lessons from asia forest network (afn)some links with south asia, continue (e.g. in early 2002 a...

Learning Lessons from International Community Forestry Networks: AFN case study_____________________________________________________________________

1

SNAPSHOTS OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FORESTRYNETWORKS: COUNTRY AND NETWORK STUDIES

This is one of series of reports commissioned by CIFOR as part of its study of'Learning from International Community Forestry Networks'. All these studies werecarried out within a tight budget and very brief time frame, which necessarily impliedan anecdotal and impressionistic method of data collection. CIFOR and the authorsacknowledge that the findings in these studies are thus partial. In our view, however,they do provide interesting insights into the complex world of networking andadvocacy and are thus being made available to help networkers and those promotingcommunity forestry to reflect on and, hopefully, improve their work.

Lessons from the Asia Forest Network(AFN)

Tejaswini [email protected]


2

Lessons from the Asia Forest Network(AFN)

Tejaswini [email protected]

Acknowledgements:

This study was carried out as part of the CIFOR project titled ‘Learning from International CommunityForestry Networks’ funded by the DfID and Ford Foundation. I would like to thank Dr. AnganaChatterji, Arlen Salgados, Mark Sandiford, May Blanco, Noel Crucio, Peter Walpole, Rowena Soriagaand Sylvia Miclat for making the time to be interviewed, and Dr Mark Poffenberger and Dr. KateSmith-Hanssen for their valuable inputs via email. In particular I would like to thank Rowena Soriagafor organising the interviews and logistical arrangements in the Philippines. Thanks also to MadhuSarin who reviewed and commented on this report.

1. METHODOLOGY

The information in this report was gathered during a one-week visit to Manila and Tagbilaran City,Philippines, to meet some of the key individuals at the AFN secretariat. Interviews were also conductedwith some of the close national associates of the network. A brief visit to the field site of one of theresearch projects being supported by the AFN was undertaken. However, this was more to understandthe context in which AFN functions, rather than to gather any specific information. In addition,information was gathered from secondary material such as AFN network reports and pamphlets and theAFN website. One interview was conducted over the telephone, and two network members in the USAprovided inputs via email.

This report is not meant to be an evaluation of the AFN, particularly given the time constraints underwhich the research was carried out. Rather, the aim of the report is to document perspectives from thenetwork secretariat, and draw out lessons learned from their experiences of the network. The reportdoes not intend to draw any conclusions on the performance or impacts of the network, given thelimited time available for research. The objective is to reflect on the experiences and evolution of thenetwork, in a way that might help to formulate some creative inputs for future networking efforts.

2. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF AFN

The origins of the AFN go back to the early 1980s when exchanges between small groups of Asianforesters, social scientists, NGOs and donors were facilitated by Ford Foundation. The exchanges tookthe form of small workshops and cross-visits to discuss issues of forest degradation. Gradually smallworking groups formed in some countries, often documenting indigenous forest management, anddeveloping small pilot projects. This kind of field level learning soon began to influence national forestmanagement strategies in some countries, with new discussions emerging regarding the legalempowerment of communities to manage forests.

In 1987, Dr. Mark Poffenberger organized an informal meeting of members of various Southeast Asianworking groups, held in Pattaya, Thailand. Informal discussions were also held in Calcutta and Delhi,India. At this point, community forestry (CF) was not a widely popular concept, and it was only asmall, multi-disciplinary group of colleagues who met to discuss policy and field issues. In 1991, theRockefeller and Ford Foundations provided grants to the University of California at Berkeley and theEast West Centre, Hawaii, to allow Dr. Poffenberger to establish a small secretariat for the nascent AsiaForest Network. In January 1992, the first formal meeting of AFN was held at the RegionalCommunity Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC) in Bangkok, where


3

the organization was formally created. At that time the organization was known as the Asia SustainableForest Management Network. It was renamed Asia Forest Network a few years later.

Over the next two years, the AFN secretariat provided small grants to country working group teams tostudy and document patterns of forest regeneration under community protection. During the initialmeeting in Bangkok, study designs were developed to examine the effects of community forestrymanagement (CFM) in various parts of Asia. At that time, land satellite data from eastern Indiaindicated that community management was leading to the regeneration of thousands of hectares ofonce-degraded forests. There was a growing feeling that it was important to be guided by indigenoussystems of forest protection and management.

The above studies “illuminated sophisticated indigenous patterns of forest use and often extensiveknowledge of species composition and forest succession patterns. The research also indicated the extentto which rural people had been formally and legally marginalized in the management of state lands, aswell as their desire to re-establish authority over the resource upon which their survival depends.”1

These findings were presented at the second AFN meeting in 1993, in West Java, Indonesia, with thefindings of the research teams from Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia published in the same year asAFN Network Reports 2, 3 and 4. These reports formed the background documentation for the thirdAFN meeting held in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1994.

Thus one of the main activities in the development of the AFN was a series of annual meetings from1992 -1996, 2000 and 2001. From 1997-1999, when there were no regional meetings, networking wascarried on through the AFN newsletter (now discontinued) and through the circulation of a WorkingPaper Series. Each annual meeting had a different focus to it, detailed below to give a sense of how thenetwork and its discussions evolved over the years:1st Regional Meeting, Bangkok, Thailand, 1992: focused on sharing CFM experiences and identifyingcommon research objectives; the effects of commercialisation on non-timber forest products; the forcesbehind deforestation. Member countries: Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand.2nd Regional Meeting, West Java, Indonesia, 1993: focused on the findings of the research teams, andset new research targets for the network; policy implications of decentralized forest management. Newmember countries: India, Vietnam3rd Regional Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1994: focused on challenges and approaches to decentralizedforest management; natural regeneration was recognized as a primary approach to ecologicalrestoration; research issues identified to better understand and implement CFM. New membercountries: China, Nepal.4th Regional Meeting, Manila, Philippines, 1995: focused on national strategies for documenting andmonitoring community institutions; technical tools available for CFM research like manual GeographicInformation Systems (GIS); a strategic shift from project-oriented CFM to process-orientation wasrecognized as an important new concept in implementation of CFM. This implied that donor-drivenprojects alone were not effective in facilitating national transitions in public lands management and thatsupport was needed to facilitate long-term processes to restructure agencies and polices.5th Regional Meeting, Surajkund, India, 1996: followed up on the previous theme of decentralization,by focusing on collective experiences in devolving rights to communities in forest management;evolving policy trends; development of medium and long term plans to adopt the ‘project to process’strategy discussed the previous year. Another emphasis of this meeting was to engage major donoragencies in discussions regarding ways for donor assistance to build capacity to implement the newparticipatory management paradigm emerging in the Asia region. New member country: Cambodia6th Regional Meeting, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2000: Provided the venue for the Vietnam and Cambodiaworking groups to meet for the first time, for the project “Sustainable Management of Resources in theLower Mekong Basin Project”, meant to examine ways to accelerate transitions to CFM, assess theevolution of national CFM policies and practices, and inform government agencies and developmentorganizations. The project was partially supported by the Mekong River Commission (MRC). Theworking groups had made good progress in collecting available information on CFM experiences (e.g.project reports, field studies, policy assessments and forestry sector reviews, scientific literaturereviews). At the meeting, a similar working group was formed by Thai members. Member countries:Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam

1 Poffenberger, M & McGean, B. 1994. Policy Dialogue on Natural Forest Regeneration andCommunity Management. Asia Forest Network Workshop Proceedings, 2-4 March 1994, Honolulu,Hawaii. (Research Network Report No.5). AFN. USA.


4

7th Regional Meeting, Bohol, Philippines, 2001: Included all member countries under the newCommunity Forestry Support Project for Southeast Asia (described below). Discussed status of CF ineach country; how AFN could strengthen country programmes; defined directions for membercountries; how to share lessons on a regional basis. Member countries: Cambodia, Indonesia,Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam.

Focal regions: The AFN developed due to the recognition of a felt need by a varied group ofprofessionals in Asia. Its membership of countries grew and subsided over the years. AFN began withmembers from Thailand, Indonesia and Philippines in 1987, with India joining in 1992, Vietnamjoining in 1993, China and Nepal in 1994, and Cambodia in 1996. Several activities were undertaken inIndia in the early to mid-90s, but the involvement of AFN in South Asia has been very limited due to apaucity of funds. Currently it focuses almost exclusively on Southeast Asia, though attempts to retainsome links with South Asia, continue (e.g. in early 2002 a visit was organized to Andhra Pradesh, India,for members from various Southeast Asian countries to learn lessons from CF practices there, such asassisted natural regeneration and water management in seasonally dry areas; how communities workout differences with the forest department; etc.)

AFN is currently in the midst of a European Commission (E.C.) and Community Forestry International(CFI) funded programme focusing on 5 countries in Southeast Asia, through which the network cancontinue and enhance its normal activities. The programme is known as the “Community ForestManagement Support Project 2000 for Southeast Asia” (CFMSP), and is described in detail in section5.2 (‘Current Activities’)

Annex 1 presents the evolution of AFN in the form of a diagram.

3. GOALS

The AFN website describes the aims and objectives of the network thus:• “The AFN is a continuously evolving coalition of planners, researchers, and scientists from

various Asian government agencies, universities, and non-government organizations, allcommitted to supporting the role of communities in the protection and sustainable use ofnatural forests.

• Its main role is to provide a forum for the professionals from these different agencies andorganizations to exchange knowledge and experiences in CFM and gain a broader vision ofregional shifts in forest management policies and practices.

• The Network brings together learning and experience from local communities to enhance fieldimplementation procedures, develop more appropriate research tools, and guide policy reform.Through its programs, AFN supports research emphasizing the ecology of naturalregeneration, the economics of non-timber forest product systems, and the communityorganizations and institutional arrangements that support participatory management.”2

The AFN also strongly emphasises communicating findings at a global, regional and national level.

There seem to be two main lessons learned and incorporated as guiding principles into the aims andobjectives of AFN in its evolution as a network. Firstly, assisted natural regeneration is encouraged as amanagement practice, as opposed to reforestation. Secondly, the approach of AFN to its activities, is toencourage a “process approach” rather than a “project approach”. As already described above, it wasaround 1995 that this “Process Vs. Project” approach was recognised by the AFN as an importantstrategic shift, and one that recognised that a “process approach” is more flexible, less time-bound, lessdependent on external funds, and more sustainable than an approach which focuses on theimplementation of specific projects.

2 AFN website: www.asiaforestnetwork.org


5

4. NETWORK STRUCTURE

The informal and highly personalised nature of AFN is one of the chief characteristics of the network,and is a guiding principle in almost all network operations, such as the administrative structure,recruitment of members, implementation of activities, monitoring and evaluation, etc.

4.1 Administrative Structure

Till 2000 AFN operated as an informal network, under the auspices of the Centre for Southeast AsiaStudies at the University of California at Berkeley, where Dr. Poffenberger was based. In 1999, adecision was taken to register the AFN as a formal body in the Philippines. This was done in 2000.Over the past two years, many administrative, financial, logistical and secretariat activities have beentransferred to the Philippines, in Tagbilaran City on the island of Bohol, where there is a small team offull-time staff (four full-time, three part-time). The ‘service delivery’ component of the network ishandled in Bohol, i.e. printing and dissemination of publications, organizing workshops, responding tomembers’ queries, etc.

AFN also maintains an office in California, USA, from where at least two key members of the AFN (DrMark Poffenberger and Dr Kate Smith-Hanssen) carry out their activities, mainly consisting of inputsinto CFM policy development, writing regional reviews and case studies, and liasing with internationalorganizations and networks. The USA office consists of two full-time and two part-time persons.

The main points that emerged regarding the administrative structure are:• Communication between the two offices has so far been managed well, thanks to electronic

mail. The main disadvantage is the distance between the two offices, which means that theentire secretariat team does not meet face-to-face very often. However this does not seem to bea major drawback to network operations. There is an attempt for the whole team to meet atleast once a year.

• Having two offices means that AFN gets the best of both worlds, whereby it can tap Asian(especially Southeast Asian) as well as more global groups.

Initially, the AFN was not registered anywhere because it was not an ‘institution’, in terms of beinglocated in a particular building –AFN was simply an informally linked body of people with acommitment to CF. The decision to register AFN in the Philippines was taken for various reasons.Firstly, the logistical and administrative backing provided by a formal office was needed to take thepressure off the two or three people who had been driving the AFN effort for several years. Secondly, itis easier to secure funding as a formally registered body. Thirdly, most activities were taking place inSoutheast Asia, where, by the late 1990s, many more people had begun to accept CF. Thus it wasdecided to maximize the opportunity by creating a formal home for AFN in Southeast Asia. Fourth, itwas logical that the AFN should be located in Asia, since that was the focus of its activities, andbecause it was important for the ‘ownership’ of the network to be in Asia, particularly since more andmore documentation and other activities were being undertaken by Asians. It is also likely that locatingthe AFN headquarters in Asia would lead to a change in the perception of AFN, whereby it would beseen more as an Asian network rather than one being run from USA (though this was not perceived tohave been a problem for the network’s operations). One secretariat member felt that the more formalset-up of AFN has provided an opportunity to better document reflections on the role of AFN in theregion, and how it can grow as an organisation.

The decision to register in Bohol rather than the ‘better connected’ Manila, was taken for severalreasons as well. Firstly, it was to make a statement about marginalization. Since AFN deals withmarginalized communities and areas, it wanted to make a statement by being closer to marginalizedcommunities and areas. Secondly, Bohol is a good example of the problems of the Philippinelandscape, with much forest degradation, and with mainly secondary, not primary, forests. At the levelof administrative ease, Bohol is cheaper than Manila, while the existing Bohol operations of the NGOEnvironmental Science for Social Change (ESSC) proved to be a convenient second home and back-upfor the AFN. (Before the AFN was registered in Bohol, the Philippine activity of AFN was carried outby operating informally out of the offices of ESSC, with ESSC also providing mapping services toAFN. Even now, AFN continues its informal relationship with ESSC, with the two offices frequentlysharing infrastructure facilities, for instance.).


6

In 1999 a sister organization to AFN was formed, known as Community Forestry International (CFI),registered in the USA. Its mandate is similar to the AFN, and at least two key actors in AFN are alsokey members of CFI. CFI shares AFN’s mission in promoting the involvement of communities in themanagement of forests. As an international organization, it works beyond Asia, both domestically inthe Western U.S.A where it is based, as well as by participating in international policy dialogues, suchas the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). CFI collaboratesclosely with AFN in the implementation of the current CFMSP programme by bringing funds fromUSAID to match those granted by the E.C. to AFN for that project.

4.2 Membership Structure

Membership profile: AFN’s membership profile includes NGOs, academics, field practitioners,government officials, and large and small institutions. There are individual as well as institutionalmembers. Over the years, AFN membership has also included forest-dependent community members.By and large, however, local communities are ‘reached’ through partner members. The secretariat alsokeeps up direct contact with local communities, during field trips, field workshops, cross-visits and on-going field research.

Recruitment of members: There is no formal registration of members. The member list has been built upgradually, and, as one secretariat member put it, is made up of “people we met along the way, who areinterested in the AFN and in the other members.”

Membership categories: The network is structured around five levels of membership. (See Annex 2).The ‘general membership’ and ‘partner membership’ categories are not rigid; there are not separate listsof members in each category, for example. Members shift between the two categories depending ontheir level of involvement in network activities at any given time. The five levels of membership are:

a) General membership:• There are over 1300 general members. This is the largest membership category, and comprises

of all the people on AFN’s mailing list, who benefit from the information sent out by thesecretariat.

• Benefits to members: General members receive AFN’s free publications, formerly received thenewsletter when it existed, and occasionally interact with the secretariat and other members atmeetings and workshops. Sometimes they write to the secretariat with specific queries forinformation or contacts.

• Communication with members: Members can keep in touch with the network by accessing theAFN website. They get to know of AFN activities through regional reports, and sometimesattend regional meetings. There is an email list of members (though there is no e-letter). Apartfrom being recipients of information, general members are also tapped for information that canbe used in regional exchanges. For example, if there are members who would like todisseminate lessons in forest trends, AFN asks for their publications or information that thenetwork can help to disseminate in regional exchanges or activities. However, communicationwith general members is not as frequent as with partner members.

• AFN does not monitor whether members network among themselves. There is no networkdirectory, but people can use lists of meeting participants in the regional meeting reports, toidentify and contact each other. It was felt that putting out a general membership list in thenear future would be very useful.

b) Partner members:• Partner members are more active, and are directly involved in research and other network

activities.• The secretariat works with partner members to develop and disseminate research to a wider

audience. The interaction is regular, with the secretariat giving focused support in the form oftechnical and/or financial support.

• Partner members attend annual regional meetings (with only around 20% of the participantscomprising of ‘general members’). The participants differ each time, depending on the locationof the meeting, and the theme of discussion.


7

c) Board of trustees:• The board of trustees monitors the organizational aspects of AFN, such as finance, efficiency,

etc.• Most of the board is based in the Philippines for practical reasons.

d) Senior Advisory Board:• The senior advisory board is still being developed, and is likely to comprise about 10 people

from different parts of Asia. It will be similar to the board of trustees, but will deal with moresubstantive issues as opposed to administrative issues.

• The board would set the direction and vision of AFN.• The reasons for setting up the board are: (1) AFN would like to benefit from the experience of

senior people in terms of a perspective on how CF and the AFN have developed, and possiblefuture directions. It is envisioned that discussions would be of a wider scope, as compared toannual regional meetings that usually focus on country-wise, topical issues important tocountry members. (2) It is an attempt to develop a more Asian group of network leaders.

e) Secretariat:• The secretariat comprises of 11 people in total, including staff members in Bohol as well as

USA.• As already described, the main secretariat activity takes place in Bohol.• The role of the secretariat is to encourage the flow of communications and support the

members in the form of administration, support and advice for field activities, research anddocumentation, sending funds, managing publications, etc.

The loose, informal structure of the organisation requires the secretariat to be understanding of thedynamics and relationships within the network, because from an administrative point of view, it wouldbe easier to have, e.g. more defined lists of general and partner members. However, for the network tobe relevant, it is seen as important to continue the present structure. As a secretariat member put it, “Fora network to be relevant to the aims, it is important to have a networking attitude – a sense ofcommitment to the vision that goes beyond the institutional work plan. If you try to structure this, thedynamic won’t work. For example, there are times when a person can be more active, and times whenhe cannot. But he still shares the vision. So to name someone as a ‘general’ or ‘partner’ member in ahierarchical way, is not fair. There should be the space for people to come and go according to theircapacity and need.”

4.3 Decision-making and Leadership

Decision-making processes:

The decision-making process depends on the activity. Most activity decisions are made with partnermembers in regional meetings or workshops, and during country visits. Decisions on the activitiesundertaken usually depends on members’ priorities, particularly country support activities. The attemptis to make decision-making an inclusive process. In regional meetings there are usually 5 to 10 partnerinstitutions, with about two members representing each. Therefore it is a small enough number to makecollective decisions. For example, the 2002 regional meeting in Bohol discussed country policies andprocesses of developing policies, which is a topic that will be developed in the following year’sregional meeting. This was a collective decision, though the secretariat also has a hand in the decisionbecause it is the secretariat’s job to follow up with members and developments after the meeting, andfind out what the continued interest is.

General members (as opposed to partner members) are not directly involved in decision-making, andare seen more as the ‘audience’ for AFN output.


8

Leadership:

AFN has evolved from a loose network driven by three to four individuals, to one that is much morestructured in terms of having formal headquarters for the network secretariat with a team of full-timestaff. Due to funding constraints in the early years, AFN was driven primarily by Dr MarkPoffenberger, with inputs from key individuals such as Peter Walpole and Dr. Kate Smith-Hanssen.

AFN’s identity has been very strongly linked to, or equated with, Dr Poffenberger who founded thenetwork. One of the reasons for this is, that in the early 1990s he was one of the few prominent peoplepromoting CF, and did a great deal of innovative writing and documentation on the subject, which waswidely circulated. Many AFN publications were written or edited by him. There is now a consciousmove to devolve the leadership of the network to a wider base of actors, particularly since increasedfunding has made it possible to include more staff in leadership positions.

As a secretariat staff member put it, “Initially it is very necessary for someone to lead, motivate andgive a vision. As a network or organisation grows and matures, there has to be a way by which youshare the base of the work, so that you spread the ownership, as well as the way in which you expresswhat the network or institution is about. Otherwise you get a ‘founder syndrome’, where if the founderis out of the picture, the institution dies.” The same staff member felt that the more senior, foundingmembers of the network were giving space to younger members to become more active and take greaterresponsibility for the running of the network, and this was much appreciated.

A useful lesson emerging from the evolution and experiences of AFN, may be that a network needs astrong leader as a driving force, but as a network matures, and as the aims get more rooted, a strongleader can give more room for a wider base of leadership to ensure sustainability and fresh perspectives.Dr. Poffenberger noted, “My intention has always been to broaden the base of leadership of AFN. Ithas only been a question of time and funding. As AFN has matured in its scope and secured greaterfunding, this is now happening. I couldn’t be more pleased.”

5. ACTIVITIES:

AFN undertakes a variety of strategies and activities to achieve its objectives. The criteria for choosingwhich country to operate in, depends mainly on the willingness of individuals in the country. However,there are funding constraints even in cases where there are willing members in a particular country. Thecurrent E.C./CFI programme applies to only five countries. South Asia has not been a focus of AFNactivities for a while now, due to lack of funds, though CFI is gradually building up a parallel supportstrategy there.

5.1 Range of AFN Activities

a) Regional Exchanges:• Annual regional meetings take place in a different country every year. Regional meetings

usually have three panels discussing different aspects of a theme at a regional or policy level.Each member country also presents an overview of the country situation, and what the countryteam is planning to work on. At these meetings, most of the participants (about 80%) arepartner members, while the rest are general members. Each meeting includes a field site visit.

• Side meetings take place at conferences of other organizations, by planning in advance as towhich AFN members are going to be present. This kind of ‘piggy-backing’ saves costs andhelps to keep members in touch with each other.

• Field Workshops are more focussed and technical than regional meetings, have smallernumbers, and can be arranged depending on the interest of partners. Though this is a form oftraining, workshops are not structured as a formal training programme but as a platform forlearning. There is a conscious effort to learn from each other, with the participants making apresentation at the end regarding how the workshop lessons have contributed to their ownwork. The workshop is a collaborative effort involving a host organisation that would usuallybe involved in programme activities at the field site. Workshop topics are on field processesand methods, e.g. forest management negotiations between communities and localgovernment; participatory approaches to developing CF management plans; resource conflict


9

mediation; boundary demarcation; mapping techniques; methods for facilitating naturalregeneration, community involvement in PA management; and other subjects of interest topartners. When participants leave a workshop, they always have a plan of action regardingwhat to do next. They are also given documentation to take with them. Sometimes thiscomprises of meeting proceedings, though these are presented as consolidated lessons andissues rather than just a transcription. Most often the effort is to present the documentation in away that participants can use, e.g. for dialogue with government, or while working withcommunities in the field, or for reference while pursuing research.

b) Country Working Groups (CWGs):• CWGs are multi-disciplinary groups in a country, which act as internal country networks.

They include field practitioners, academics and policy makers, with the CWG encouraginginteraction between these groups. The aim is to discuss policies and field realities, and discussAFN activities in the country. For example, the Philippine Working Group (PWG) is aninformal network including the forest department, academics, researchers, environmentalNGOs, legal assistance NGOs, ex-government officials, some business representatives andfunding agencies. It has about 150-200 members.

• AFN supports CWGs and provides guidance when requested. It sometimes helps to establishCWGs. Some CWGs are spin-offs of AFN regional meetings, such as the PWG, which wasformed at the regional meeting in Hawaii.

• CWGs vary in structure and functioning. For example, the PWG is an informal group with asecretariat located in ESSC. The Vietnam CWG is more structured with a chairman, vice-chairman, and regular meetings.

c) Development of Field Methods; Cross Visits• Most countries have CF policies due to donor requirements. However, translating policies into

field implementation, after years of centralized forest management, continues to pose aproblem. Accordingly, the AFN secretariat works at developing field methods with partnermembers. This includes field workshops and visits by secretariat staff to discuss different fieldmethods with CWGs who will then test methods in the field.

• The AFN organizes cross visits as a kind of field method. Inter-country visits are organised bythe secretariat, while intra-country visits are organised by CWGs. For example, in 1998 across-visit was organized from Mindanao in the Philippines to visit the Dayak community inEast Kalimantan, Indonesia. Local government officials and indigenous people from Mindanaotravelled to East Kalimantan. One of the key objectives was to show the people fromMindanao, how the Dayaks plant rattan. Previously the people in Mindanao were reluctant toplant rattan because it was seen as interfering with the natural sustenance provided by God.Having interacted with the Dayaks, they began planting rattan on their return to Mindanao.The Dayaks also had the opportunity to discuss various forestry practices from Mindanao. Itwas found that often people could deal with difficult issues and ask tough questions outside oftheir own country and context. So inter-country exchanges are very important to the AFN.However, such visits are organised only if it is a very small group, with a very specific focuson what kind of information the visiting group is looking for. The information has to besomething that can be of direct use to the group. This means that just because one group visitsanother, does not mean that the reverse will necessarily take place. AFN tries to organise suchcross-visits at least once or twice a year.

d) Documentation of Case Studies:• This overlaps with ‘Regional Exchanges’ above, since documentation is exchanged regionally.

For example, the documentation being undertaken in Caroud (on the island of Bohol,Philippines) by the ESSC, as part of AFN’s CFMSP programme, will be part of a regionalexchange since Vietnamese members are interested in gathering evidence to show theVietnamese government that CF can work.

• A secretariat member felt that AFN is filling an important niche in terms of processdocumentation of activities being carried out by members. Since most people don’t have thetime to do that, AFN helps “in capturing stories and putting it in a way that makes it easy toread”.


10

e) Country Visits by Secretariat Members:• Includes talking to country partners to be in touch with developments; going to field sites;

exchanging information, e.g. on field methods developed; meeting important non-partnerindividuals in the CF scenario; keeping in touch with regional programmes.

• There are overlaps with “Developing Field Methods”.

These five strategies receive a fairly equal emphasis in the overall AFN strategy. Not all are driven bythe secretariat. The CWGs, for example, function independently. From the point of view of the AFNsecretariat, the most planned strategies are: (1) regional exchanges and (2) documentation. The otherthree are done on a more ad hoc basis, depending on the needs and initiative of partner members.

Most of the strategies overlap with each other. ‘Documentation’ overlaps with ‘regional exchanges’;‘country visits by secretariat members’ overlaps with ‘development of field methods’; and so on.

5.2 Current Activity:

Currently, almost all AFN activities are under the “Community Forest Management Support Project2000 for Southeast Asia” (CFMSP). This programme is jointly funded by the European Commissionand Community Forestry International through support provided by the East Asia and the PacificEnvironmental Initiative under USAID. As part of this programme, AFN is supporting numerous fieldprojects in the participating countries through country partners, providing technical support whenrequested, holding a series of field workshops and regional meetings, and publishing case studies and aregional synthesis. In many ways, the CFMSP allows the AFN to continue and enhance the kinds ofactivities it has been doing over several years.

The following is an overview of the activities under CFMSP:• Members: Activities are being carried out by partner members in five countries: Cambodia,

Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. The partner institutions include forestdepartments, forest research institutes, local governments and NGOs.

• Small grants: Partner members get small grants from AFN to carry out jointly-agreed uponactivities. The grants may be used for policy analysis, CF sector reviews, training activities,field visits, pilot projects, meetings, and other related activities. The AFN does not call forproposals to make it an open grants plan, because the secretariat does not have the resources tosift through applications, and because it would rather focus on supporting active networkmembers. The small grants scheme would be best described as a support service toparticipating country partners. The criteria for giving out small grants are: a) the proposal mustfit into the logical framework of the CFMSP; and, b) the secretariat tries to support a mix ofactivities so that different plans and proposals complement each other. Similar strategies indifferent countries, for example, would be useful to compare and assess the effectiveness ofstrategies in different contexts.

• Technical assistance: AFN secretariat staff undertake occasional country visits to discuss thedevelopment of the project; to check on what the partners need; to check whether there is aneed for flexibility on any point; to check whether it is necessary to hire a consultant; etc.

• Regional meetings, field workshops, cross-visits: Partners exchange knowledge and learning atregional field workshops or regional policy meetings. There are about 2 regional meetings orworkshops per annum, where people from most partner countries are present. The AFNsecretariat organises cross-visits, as the need and opportunity arises.

• Publications: At the end of the activities, partners will prepare documents that will beproduced and disseminated locally, in English as well as in local languages. Other documentswill be jointly published with AFN, where the AFN secretariat will have greater participationin the publication and dissemination. Output will include background documents on the historyof forest management, socio-economic profiles, maps of the area, and related subjects.

• Information dissemination: AFN monitors recent publications on CF to identify innovativematerial on policy development, programme implementation, etc. AFN acts as a centre ofinformation sharing between partners, and disseminates material through meetings, mailings,and on the AFN website.

Some examples of activities being undertaken by partner members under CFMSP are as follows:In Cambodia, the Japanese International Volunteer Centre is working with 11 villages to study theimplications for Tonle Sap Lake, of a new policy on community fishery and flood forest management.


11

In the Philippines, the ESSC is analysing its experience from 1992 to 2001 in implementing its nationalstrategy for community-based natural resource management (CBNRM). In Thailand, the Royal ForestDepartment is developing a sub-watershed management network for the Mae Khan watershed. Thenetwork will link communities, local government, NGOs and the forest department. In Vietnam, theForest Inventory and Planning Institute is developing a district CF network for Cao Bang Province innorthern Vietnam.3

5.3 AFN Activities: Some lessons

The focus of the CFMSP reflects the gaps in the field of community forestry, as perceived by thenetwork. A network report states, “While large investments are being made in participatory forestry andresource management by bi-lateral and multi-lateral agencies, the sector has suffered from poorcommunication between projects and planners, poor documentation and analysis of field experience,and inadequate discussion of policy implications. CFMSP complements large investments in the sectorby identifying ways to support community forestry efforts by working through national working groupsand partner organisations in each country.” 4

In the same report, reflections on the experiences of the first year of running the CFMSP have beendescribed as follows. However, given that the CFMSP is essentially a continuation of what the AFN hasdone for several years, these points may be read as reflecting the broader experiences of the network aswell:

Small grants scheme: “Small, well-defined grants can catalyse policy analysis, support focusedresearch, support training, and facilitate exchanges that can inform the development of more effectivenational CFM programmes and policies. To be most effective, small grants programmes need to be:

• Flexible, able to adjust to changing needs• Able to respond quickly to requests• Define clear outputs• Generate rapid results (6 to 24 months)• Possess clear policy, planning or project management audience.” 5

Regional exchanges: “CFM regional exchanges are important opportunities for Southeast Asia forestprofessionals to learn from other nations’ experiences with CFM. Important criteria learned… are:

• Regional exchanges require a clear agenda with a limited number of topics• Participants need adequate time to present their own experiences and discuss them with others• Discussions should focus on a few topics of shared interest and importance• Introduction and presentations by resource persons should be carefully prepared to highlight

relevant information that complements participant discussions• Regional exchanges require clear outputs, follow-up activities, and need to fit within a larger

support strategy• Regional exchanges with no more than 25 persons are most effective in terms of building long-

term relations between participants.” 6

It is thought that regional exchanges and learning are most effective face to face rather than simplythrough publications dissemination. Hence the emphasis on meetings, workshops, cross-visits andcountry visits.

Field methods workshops: “require time to plan in order to address the diverse needs of the participants.In developing regional field workshops, the following reflections were generated:

• Identify an appropriate set of institutions and projects that share similar goals with the CFMSPin terms of staff development, implementation strategies, and required outputs

3 Anon. n.d. “Community Forest Management Support Project 2000 for Southeast Asia”. (Pamphlet).AFN. Philippines.4 Poffenberger, M. (ed.) 2002. “Community Forest Management Support Project 2000: IntermediateTechnical Report, January – December 2001”. Submitted to the European Commission, January 2002.AFN. Philippines.5 Ibid.6 Ibid.


12

• Identify relevant individuals involved in managing and implementing the project to formulatethe core group for workshop activities

• Structure the workshop programme to facilitate the formulation of activity sequences for eachproject site

• Provide participants with opportunities to examine other partner project strategies and exposethem to innovative methodologies

• Create opportunities for participants to field test methods and visit other field sites where CFMis being implemented.” 7

As noted above, one of the lessons learned by AFN is the importance of keeping workshop and meetingnumbers as low as possible, usually no more than 20-30 participants. Numbers up to 60 or 70participants at the regional meetings in Hawaii and the Philippines in 1994 and 1995 showed that largenumbers were not viable. A small number allows for better group dynamics and interaction, and morein-depth discussion and learning. One interviewee mentioned that sometimes this means that AFN doesnot widely publicise its meetings and workshops, as the objective is to keep participant numbers low.Secondly, it was felt that AFN workshops and meetings are greatly appreciated for their format andvalue addition to participants’ work: “It’s not the quantity by which the meetings are valued, but theinteraction of the partners within the meeting, the depth of interaction, the ideas and reflectionsgenerated.”

5.4 Global ProcessesInputs into the International Panel on Forests (IPF) and International Forum on Forests (IFF): AFNmembers put in a great deal of effort in trying to influence the IPF /IFF processes. By the time UNFFwas created, AFN had pulled out of the process. As one secretariat member put it, “The whole processwasted people’s time and effort. We did so many presentations, which got written in by delegates, andthen written out again in the next round. There was no accountability within the process and it was a bigdisappointment. AFN and IUCN together were a major voice in the process. But it is questionable as towhat extent the process took us on.”

Having had a disappointing experience with the IPF and IFF processes, the AFN now tends to focusmore on regional activities rather than putting efforts into global processes. It is felt that though theremay be value in contributing to global processes, they are too slow in having an impact on the ground.Given the limited resources of AFN, it does not seem worth focussing on such activities. However,though resource inputs have slowed down, they have not stopped. AFN still monitors globaldevelopments and themes being discussed.

6. COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

6.1 Methods of CommunicationMethods of communication and dissemination used by AFN are: email, training workshops, regionalmeetings, the AFN website and free hard copy publications. Formerly there was a quarterly newsletterproduced as well. As already mentioned, two-way communication between the secretariat and thepartner members is very frequent, while it is less frequent with general members.

Publications and dissemination strategy:

All publications are free of cost to members. Earlier, about one or two publications were produced eachyear. Now, approximately five publications are produced annually. Publications include working paperseries, network reports, documentation of activities, and briefing-kits for cross-visits. Publications aresent to a member depending on whether a particular publication would be of relevance or interest tohim. For example, after a meeting or workshop, if the related publication is written for a broaderaudience, it gets circulated beyond the participants. If it is a more focussed documentation, then it issent only to participants. A directory of members is kept at the secretariat with addresses and topics ofinterest, to ensure that members receive all relevant publications. The dissemination takes placecountry-wise, with several boxes of publications given to different country partners to distribute

7 Ibid.


13

internally in their country. While updating the directory is very time-consuming for the secretariat, thisis an important way of keeping track of members.

The quarterly newsletter was produced from around 1997 to 2000, during a period when there were noannual regional meetings being held. It thus served as a way of keeping the network together in theinterim period. The content was based on case studies and updates of what members were doing.Eventually the newsletter was stopped, firstly because it was too time-consuming, given the limitedstaff and resources available, and secondly all the information became available on the AFN website. Itwas also noted that other CF networks such as RECOFTC were producing very good newsletters, andthere was no need to duplicate the effort. There was a difference of opinion on the value of reviving thenewsletter. While one secretariat member felt that this should be done sometime in the future, anothermember felt it was not worth the time and effort.

It is felt that while AFN publications held a unique niche in the early 1990s, in terms of the analysis andconsolidation of trends that it offered on CF, now there are many more institutions and networksproducing high quality publications on CF. Given this, there is an ongoing effort to evaluate AFNpublication strategy according to changing needs and times.

Another point to note regarding AFN’s communication policy, is that not charging for publications isan important networking strategy, and is also seen as a valuable service being provided to members. Itcould be assumed that people usually value something more if they are required to pay a nominal feefor it, not as a way of trying to recover costs, but as a way of ensuring that publications reach the rightpeople. However, it was felt that the benefits of providing free publications, as a way of disseminatinginformation and as a tool for networking, outweighed the risk of people being complacent aboutreceiving AFN publications. It was felt that this risk could be addressed through methods of distributionand dissemination, rather than by charging a fee.

It was felt that there were no problems with the way AFN communicates with its members or sharesinformation. Only one secretariat member felt that a limitation in the past has been that a publication issometimes not acknowledged as a consolidated effort of members: “AFN publications now need tohighlight other institutions more. The way AFN acknowledges other people in its publications can beimproved. It is now a conscious decision to highlight this upfront, rather than just listing names inacknowledgements or citations.” However, the person also felt that a blurring of lines in terms ofcontribution and effort, is an inherent characteristic of a network. On the other hand, at least twomembers felt very strongly that AFN publications have always acknowledged contributors sufficiently,and have always made it a point to prominently list names of people who contributed information, evenif they did not contribute any writing.

6.2 Two-way flow with communitiesFeedback from communities seems central to the AFN effort, which emphasises an active engagementwith field realities, rather than a one-way dissemination of information from the network tocommunities. There also seems to be some effort to feed research results back into local communities.Links with communities are kept up in the following ways:

• Research and discussion with communities by partner members. E.g. during ESSC’sinteraction with local communities in the Philippines, some technical questions were raised bycommunity members. The AFN secretariat helped to research the questions and passed on theinformation to ESSC, to incorporate in further discussion with the communities.

• Cross-visits between communities are an opportunity to get feed-back from local communities.• Gathering and sharing of information during field visits by secretariat or partner members. The

kind of information that is emphasised for passing on to communities is technical informationand awareness of how policy developments can affect their resource use.

• Research findings are fed back into communities in a selective way. Most often the contents ofcase studies do not reach any ‘conclusions’ about a particular community, but simplydocument the community’s experiences at a particular point of time, and document what plansthey have for the future. The broader conclusions can be drawn when several cases are lookedat together to see what are the commonalities, the differences, and what is and isn’t working. Itis felt that these sorts of findings are more relevant at a policy and planning level, rather thanthe level of the community.


14

• In terms of site-specific information, rather than receiving translated publications, it was feltthat knowing that their story was being documented, would prove an inspiration for thecommunity.

6.3 Issues of Exclusivity: Translations and E-mail

From observation of international CF network activity in general, it would seem that the extensivereliance on email and English may lead to the exclusion of many people who do not have access toemail or do not speak English. As far as the AFN is concerned, there is a heavy reliance on email forcommunication. However, there is an acknowledgement of the fact that many people do not have accessto email, and telephone calls and faxes are used occasionally as a form of back-up communication.Many general members do not have email, so it does not seem as if the lack of email has excluded themfrom the network. In addition, all publications are produced in hard copy, and so are accessible to allmembers regardless of internet connectivity. However, since all partner members need to have access toemail, this may have excluded certain people from engaging more directly and extensively withnetwork activities. It may be a general logistical reality of international networks that they cannotinteract extensively and frequently with those without access to email.

Similarly, as far as the use of English is concerned, all partner institutes must have at least one personwho speaks English, since it is the preferred language of communication. However, there are attemptsto make the network accessible to people who are not English-speakers. At meetings and workshops,AFN tries to have translators for those participants with little or no English ability. For some memberswith limited English skills, seating arrangements are adjusted to place individuals next to those who caninformally translate. Additionally, there seem to have been attempts in the past to produce occasionaltranslations of documents and publications. This was, however, not frequent due to resource constraints.With the current E.C./CFI funded programme, resources have been made available for this. It isenvisaged that each report will now be published in two languages – English and the most relevant locallanguage, with the local translation being co-ordinated by the country partner member. A report onCFMSP states, that “translating case studies and working papers into national languages is essential.” 8

7. MONITORING & EVALUATION STRATEGY

7.1 Accountability and Monitoring

AFN’s monitoring strategy is characterised by informality and flexibility, which seems to be apparentin all network activities. For specific country activities financed by AFN, partner members areaccountable to the network secretariat through a signed letter of agreement and terms of reference.However, partner members are not accountable to the network on a general level, such as for hostingregional exchanges or other activities, as this depends on the availability of a partner. Thus the AFNdoes not necessarily rely on any organisation to be a partner in a particular activity.

The AFN secretariat monitors partner activities through cross-visits, field visits and country visits.Before a proposal is drawn up for an activity, a staff member goes to the proposed field site with thepartner. At that stage it is possible to gauge what type of activity the partner institution is best capableof doing, and the secretariat offers guidance on assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a partner inrelation to possible activities. Depending on a partner’s institutional mission, it may be that the partneris keen to undertake a particular activity despite being ‘weak’ in this area. In this case, the secretariatcan help to build the capacity of the partner. Once an activity is underway, regular country visits enableinformal observation by the secretariat staff, for example observing the dynamics of the relationshipbetween a partner and local communities. Country visits are not done primarily for monitoring, but tohelp the partner through the activity in the form of technical support, advice about strategies, etc. If thesecretariat sees opportunities where the partner can learn from others, cross-visits are designed. Thus,the monitoring is not carried out as a formal, separate process, but is done throughout the project forguidance and support. After a workshop, monitoring is often done by a follow-up visit by secretariatstaff to the area. For example, a field workshop was held in Cebu, Philippines, in February 2002 and inHyderbad, India in March 2002. As a follow-up, secretariat staff visited workshop participants in Marchand April to see how they were implementing the strategies that they put together at both workshops.

8 Ibid.


15

Since AFN does not put itself forward as a funding agency that formally evaluates activities, it aims fora steady flow of communication with partner members about what partners are doing and whatproblems they face. Partners often write to the secretariat with informal updates and developments, withthe secretariat giving some inputs in return. A staff member felt that “There is an openness and honestythat somehow gets nurtured in the process”. It may be that a lesson emerging from the experience ofAFN, is that operating with small grants, or relatively small amounts of money in general, leads toopenness and honesty in the relationship with partners. Since the grant money is very small, it is not themain focus of the relationship with members. It acts more as a support to what members are alreadydoing. As a member of the secretariat put it, “Since we are giving only small money, no-one is trying tobluff.” If a particular activity is not being carried out satisfactorily, the response of AFN is not towithdraw funds, but to try and work out the problem with the partner member.

7.2 Evaluations and Self-Assessment

There has never been a formal self-assessment or in-depth analysis of AFN history. It is hoped thatsetting up of the Senior Advisory Board (as described in section 4.2 on Membership Structure) will leadto an analysis of AFN’s history and experiences. It was felt that an evaluation to assess the impact ofthe AFN at the grassroots level would be useful, but was not a priority in terms of the time and effortthat would be needed for such an exercise. It was felt that regular, informal reflections on the directionof the network would be preferable to doing a formal evaluation.

There has never been a readership evaluation either, to monitor whether the large number of regularlyproduced AFN publications are reaching the target audience, to what extent they are found to be usefulby readers, etc. Again, monitoring of this is done informally, for example by noting how often AFNreports are cited in the reports and publications of other organisations or researchers. One secretariatmember remembered seeing a Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) publication thatmentioned AFN reports as among the more frequently used in policy and planning.

Post-activity evaluations are done in a much more structured manner. Evaluation forms are filled in byparticipants, and then discussed within the secretariat in terms of how the activity was organised, theproblems, scope for improvement, etc. These discussions act as an input in organising the subsequentactivity. For example, the decision to limit participant numbers to a small group during meetings wastaken as a result of such evaluations. Within the secretariat, post-field visit evaluations also includereflecting on how the forest community benefited from the field visit.

There have been other interesting findings from participant evaluations. For instance, though it is muchmore difficult to collect evaluation forms from participants who have already returned home, theobservations have a different, more reflective, more valuable quality than forms which are filled inimmediately on the spot. Another example is that initially meetings were held in a more formalconference setting, without any field visit component. It was found, however, that field visits weremuch appreciated as they allowed participants to get out of the meeting room and learn something newin a field setting.

Responses from participants tend to be very mixed, for example regarding which activity is the mostuseful. The challenge is to find a common note of relevance and usefulness for all participants.

7.3 Impacts of AFN

Evaluating the impact of any CF network would be a difficult task, given the intangible nature of manyof its aims and outputs (e.g. awareness raising), and the fact that most changes on the ground would bedifficult, if not impossible, to trace back to a particular actor or network with any certainty, given therange of diverse forces in play at the same time. For the purposes of this report, this difficulty isexacerbated since there has not been any formal or structured attempt at evaluating the extent or natureof AFN’s impacts at various levels, such as at grassroots level or policy level.

Given this situation, and the limitations of this study in terms of time and methodology, thisdocumentation of the impacts of AFN rely on a very limited range of subjective perceptions. Thefollowing points were made about the impact of AFN:


16

• AFN has created greater awareness and acknowledgement of CFM as a strategy. E.g. AFNpublications have been very influential in helping forest departments to accept communityinvolvement in forest management and are widely used in forest department trainings.

• AFN has provided support to communities who have indigenously managed forests, oftenindirectly through partners. (e.g. by developing methods for field practitioners to work withcommunities)

• Exchanges among members and countries has led to an enrichment of CF implementation, interms of participation of stakeholders, dialogue processes, mediation, mapping, spatialmethodologies, etc. Exchanges have led to rich analyses, critiques and a development ofoptions.

• AFN has had an indirect influence on policies by reflecting on, and analysing, policy changeand implementation. This may have influenced people within a country to work for policychange.

• AFN has supported and encouraged the adoption of more participatory forms of forestmanagement in Asia, through systematic documentation of local and national experiences andby sharing them widely with interested individuals and organizations. A senior member noted,“AFN has strived to view these changes in a broad, historic perspective rather thanemphasizing specific projects or donor experiences. As such, it has endeavoured to act as areliable and enduring source of information on these important social transitions, identifyingboth problems and progress.”

It is felt that through these contributions, AFN has had an impact at grassroots level, though attributingany particular change entirely to AFN is very difficult. One member felt that “much of the impact hasbeen in terms of knowledge, which is catalytic. It often helps people to move on to the next stage.Sometime there is a long gestation period, sometimes there isn’t.”

In addition, AFN provided a venue and support mechanisms for discussing CF issues, at a time whenthere wasn’t much support for it. In this sense, it played an important role, especially in the early 1990s,in tapping key individuals who were interested in CF, and bringing them together to discuss anddevelop an agenda for promoting CF.

Impact on members:Different AFN activities are targeted at different sections of the membership. It was felt thatpublications are of most benefit to researchers, technical staff and policy planners. Donors also benefitfrom publications as a source of information for defining funding priorities, how programmes could bebetter designed to reflect field realities, etc. (Donors also often consult with secretariat members, tokeep in touch with what is happening in the field). Programme implementers benefit from AFN’s fieldmanuals. Regional exchanges benefit a greater mix of people, including government officials, NGOs,community leaders, forest department officers, university-based researchers, and representatives frominternational agencies. Finally, field workshops are very specific in their target audience, and benefitmainly field practitioners.

8. FUNDING STRATEGY

The initial donors to AFN were the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation. USAID and theUSDA Forest Service have also been major funders. Currently, the E.C. and CFI are supporting AFNactivities.

The funding strategy has been that AFN submits proposals to donor agencies for projects based on aperceived need or request for action. Formerly, when AFN did not have sufficient funding, it tried towork with partners who had funding for particular activities. Even now, for example, in regionalmeetings the secretariat finds out what partner members are already doing, and an effort is made to fitin new activities around on-going ones. This is seen as preferable to gathering together a big pool ofresources and having the secretariat managing all funding for the whole network. As a secretariatmember put it, “this makes it more sustainable, because you tap into the social capital and the initiativeof people to give inputs. This is the essence of a network, where everybody has to put in something.This shows and ensures commitment”.


17

The current E.C. and CFI support has presented the AFN with a good opportunity to make its activitiesand support services more sustainable, particularly given the fact that the sustainability and stability ofnetwork operations has always been a constraint. However, the strategy of keeping network operationsmodest and lean, remains in place. The secretariat is very clear that it does not want ‘big’ funding, asthis would entail more structured work plans and more requirements, and would not be very flexible interms of shifts in strategies and processes.

Funding has been a constraint that has led to AFN activities being focussed almost exclusively onSoutheast Asia. Despite a fairly visible presence in India some years ago, AFN has had to withdraw itsactivities from South Asia. A staff member observed that in the future it would be desirable to pick upthe links with South Asia because the region offers many lessons for CF in Southeast Asia.

9. IDENTITY AND IMAGE

9.1 Perceptions of close associatesThough this report is primarily based on the experiences and perceptions of the AFN secretariat,discussions were also held with some close associates and members of the AFN in the Philippines.Being based in the Philippines, these associates are in close contact with the secretariat, and provided avaluable additional perspective. The four associates interviewed included members from the ESSC, thePhilippines Working Group and a UNDP / E.C. small grants project for tropical forests. The associatesall felt that the work of the AFN was very relevant and useful, and that its strategies were effective. Thefollowing points emerged:

• AFN has high credibility among different sectors. Therefore it can bring diverse groupstogether for dialogue. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in thePhilippines has great respect for AFN because of its activities like community mapping. TheDENR listens to AFN for policy inputs. AFN is well networked, and thus very useful inadvising on who to approach, where to get information, etc: “For their size, the number oftimes they come up in materials, or references, is extraordinary. So AFN seems to be very wellnetworked among key players.”

• AFN is a loose, informal, personalised group that can accommodate differences and takeinto account local concerns, while also being scientific. Its small size is an advantage, since itavoids being a top-heavy network. The informality is reflected in the lack of strict monitoringof members’ activities: “It is not very good to have strict monitoring. That is not therelationship. It’s more a personalised network, with a healthy respect for each other. But to putsome structure to it, workshops are a good way for reporting activities, without having aformal checklist.”

• CWGs are a good way of localising AFN work. Since AFN is small and very engaged in thelocal context, they are not seen as ‘outsiders’ – “unlike larger networks which are engaged ona wider, regional level”.

• AFN is responsive to members’ needs and suggestions.• AFN has a pragmatic, down to earth approach, and it is possible to have a good dialogue

with the secretariat.• AFN workshops break the mould of conventional workshops. They are not too structured,

and it is not simply about presenting papers: “There is an honest attempt to engage people witheach other, draw out problems, work out solutions. They want something with direct impactand usefulness for participants when they go back to their country.” Small numbers atworkshops are an advantage because it creates a focussed group. Such regional exchanges arehelpful in gauging a country context in relation to other countries.

• AFN publications contain useful content, and are used as references for statements andarguments. Publications are especially helpful on countries like Laos and Cambodia, on whichthere has been relatively little documentation.

• It would be useful if AFN could do more, but growth needs to be balanced with maintaining asimilar level of intensity and focus.

• AFN needs to allocate more resources for translations, to minimise the disadvantages ofusing only English. This is especially the case for Southeast Asian countries other than thePhilippines, since English is fairly widespread in the Philippines.


18

• Impacts of AFN often cannot be quantified. It is like a “cumulative storage and processing ofinformation”. AFN output enhances arguments in support of CF, and sharpens tools andtechniques.

9.2 Ownership:As a way of encouraging members to have ownership of country activities, setting up AFN offices inother countries was not considered a good option. It was envisaged that countries would take ownershipof developing strategies, while AFN would provide supporting services. It was felt that in thePhilippines, for example, there is a feeling of ownership of AFN processes and activities. This isbecause secretariat management of the network is informal and relatively ‘hands-off’. Activities andpreparations are carried out by local groups. It was felt that a similar feeling of ownership of networkactivities is likely to prevail in other member countries. AFN encourages this by, for example, notputting up AFN banners at meetings but allowing the process to be owned by the country hosts andfacilitators. This is reflected in the fact that often people know secretariat members as individuals,rather than as “AFN”.

10. LINKS TO OTHER CF NETWORKS

10.1 International Networks

AFN has some links with other international CF networks, including a history of collaborating onactivities together. In the late 1990s AFN was requested by the IUCN Working Group on CommunityInvolvement in Forest Management (IUCN WG-CIFM) to put together a regional profile of communityforestry in Southeast Asia, as part of a series of regional CF profiles. AFN and IUCN also workedtogether to try and influence the IPF/IFF processes. The relationship of AFN with RECOFTC goes backto about 1992. One of their joint activities was putting together training material for field practitioners.Some of this material was used in RECOFTC’s training programmes. Currently the main relationshipbetween RECOFTC and AFN is helping to disseminate each other’s publications. In 2001 AFNmembers attended RECOFTC’s international conference on community forestry.

10.2 Local NetworksAFN does not usually link directly with local or national networks within a country, though there aresome exceptions such as the Northern Farmers’ Network in Thailand, and FKKM (Community ForestryCommunication Forum) in Indonesia. The connection is usually created through partner members whoare linked to local networks. However, the AFN secretariat does make direct contact with local ornational networks during field visits or workshops, for example. There is no active encouragement bythe secretariat for partner members to link to local or national networks, because it was found that suchlinks are created anyway on the initiative of partner members.

In the Philippines, the AFN secretariat is linked to SPARK (Sharing and Promotion of Awareness andRegional Knowledge), a programme of the Voluntary Services Overseas-UK, which operates incountries that overlap with three of AFN’s member countries. SPARK is a network-based programme,with a base of mainly NGOs and people’s organisations. It is felt that this complements AFN’s basewhich has a relatively larger focus on field practitioners, forestry departments, researchers andacademics. Thus SPARK is a valuable contact for AFN in the Philippines, in terms of expanding itsnetwork base and being in touch with information from the field.

11. SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED

11.1 Network Structure: Institutionalisation, Size and Sustainability

Commitment: The fact that the AFN operated for eight years without formal registration andadministrative support, indicates that it has a firm base of commitment from a core group of members,and perhaps indicates a very sustainable network as the formal headquarters and activities are built on abase of long commitment rather than being dependent entirely on external resource availability. Asecretariat member noted, “Registering the network has helped. Three or four people were doing all thework without a support structure, for years. This is good because networks must be started withcommitment, but can’t be sustained only on that.” The same member also expressed concern that theregistration and relatively greater formalisation of the network should not change the basic character of


19

the network in terms of commitment, focus and personalisation: “I am concerned we don’t lose thefamiliarity of the process, and that we don’t get too output driven. This is not happening yet, but itcould if AFN gets too big, if it does not continue to refine its focus.”

Small and Personal: AFN is a small network, and a key guiding principle is to keep operations modestand lean, and to keep the dynamics of the network informal and very personalised. This is apparent inalmost all the network operations, such as the lack of membership forms and formal registration;keeping meeting numbers low in order to facilitate in-depth interaction between members and to makecollective decisions; the informal system of tracking members’ activities, not through a system offormal evaluations but through support visits and a flow of informal updates; and providing smallgrants. A secretariat founder member noted, “We never wanted big hype, big money, big offices. We’dseen too many of those big systems. AFN was small, personal, without great securities.”

AFN’s small size seems to have generated several advantages. Firstly, being a small, personalisednetwork is likely to have been an important factor in ensuring a strong commitment to the network andbetween members, especially before it was formally registered. There is a strong sense of personalidentification with the network, among the secretariat. One member noted, “AFN is a group ofpractitioners I like to work with. I don’t need an AFN badge. We enjoy coming together and share asense of being part of that group. That’s why we operated for years without formal registration. Evenafter six months it’s like we met yesterday.” Secondly, being small allows the network to be flexible inits strategies and responses to new developments, since it is not bound by the bureaucratic proceduresinherent in a large organisational structure. Thirdly, the small size allows for collective decisions to bemade more easily, possibly ensuring that the network retains its relevance to most members. Fourth, thesmall size of the network ensures that people do not feel threatened by it. In the words of a secretariatmember, “AFN is not a major force, but is not irrelevant either”. This allows the AFN to talk to peopleacross a range of sectors that may be opposed to each other (such as government officials and NGOs),and bring them together for dialogue or co-operation.

None of the persons interviewed seemed to feel that there were any major disadvantages in terms of thesmall size and informality, other than the fact that a small size necessarily limited the scope of thenetwork’s activities, and that from a purely administrative point of view it was sometimes difficult tocope with loosely structured arrangements such as the lack of rigidly defined membership categories. Itwas felt, though, that any kind of growth would need to be balanced in terms of retaining thepersonalised nature of AFN. Despite the more formalized nature of AFN following its registration, itstill consciously retains an informality of working, and relies heavily on personal relations andindividual equations to operate as a network. This informality was also appreciated by the network’sclose associates in the Philippines.

Leadership: There is a move now to devolve the leadership of the network to a wider base of members.While it was valuable to have a strong leader to give a vision and direction to the network in its earlyyears, creating a wider leadership base was felt to be a positive move to ensure sustainability of thenetwork in terms of its evolution. A useful lesson emerging from the AFN experience may be that anetwork needs a strong leader as a driving force, but as a network matures, and as the aims get morerooted, a strong leader can give more room for a wider base of leadership to ensure sustainability andfresh perspectives.

Funding: A challenge over the years has been to stabilise and sustain the network financially. TheE.C./CFI grant has presented an opportunity to make the AFN’s activities in the current phase moresustainable. However, the overall strategy of keeping operations modest, remains in place. Thesecretariat is very clear that it does not want ‘big’ funding, as this would entail work plans that are toostructured and a reduction in flexibility. The network often taps members’ resources by trying to fitnetwork activities around on-going member activities. A commitment of resources by members showscommitment to the network, and it is felt that members’ initiatives and inputs are needed to ensure adynamic and relevant network.

Process Vs. Project: It is very interesting that the AFN seems to have followed in its own functioning,the maxim it applies to community forestry – namely, that CF must be promoted not as a project, but asa process, since a process allows for sustainability and lack of reliance on time-bound, external funds.Similarly, the AFN has been built up from an informal group of like-minded people to a formallyregistered network with an infrastructure, as a gradual process based on commitment and personal


20

equations, rather than as a ‘projectised’ network created on the basis of the availability of funds andinfrastructure. This indicates that the AFN may be a network that is sustainable in the long run.

11.2 OwnershipA lesson emerging from the AFN experience is that it is important to have localised ownership of thenetwork. Firstly, this is reflected in the fact that after being administered for several years from USA,the AFN was registered in the Philippines. Among the secretariat, there were no particular problemsperceived in having administered the network from USA, but at the same time it was seen as “logical”that the network headquarters should be based in Asia, since that was the focus of its activities. It islikely that this would lead to a greater feeling of ‘ownership’ of the network by its Asian members.Secondly, there is a move to develop a Senior Advisory Board to provide a vision and advice on thedirection of the network. This is also being done as a way of developing a more formal base of Asianleaders for the network. Finally, informal personal relationships themselves are likely to go towardscreating a feeling of ownership and commitment among partner members, towards the network. It waspointed out that country organisations and members take ownership of country network activities andtake over the preparations etc., with the secretariat trying to take a hands-off approach to management.It was pointed out that there are no AFN banners, for example, at network country activities. CountryWorking Groups are a good way of localising AFN’s work, and ensuring that the network is not seen asan ‘outsider’. Obviously it is not clear to what extent a feeling of ownership is prevalent in all AFNmember countries, since this question goes beyond the parameters of this study. However, AFN’sclosest partners in the Philippines, the ESSC and the PWG, did seem to feel a sense of ownership overnetwork activities.

11.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy

Informal monitoring: The nature of AFN’s monitoring and evaluation strategy is very closely linked tothe issues mentioned above, namely the informal and personalised quality of the network. Firstly,individual relationships between secretariat members and partner members allow for a system ofinformal monitoring of member activities which is more like an opportunity to work out any problemsrather than being a conventional system of ‘checks’. This seems to have the advantage of moving awayfrom a hierarchical model of interaction between the secretariat and partners, where the effort is to workout problems together as opposed to a ‘donor - beneficiary’ relationship. Whether (or to what extent) ahierarchical relationship between the secretariat and partner members is indeed avoided in practice isnot clear, as this question is beyond the parameters of this study. However, the strategy of monitoringwould suggest that the effort is to avoid such a hierarchical relationship.

Secondly, the fact that AFN’s financial help to any partner is very small seems to have the advantage ofensuring open and honest relations between partners and the secretariat. Since grants are small, they arenot the focus or the basis of any member’s relationship with AFN. Again, this avoids a ‘donor-beneficiary’ relationship between the secretariat and partners.

Accountability to members: Post-activity evaluations by participants are very structured, and seem tohave been an effective strategy for reflection and improvement of network activities. It indicates thatthe network is accountable to its members, and may indicate an ongoing evolution and dynamism innetwork activities.

Impacts of AFN: There has not been a formal self-evaluation by the network regarding the impacts ofnetwork activities, though there is an ongoing, informal process of monitoring and self-reflection, asdescribed above. It was thought that a formal self-evaluation would be useful, but was not enough of apriority to devote the required time and resources to it. Given this, secretariat perspectives on impacts ofAFN are necessarily very subjective. Overall it would seem that the AFN provided an importantimpetus to CF in its early days when it was not very popular, by providing a venue and supportstructure for people to exchange ideas on CF, and by creating greater awareness of CF. The exchangehas enriched the thinking on, and implementation of CF, with the production of analyses, critiques, anddevelopment of CF implementation and policies. This is likely to have had an impact on localcommunities through the work of network members in different countries, and perhaps an indirectimpact on national policies by influencing members who work for policy change.


21

11.4 Activities

AFN’s current activities under CFMSP reflect the gaps in the field of CF, as perceived by the network.The CF sector is seen as being deficient in communication between projects and planners, anddocumentation / analysis of field experiences and policy implications. A report on the experiences ofthe current phase of activities has reflected on lessons learned from some of AFN’s methods.

Small grants: The small grants scheme appears to have been helpful in supporting focussed researchand training, catalysing policy analysis and facilitating exchanges. To be effective, a small grantsscheme needs to be flexible and able to respond quickly to requests and changing contexts; it needs tobe focussed in terms of generating clear outputs within a period of 6 – 24 months, and the output needsto have a specific audience.

Regional exchanges: Regional exchanges, which include meetings, country visits and field methodsworkshops have proved to be important opportunities for CF professionals and field practitioners toexchange experiences and learn lessons from other regions. Regional exchanges form a significantcomponent of AFN strategy. Such face-to-face exchanges are more effective than publications in termsof learning lessons and building relationships between members. For example, it was noted that duringcross-visits it is easier for people to deal with difficult issues and ask tough questions, since it is outsideof their own context. In order to maximise the potential of regional exchanges, and to try and make it asrelevant as possible, it was important to have a clear agenda with a limited number of well-definedtopics of shared interest for discussion; to have well-prepared presentations by resource persons, thatwould complement participant discussions; to provide adequate time for participants to present theirexperiences and discuss them with others; to have a clear output of the exchange, including follow-upactivities; to limit participant numbers to 25, in order to facilitate in-depth discussions and the buildingup of long-term relations between participants. Finally, it was important for the regional exchange to fitwithin a larger support strategy for members.

Field methods workshops need slightly different planning for effectiveness. It was noted that fieldmethods workshops require more time for planning, in order to address the diverse needs ofparticipants. While planning the workshop it was necessary to identify host institutions or projects withsimilar goals as AFN in terms of strategies and outputs, and also to identify individuals in the institutionor project, who could form a core group for workshop activities. It was important to provideparticipants with opportunities to observe new methodologies, field test methods, and observe strategiesemployed by AFN partner members’ projects and other field sites where CFM is being implemented.

Overall there seems to have been positive feedback from members regarding AFN activities.

Global processes: In contrast, AFN’s efforts to contribute to global processes, namely the IPF and IFFprocesses, have been disappointing. Having spent a great deal of time and resources in trying toinfluence IPF/IFF, it was found that such global processes are far too slow in having any effect onground realities. Thus, allocating limited resources to this was seen as unjustified, and the AFN nowfocuses on regional and national level efforts as described above. Networks seem uniquely placed(more than big organisations, for example) in carrying a diversity of voices and perspectives to globalprocesses. It may be worth examining how networks, particularly small ones like AFN, can bestrengthened to sustain involvement in time-consuming processes like international agreements.

11.5 Communication Strategy

Regional exchanges, meetings and workshops are an important part of AFN’s strategy forcommunicating with its members. As far as communication with forest-user communities is concerned,the network is in touch with them through the activities of its members. There is an emphasis on beingin touch with field realities, as opposed to being an academic or theoretical network. Network researchis sometimes fed back into communities as an informal sharing of information during fieldwork bypartner members, or during country visits by secretariat staff.

Publications: The most obvious tool of communication is the large number of AFN publications, whichare disseminated free as hard copies, and are also available on the AFN website. Being the most visibleof AFN output, they are often the main way in which members (particularly general members) remain


22

in touch with the network. The main point that emerged regarding publications was that it is importantto continue providing AFN publications for free, since they have proved very useful as a networkingtool and a service provided to members. The benefits of this outweigh the risk of people taking thepublications for granted because they are free. It was also acknowledged that AFN publications do nothold as unique a position today, as they did in the 1990s, when AFN was one of the few institutionsproducing good quality research, documentation and analysis of CF. Now there are far more peopleproducing similar work of a high quality.

Issues of exclusivity: While general members do not necessarily need to have email to receiveinformation, it is clear that a partner member must have email to collaborate on activities. Thus, thosewithout access to email are excluded from being more active members. This may be a generalconstraint for international networks and organisations that would be difficult to avoid. Thedissemination of hard copy publications, and the use of telephone and faxes, are positive factors inensuring that internet connectivity is not mandatory to be in touch with the network.

As far as the use of English is concerned, there is an acknowledgement of the need for translatingnetwork reports and output into local languages. In the past this was often restricted due to resourcelimitations. In the current phase of activities, though, there is a budget for translations of reports intoone local language. However, English remains the preferred language of communication, for examplein regional meetings, which may not have any formal translators present.

While it may be unrealistic to avoid using English as a preferred language, it seems that a far moreinclusive kind of networking could take place if translation was built into all budgets as a priorityactivity. This point may be worth examining further from the viewpoint of donors, not in terms of AFNin particular, but in terms of international CF networks in general.

A Concluding Note

As far as ‘lessons’ are concerned, there did not seem to be any problems perceived by the secretariat (orits close associates interviewed in the Philippines), regarding the methods used by the network topromote CF, and the impact that the network has had so far. This would suggest that its methods havebeen very successful. A clearer picture of the impacts of AFN, and lessons learned from it, shouldemerge when this report is seen in conjunction with the Country Reports generated by the overallproject. The Country Reports should act as a counterbalance to secretariat perspectives, by examiningnetwork activity from the perspectives of country-level members.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anon. 1998. East Kalimantan, Indonesia: Documentation of Rattan Gardens as a SustainableManagement System. Environmental Science for Social Change and AFN. Philippines.

Anon. n.d. “Community Forest Management Support Project 2000 for Southeast Asia”. (Pamphlet).AFN. Philippines.

Anon. n.d. Community Forestry Support Project for Southeast Asia: Guide to Program Support. AsiaForest Network, European Commission, USAID. Philippines.

Anon. n.d. Philippine Working Group on Community-Based Natural Resource Management. (Booklet).ESSC. Quezon City, Philippines.

Anon. n.d. Supporting Natural Regeneration through Community Management. (Booklet) AFN. USA.

Poffenberger M, Josayma C, Walpole P & Lawrence K. 1995. Transitions in Forest Management:Shifting Community Forestry from Project to Process. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of theAsia Forest Network, 2-6 April 1995, Philippines. (Research Network Report No.6) AFN. USA.

Poffenberger M, Walpole P, D’Silva E, Lawrence K & Khare A. (eds.) 1997. Linking Government withCommunity Resource Management: What’s Working and What’s Not. A Report of the 5th Asia ForestNetwork Meeting, 2-6 December 1996, Surajkund, India. (Research Network Report No.9). AFN.USA.


23

Poffenberger, M & McGean, B. 1994. Policy Dialogue on Natural Forest Regeneration andCommunity Management. Asia Forest Network Workshop Proceedings, 2-4 March 1994, Honolulu,Hawaii. (Research Network Report No.5). AFN. USA.

Poffenberger, M. (ed.) 2002. “Community Forest Management Support Project 2000: IntermediateTechnical Report, January – December 2001”. Submitted to the European Commission, January 2002.AFN. Philippines.

ANNEXURES

Annex 1: Evolution of Asia Forest Network

(Source of diagram: Asia Forest Network)Double click inside diagram frame for full screen / to read text. Then double click to exit.


24

2 0 0 2

R e g i o n a l F i e l d W o r k s h o p

India

1 9 9 8

D a v a o P h i l i p p i n e s

1 9 9 7

F A O m e e t i n gA n t a l y a

1 9 9 6 -9 9

I n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l P a n e l o n

F o res t sG e n e v a

1 9 8 9 -9 1

M eet in g s i n C a lcu t t a

N e w D e lh i In d i a

2 0 0 2

R e g i o n a l F i e l d W o r k s h o p

C e b u

2 0 0 2

S i e m R e a p F A OC a m b o d ia

2 0 0 1

B o h o l E S S CP h ilip p in e s

2 0 0 0

H a n o i S M R PV i e t n a m

C a m b o d i a

1 9 9 5

M in d o r o E S S CP h ilip p in e s

1 9 9 4

H o n o l u l u E W CH a w a i i

C h i n aN e p a l

1 9 9 3C i lo to , W e s t J a v a

I n d o n e s i a

V i e t n a m

1 9 9 2B a n g k o k , R E C O F T C

T h a i l a n d

T h a i l a n dI n d o n e s i a P h i l i p p i n e sIn d i a

1 9 8 7P a t t a y a , Th a i l a n d

T h a i l a n dIn d o n e s i aP h i l ip p i n e s

C o m m u n i ty F o r e s t r y G r a n t s t o :

* I n d o n e s i a M in i s t r y o f F o r e s t s * R o y a l F o r e s t D e p a r t m e n t o f T h a ila n d* B u r e a u o f F o r e s t D e v e l o p m e n t , P h ilip p in e s* A s i a n N G O s a n d U n iv e r s i t i e s

* S o c i a l F o r e s t r y i n W e s t J a v a* R e p o r t F r o m P h i l i p p i n e s U p l a n d G r o u p* T h a i C o m m u n i t y F o r e s t r y R e p o r t s

* J o i n t F o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t N a t i o n a l S u p p o r t G r o u p* R e s e a r c h o n N a t u r a l R e g e n e r a t i o n a n d F o r e s t P r o t e c t i o n C o m m it te e

C a s e S t u d y P r e s e n t a t i o n s* A n a l y s i s o f L e a r n i n g fro m F i r s t R o u n d o f R e s e a r c h

P o l i c y D ia lo gue :

C o m m u n i t y F o r e s t P r o t e c t i o n a n d N a t u r a l R e g e n e r a t i o n

* N a t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s f o r in v e n t o r y i n g a n d m o n ito rin g c o m m u n i ty m o ve m e n ts* C u l t u r a l I n s t i t u t i o n s* M a n u a l G IS* P r o j e c t t o P r o c e s s

I n t e r n a t i o n a l W o r k i n g G r o u p o n C o m m u n i t y in vo l v e m e n t i n F o res t M a n a g e m e n t

* S o u t h e a s t A s i a np r o g r a m m e s t r a t e g y

* D o n o r g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c y r e l a t i o n s* M e c h a n i s m s f o r c h a n g e* C o m m u n i ty e m p o w e r m e n t* In t e r n a t i o n a l p o l i c y c o n c e r n s

C F M S t r a t e g i es a n d N e e d s i n S E A

A s i a N e t w o r k F o r m e d

D e s i g n C a s e S t u d y M e t h o d s F o r :* N T F P V a l u a t i o n* N a t u r a l R e g e n e r a t i o n P a t t e r n s* F o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t I n s t i t u t i o n s

A s i a F o r e s t N e t w o r k R e g i s t e r e d i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s

F i e ld M e t h o d s• C F M D i a g n o s i s , P l a n n i n g a n d A n a lys i s• C B N a tu ra l R e g e n e r a t i o n

C F M P o l icy D e v e l o p m e n t i n A s i a : T r a n s i t i o n a l E x p e r i e n c e s• C o n t e x t a n d S t r a t e g y• C o n t e n t a n d S tru c t u r e• I m p l e m e n t a t i o n a n d I m p a c t

G r a s s r o o t s F o r e s t P r o t e c t i o n : E a s t e r n In d i a nE x p e r i e n c e s

1 9 9 7

S u r a j k u n dI n d i a

L i n k i n g C o m m u n i t y w i t h C o m m u 8 n i t y R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t

E V O L U T I O N O F T H E A S I A F O R E S T N E T W O R K a s o f 2 0 0 2


25

Annex 2:

Membership Structure of Asia Forest Network(Source of diagram: Asia Forest Network)

STRUCTURE GENERALMEMBERSHIP

PARTNERMEMBERS

Senior AdvisoryBoard

Secretariat

Board ofTrustees

Annex 3:

Visits, Workshops and InterviewsKey interviews were conducted during a visit to Tagbilaran City (on the island of Bohol), Manila(Quezon City) and Laguna, Philippines, in July 2002 for 7 days. This included a field visit to an ESSCresearch and documentation project supported by AFN. The field site was located in Caroud watershedon the island of Bohol. The project is known as “Caroud CBFM Comparative Assessment SupportProject”. One interview was carried out on telephone, and additional inputs were provided via email bytwo AFN members in the USA.

Interviews carried out in the Philippines in July 2002:• Arlen Salgados, AFN Programme Administrator. Tagbilaran City, Bohol.• Emmanuel P. Crucio, Dialogue Associate, Environmental Science for Social Change.

Tagbilaran City, Bohol.• Mark Sandiford, Regional Programme Co-ordinator, UNDP / EC Small Grants Programme

for Operations to Promote Tropical Forests – South East Asia. Laguna.• May Blanco, Visayas Project Manager, Environmental Science for Social Change. Tagbilaran

City, Bohol.• Peter Walpole, AFN Regional Field Director. Quezon City.• Rowena Soriaga, AFN Dialogue Process Co-ordinator. Tagbilaran City, Bohol.• Sylvia San Mateo Miclat, Facilitator of the Philippines Working Group, Environmental

Science for Social Change. Quezon City.

Interview carried out on telephone:• Angana Chatterji, AFN member, USA. (March 2002)

Inputs via email from:• Dr Mark Poffenberger, AFN Regional Director, USA.• Dr Kate Smith-Hanssen, AFN Programme Manager, USA.

Annex 4:Contact persons’ names and addresses

AFN Secretariat:

Rowena Soriaga (Dialogue Process Co-ordinator)Arlen Salgados (Programme Administrator)2/F Gallares Main Building,


26

Gallares Square,Graham Avenue, Maria Clara Street,Tagbilaran City 6300 Bohol,PhilippinesTel/Fax: (63-38) 235-5800Email: [email protected]

Peter Walpole (Regional Field Director)Environmental Science for Social Change,1/F MO Building,Ataneo University Campus,Loyola Heights, 1108 Quezon City,PO Box 244 U.P. Diliman 1101,Quezon City,Philippines.Tel: (63-2) 426-5921Fax: (63-2) 426-5958Email: [email protected]

AFN USA Office:Dr Mark Poffenberger (Regional Director)Dr Kate Smith-Hanssen (Program Manager)5266 Hollister Avenue,Bldg. B, Suite #237,Santa Barbara, CA 9311USATel: (805) 696-9087Fax: (805) 696-9097Email: [email protected]

AFN associates interviewed in Philippines:

May Blanco (Visayas Project Manager)Emmanuel P. Crucio (Dialogue Associate)Environmental Science for Social ChangeDoor 3, Gallares Court,Graham Avenue, Pook Pantalan,6300 Tagbilaran City, Bohol,PhilippinesTel: (63-38) 235-5819Tel/Fax: (63-38) 235-5247Email: [email protected]

Sylvia San Mateo Miclat (Facilitator of the Philippine Working Group)Environmental Science for Social Change,1/F MO Building,Ataneo University Campus,Loyola Heights, 1108 Quezon City,PO Box 244 U.P. Diliman 1101,Quezon City,Philippines.Tel: (63-2) 426-5921Fax: (63-2) 426-5958Email: [email protected]

Mark Sandiford (Regional Programme Co-ordinator)UNDP / EC Small Grants Programme for Operations to Promote Tropical Forests – South East AsiaSEARCA, College,Laguna 4031,


27

PhilippinesTel: (63-49) 5362290 ext.418Tel/Fax: (63-49) 536-2477Email: [email protected]

lessons from asia forest network (afn)some links with south asia, continue (e.g. in early 2002 a...

Documents