Learning through sharing: The power of exchange visits and how to ...

Learning through sharing

The power of exchange visits and how to make them work

Grazia Piras

2

LearninG throuGh sharinG

“Tell me and I will forget, show me and I may remember, involve me and I will understand.” Confucius

ContentsIntroduction 5

About GFP exchange visits 6

The power of exchange 8

Lessons learnt and practical tips 12

Conclusion 24

3


About this collectionAs an initiative focused on building and supporting partnerships for sustainable forest management, Growing Forest Partnerships (GFP) acknowledges and supports the power of networking in advancing knowledge and inspiring good practice. To be truly effective, the lessons learnt from these partnerships must feed into activities beyond GFP boundaries. Towards this end, GFP supported three exchange visits in 2010 and 2011, bringing together a range of stakeholders from different countries to share their expertise and experience in what works best for sustainable forest management, and why. But are such exchanges effective?

This collection of four booklets about the exchange visits offers insights from those involved on the knowledge gained and lessons learnt.

Three of the booklets — one for each visit — provide details on the background, structure, participants’ profiles, themes discussed, and the challenges and successes of each exchange. The ‘Learning through exchange’ booklet pulls together learning from each exchange and provides practical tips on how to structure these types of events so that they deliver maximum impact for participants.

These lessons and tips are not meant as a definitive checklist for success. Rather, they reflect some suggestions made by participants as well as some of the post-exchange thinking and assessment made by the event organisers and GFP staff.

Guatemala–Peru exchange

Insights into an exchange visit on community forestry

Grazia Piras

3

Burkina Faso– Ghana–Liberia exchangeNetworking for REDD+ readiness in West Africa

Grazia Piras

Laos–nepal exchange

Lessons from civic actions around community forestry

Grazia Piras

Other booklets in this collection

4


5


introductionBrokering knowledge

Imagine a world where forests and the different people who live and work in them are in balance. Where forests are conserved and the rights of those living in them are recognised and respected. Where forests support people’s livelihoods, offer opportunities to tackle climate change, provide good economic returns for responsible businesses without exacerbating forest degradation, and can raise revenue for both governments and forest-dependent people. This is the world that Growing Forest Partnerships (GFP) is striving towards.

By helping forest stakeholders to connect, create a common vision, and develop and implement joint activities, GFP is creating opportunities to share learning and experience in equitable and sustainable forest management across Ghana, Guatemala, Liberia, Mozambique and Nepal. Glimpses of a more positive future can already be seen. In all five countries, and elsewhere, forest communities, businesses and national governments have pioneered innovative and successful approaches to forest management that are now thriving.

But how can these experiences be amplified and fed back into the international dialogue on forests shaping today’s debate and policymaking for forests? One option is to use exchange visits — where diverse stakeholders from different countries come together to share their expertise and experience and witness, and learn from, successful approaches in action.

A series of such exchanges, supported by GFP, suggests that they can be enormously effective in building knowledge and understanding, in opening new opportunities for collaboration and in spreading good practice. But these results are not guaranteed. Participants and partners in the GFP exchange visits point to a number of common challenges affecting the usefulness of exchange visits, and offer practical tips and advice on how to overcome these.

6


In 2010 and 2011, GFP supported three exchange visits on three different continents:

l Latin America: an exchange between Guatemala and Peru, from 2 to 5 November, 2010.

l West Africa: an exchange between Burkina Faso, Ghana and Liberia, from 9 to 11 December, 2010.

l Asia: an exchange between Laos and Nepal, from 20 to 25 March, 2011.

Guatemala–Peru Guatemala–Peru

Where?Where? Petén region, Guatemala

Who?Who?

16 Guatemalan representatives of 16 Guatemalan representatives of 16 Guatemalan representatives of community forestry groups; 12 Peruvians representing indigenous peoples and local indigenous peoples and local indigenous peoples and local indigenous peoples and local indigenous peoples and local communities.

What?

How community forestry groups can How community forestry groups can How community forestry groups can How community forestry groups can How community forestry groups can support equitable forest governance support equitable forest governance support equitable forest governance support equitable forest governance support equitable forest governance policies and develop profitable policies and develop profitable policies and develop profitable policies and develop profitable policies and develop profitable policies and develop profitable policies and develop profitable policies and develop profitable activities while minimising activities while minimising activities while minimising activities while minimising activities while minimising environmental impacts.environmental impacts.environmental impacts.environmental impacts.environmental impacts.

Burkina Faso–Ghana–LiBurkina Faso–Ghana–LiBurkina Faso–Ghana–LiBurkina Faso–Ghana–LiBurkina Faso–Ghana–LiBeria

Where? Accra, Ghana

Who?

21 participants representing 21 participants representing 21 participants representing 21 participants representing 21 participants representing 21 participants representing government, civil society government, civil society and the private sector: and the private sector: 12 Ghanaians, 6 Liberians and 12 Ghanaians, 6 Liberians and 12 Ghanaians, 6 Liberians and 12 Ghanaians, 6 Liberians and 12 Ghanaians, 6 Liberians and 3 Burkinabes.

What?REDD+ Readiness processes in West REDD+ Readiness processes in West African Countries.

about GFP exchange visits

7


Laos–NepaLaos–NepaL

Where?Where? Kathmandu, NepalKathmandu, Nepal

Who?

16 Laotians, including village 16 Laotians, including village leaders and staff of civil society organisations and 10 Nepalese representing governments officials, community-based organisations and community-based organisations and forest enterprises.

What?Civic action contribution to community rights to forest community rights to forest community rights to forest community rights to forest community rights to forest resources.

Each exchange was hosted by an active member of GFP and involved stakeholders from both GFP countries and non-GFP countries.

Although the exchange visits shared a common purpose to promote South-South learning and collaboration in sustainable forest management, each focused on a different theme (see boxes opposite). In each case, the organisers and their partners in the visiting countries selected a topic based on local strengths and what they perceived to be most relevant and of most value to the national forestry context and the communities they work with. All three included a field visit, where participants travelled to one or more forested sites to meet local communities and talk about their approach to forest management (see details in the exchange-specific booklets).

about GFP exchange visits

8


Exchange visits have long been touted as an effective tool for learning and networking. But do they actually work? The three GFP-supported exchange visits provide clear evidence that they do — that there are important benefits to be gained, not only for those directly involved as participants but also for their wider circles of influence. In four key areas, the power of exchange is unmistakeable.

New knowledgeIf knowledge is power, then the GFP-supported exchange visits have indeed been empowering experiences. Regardless of their expectations and personal objectives, all the participants claimed to have learnt something new that was important to them.

This was perhaps to be expected — after all, learning from overseas colleagues is the whole idea behind exchanges. But more surprising was the extent to which participants learnt from others within their own country. For example, both Mustapha and Abdul-Razak from Ghana received important updates on the status of REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) readiness within Ghana, which they were able to incorporate back into their organisations’ work. The potential value of sharing knowledge among fellow countrymen and receiving feedback based on other local perspectives makes involving local stakeholders throughout the exchange a must.

Another successful element of all three exchanges was the field visit. This type of learning — seeing and interacting with people on the ground — was highly valued by all participants. Santi, Somphong and Chanhthy, from Laos, all said that what they liked the best, and found to be most useful, was visiting the villages and seeing new approaches in community forest management (see ‘Laos–Nepal exchange’). Similarly, Rafael from Peru said the most valuable aspect of the exchange was to actually observe the work of people in circumstances similar to his own. For the Guatemalan participants, the field visit was important in enabling them to visit parts of the country they had never been to and to learn directly from their in-country colleagues.

the power of exchange

“The case of Burkina Faso showed that

if communities are supported and allowed to speak for themselves there can be

good results.” Osofo, Ghana

9


The ripple effectThe knowledge gained through GFP exchange visits obviously impacts those attending. But even more important is the impact that this learning has on a wider set of actors, through a ‘ripple effect’. In all three continents there

are clear and concrete examples of participants taking what they’ve learnt and sharing it, or applying it in their own

organisations or communities. For example, all participants interviewed said they had reported their learning back to people at home, be that through casual conversations with community members, or through formal reports to

colleagues.

In some cases, the exchange led to a direct change in practice. Jose’s community in Guatemala, for example,

began harvesting new non-timber forest products that were being used in Peru. In others, it empowered participants to take a more active role in their organisation. For example, both Mustapha from Ghana and Pamoussa from Burkina Faso used their new knowledge to participate in decision-making processes for forest policy at home (see Burkina Faso–Ghana–Liberia exchange).

And those cases that lack a visible impact in the form of a project, initiative or action plan still show signs of the ripple effect. When John K, from Liberia, reported on his visit, his colleagues were interested in learning more. And Vanessa, from Peru, similarly believes that bringing back information can help motivate colleagues: “Sometimes you might need to transfer some

specific technical knowledge, although the communities often already know that. But raising awareness so that people understand the value our forest resources and appreciate them is key to creating change.”

Of course, reporting back doesn’t always stimulate immediate change, or even attention. “Among the people from my community there isn’t much interest”, said Rafael, from Peru. But in this case, the fact that Rafael, who is a leader in his community, valued the exchange is encouraging. Indeed, he said that this type of sharing and capacity building “makes us put more effort into our work; we can transfer this experience to our community.”

the power of exchange

“From these experiences comes a multiplying effect

that strengthens the capacities of actors.”

Pamoussa, Burkina Faso

10


Expanding networks The GFP-supported exchange visits, which involved many different stakeholders meeting face-to-face, provided much potential to strengthen old ties and create new ones. Putting a face to a name or email address has a powerful effect in bringing people from different backgrounds — such as the private sector and civil society — closer together and building understanding and trust.

As highlighted by Vanessa from Peru, joint efforts to effect change requires members to stay in touch. But meeting new people is equally valuable. For some, it allows a fruitful discussion and exchange of ideas. In Guatemala, community foresters from different regions met and shared their experience and expertise.

For others, it opens doors to new work environments or processes. Abdul-Razak met fellow Ghanians that have helped him engage more effectively in his country’s REDD+ readiness process. Among his newly acquired contacts is a key government person that can help him access information and decision-making power next time he needs it. “Even connecting with just one person is valuable,” he said.

In many cases, the exchange visits saw new relationships form, which have given birth to new partnerships and deeper collaboration. For example, the Guatemalan organisations Ut’z Che and ACOFOP already have further exchanges planned for 2012 with one of the Peruvian participant organisations, AIDESEP.

Mustapha, from Ghana, works for an organisation that has recently started operating in Liberia. Through the GFP exchange, Mustapha has gained new contacts with whom he can work to facilitate his introduction to the country and to gain the local knowledge and support he needs for taking on this new challenge. Conversely, a diverse group of Liberian stakeholders now know about, and have a direct link to, a new, relevant initiative in their country.

Fresh perspectivesExchange visits like the ones supported by GFP work in part because they bring together people who – despite working in the same sector – may have never interacted. The field visits, coffee breaks and small discussion groups create a relaxed space for actors coming from very different places to hear fresh perspectives and alternative viewpoints.

Even when opinions differed, the face-to-face exchange and dialogue increased

“We are currently planning … exchange activities [for 2012] with AIDESEP.”

Victor, Guatemala

“Exchanges are important because they open space

for discussion.” Osofo, Ghana

11


participants’ understanding of each other’s roles and perspectives. Chanhthy from Laos clearly stated that “the most valuable part of the exchange between Laos and Nepal was witnessing how government, private organisations and communities join hands to support community forest user groups.” The exchanges provided a forum where everyone could speak out on equal terms, which allowed those voices that usually go unheard to carry weight with more influential players. For example, many of the participants in the West African exchange, including several government representatives, said they particularly valued the presence of a traditional chief at the exchange as he brought the views of local communities on REDD+ .

“It was good for me to see that timber companies

in my own country are interested and committed

to REDD+.” Emmanuel, Ghana

12


Lessons learnt & practical tips

Exchange visits may have the potential to spread knowledge, build relationships and air new perspectives, but their success is not guaranteed. Participants’ feedback on their experience clearly point to a number of challenges in running such events and give suggestions for improvement.

From these reflections can be drawn a set of common lessons learnt in making exchange visits work, as well as practical tips for organisations or professionals — both within and beyond GFP — interested in using exchanges as mechanisms for learning, or for scaling up their activities.

1: Set clear objectives

Designing an exchange visit that meets everyone’s expectations can be difficult, especially when the participants represent a wide range of constituencies and have different experiences and backgrounds. Making the objectives clear and feasible is essential to avoid people expecting too much, as seen in Ghana. If the objective of that exchange — for visitors to learn about the REDD+ process in Ghana — had been more clearly stated then perhaps Ghanaian participants would not have expected it to provide a space for agreeing next steps for REDD+, and therefore be disappointed that it didn’t.

13


TipsDO set clear objectives. Make sure you allow enough time to share the proposed agenda with your partners and take care to clearly define the objectives and expected outcomes of the exchange. Clear objectives leave less room for a mismatch between participants’ expectations and the purpose of the exchange. DO be realistic. The objectives of the exchange must be achievable

within the time available. Vague or over-ambitious objectives can lead to high expectations that are not met, leaving participants disappointed. Make sure you plan for each objective, in each case assessing, and allowing for, the time required to achieve it. DO be specific. Marilen from Guatemala suggested that a list of

specific issues to be addressed in the field would have been useful in ensuring that participants arrived with relevant questions and stay focused on the topic.

14


2: Ensure timely access to information

All three GFP-supported exchanges saw some participants feel unprepared to engage in discussions. With a diverse group of people it is inevitable that there will be varying, and in some cases inequitable, levels of understanding about specific topics, which limits the potential for effective exchange.

15


15

TipsDO send agendas and invitations well in advance and in the participant’s own language. This is important to help build confidence and put people on an equal footing for dialogue. Participants need enough time to understand the purpose and content of the visit to be able to access more information or discuss issues with their colleagues or constituents if they need to.

DO make personal invitations. If participants are likely to have no experience of exchange visits then it is important to contact them by phone or in person — so that the purpose, structure and benefit of the event can be fully and properly explained.

DO factor time for logistics. Confirmations of attendance and travel budgets and requirements (such as passports, visas, and vaccinations) should be secured with enough warning to allow participants to arrive on time. Some may need extra support, especially if they are travelling from remote areas, or are unfamiliar with international travel.

DO provide background reading. Sharing basic information beforehand, about the host country and the social, historical or economic context of the issues to be discussed, can provide participants with ‘common ground’ for discussion, as well as save time on introductory presentations.

DO arrange a pre-event meeting. Allowing foreign visitors to meet beforehand can help clarify likely topics and make participants feel more comfortable. Hanna, from Laos, suggested that spending an afternoon together before travelling would have enabled the Laotian group to go over and discuss the objectives, context and basic information of the exchange. Marilen and Rafael, from Peru, similarly felt that jointly delving into the proposed content beforehand would have improved their engagement during the visit. A pre-meeting can also provide a space to address logistical issues and ensure everyone has their paperwork in place and printed copies of the schedule — particularly valuable for those participants coming from remote areas with little or no computer access.

16


3: Make time to talk and network

Participants from all three exchanges noted that they would have valued more opportunities for exchange and dialogue. In some cases, the exchange visit as a whole was simply too short. The West African exchange, for example, was only three days long, compared with four and five days in Latin America and Asia. All participants of this exchange said they would have been willing to spend up to five days, and an extended visit would have allowed for visits to more remote field sites and more time for breakout and discussion sessions.

This last point is particularly important, as it is these less formal sessions that truly allow participants to talk and share ideas and learning. These informal sessions also help break down barriers and encourage the more informal and personal exchange that is so vital to fostering new relationships.

The GFP experiences prove that for an exchange visit to trigger meaningful learning, it must ideally go beyond superficial information sharing and allow for deep and focused discussion. For example, in the West African exchange, there was much discussion about the steps involved in REDD+ readiness processes, but some participants would have liked time to also formulate concrete strategies for influencing REDD+ in practice. The length of the visit can have a major impact on the time available for real debate. Short visits, of less than four days, can end up being dominated by presentations or see participants spend too much time travelling from site to site in the field.

Similarly, exchanges that rely heavily on plenary presentations, rather than group discussions or ‘question and answer’ sessions, can end up being dominated by generalities or scattered observations, rather than focused debate and comprehensive dialogue.

17


TipsDO include lots of breakout sessions.

Rafael from Peru said many people feel more comfortable

and more willing to talk in breakout sessions, compared

with plenary sessions. Small group discussions also offer

more opportunities for everyone to have their say. Both

Adewale from Ghana and Rafael from Peru said that some

participants — usually community representatives who

have not previously engaged in exchange visits — can feel

intimidated to speak out in plenary sessions.

DO ensure good facilitation. Identify a good

facilitator who can trigger discussions, facilitate plenary

sessions, involve and motivate participants and make sure

that discussions and breaks run according to schedule.

DO balance presentations and discussions.

Your programme should not be dominated by

presentations. Remember to include a session at the end of

each day (including the one of the field visit) for participants

to briefly discuss and evaluate what they have seen and

heard — this will also enable you to adjust your agenda

according to participants’ perceptions and needs.

DO provide casual settings for interaction.

Including a series of coffee breaks and lunches, or an

informal social event, such as the dinner in Guatemala,

gives people more time to talk less formally. Such events

offer important networking opportunities — to catch up

with old friends, and make new ones.

18


TipsDO include a strong field component. Having a rich field experience

allows participants to see tangible examples and interact with people on the

‘frontlines’ of whatever topic your exchange is about. This provides fodder

for taking discussions beyond general trends or statistics covered during

presentations. A ‘good’ field trip does not necessarily mean visiting a local

community — the day spent visiting government officials during the West African

exchange proved a valuable and useful experience to participants.

DO keep the number of field trips realistic. When it comes to field

visits, quality is ultimately more important than quantity. If you try to cram in too

many sites, participants may end up feeling rushed and frustrated. Each ‘stop’

will also inevitably be shorter, so you risk missing key aspects, or cutting short

discussions.

DO prepare local stakeholders. Participants and community

members need to be well-informed on the issues covered and field sites visited

before they take place. Local communities must know what their visitors are

expecting to see and talk about — and they should be enabled to provide valuable

local input to discussions, and to enrich field visits through their local knowledge

and experience.

4: Learn by doingLearning opportunities that give people the chance to ‘do’ or experience first-hand a real situation have been shown to result in higher learning gains and retention. When given a choice, people often prefer ‘doing’, ‘seeing’ and ‘discussing’ rather than simply ‘hearing’ about a new topic. For the participants of the GFP exchanges, the field visits were certainly one of the highlights of their learning experience. This makes the inclusion of a relevant field visit especially important.

19


5: Enable effective participationNo exchange visit will work if participants do not feel able or confident to contribute to the discussions. Enabling effective engagement requires you to first ensure that the topic is relevant and of interest to everyone there. But it’s not just about relevance. Some participants may know a lot about the topic and yet still feel unable to engage because of cultural differences or a lack of experience in these sorts of events. This is particularly true of local community members and women.

TipsDO invite relevant stakeholders. It is important that the topic of your exchange is directly relevant and important to each person you invite. Let the scope of your exchange determine the type of participants selected. Both the Asian and Latin American exchanges focused on a very specific topic that was particularly relevant to forest communities — in both cases, inviting people with direct links to those communities was very valuable and effective. Conversely, the West African exchange focused on REDD+ readiness processes, which need multi-stakeholder participation, and so the organisers selected as diverse a group as possible. DO be inclusive. True and inclusive dialogue requires that all actors and perspectives involved in an issue be represented. You should ensure a diverse group of participants and presenters that come from different groups and hold different opinions to give discussions depth. Remember that you may need to invite more than one person from any given group to include, and support engagement of, all relevant stakeholders. Jose from Guatemala identified gender as a key element in community-based forest management and said that greater effort was needed to ensure the engagement of women in higher numbers. There are, of course, obstacles to including minorities and marginalised groups. For example, in some cultures women tend not to travel alone. In other cases, potential participants may only speak a local language, which hinders their engagement.

20


6: Learn from visitorsAs their name implies, exchange visits are about two-way learning. Both visiting and local participants can learn and benefit from these events. But the potential to learn from visitors is often overlooked. Participants in the West African exchange expected an equal exchange between countries and some of the local attendees from Ghana felt they had not learnt enough about the visitors’ experience in their home countries. Similarly, the Asian exchange, which saw 16 Laotians visit Nepal, gave little emphasis to learning from the Laotian experience.

The GFP exchanges suggest that it is perhaps unrealistic to expect an equal exchange, especially when the visit is short and there are more than two countries involved.

TipsDO make time for reflection. Your exchange should include time at the end of each day for the group to explore the links between local dynamics and the international experience. This will give visitors the opportunity to reflect on how the lessons learnt that day can be applied to their own realities, while offering local participants insights into other contexts.

DO limit the number of countries involved. The GFP experience suggests that, given the time available for exchange visits — generally three to five days — it is best to limit the number of countries involved to two or three.

21


TipsDO arrange appropriate translation. Remember to think about

the languages used on both sides of the exchange and, if there is more than

one, ensure that the invitation, agenda and background reading is translated.

Cisse from Burkina Faso felt that some participants in the West Africa

exchange would have benefited from receiving their invitation in French.

The language challenge should certainly not rule out exchanges that would

otherwise be hugely beneficial — for example, between countries that share

similar forest resources, markets or sector profiles. But in these cases it is

essential to translate the documents beforehand, and to provide several good

interpreters that can accompany the group throughout the visit. The team

leader of the visiting group should be able to communicate fluently with all

visitors. This was not the case with the Laotian group, and Hanna, the team

leader from Laos, admitted that “it would have greatly facilitated a lot of

things.”

DO go beyond spoken language. Culture and body language

— especially when dealing with local communities — play a crucial role

in ensuring that participants from both ends feel comfortable and able to

express themselves freely. So make sure that visitors and hosts are aware of

the local customs.

7: Language makes the differenceLanguage and translation can pose significant problems when designing an exchange visit between countries, especially if these involve participants from local communities on both sides. In both of the GFP bilingual exchanges — in Asia and West Africa — coping with the different languages spoken by participants was a challenge.

The GFP experiences suggest that exchanges work best when all the participants understand and speak well a single language (not counting the local languages found during field trips, which brings at least one layer of translation).

Organisers of exchange visits need to strike a balance between designing an experience that is diverse, rich and inclusive with one that enables fluid and significant dialogue.

22


23


8: Keep up the momentum Maintaining momentum after an intense period of learning and exchange can be difficult. Applying lessons learnt at home is sometimes even harder. Rafael from Peru, for example, was hugely encouraged by the community organisations he saw managing concessions in Guatemala but he admits that it is difficult to see how to apply that in his own community, which he sees as a long way behind.

To help participants ‘take lessons home’, exchange visits should include explicit efforts to capture what was learnt and consider options for carrying it forward.

23

TipsDO identify follow-up actions. Including a brainstorming session, as

the Peruvians did in Guatemala, gives participants an opportunity to jointly identify

concrete actions to apply the lessons learnt during the exchange at home.

DO collect feedback. Asking participants to fill out evaluation forms before

the visit ends will help you identify the key issues that need following up. This

exercise also provides participants with time to reflect on their own experience

while it is fresh in their minds.

DO share materials and contacts. Remember to send participants

electronic copies of all the presentations and materials distributed during the

exchange. Assuming that everyone is willing, a list of all participants should also be

provided, along with contact information and a photo. “This,” said Abdul-Razak from

Ghana, “would really capitalise on the networking aspect of the visit.”

DO keep in touch. It is important to keep in regular contact with participants

after the exchange to find out if and how lessons learnt have been used and to

receive news of any significant developments or any new partnerships or initiatives

formed. Sharing this type of news with the rest of the group can also be helpful:

“We should stay in touch, stay united and see each other. ... We are all interested in

the same things and we need to stick together,” says Vanessa from Peru.

24


ConclusionSowing the seeds of changeThe GFP experience clearly shows that exchanges can be quite powerful in spreading knowledge about sustainable forest management and sowing the seeds of change. They also play a significant role in strengthening and building the relationships between diverse actors needed to establish effective working groups that include forest-dependent communities as actors, beneficiaries, partners and decision-makers.

This is what GFP is all about: creating and supporting partnerships and networks that are relevant to local realities and representative of local viewpoints. And each of the exchange visits carried out in 2010 and 2011 has, in its own way, helped to further key ambitions of GFP.

Meeting GFP objectives

Create and strengthen partnerships. Guatemalan community-based forestry organisations Ut’z Che and ACOFOP have partnered with Peruvian development organisation AIDESEP in a new collaboration as a direct result of the Latin American exchange.

Build and support networks at local, national and international levels. During the exchange in Guatemala, members of local community forestry groups met new people, both from Guatemala and abroad, working in the same sector, or facing similar problems. New relationships, such as that between Utz’ che, ACOFOP and AIDESEP, were born through several days of close contact and dialogue — the first step perhaps in developing active cross-country networks with a shared purpose in sustainable forestry.

25


Ensure that global discussions about forests include the real and current challenges. During the Asian and Latin American exchanges in particular, participants — which included local, national and international decision-makers — saw and spoke to real communities living the sustainable forest management challenge. In many cases, these participants have taken the lessons they learnt from these field visits back to their communities, organisations and decision-making arenas (see individual exchange booklets).

Bring the voices of local communities and indigenous people forward. All of the GFP exchanges included participants from local and indigenous communities, some of whom had never had the chance before to participate in such an event and have never had the opportunity to voice their thoughts, concerns, perspectives and knowledge. Thus the exchanges provided local communities and indigenous people with the opportunity to join and be part of a broader debate on why and how to manage forests sustainably.

1: Set clear objectives2: Ensure timely access to information 3: Make time to talk and network4: Learn by doing5: Enable effective participation6: Learn from visitors7: Language makes the difference8: Keep up the momentum

Summary of lessons learnt

26


AcknowledgementsThe content of this publication is based on a technical report written by Teresa Sarroca, who conducted a series of interviews and stitched together the results of the questionnaires which were developed to assess the outcomes of the exchange visits.

This publication would have not been possible without the contributions of GFP in-country partners who provided invaluable help in contacting participants and assisting throughout the drafting process. The feedback received from the participants is at the heart of this exercise, to them goes my deepest gratitude and thanks.

Thank you to all who devoted their time and energy to the making of these four booklets, in alphabetical order: Adamu Sulemana, Adewale Adeleke, Chanhthy Silapasai, Cissé Oumar, Dil Khatri, Dipak B.K., Doris Cordero, Edward S. Kamara, Emmanuel Impraim, Gerry Duckitt, Hanna Saarine, Héctor Viadurre, John Deah, John Kantor, Jorge Chapas, Jose María Perdomo, Leianne Rolington, Lucile Robinson, Marilen Puquio Arturo, Mustapha Seidu, Naya Sharma Paudel, Ogden Rodas, Osofo Quarm, Pamoussa Ouedraogo, Rafael Tananta, Rosalind Portman, Ruth Varney, Saeed Abdul-Razak, Santi Miousaykoummane, Somphong Bounphasy, Vanessa Collaton Lopez, Vansy Senyavong, Victor Lopez Illescas.

For more information on Growing Forest Partnerships www.growingforestpartnerships.org

27


AcronymsAIDESEP Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian

Rainforest (Asociación Interetnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana)

ACOFOP Association of Forest Communities of Petén (Asociación de Comunidades Forestales de Petén)

GFP Growing Forest Partnerships

REDD+ Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conservation, sustainable forest management and enhancement of carbon stocks

Image creditsCover: Panaromic view of Himalayas from Dolakha. Growing Forest Partnerships

Inside front cover: Logs produced by a small forest enterprise outside of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Grazia Piras

Page 6: Grazia Piras

Page 8: Reforestation program. Enrique Varahona

Page 9: Shivapuri National Park, Nepal. Ramesh Prasad Bhushal and Dialogue meeting beneath the trees. Duncan Macqueen

Page 11: Mixing shea nuts paste in the old way. Duncan Macqueen

Page 13: Trees in Burkina Faso. TFD

Page 15: Visit to Tikal National Park. Exchange participant, GFP

Page 16: Lao-Nepal Country Exchange, 2011. FAO

Page 24: Tending drying beans and sacks of beans ready for sell possibly to Adwumapa Buyers Ltd. Mary Ama Kudom-A gyemang

Published by IIED I Designed by Andy Wilkinson I Edited by Sian Lewis, IIED Printed by Newnorth Print Limited

Growing Forest Partnerships (GFP) is about building up and supporting local, national and international networks. The initiative seeks to improve the connections between forests and other sectors. It aims to ensure that global discussions about forests include the real and current challenges facing forest-dependent people and local forest managers, and to bring the voices of local communities and indigenous peoples forward to influence decision-making.

GFP is funded by the World Bank and jointly coordinated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Institute for Environment and Development, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Bank. Its work on the ground is facilitated and implemented by a network of international, national and local partners in Ghana, Guatemala, Liberia, Mozambique and Nepal.

www.growingforestpartnerships.org

Can exchange visits really advance knowledge and spread good practice? The participants of three cross-country exchanges on sustainable forest management suggest that they most certainly can. When Growing Forest Partnerships organised a programme of exchanges in 2010 and 2011, it hoped to harness the power of networking and exchange to promote shared learning and foster new collaborations and partnerships among a diverse set of government representatives, local community members and business leaders for the good of people and forests across three continents.

This four-part assessment of the programme offers insights from those involved on knowledge gained and lessons learnt from each exchange, as well as a series of practical tips on how to structure such exchanges so that they deliver maximum impact both for participants and their wider networks.

Learning through sharing: The power of exchange visits and how to ...

Documents

Transcript of Learning through sharing: The power of exchange visits and how to ...