks through a collective process with the aim of sharing lessons as widely as possible.

Project data:

Duration: September 2001 - January 2005

Donors: UK Department for International Development and the Ford Foundation.

Partners: Marcus Colchester, Tejaswini Apte, Michel Laforge, Alois Mandondo, Neema Pathak

CIFOR team: Carol Colfer, David Kaimowitz, Eva Wollenberg

Locations: Mexico, Brazil, Cameroon, Uganda, India, Indonesia and China

Networks Studied: Coordinadora Indigena y Campesina de Agroforesteria Comunitaria (ACICAFOC), Forest Stewardship Council’s Social Working Group (FSC-SWG), IUCN’s Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management (IUCN-CIFM), World Rainforest Movement (WRM), Rural Development Forestry Network (RDFN), Forest Action Network (FAN), Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC), Asia Forest Network (AFN), and the Forests, Trees and People Programme (FTPP).

Methods:

A Methods Workshop was held to determine the approach and type of information required for the study, as well as sites and networks selected. Seven countries were visited and nine networks studied, including three regional networks. Country field visits and network investigations were approximately 12 and 7 days respectively for each study.

At the completion of the study, funds were available for additional work. CIFOR used these to support a small-scale competition among the participating international networks for up to USD 20,000 for additional activities by the network. We offered funds to help networks link better with local communities, especially in ways that would provide generalizable lessons to other networks. Two networks received support: the Forest Action Network in Nairobi and the World Rainforest Movement in Montevideo.

Key conclusions:

Few international networks have direct local impacts. Most focus on providing information and services to national level actors, helping develop resources and skills to promote national and local change. Better links between international, national and local levels need to be fostered.

• Networking has proved helpful in many countries but much more needs to be done to insert international policy gains into national reform platforms.
• Maintaining trust and links with and between communities requires investments of time and resources. Communications strategies need to ensure communities are being reached, without over-reliance on computers (which can exclude their effective participation).
• Community forestry and networking need sustained support to build social movements and community based links - support that promotes accountability without imposing artificial goals or structures.
• Participatory evaluation helps networks reflect on their effectiveness and ability to reach those they seek to include. Networks must take care to recognize their inherent limitations and also, not substitute themselves for the voice of local communities.
• Multi-stakeholder decision-making, new partnerships and engagements with civil society all promise new opportunities for local actors to have their voices heard but also entail further risks of social exclusion.

For those who do see value in linking to the local level, the experiences from the follow-up work by FAN and WRM suggest the need to:

• Create opportunities for face-to-face contacts
• Use the links to facilitate exchange of information “upward” and “downward” between the network and local groups.
• Use your comparative advantage in providing examples from other places to help people understand their own situations better (international policy comparisons, examples of people’s strategies and struggles in other countries, cross-visits).
• Use your comparative advantage of broader international donor contacts, media contacts and campaign targets in influential countries or organizations.
• Identify where national or local organizations need independent assessments and advocacy to strengthen their cause.
• Focus on building local capacities through trainings and local federations to enhance the scale of impact.
• Assess local situations carefully before committing to investments.
• Help disseminate local people’s priorities upwards and share information widely through your website, newsletter and most important contacts.
• Facilitate strategies with activities at the local, regional, national and international level, where warranted.
• Create funding sources that allow you to be responsive to small-scale activities and urgent requests.

Publications

1. Colchester, M., Apte, T., Laforge, M., Mandondo, A. and Pathak, N. 2003. Bridging the gap: Communities, forests and international networks. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 41. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 1.6 MB)
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : Spanish (size 1.5 MB)
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : French (size 1.6 MB)

2. CIFOR. 2003. Bridging the gap: Communities, forests and international networks. CIFOR Infobrief No. 8, August 2003. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 1.6 MB)

3. CIFOR. 2001. Developing a Methodology for Studying International Community Forestry Networks.
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 153 KB)

4. Colchester, M. Lessons from the IUCN 'Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management' .
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 214 KB)

5. Colchester, M. Learning Lessons from the RECOFTC Experience with Community Forestry Networking.
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 208 KB)

6. Apte, T. Lessons from the Forests, Trees and People Programme Network.
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 288 KB)

7. Colchester, M. 2003. Community Forestry in Yunnan (China): The Challenge for Networks.
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 243 KB)
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : Chinese (size 1.6 MB)

8. Colchester, M. 2003. Challenges to Community Forestry Networking in Indonesia.
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 234 KB)

9. Apte, T. and Pathak, N. Learning Lessons from International Community Forestry Networks in India.
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 433 KB)

10. Apte, T. Learning Lessons from International Community Forestry Networks: AFN case study.
     e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 234 KB)

11. Mandondo, A. 2003. Snapshot Views of International Community Forestry Networks: Cameroon Country Study.
     e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 216 KB)

12. Mandondo, A. 2003. Snapshot Views of International Community Forestry Networks: The Forest Action Network Study.
     e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 193 KB)

13. Mandondo, A. 2003. Snapshot Views of International Community Forestry Networks: Rural Development Forestry Network Study.
    e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 193 KB)

14. Mandondo, A. 2003. Snapshot Views of International Community Forestry Networks: Uganda Country Study.
     e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 229 KB)

15. Colchester, M., Apte, T., Laforge, M., Mandondo, A. and Pathak, N. 2003. Learning Lessons from International Community Forestry Networks: Synthesis Report.
     e-Files : PDF Complete file : English (size 487 KB)

16. Colchester, M.2003. Bridging the gap: communities, forests and international networks. ETFRN News(39-40): 12-13.