Have conferences and events really increased? And if we are spending so much time convening and being convened, should we critically examine events and their purpose as closely as we look at programmes?

The Planner Pulse survey and the North Star/Cvent Meetings Industry PULSE survey corroborate the fact that in-person industry events have steadily grown through 2022 and 2023. In the 2024 survey, 58 percent of event planners reported that they will be planning more meetings in 2024 than they did in 2023. As it is hard to come by similar data for other countries, that too disaggregated by sector, I reached out to fellow social sector colleagues who shared that they had also noticed an increase in the number of meetings and conferences. However, their larger issue was that the events were not as energising as they hoped.

In-person gatherings, meetings, and congregations offer the space and opportunity for solidarity, ideation, innovation, collaboration, and, most importantly, celebration. So, getting events right feels important. Not to mention that events also take up considerable time, effort, and money. If programmatic impact is tracked and evaluated so closely, shouldn’t events have a strong ‘why’, and a post-op on how closely the event delivered against the ‘why’?

In the spirit of collective inquiry, we approached some organisers whose events we found particularly meaningful last year, and asked them to share how they had gone about designing those spaces and events. These include Agami, a nonprofit advancing ideas of justice; Co.labx, a coaching organisation that helps start-ups build a high-performing leadership team; India Climate Collaborative (ICC), a leading climate collaborative comprising donors, high-net-worth individuals, social entrepreneurs, and nonprofits working on climate solutions; The Gender Lab, a nonprofit working with adolescents and youth in urban and rural communities to reshape existing gender narratives; and Reap Benefit, an organisation engaging young people to solve local climate and civic issues.

We also examined our own practice of convening and, interestingly, some common principles emerged from all of us who are interested in harnessing the real potential of in-person gatherings.

These principles are by no means exhaustive, neither are they fail-proof. What they are is a good starting point to build better, dynamic spaces for human interaction.

Principle 1: Intention is not a lodestar, but a continuous animating force

Anyone planning to host an event comes up with some reason for bringing people together. This is typically called ‘setting an intention’. But this does not automatically mean the intention will be served. Every aspect of the event—from the design to the schedule and from the physical space to the logistics—needs to be constructed in a way that delivers against the set intention.

When we spoke to Varun Hemachandran, senior curator—lead, OpenNyAI at Agami, he emphasised that the intention behind a gathering must trickle down to every level. In many events, there is a tendency to break down roles into operational groups such as hospitality or logistics. However, not enough attention is given to aligning every role to the larger intention of the event. For example, at the Agami Summit in December last year, the volunteers handling food were guided by the following ‘intention question’: How can we make the act of eating together a joyous, connecting, and grounding one? This one question, and similar questions for other roles, ensured that every volunteer was aligned on the larger experience the summit was designed to create versus managing lists of tasks they needed to check off. Similarly, Arhan Bezbora, founding partner at Co.labx, shared that oftentimes intention becomes just a set of words or a high-level direction that is not at the forefront in the minds and hearts of the organisers and facilitators. As a result, the actions of the organising team can drift away from the intention, and the event can end up feeling inauthentic.

According to Kuldeep Dantewadia, co-founder of Reap Benefit, while terms such as ‘collaboration’, ‘ecosystem building’, and ‘safe spaces’ may look impressive on promotional materials, the true test is whether these intentions are embodied in concrete actions and in the collective ethos of the organisers.

From our own experience, we now strongly believe that intention matters, but it needs to be thoroughly queried using multiple ‘why’s: Why are you bringing people together? Why in person? Why for x hours and not more/fewer? Why 100 people and not 2,000 (or vice versa)? Once this is clear, the schedule is designed such that it responds properly to the many ‘why’s.

Principle 2: Light agendas, held strongly

Have you looked at a conference agenda and felt fatigue tug at your temples? You are not alone.

The unanimous no-no from all the organisers we spoke to was in having back-to-back or too many panels. Yet conferences continue to run panel-heavy formats, with too many panelists, shallow moderation, a loss of control over time, and very little real engagement with the audience. This is not to say panels, as a format, don’t work. The point is that good panels are very hard to put together. Even round tables, workshops, showcase events, and networking and pitch events can be designed more thoughtfully.

Here are some concrete design principles and practices that Co.labx follows when arriving at an agenda:

• Put yourselves in the shoes of the user and visualise their journey and experience.
• Sense and validate the needs of the participants through a mix of conversations, pre-event survey forms, and observations.
• Integrate clear routines and rituals in the agenda that build predictability and rhythm (for example, starting with ‘warm-ups’, ending with ‘cool-downs’, doing regular ‘playbacks’ to mirror back the progress and wins).
• Keep open spaces in the agenda for attendees to take ownership and drive action.
• Continuously capture key ideas, insights, and turning points that emerge through Post-its, images, screenshots, audio clips, and other mediums.
• Incorporate stillness practices to help people slow down.
• Close the loop with participants and follow up on next steps.

If we want attendees to actually participate, lighter agendas work better than busy ones, and three long sessions throughout the day are better than six short ones. A real ‘discussion’ or ‘brainstorm’ cannot happen in 15 minutes, unless the group size is under five people. Having flexibility in the agenda, and trusting the group to fill the time with their own inputs, gets people closer. Moreover, it builds a sense of ownership among participants because they see themselves contributing to the agenda, rather than passively consuming what the host has planned for them.

There are also certain rules of thumb that can guide you towards designing a better agenda and on-day experience. Assuming you know your ‘why’ by now, before deciding the ‘how’, which is usually the panel, session, keynote speech, activity, or discussion topic, ask yourself:

• Would I want to be in this session at someone else’s event?
• At which point in this session will people start looking at their phones?
• Will the main contestations happen inside the room or outside or on the sidelines/more privately?
• Are people sitting in one place/space for longer than 90 minutes without any change in energy? This in and of itself isn’t a bad thing but the quality of conversation needs to be high if people are to stay grounded in one place for a long time.
• Is the session that is likely to run over slotted right before lunch?

According to Urvashi Devidayal, senior adviser at ICC, multiple formats are key to sustaining the attention of the audience. Having something completely off topic, something that is fun or emotional, also helps add to the stickiness of the event. For instance, ICC has hosted drum circles, sharing circles, boat rides, and numerous other sessions that have no direct relationship to the topic everyone has gathered to discuss.

Principle 3: Execution eats design for breakfast

Every idea, no matter how good, fails when executed poorly. This sounds banal because no one sets out to execute badly. Yet, repeated internal dry runs, dress rehearsals, and run sheets are not part of the run-up for many organisers.  

When we reached out to Akshat Singhal, co-founder and director at The Gender Lab, he emphasised the importance of inclusivity while planning any event. This comprises considerations for dietary preferences; translations; disability inclusivity (guide for visually impaired individuals, wheelchair access, seating arrangements); toilet access for all; volunteers to guide the participants; programming activities that are mindful of accessibility; and being collaborative and flexible with participant engagement to make it comfortable for people who might find these challenging.

Overall preparedness also helps in being nimble on the day because participant needs emerge, especially when diverse groups are brought together. Say you want to organise a discussion with a group of farmers focused on nature-based solutions. One approach could be to randomly divide them into groups, moderate the discussion, do the work of enumerating and synthesising each group’s points, and then share it back with the whole group. The other could be to speak with them before the meeting or event, look at all the data generated through those conversations, organise these into a few themes/tracks, and run a deeper discussion on the day based on what has already been established.

This takes more effort, and may not always be feasible, but it dramatically improves the progress one can make in group sessions. The use of pre-designed materials including worksheets, cue cards, and surveys also helps take the load off a bit on the day, and leaves one with handy pieces of knowledge that are easier to digest post the event.

Given the fast pace of business and society today, getting people in a room is a luxury in itself.

At our recent active citizenship portfolio retreat, we tried using written notes taken on Day 1 as raw inputs into designing the discussion topics and flow for Day 2. Active citizenship is one of our key portfolios and we were keen to understand how our partners were responding to the rapid digitisation of civic life. To mine the experience of 20 partners, we used cue cards where they wrote their experiences from their specific contexts. On Day 2 we collapsed the insights into broad buckets, omitted parts where full consensus already existed, and managed to have a spirited discussion on grey areas in just 45 minutes because a lot of the background had already been established.

Principle 4: The shelf life of a conference can be extended

The final piece is about what happens once the event is over. We ourselves have seen the value in sharing materials back, making good on conversation threads that were opened in person, and doing offline follow-ups. Last year, we hosted an all-partner gathering in Kochi, where we brought together 100 partners (250 people) to explore synergies and build solidarity. Six months after this retreat, 70 percent of attendees shared that they were initiating or collaborating with organisations that they had met there. This gave us confidence in the power of intention and design, and in the value of building on moments from our convenings much after the event had ended.

Given the fast pace of business and society today, getting people in a room is a luxury in itself. And so how to gather well is a question worth considering irrespective of the industry one belongs to. As we mark events in our calendars this year, I am curious about ways in which others think about bringing people together with a deeply human purpose.

—

Know more

• Read this article to learn more about how to put together a good webinar.
• Read this article to learn more about how to get the most out of a conference.

This approach operates at the intersection of the government, grassroots nonprofits, and academic/research institutions. Together, their contribution helps in building consensus, identifying and addressing policy gaps, proving large-scale successes, forming necessary alliances, creating public resources, enhancing systems’ capabilities, shifting mindsets, and unlocking funding.

Yet, the systems change journey is neither straightforward nor simple. Practitioners often grapple with questions such as: What exactly is systems change? Which systems should I engage with? How can I navigate this complex process? What tools can I utilise? What internal skills do I need to develop? While there exists a wealth of global knowledge on systems change, there is a lack of contextually relevant Indian examples in this domain.

To bridge this gap, The Convergence Foundation (TCF) and India Impact Sherpas released a report titled Systemic Change Exemplars: Unique Approaches Towards Solving India’s Development Challenges. The report captures learnings from 20 organisations that have actively adopted a systems change lens in their work, and provides an in-depth analysis of the practices incorporated by these organisations as well as the internal development they had to undergo to drive systems change at scale.

This article draws from the report and identifies the combination of practices used by these organisations to create impact based on the context of their work. These practices are:

1. Involve communities in decision-making

Often when organisations design a programme, they focus on the ‘supply’ side—that is, they go in with a solution already in mind. But systems change means working with the communities first. The exemplars identified by TCF started their work on the ‘demand’ side by investing time in engaging deeply with the locals to understand their needs, challenges, and the problems they were keen to prioritise. They also sought these groups’ help with solution design and delivery.

Moreover, the power dynamic shifts subtly when people decide which problems and solutions to prioritise, instead of the organisation telling them what to do. This shift in power is an important characteristic of systems change.

SEARCH, a nonprofit whose stated mission is ‘Arogya Swaraj’ or placing people’s health in people’s hands, organised health fairs for people from 50–60 tribal villages to help them identify their health priorities. Some of the priorities—for example, malaria and infant mortality—were expected for the organisation, while others such as backache and vaginal discharge for women were unexpected. Further, its work involving community mobilisation in primary healthcare has resulted in innovations such as home-based newborn child care (HBNCC) and community health workers, which have since been adopted across India and multiple developing nations around the globe.

2. Use data, evidence, and research to develop solutions

Almost all organisations studied use data and evidence to develop the theory of change for their intervention. They conduct extensive research to identify the problem, understand the root causes, generate insights, and develop evidence-based solutions. All of this is necessary to establish credibility and build a robust case for the solutions. It also makes it easier for other stakeholders such as partner organisations to understand why a particular intervention has been developed, making them more willing to adopt it themselves. 

Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy is an independent think tank that carries out legal research to make better laws and improve governance for the public good. It uses evidence-based legal research to support the creation of new laws and the amendment of existing ones, and for generating favourable judgements in court or shaping public narratives—all of which holds for their work towards decriminalising drug consumption as well.

Vidhi studied the drug decriminalisation issue in Punjab for more than two years. Only then did it put out a point of view stating that it needs to be seen as less of a law issue and more of a public health one. The organisation collated a report based on district-wise data on people—primarily farmers smoking at the end of the day—being imprisoned for using poppy husk rather than ‘hard’ drugs. This meant that the solution to the problem was de-addiction centres and not jail.

3. Aim to influence policy

A key lever to bringing about systems change is focusing on policy advocacy and design. For instance, some organisations surveyed by TCF began by influencing policy and later moved towards ensuring that these policies could be effectively implemented. Others initially concentrated on delivering programmes. They then used the evidence and technical inputs they gathered to inform the drafting of better policies. Simultaneously, they also sought to create support for policy changes by raising awareness on relevant issues among government officials, the media, and civil society.

Central Square Foundation (CSF) began its work on foundational literacy and numeracy (FLN) by first highlighting the importance of the issue. It engaged with government officials in NITI Aayog, the Finance Commission, and the New Education Policy (NEP) drafting committee. At the state level, it interacted with senior bureaucrats to explain why FLN was crucial. In 2020, CSF worked with the Ministry of Education to design the NIPUN Bharat mission and flesh out operational documents. The organisation built an FLN microsite and published articles and blogs to spread the word about FLN, why it matters in the NEP, and the NIPUN Bharat mission. It also supports 11 state governments in designing and implementing FLN.

4. Build scalable solutions

Most of the organisations in the report adopted a two-pronged approach. They used their programmes to test and improve their solutions and then applied these learnings to identify the bottlenecks that need to be addressed. Using programme-level evidence to design policies and public goods is key to scaling programmes and driving systemic change.

One such example is SaveLIFE Foundation (SLF), which was set up with the aim of improving road safety and emergency care in India. It collected and analysed data on road accidents and fatalities. This helped the organisation come up with the ‘zero fatality corridor’ model, which they tested on the Mumbai–Pune expressway. This model led to a 58 percent decrease in fatalities despite increased traffic on the expressway. Having proven the efficacy of its approach, SLF is now working with the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to address the problem in the 100 most dangerous highways in the country.

5. Leverage technology for scale

A few of the exemplars focused on building platforms that are open source, modular, and can be customised to work in different contexts. Such platforms enable multiple partners working in the same ecosystem to draw from it while also adding solutions to the platform. This allows for innovation to emerge from different partners, which in turn can be accessed by everyone.

EkStep Foundation, for example, wanted to address the urgency of accessing learning content for 200 million children during the pandemic. It developed the Sunbird platform as a digital public good that comprises several modular blocks such as translation tools and data analysis models. Another block is the QR codes that EkStep added to textbooks to provide students with immediate access to digital learning content.

All the innovations offered by the platform can be used either individually or in combination depending on the requirements of the organisation working with education and children. Given its reusable and replicable nature, Sunbird was adopted by the Government of India to create and expand DIKSHA—a platform for school education.

6. Help strengthen institutional capacity in government

Almost all the organisations studied engaged closely with the government at various levels—central, state, and district—to ensure that the population-scale impact is sustainable over time. They used learnings from the communities, knowledge of solutions that work, the use of technology, and the evidence generated over the years to create an environment that encouraged adoption within the government.

To achieve its goal of driving systems transformation in education, Piramal Foundation for Education Leadership (PFEL) works directly with the government to understand the latter’s needs and co-create solutions. It hand-holds the stakeholders through the legal and policy finalisation process, identifies the processes involved in getting policy approved and implemented, and garners support by building a narrative that reflects the benefits of the ideas. Finally, the organisation works towards administrative feasibility to make sure that red tape doesn’t obstruct the process of policy formulation. All of this is done through capability building, engagement, and ownership within the government setup.

7. Partner with organisations to scale

It is important to identify every stakeholder who will be involved in the process of systems change. These are entities that can help remove constraints and obstacles, and make the system more efficient, effective, and equitable. The organisations in the report understood the roles played by each stakeholder as well as their capabilities and identified how the two were complementary. Using this knowledge, they created a coalition of sorts and incentivised the stakeholders to ensure the sustainability of the system they were devising.

Building such coalitions is not easy; it requires energy and tenacity to convince other organisations to get on board and requires letting go of control and ceding space. However, once established, these alliances can then be used to implement solutions at the population level.

CHILDLINE, which works in child protection, has built collaborative relationships with more than 1,100 partner nonprofits to work on a national level. It started with identifying, selecting, training, and monitoring organisations and policy. The core team also collaborated with government stakeholders such as the police and hospitals to make them part of the solution. They engaged them in initiatives and campaigns like ‘Childline Se Dosti’ and ‘Police Chacha’, to create a strong connection between the organisation and frontline workers in law enforcement and healthcare. At the same time, they co-developed strategy and operational plans with partner organisations. This collaborative approach, which is at the core of CHILDLINE’s management model, saw local partners take pride in the initiative and have a sense of ownership.

8. Create viable markets for the under-privileged

The conversation around systems change is incomplete without addressing the needs of vulnerable and excluded populations. Some of the organisations focused specifically on creating products and solutions that not only worked on a certain problem, such as energy or finance, but also created opportunities for social and economic mobility of marginalised groups. They redesigned how a particular commercial process works, thereby making the market more accessible for underserved communities. Their innovative and low-cost commercial business models attract more players into the space, which leads to the creation of a large and thriving market.

MHFC was set up with the intent to solve home loan requirements for lower-income families that are usually unable to get a home loan based on the market’s criteria. Many Indians are excluded from the housing finance market because traditional credit assessment methods lack the tools to measure the incomes of those employed in the unorganised sector. MHFC addressed this by developing a new approach to credit assessment. It involved personal interaction with potential customers to understand their income sources and expenses. Their ability to pay was assessed based on their motivations which were documented by field officers through a tool developed by MHFC.

The easy-to-use tool for creditworthiness assessment not only enabled several people to become eligible for a loan but also eliminated the need for time-consuming paperwork. The profitable and proven business model along with a willingness to share learnings with key stakeholders such as National Housing Bank, HDFC, and other housing finance companies including competitors has helped bridge the housing loan need gap for the economically weaker sections.

A combination of these eight practices can be used by organisations to make large-scale systemic impact based on the aspirations and context of their work. Different regions in India have their own unique challenges that should be taken into account when thinking of system-level solutions.

—

Know more

• Read more about what systems change looks like in practice.
• Learn more about navigating systems change through five approaches for impact.
• Listen to this podcast that answers key questions about systems change.

Despite countries adopting an array of policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change—such as investing in clean energy and energy-efficient technologies and installing early warning systems—it is evident that these efforts alone will not suffice to prevent all climate-related disasters. Even if global warming is miraculously limited to the 1.5°C threshold, the intensity, frequency, and unpredictability of extreme weather phenomena will continue to cause unavoidable and irreversible loss and damage for years to come. This holds true for both rapid-onset events (such as cyclones, floods, and landslides) and slow-onset developments (such as desertification, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, and rising temperatures and sea levels).

As for developing economies, strained resources are further taxed by the additional costs of climate damage. They bear the brunt of climate change more heavily than developed nations. According to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the average mortality from floods, storms, and droughts in particularly vulnerable countries, is 15 times higher compared to countries with very low vulnerability. In India, the potential income loss from the reduction of labour capacity due to extreme heat was estimated to be USD 159 billion, or 5.4 percent of the country’s GDP, in 2021. The L&D fund has primarily been established to support vulnerable countries with the resources they need to recover from climate impacts,both economic and non-economic. Loss of livelihood, crops, property, and ultimately the national GDP count as economic losses because they can be assigned a monetary value. On the other hand, injury to and loss of life, health, rights, biodiversity, ecosystem services, indigenous knowledge, and cultural heritage are categorised as non-economic losses. Loss of income from working days forfeited to heatwaves is an example of an economic loss, while the displacement of communities from coastal villages due to beach erosion would count as a non-economic loss.

Is it the same as adaptation finance?

The L&D fund has emerged as the third pillar of climate finance alongside adaptation finance and mitigation finance; it is meant to help communities restore and rebuild what is lost and damaged. The fund can be utilised, for example, to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by extreme weather events, establish resettlement colonies, set up alternative livelihood programmes, offer counselling services, and initiate projects to commemorate the loss of life and cultural heritage. Some reparative actions—for example, a resettlement housing colony for people displaced by rising sea levels—could be categorised either as adaptation or as loss and damage. However, the commonly understood threshold separating one from the other is that loss and damage includes impacts that are beyond the limits of adaptation. Put simply, it’s when loss and damage occurs even after adaptation measures have been deployed, either because the measures are ineffective or due to the unanticipated severity of the climate impact. The more effective and timelier the adaptation strategies, the lower the risk of loss and damage.  

How did the fund originate?

The L&D fund was operationalised at the 28^th Conference of the Parties (COP 28) held in Dubai in November 2023. However, it has been more than thirty years in the making. The proposal for climate-related financial assistance was mooted as early as 1991, when the UNFCCC was being drafted. At the time, Vanuatu, the Pacific Island nation representing the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), rallied for a globally contributed insurance scheme to assist countries impacted by rising sea levels. The proposal was ignored.

It was in 2007, at the COP 13 in Bali, that the term ‘loss and damage’ first appeared in a UNFCCC decision. Inked into the Bali Action Plan, it outlined three thematic areas of work: assessing the risk of loss and damage, exploring a range of approaches to address it, and defining the Convention’s role in implementing the approaches. In 2013, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage was formed to enhance knowledge of risk management approaches to address loss and damage, strengthen dialogue and coordination between stakeholders, and mobilise financial, technological, and capacity-building support for it.

However, the crucial ground plan for funding remained sketchy. The economics of reparative action was once again left out of the 2015 Paris Agreement, in which loss and damage was covered in Article 8. It spelled out the importance of averting, minimising, and addressing loss and damage, and formulated potential scenarios of loss and damage that nations, particularly vulnerable ones, were likely to encounter in the future.

It was finally in 2022, at COP 27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, that money was (notionally) placed on the table, when Parties agreed to operationalise a dedicated fund to address loss and damage. A transitional committee—comprising representatives of 24 developing and developed countries—was appointed to discuss its governance and institutional framework, funding arrangements, and implementation. Over the course of a year, the committee held five meetings, two workshops, two ministerial meetings, and a dialogue. After protracted negotiations, it submitted its report to the Conference of the Parties. And thus, the Loss and Damage Fund was operationalised on November 30, 2023, at COP 28 in Dubai. This also marked a first in the history of the summit: the adoption of a monumental decision on day one. An independent secretariat and governing board were appointed. The World Bank was appointed interim trustee and tasked with hosting the fund for four years. It would oversee the coordination, collection, and allocation of resources in consultation with the Warsaw Mechanism, the International Monetary Fund, and the Santiago Network.

Why are critics sceptical?

More talk, less action:

Since November 2023, the L&D fund has received USD 661.39 million in pledges from several countries, with others expected to contribute later: Italy and France pledged USD 108 million each, Germany and the UAE USD 100 million each, the UK USD 50.6 million, Japan USD 10 million, while the US—the world’s largest economy and second-largest carbon emitter after China—pledged only USD 17.5 million. Experts say the money that all of these countries have pledged in sum is inadequate and covers less than 0.2 percent of what developing countries need, which is a minimum of $400 billion a year as per The Loss and Damage Finance Landscape report. Developing country members of the Transitional Committee proposed that the fund programme a minimum of USD 100 billion a year by 2030.  

The gulf between what developing countries need and what they receive has not only severely compromised their ability to adapt to climate change, but has also heightened the risk of greater loss and damage in the future—risks already amplified by the delay in mobilising accessible climate finance. A report by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) estimates that India itself may require USD 1 trillion between 2015 and 2030 for adaptive actions. The Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) pegs the country’s investment needs for adaptation-based development at USD 14–67 billion annually, for the same 15-year period.

Concerns around climate justice:

Climate justice is anchored in a principle of international law called ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR), which acknowledges that even as all countries are called to take mitigative steps to reduce climate impacts, some have a higher responsibility—and capability—to address climate challenges than others.

By this measure, developed nations, which have had a long head start in building and benefiting from their fossil fuel-based economies and are the primary drivers of climate change—ought to pay a proportionate price towards climate finance, one that helps developing countries deal with it effectively. Who pays, and how much they ought to pay, are vital questions that need to be addressed. The Adaptation Gap Report 2023 emphasises that “a justice lens underscores that loss and damage is not the product of climate hazards alone but is influenced by differential vulnerabilities to climate change, which are often driven by a range of socio-political processes, including racism and histories of colonialism and exploitation.” Critics point out that the fund falls short on delivering on climate justice by failing to set clear, fair, and time-bound expectations on payment, and by doing so, undermines the principles of equity, historic responsibility, and polluter pays, which are codified into the Paris Agreement.

Lack of clarity on operationalisation:

The hard-won voluntarism written into the body text of the COP 28 decision text absolves developed countries of all liability. By inviting them to contribute instead of requiring them to compensate for their relative contributions to global warming, the treaty shields them from potential litigation claims by developing countries. Moreover, there is no floor set for the quantum of the fund. Had developed countries been held to account, they would have had to pay far more than they pledged. By one calculation, the US’s fair share of loss and damage finance in 2022 alone was USD 20 billion, rising to USD 117 billion annually by 2030. The lack of legally binding commitments also has advocacy groups concerned about the long-term stability of the fund. Timing is another concern. With developed countries having delayed nominating members to the Loss and Damage Board, one worry is that efforts to operationalise the fund in time will be hampered.

One way to address the technical shortcomings of the mechanism is to include it in the global stocktake (GST), the 5-yearly review initiated to monitor progress on the Paris Agreement’s long-term goals. The GST, however, does not address loss and damage as a separate pillar, as it does adaptation and mitigation. This, experts say, may result in L&D being subsumed into the adaptation assessment.

Articulating what constitutes loss and damage can advance research on the subject.

Critics have also drawn attention to the need for a clear definition of loss and damage and of what constitutes non-economic losses and damages, which the UNFCCC is yet to frame. The lack of distinct parameters increases ambiguity around which kind of impacts and which countries should be prioritised for the money. Interpretations of the term range from the effects of anthropogenic climate change to only those that occur after the adaptation ceiling has been breached. Articulating what constitutes loss and damage can advance research on the subject and help formulate concrete actions to address it. But actions are reliant on data and there is scant data on these twin themes (loss in particular), not least because of the lack of clearly defined processes and tools to record, measure, and report them. 

It’s therefore vital to establish standardised assessment methodologies at the national, subnational, and local levels of what constitutes loss and damage.

Sources of finance:

The fund is expected to be built with contributions from a spectrum of sources, including public and private finance, and innovative funding instruments such as taxes, levies, and debt swaps—primarily from developed countries. However, the process for capitalisation (beyond initial commitments), has not been spelled out.   

In addition to public finance such as government-issued sovereign green bonds, alternative inflows to the fund could come from multilateral development banks, climate funds, philanthropies, carbon markets, and from carbon taxes and levies imposed on historic, large-scale polluters like the fossil fuel industry and the aviation and maritime sectors. Some states in the US are in the process of legislating for a ‘climate superfund’, which would make fossil fuel producers and refiners liable to pay for local adaptation measures and loss and damage expenses.

Private finance, in the meanwhile, can be raised through bonds and loans, although these run the risk of being conditional and extractive, privileging institutional profit over public interest. The Loss and Damage Finance Landscape report warns that “funding mobilised through financial instruments which seek to profit from the climate crisis, create greater debt burdens or shift responsibility for finance onto vulnerable countries, should not be considered as contributing toward the floor of US$400 billion per year.”  

A paper by CEEW recommends that the L&D Fund sit alongside, but distinct from funding mechanisms like the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility, and that it be deployed exclusively for loss and damage. Grants and unconditional transfers are preferable financing instruments. The money, it emphasises, should be new, additional, predictable, adequate, fair, debt-free, and accessible to all developing countries.

The role of the World Bank: 

Another point of contention is the appointment of the World Bank as interim trustee and host of the fund’s secretariat for the first four years. Developed countries, such as the US and EU member states, rooted for the World Bank on the grounds that it would speed up operationalisation of the fund. However, 68 organisations have expressed disapproval over the bank’s trusteeship, sceptical of its ability to administer the fund fairly, concerned about the influence that the US, which appoints the bank’s president, may have on its decisions, and wary of the unjustly high interest rates it has charged developing countries in the past. In addition, the bank charges exorbitant administrative fees, which can vault up to 20 percent of a fund’s flows. 

Concerns have been allayed by reassurances that the bank will, over this interim period, be closely scrutinised for accountability, transparency, and fair play. In the meanwhile, the World Bank is yet to accept all the conditions to trusteeship laid down in the decision text. Disputation over any condition can stall the implementation of the fund even further. 

Is India eligible for this money?

Advanced economies like the US, as well as Small Island Nations, have insisted that India and China also contribute towards reparative climate finance. India is the world’s fifth largest economy, with a GDP of USD 4.11 trillion (one spot ahead of the UK), but it still counts itself as a developing country. India is the third largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter after China and the US, with 3,380 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MtCO₂e) released in 2019. However, in per capita terms, the country ranks 10th in global emissions with 2.5 tCO2e per person. The global average is 6.5 tons; the US leads with 17.6 tons per person.

As an emerging economy with the world’s largest population, and having started down the road to industrialisation two centuries after Europe and the US, India has argued that it cannot be held to the same funding benchmarks as historical emitters. Moreover, like other developing countries, it too has suffered catastrophic climate impacts: in 2019, it lost nearly USD 69 billion to climate-related events. The Reserve Bank of India, citing secondary research, projects that climate change could cost the country 2.8 percent of its GDP and depress the living standards of nearly half its population by 2050. A recent district-level assessment of climate impacts claims that 80 percent of India’s population lives in districts that are highly prone to extreme weather events. 

Yet it’s unlikely, observes a TERI report, that India stands to benefit from the Loss and Damage Fund anytime soon, given the size and scope of the money pledged. But it can leverage its position as a political and economic heavyweight to shape the narrative around how and where the money will flow.  

Joeanna Rebello Fernandes and Shreya Adhikari contributed to this article with inputs and insights from Pranav Garimella, Programme Manager – Climate Program, WRI India.

—

Know more

• Learn about rural mitigation measures for water scarcity in this photo essay.
• Watch this video to learn more about loss and damage.

“Does anyone really need IDR’s humour? We are a learning platform after all.”

Stage two: Anger

“If I wanted to do comedy, I would’ve joined consulting!”

“Why can’t we just publish another collection of funny tweets and call it a day?”

Stage three: Bargaining

“I really think I could execute a lot better if I teamed up with someone.”

“So you can’t help me because you’re busy drafting a 2500-word explainer on ‘systems thinking’? I thought I was writing humour this week…”

Stage four: Sadness

“Am I not funny enough to write…humour…for…nonprofits?”

Stage five: Acceptance

“What if I just repackage the few humorous tropes that we all know about the sector as the article? I’m sure it’ll turn out…

Tapasya was started in 2018 by Tapas Sutradhar and Mrinal Rao to support families from socio-economically vulnerable backgrounds in accessing government social welfare schemes. At its inception, the organisation began as a policy implementation agency. It had a small team of two founders, one project coordinator, and three helpline callers, along with a limited budget of INR 15 lakh per year for the first two years.

Since then, the organisation has burgeoned to a team of 30 and its budget has grown more than sixfold, totalling INR 1 crore as of FY 2023–24. One of the core reasons behind Tapasya’s growth was that the founders were motivated to put in place a strong M&E system right from the organisation’s inception. Having worked in the social sector prior to establishing their own nonprofit, they realised that an effective M&E system was necessary for two main reasons: assessing impact effectively and enabling the professional growth of the organisation’s employees. According to Mrinal and Tapas, “Even though we lacked the resources to build a strong system in Tapasya’s initial phase, the need for and importance of developing our M&E strategy was always clear in our minds.” This clarity pushed them to adopt key processes and systems that gave them leeway to expand their scope.

The importance of intermediaries

Since the co-founders realised that they had a lot to learn, they approached incubators at various stages in order to build key capacities and forge networks. Tapasya was soon successively incubated by Atma, UnLtd India, and the The/Nudge Institute, which accelerated its organisational development.

Mrinal and Tapas emphasised the impact of the knowledge and support that these incubators offered. “Atma hand-held us through the nascent stages and helped build key areas of the organisation as well as our theory of change. Eventually, we became confident enough to make growth decisions independently. UnLtd India (UnLtd) supported us in identifying our niche and helped us deepen and validate our programme design and M&E, and The/Nudge Institute helped us look at the problem and solution differently. We discovered how a programme addressing a local problem can be scaled through various strategies to address a national issue.”

When the organisation was being incubated by UnLtd, it received mentorship in developing M&E strategies to measure both qualitative and quantitative impact. While Tapasya had previously focused heavily on data-driven measurements, UnLtd emphasised the importance of understanding the broader impact on the lives of the families that it works with. This insight highlighted the importance of empowering families and building community resilience by fostering behavioural change. It also resulted in the organisation monitoring and evaluating its interventions more comprehensively.

Growing organisations need strong M&E

The scale of the organisation’s impact has grown significantly over the years as it gradually built capacity on various fronts. For instance, during its first three years, Tapasya focused solely on enabling access to the benefits of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Education Act, supporting 22,000 children over this period. Subsequently, it progressed to enabling access to the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana—a maternity benefit scheme for women—and supported 6,000 women as part of this initiative. The leadership realised that many schemes were underutilised, prompting them to shift their model towards implementing multiple schemes across low-income communities in areas ranging from urban slums to remote Adivasi villages. To expand effectively, however, they needed to have a well-oiled M&E system.

The M&E framework enables the nonprofit to set targets for field workers. 

Tapasya made sure its work was highly measurable. In order to do this, there were several stages involved: first, identifying families in need, then onboarding them into the system, followed by determining their eligibility criteria and verifying their documents. Next, the organisation tracks the number of applications it has completed and which schemes the households have successfully accessed.

An added benefit is that the M&E framework enables the nonprofit to set targets for field workers. Mrinal elaborated on why they set higher targets than required from the beginning. She states, “In cases where families migrate or withdraw from the process, we may not be able to assist them throughout the entire procedure of receiving their social entitlements. Therefore, we always set higher targets to ensure that we have sufficient margins to be able to help the expected number of families. For example, if we wish to support 300 families, we reach out to 500 eligible families.” This approach ensures that M&E efforts align with the organisation’s overall strategy, allowing for effective tracking and evaluation of their impact.

Adopting a tech-driven M&E strategy

Tapasya’s programmes and outcomes have been measured by recording data through tech-driven strategies—each individual’s data plays a crucial role in monitoring the progress and delivery of welfare schemes. Technology serves as a cornerstone in this process, facilitating the mapping of individuals with eligible schemes and monitoring their progress until they benefit from them. Also, the daily work of each field worker can be tracked, building more accountability, and thereby enhancing the efficiency and credibility of the work.

The adoption of technology has made data collection much less complicated.

But it wasn’t always smooth sailing. There was a time when Tapasya’s impact was faltering as it struggled to implement a robust M&E system. The organisation was unable to accurately track the work done by team members. The community mobilisers used to visit families in the community, but there wasn’t an effective way of tracking information such as how much time they spent in each household, or how many visits they needed before a family received their entitlements. Even the leadership team were not able to prioritise the stage-wise progress of the work that they had to do.

In Tapas’ view, the adoption of technology has made data collection much less complicated. “Imagine if one field worker is working with 300–500 families—it is not possible to remember all the families’ information. A family ID number is generated every time a new family is entered into our database. The next time, they [the field worker] just have to type in the ID number, and all the previously entered data about the family will pop up.” Through the family ID database, the organisation is able to log visits to each household and thereby track the aforementioned parameters that had previously remained unmonitored.  

The automation of most of its data collection tools made Tapasya’s tracking system watertight. Witnessing a larger number of families receive their entitlements year on year (via the data they collected) helped generate greater accountability and better performance, as the team members felt a greater sense of ownership over their work. 

Both tangible and intangible impact

All partners seek concrete evidence of impact, whether through quantitative data, case studies, or success stories. With relevant data readily available for all projects, the organisation’s partners were able to view the real-time progress of its programmes, which was vital to ensuring trust and transparency. Systematic data collection enables the nonprofit to conduct research studies, validating its work and informing stakeholders within the ecosystem. This data can be shared with government departments to inform intervention strategies, caters to emerging partner needs, and can be used to design projects that directly support communities on the ground.

Tapas indicated that sometimes impact may take forms that cannot necessarily be quantified. Such forms of impact cannot be accounted for as easily as data-driven measures in an M&E framework but are just as meaningful for evaluating impact.

For Tapasya, one such outcome has been the changes in the lives of the sakhis (field workers). These women belong to the communities that they work in and were previously not engaged in any formal employment due to family responsibilities or a lack of opportunities. Once they were provided with the opportunity to work within their community and trained, they witnessed a remarkable transformation. The sakhis reported feeling more aware and informed, noting that they feel valued by their community as integral resources. Even after the organisation moved on to working in other geographies, sakhis have continued to serve as agents of change within their communities. Therefore, the organisation’s impact has stretched beyond just the families captured in their database.

Drawing on their sectoral experience and learnings over their six-year journey at Tapasya, Tapas and Mrinal offered the following advice for other grassroots nonprofits and funders.

Advice for nonprofits

1. Engage in continuous experimentation

According to Mrinal, it’s vital to engage in ongoing experimentation and embrace failure as a means of gaining insights. This allows for informed decisions regarding which strategies to retain and which to discard. At Tapasya, through comprehensive M&E processes and programme design, a wealth of data points has been collected to inform decision-making. This has helped external stakeholders gain confidence in the organisation, as evidenced by its being incubated for six successive years and a sevenfold increase in funding since inception.

2. Never stop learning

The process of learning never stops because the challenges faced by an organisation change as it grows. Stagnation in knowledge indicates a halt in progress.

For instance, when Tapasya conducted a survey of the penetration of 12 welfare schemes in Janta Vasahat, Maharashtra’s second biggest slum, they discovered that the locals were largely only accessing rations under the Public Distribution System, and approximately 80 percent of these schemes were not being availed of by eligible families. They realised that the poor coverage of welfare schemes resulted from a variety of factors, including the government system being overburdened, the lack of support systems, and challenges with service delivery. When Tapasya extended their work to other communities, it found similar patterns, validating the need for the organisation’s interventions.

As the organisation expands, both M&E practices and programme designs must adapt accordingly. Mrinal states, “When Tapasya grew from implementing one scheme to multiple schemes, our entire strategy and M&E had to change with this decision. The funnel to work around one scheme versus multiple schemes is completely different. When working towards implementing a single scheme, the eligibility criteria, necessary documents, and application process were straightforward. However, when you start working on multiple schemes, the complexities increase.”

3. Stand by your ethos

Amid suggestions to transition to a for-profit model, the idea of monetising services arose, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic when funding was scarce. Tapasya conducted a small-scale experiment with 100 families, offering a subscription-based service at a nominal fee of INR 100. Within three months, it became clear that while half of the families were willing to pay and appreciated the service, the other half faced financial constraints and hesitated to enrol. The organisation introspected its core purpose, and it became evident to the team that prioritising profit over their mission of empowering communities would undermine the organisation’s fundamental principles.

Advice to funders

1. Build in the freedom to experiment  

Mrinal highlights that funders must recognise the potential for impact when nonprofit partners are granted the freedom to experiment and evolve. In her opinion, “Donors should not fear failure and should support new ideas or issues emerging in the new [nonprofit] ecosystem. For example, our financial partner Indus Action gave us this freedom right from when they started funding us. They have always encouraged us to experiment, be it around working to implement new schemes, redesigning the project, making M&E changes, building tech, or other aspects of the programme. When your partners trust you, you don’t fear failure.”

2. Engage closely and equitably with nonprofit personnel

Donors should deepen their engagement with their partner nonprofits to better understand one another and build a co-learning system for all. This fosters a collaborative learning environment, benefiting everyone involved. Given the positive influence of the sustained and meaningful engagement with funding partners such as Azim Premji Foundation and SVP India, Tapas believes that, “When the donor does not limit themselves to only seeing through the utilisation of the funds but instead engages with the nonprofits in designing the processes and programmes, it always turns out to be valuable.”

According to Tapas and Mrinal, nonprofits also benefit greatly when funders view them as equal partners. They emphasise that engaging as equal partners contributes to the emergence of better ideas, support, and collaboration, and creates a healthy relationship between funders and their nonprofit partners. This approach enables organisations to grow while expanding funders’ portfolios, thereby enhancing the understanding of how to secure and utilise funds effectively.

Blended models are the future

Tapasya’s M&E is among the key anchors that facilitated its growth. And as a result of this growth, Tapasya has already supported 35,000 eligible families in accessing the benefits of various social welfare schemes. They aspire to support 1 million eligible families across India to access government benefits by 2030.

Tapas spoke with confidence about the organisation’s sustainability. He says, “We have a blended model where we work simultaneously with both the government and the community. When the government is supportive, particularly in specific departments and schemes, we can assist a vast number of households. Apart from government collaboration, we also directly engage with communities to provide support, albeit to a lesser extent. However, our operations never halt. These adjustments have evolved over time and are now part of our strategy. Our team continually learns, unlearns, and relearns, maintaining an ongoing cycle. We’re still evolving, and future discussions will likely bring further changes based on our experiences.” By centering M&E throughout its programme design, providing the flexibility to experiment, fail, and innovate, Tapasya is in a strong position to scale and create further impact at the grassroots and national level.

—

About Tapas and Mrinal

Tapas Sutradhar, co-founder and CEO of Tapasya, has 13 years of work experience in the development sector. He manages partnerships, compliance, and technology at Tapasya. Tapas has a master’s degree in social work.

Mrinal Rao, co-founder and COO of Tapasya, has 13 years of work experience in the development sector. She oversees operations, people management, and research at Tapasya. Mrinal has a master’s degree in social work.

—

Know more

• Read this article to to learn whether M&E should be entrusted to an external or internal team.
• Read this article to learn how to build expertise in the M&E field.

There are now several private and government agencies providing certification in India as third parties, such as the Chhattisgarh certification society, which began in 2003. The new scheme aims to regulate certification agencies and procedures by mandating the registration of certification bodies with the National Accreditation Board and by providing certification based on criteria and indicators set by the government under the National Working Plan Code, 2023.

This raises an important question about whether certification can lead to sustainable management of India’s over 70 million hectares of forests and benefit state forest departments, forest-dependent communities, and farmers growing trees on their farms.

The concept of sustainable forest management in India is not recent but starts from the colonial period. After the Indian Forest Act, 1865, the government took control of forest land to maximise timber production for ship building and laying railway sleepers. Dietrich Brandis, India’s first Inspector General of Forests between 1864 and 1883, first proposed the concept of sustainable forest management.

The idea was to sustainably harvest timber from the forest. For this, each forest division was to be divided into working circles of different timber tree species. Each working circle would be subdivided into compartments. By rotating the harvest of trees across compartments, the regeneration of the forest was assured and a wood stock was maintained. The aim was a sustainable supply of timber to the colonial government.

A forest working plan was to be prepared for each of the forest divisions, describing the estimated volume of timber available and how it would be harvested over a 10 to 15-year period. The first national forest working plan code, which was to serve as a guideline for preparing working plans, was published in 1881.

However, the sole objective being maximising timber production, other aspects of sustainable forest management, such as biodiversity and the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities, were largely ignored in the colonial period. Aggressive plantations of teak (Tectona grandis), a valuable timber tree was taken up in wildlife-rich areas, and they can still be seen in many tiger reserves in India. Timber from Deodar trees in the Himalayas were extracted until exhaustion in a few places such as the Sutlej valley.

After independence, the extraction of timber from forests continued rather indiscriminately till 1996 when the Supreme Court intervened. The case, famously referred to as Godavarman versus Union of India, was a landmark in Indian forestry. The petition was filed due to the felling of trees on private land and the Supreme Court ruled that the forest, irrespective of ownership, should be treated under its working plan. This meant that the felling of trees on private land would be in accordance with the working plan and permission must be sought from the forest department for it.

This ruling had the positive effect of greatly reducing deforestation on private land and in forests situated above 1,500 metres and in north-east India, where it completely banned tree felling. Its negative effects were that it made many state forest development corporations obsolete and provided farmers no incentives to grow trees on their farms.

The state forest development corporations were set up on the basis of the recommendations of the National Commission for Agriculture in 1976. The objectives of the corporations were to raise forest plantations and harvest timber and non-timber forest products in a sustainable manner, thereby supporting the country’s economy.

After the 1996 ruling, the activities of many state forest development corporations, like the Himachal Pradesh Forest Development Corporation, were reduced to collecting resin (from Pinus roxburghii) and extracting salvage trees from the forest. The Lok Vaniki scheme initiated by Madhya Pradesh in 1999 to help farmers grow trees on their farms did not succeed because even small and marginal farmers with land holdings of less than a few hectares had to follow bureaucratic procedures to obtain the government’s permission for tree felling. This, in effect, discouraged them from growing trees.

Why forest certification?

Globally, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) established as a non-profit organisation in Bonn, Germany, in 1993 is the leading forest certification agency. The FSC aims to promote environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world’s forests. It claims on its website that the certification covers about 160 million hectares of forest land in 89 countries.

Forest certification has been, over the years, shown to reduce illegal logging in some countries such as Chile and Peru, but has not been identified as the only factor to have reduced deforestation in countries such as Mexico and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Forestry researchers still debate the effects of certification because several other factors influence sustainable forest management, such as recognition of community rights, policies on forest protection, and so on.

When it comes to non-timber forest produce, the certification looks even less important.

Further, certification is a costly affair. A case study on the certification of acacia plantations in Vietnam showed only marginal returns from certification and that too only if the plantations were more than 3,000 hectares. This clearly indicates there were no benefits for farmers with smaller land holdings.

In the case of India, a study commissioned by the International Tropical Timber Organisation notes that in 2020 the demand for roundwood in India—mainly used for furniture making, paper and pulp, panels and plywood, and construction—was around 57 million cubic metres, of which 47 million cubic metres was met domestically. Of this, 45 million cubic metres was from trees outside forests and only a meagre 2 million cubic metres came from state-owned forests.

In this context, certification looks a meaningless exercise because large quantities of timber will be produced from trees outside forests as block plantations of poplar, teak, and eucalyptus exist and domestic buyers are least likely to care for certified timber. In terms of export, very little timber from teak and sisham—0.01 million cubic metres—was exported in 2020.

Any shift in demand for certified timber domestically or internationally could tilt the scale in favour of wealthy farmers who can afford certification costs. It could also discourage small farmers from growing trees on their farms.

When it comes to non-timber forest produce, the certification looks even less important. Produce such as mahua flowers, sal seeds, and tendu leaves in central India and rhododendron flowers and pine cones in the Himalayas are gathered and marketed locally. There is no evidence of any of these being exported in their raw form.

India aimed to boost its agroforestry through the National Agroforestry Policy in 2014. However, almost a decade later, there has hardly been any improvement in agroforestry.

As for state forest departments, the Supreme Court’s 1996 restrictions on extracting timber are still in place and they have to prepare working plans and get them approved according to the latest working plan code. This should include the volume of timber that can be sustainably extracted without affecting biodiversity and the needs of forest-dependent communities. Only then will the certification be a value addition if the forest products are exported.

For forest-dependent communities, community rights are recognised in about 6.5 million hectares of forest land under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. Communities using their Community Forest Rights (CFR) provisions have been sustainably extracting NTFP and marketing thereby making good economic gains. Many more millions of forest dependent communities still depend on NTFP for their livelihood even without rights. Further, there is no provision for extracting timber under the management rights given to communities, though forest departments run plantations in forests with recognised community rights.

India aimed to boost its agroforestry through the National Agroforestry Policy in 2014. It made tree saplings easily available to farmers and eased restrictions on tree felling and transit. However, almost a decade later, there has hardly been any improvement in agroforestry. A recent study titled “Severe Decline in Large Agroforestry Trees in India over the Past Decade”, to which I contributed, noted a severe decline of mature trees on farms in India because of changing cropping patterns, mechanised farming, and farmers perceiving no economic benefit in having trees on their farms.

In sum, the global experience shows forest certification can at the most increase the market value marginally but this comes with high certification costs, which doesn’t help marginal farmers and forest dependent communities and certification alone does not lead to sustainable forest management or help in increasing agroforestry.

Towards sustainable management

In India, the causes of deforestation are diversion of forests to non-forestry purpose such as mining, roads, and other infrastructure and degradation due to fire, cattle grazing, and invasive species such as lantana.

Caution must be exercised to not raise plantations on grasslands and other open natural forest, which are important ecosystems in themselves.

Sustainable forest management is important to ensure ecosystem services such as the flow of streams and rivers, to support the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities, and for a forest-based economy. More than certification, what is required is a good working plan to manage the forests and sustainably extract timber and other non-timber forest produce.

The National Working Plan Code, last revised in 2014 and 2023, provides guidelines on managing forests sustainably through a working plan that considers biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and the livelihood needs of local communities, including grazing and firewood collection.

A study in the Congo basin has shown that a forest management plan with rotational harvest of timber and a clear benefit-sharing plan with forest-dependent communities were much more effective than forest certification in sustainable forest management.

To meet the growing domestic demand for timber, plantations outside forests can be increased. This can reduce the logging pressure on natural forests and reduce deforestation. A possible way forward is to encourage forest development corporations to raise plantations on degraded land and farmers to plant trees on their fallow or uncultivable land. Waterlogged and degraded land with invasive trees such Prosopis juliflora could also be utilised for raising plantations.

Some of colonial era plantations of pine and eucalyptus could be slowly removed and planted with native oak and sal trees, which are more resourceful. Communities having CFR in degraded land could also be encouraged to raise plantations with a clear procedure for getting full benefits from the timber produced. Lastly, procedures to fell trees according to a working plan, transit and market them should be made easy for both states and farmers.

However, caution must be exercised to not raise plantations on grasslands and other open natural forest, which are important ecosystems in themselves. There is a need to strengthen the capacity of state forest departments to prepare good working plans that can identify plantation areas, raise quality plantations, and sustainably harvest timber—all the while preserving natural forests for ecological security.

To conclude, these few steps would help improve sustainable forest management in India and increase the income of farmers and state forest departments much more than forest certification.

This article was originally published on The India Forum.

In all these years of working closely with young people in the region, I have learned that they are articulate and aspirational, but also lonely as they lack support from the family and community in pursuing unconventional professions such as working in the social sector or becoming an entrepreneur. They have dreams of changing the society for good, but are often held back by a dearth of know-how, funds, and proper mentoring. The communities also suffer from the social sector’s poor understanding of their cultures, geographies, and sociopolitical conditions.

Here are some learnings that I would like to share with the ecosystem of funders, nonprofits, and aspiring nonprofit leaders on working in the Northeast. I believe these lessons can be a starting point for anyone wanting to meaningfully engage with these states.

1. The Northeast is not homogenous

The social sector has grown rapidly in the Northeast in the past few decades, but this growth has not always been beneficial for community members. While big funders and nonprofits started working in the area, they did so without really understanding the complexity of the geography, politics, and culture of the eight states that form the region. This led to them replicating their pan-India programmes in the Northeast without customising it to the context of the place.

For example, many assume that Nagaland has a singular Naga identity, not realising that there are multiple communities and clans within it. They have their own distinct languages/dialects and cultures and, thus, their challenges differ even from one another. A homogenous solution won’t serve them all. Communities in the Northeast are divided by geographies—people live in the plains, hills, and riverine areas, and have their unique resources and problems. Can a nonprofit that doesn’t understand this diversity ever actually help the communities?

There’s a tendency in the social sector to chase numbers because the funders demand it. Nonprofits start working in a village with a select group of people (such as in the self-help group model), run their programme, measure impact, and move on to the next village. However, evidence shows that these groups often exclude people from marginalised sections. The secret to a more inclusive social development model might lie in thinking at a smaller scale. Instead of covering 30 villages in a state within a short time span, nonprofits could work with one village or a cluster of villages with all the community members in that area, until the community is empowered to self-sustain the change.

In fact, in Sonapur area in Assam’s Kamrup Metropolitan district, Bosco Institute has partnered with Spread NE, a nonprofit that works on farming and farm-based entrepreneurship. Every household—young people, women, and children—is part of this project on natural farming. Depending on which aspect of agricultural enterprise they are interested in, the community members are involved in production, marketing, and networking. People work at their own pace without the stress of meeting targets within a limited time frame. Since they have adopted the project as their own, they have come up with additional business ideas such as creating a tourism trail so that tourists can stay at the farms, earning them an extra income.

2. Funders should invest in ideas and allow failures

These states have gone through years of political unrest, which has had an impact on the people’s mental health and social well-being. There is a scarcity of resources that prevents them from taking up professions such as entrepreneurship and social work, which are considered risky. They are encouraged to pursue government jobs or become doctors or engineers, because these are thought of as stable career options.

When young people choose to work in the social sector, they do so by going against the tide. Many of them start an initiative, but are forced to give it up due to family and social pressure and financial stress. Further, the region is disaster-prone with annual floods being a common feature that adds additional challenges to nonprofit work. Funders investing in new nonprofits in the northeastern states must consider the possibility of failures unique to the region, and not pressure the organisations to meet deadlines that aren’t suitable to their current conditions. They should also make long-term commitments instead of time-bound, project-based funding.

If young nonprofit leaders fail, they shouldn’t have to carry the stigma of an assumed incompetence. If businessmen can start over, second chances should be provided to social sector leaders too and philanthropists and funders in the Northeast should come together to build a system that encourages this.

3. Funders should re-evaluate their expectations

At our incubation programme, we focus on social entrepreneurship because we believe it is extremely important for new nonprofits to be able to sustain themselves for a few years before applying for external funding. Getting funding at an early stage is challenging for small nonprofits in the region, and we don’t want young people to stop pursuing their endeavours due to a lack of money.

Even if a new nonprofit manages to attract funding, the funders often start dictating the work that the organisation should be doing. Young leaders lack negotiating power. Due to pressure from funders, many of them digress from the primary idea for which their initiative was launched.

Funders don’t invest in prior research about the region, and often make demands that are out of context with the place. Recently, I was speaking with a young nonprofit leader who is working with one such funder. They are planning to run online campaigns with women and adolescent kids in rural areas, but many villages in the Northeast don’t have a stable internet connection.

4. The sector must learn to listen to the communities

The shortcoming of the social sector in the Northeast is its inability to listen to the communities and the tendency to impose ideas on them. Funders and nonprofits from other states that start working in the region often complain about the lack of entrepreneurial spirit and productivity among the locals. But the people here had a self-sufficient lifestyle before the modern idea of development was thrust on them. They grew their own food, weaved their own clothes, and lived a slow life. You can still see reflections of this in the small towns and villages of these states. I always say that when I came from Kerala to Shillong in Meghalaya in 1975, we used to walk because it was pleasant and there were no vehicles; now the people in Shillong have to walk because the streets are clogged with too many vehicles and there are traffic jams everywhere. What kind of development is this? If people don’t want to work according to industrial time, if they prioritise their festivals and communal engagements over manufacturing for production units, it is an indicator of their refusal to be co-opted by market forces. Shouldn’t the social sector, which prides itself on serving the people, adapt to the ways of the community rather than force them to do something that goes against their concept of happiness?

Many communities in the Northeast are now struggling to preserve their culture, language, songs, and customs. Young community members have taken up the task of cultural conservation, but are struggling for funds. There are individuals and groups that promote slow food, slow fashion, compassionate farming, and indigenous music, art, and folklores. The sector can play a critical role in supporting these enterprises that matter to the people. This will take them one step closer to engaging with the communities on their terms. 

—

Know more

• Read this article to understand why the social sector needs to invest in the Northeast.
• Read this report to learn about the development challenges that the northeastern states face.
• Read this article to understand how infrastructural development is affecting the youth in the Northeast.

When your manager—who hasn’t spoken to you all year—opens the conversation by asking you how you are doing.

via GIPHY

2

When they kick off the conversation asking about what you’ve accomplished since your last review. (But you’ve forgotten everything that happened before yesterday).

via GIPHY

3

When they ask you to talk about your weaknesses and indicate that they have (critical) feedback for you.

via GIPHY

4

When they ask you about your stretch goal and you are hearing those words for the first time in life.

via GIPHY

5

When they finally get to praising you for being a valuable asset to the organisation.

via GIPHY

6

When they say they really want to know how the organisation can support your growth.

via GIPHY

7

But then they tell you that they don’t quite agree with your suggestion that a pay raise is the best form of support.

via GIPHY

8

And now is the time for your manager’s yearly confession that while they appreciate you, they don’t have the funds to actually pay you better.

via GIPHY

9

However, however, they see you in a leadership role in the future…and then there will be money.

via GIPHY

Adopting a systems thinking approach, which entails considering these diverse interconnections within the broader context of climate change, has emerged as a potential strategy. And while the approach is gaining momentum in theory, questions about how it will play out in practice remain. How will it translate into the work that nonprofits are already doing? Given constraints such as limited resources, time, and team capacity, how can nonprofits adopt a systems thinking lens to address the complexity of the climate crisis?

Liby Johnson, the executive director of the grassroots development organisation Gram Vikas, points out that nonprofits are already adept at understanding the various facets of an issue, such as its causes and potential effects. This is especially true for nonprofits operating at the grassroots. Reflecting on his experience, he adds, “I started working in this sector in the mid 90s. Back then, linear thinking was completely frowned upon. When we proposed solutions, we would immediately be asked about the dependencies. That’s how the sector operated. Our contributions—demonstrating workable models, scaling them up, and showcasing that change is possible—resulted from our commitment to systems thinking.”

According to Liby, nonprofits such as PRADAN, Collectives for Integrated Livelihood Initiatives (CInI), and The Timbaktu Collective have been working with vulnerable rural communities across the country for several decades. “These organisations have engaged with families to enhance their livelihoods, and not just by improving agricultural practices and increasing farming yields. Their efforts also extend to education and overall well-being, allowing these households to become resilient, over time, to disasters and climate impacts,” he shares.

The responsibility of adopting a systems thinking lens, however, cannot rest solely on grassroots nonprofits. Funders, intermediaries, and others must also think differently. Liby adds that in the absence of support from the larger ecosystem, it becomes nearly impossible for nonprofits to  incorporate a systems thinking framework in their work.

“Organisations, especially younger nonprofits that are still finding their footing, don’t have the agency to dictate a set of operating methods that deviate from how the larger system is already functioning. I don’t think there’s a solution unless the system itself starts thinking this way.”

What will it take to create this enabling ecosystem?

Funders, intermediary organisations, and larger nonprofits can play a significant role in shaping the trajectory of a nonprofit’s work; they dictate where and how resources are allocated and what priorities are set. Therefore, it’s crucial for these different stakeholders to embrace systems thinking in their own practices to enable nonprofits to do the same. Here are some strategies to achieve this:

1. Listen to different narratives

Narratives have the power to shape perceptions. The prevailing discourse on climate change is largely confined to Western-centric, scientific frameworks, which neglect local contexts. To truly address the complexities of climate change, there is an urgent need to broaden the discourse and incorporate diverse perspectives and marginalised voices that are often sidelined.

Larger nonprofits can contribute to this narrative-building exercise in a significant manner. It is critical for metro-headquartered nonprofits not to  impose their worldview and ideas of climate thinking on the local, community-based organisations they partner with.

However, Neha Saigal, director – gender and climate change at Asar Social Impact Advisors, points out that it has been very challenging for organisations with different approaches and perspectives to talk to each other. “We tend to listen to people who are like us and who think like us.”

Asar is a research and consultancy organisation that facilitates collaboration between various stakeholders in climate change–related fields. When it began working with partners—including organisations that weren’t necessarily climate-focused—on different aspects of the crisis at the state level, much of the initial attention was on trying to understand climate through the perspective of the community. This is because everybody has a different understanding of climate.

To bring in these diverse viewpoints, Asar conducted what it calls ‘listening and sensing sessions’. “These are open-ended dialogues. They aren’t focus group discussions or a research exercise, and are, in fact, fairly informal.” Neha elaborates. These sessions eventually shape the work Asar does in the region, she adds. “The inputs from the community enable us to take decisions and prioritise issues, geographies, strategies, and tactics.”

Aman Singh, the founder of KRAPAVIS, a nonprofit that works to ensure sustainable livelihoods for rural pastoral communities in Rajasthan, also notes how conducting regular workshops with community members has benefitted his team. “Through our workshops with local groups, we’ve created an environment for participation and dialogue. As a result, our team members have also become more receptive to community feedback, which we regularly incorporate in our planning.”

For funders who don’t often engage regularly with the communities for whom they are trying to create solutions, having access to these different narratives is essential. This is because  this information can help them better tailor their support to address root causes and build resilience.

Intermediary organisations—those that act as a bridge between funders and nonprofits, disseminating vital information and knowledge—also play a critical role here. Given their tremendous influence in the sector, intermediaries can facilitate a shift in funder attitudes by helping them think through which factors to consider when looking at impact, what measurement metrics to use, and subsequently, how to plan interventions. For instance, they can develop use cases for funders to include a narrative-building aspect within their programme.

2. Address knowledge gaps

Systems thinking isn’t a framework everyone is familiar with. Aman Singh highlights that the systems thinking framework has yet to reach the grassroots level. “While many may grasp it intuitively, most nonprofits working on the ground still lack familiarity with this framework.”

In 2019, DESTA, a research and consulting organisation that focuses on mainstreaming systems thinking for sustainable development, conducted a week-long training session for KRAPAVIS on systems thinking. Over the course of these sessions with DESTA, the KRAPAVIS team expanded their scope of thinking on the work they were doing on restoring orans (sacred groves) in Rajasthan.

Those who are well-versed in systems thinking need to make deliberate efforts towards capacity building and facilitating knowledge exchange.

Aman Singh shares an example. “Orans used to have traditional water harvesting systems such as talaabs, nadis, tankas, baodis, and open wells. But when we started employing a systems thinking lens to look at all the other factors impacting the orans, we found that farmers and industrialists had set up illegal borewells to extract water. This is when we realised the implication that depleting groundwater tables can have on the orans. As a result, as part of our larger aim to restore and conserve these community forests, we’ve started working on the issue of recharging groundwater as well.”

Therefore, while nonprofits possess innate insights into systems thinking from their on-ground experience, providing them with the right tools and training can enable them to expand their understanding and identify interconnected issues that may not have been initially apparent. For this to take place, those who are well-versed in systems thinking need to make deliberate efforts towards capacity building and facilitating knowledge exchange.

However, Aman Singh points out that field teams might be hesitant to learn about systems thinking. “When we introduced our team to systems thinking, they felt it was too theoretical and that it wouldn’t be applicable on the ground. However, after bringing the framework into practice, they started finding the concept easier to grasp. If we want to change something, we have to remain open to understanding and engaging with complexity.” He goes on to add that the language used to disseminate systems thinking knowledge is complex and full of jargon and needs to be made more accessible.  

3. Broaden the scope of funding outcomes

There has been an increasing pressure on nonprofits to think in a linear fashion. “It’s all ‘Go, go, go,’ and there really is no space for nonprofits to sit down, and map the system and the various relationships within it,” shares Neha.

A part of the reason for this focus on linearity is the constant emphasis on measuring inputs and the number of people reached, as opposed to figuring out how these outcomes are achieved. This linear thinking shapes the very way in which interventions are planned. Liby expands on this with an example.

“Consider a nonprofit that works towards enhancing the climate resilience of farm livelihoods in a cluster of gram panchayats. Funders might only focus on specific outcomes: Which crop will increase productivity? What will the increase in price per unit e be that would lead to an increase in income? This narrow approach to planning and reporting overlooks a broader understanding of impact that is needed. For instance, an increase in production for farm-dependent households hinges not only on agricultural yields but also on factors such as the time that is available to women to work in the fields, considering their responsibilities at home,” he says.

However, many donors fail to consider such nuances during the planning phase. “The problem with this kind of linear thinking is that it doesn’t allow us to even factor in any kind of risk. The moment funders begin thinking about the systems that influence farm production, they will have to allow for some margin of failure, allot funds to accommodate for it, and then broaden the scope of the outcomes as well,” Liby adds. He emphasises that to be able to expand the scope of an intervention and understand all the various interconnections, systems thinking must begin when a programme is being planned. 

One solution to these problems is patient grantmaking. It provides sustained support to organisations over an extended period, often with flexibility in funding timelines and reporting requirements. This would allow nonprofits to have the time and resources to understand the multi-dimensional nature of the issues they’re addressing.

It’s essential to think inclusively and consider the needs and practices of grassroots organisations.

Neha adds that this kind of funding can also help ensure that meaningful solutions aren’t prevented from being implemented, just because nonprofits do not understand the broader context.

Another step that funders can take is making it easier for grantees to report. Aman Singh shares that many donors bring their own format to the table and tend to view things from only their perspective. “If we talk about issues beyond what their formats dictate, they say it doesn’t match their vision or mission. While it’s crucial for funders to align with their vision and mission, they must also remain flexible to accommodating the perspectives and approaches of those working on the ground. It’s essential to think inclusively and consider the needs and practices of grassroots organisations.”

Complex problems like the climate crisis cannot be solved overnight. All stakeholders, especially implementing nonprofits, need the space and time for reflection to find sustainable solutions. Liby remarks that while these organisations thrive because of their grassroots understanding, they must also enhance their ability to contribute to a bird’s-eye view. This can only happen when the entire ecosystem shifts its approach as well, changes the way it measures outcomes, makes space for diverse narratives, and demystifies the systems thinking framework to make it more accessible for grassroots nonprofits.

Smarinita Shetty contributed to this article.

—

Know more

• Read this article to learn how funders can further enable a systems thinking approach for the sector.
• Read this blog to gain insights into systems thinking in action.

Hailing from Rajasthan’s Rajsamand district, Shankar Singh is a social and political activist, musician, lyricist, theatre artist, and storyteller. He co-founded the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) alongside prominent activists Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey. MKSS is known for its role in advocating for and implementing the Right to Information Act (RTI) in the country.

Shankar Singh has employed a variety of creative strategies to champion the rights of marginalised labourers and farmers, focusing on issues such as wages, employment, and other government social entitlements. His approach is marked by a unique blend of entertainment, music, and sharp wit and satire. He has led many successful movements and campaigns, both at the grassroots and national level. Notably, he has contributed to the implementation of landmark schemes like MGNREGA and government processes such as social audits.

In this conversation with IDR, which is the second of two episodes, Shankar Singh talks about using different mediums—folk music, drama, and puppetry—to engage with communities during social movements. He also discusses what those with specialised skills have to offer to grassroots nonprofits and offers valuable perspectives on carrying on in the face of disappointment and fatigue.

Here are some highlights from the conversation:

00.16 | On working with different mediums

I got the chance to see puppets at one place, the Literacy House in Lucknow, so I started following these people. I felt that I had to learn this and asked them to teach me how to use puppets. Whenever I got the chance, I’d go to them. There was a workshop there, after joining the nonprofit. I went to that workshop. But in the same campus there was a department of puppetry that did only this work. I showed a lot of curiosity in it. I thought that I definitely wanted to acquire this skill. Then I learned puppetry from there. I assimilated puppetry into my thought and then expressed myself through it. 

I felt that these mediums are very strong, be it drama, songs, stories, or puppetry. I completely assimilated these mediums while working with that nonprofit. 

[During L K Advani’s Rath Yatra,] we thought about what we should do. We made a beautiful chariot out of a cart that we got from the vegetable market, placed big horses made of cloth in front of it, and wrote ‘Ghotala Rath Yatra’ on it. We put placards around an umbrella. These placards bore the names of all the ghotalas(scams) that had taken place. And a chair was placed on the cart for the leader to sit on. The chariot was covered with saffron decorations. We did all this behind the tent, and the police did not know that we were doing something. And I announced on the mike, “Tomorrow at 5 o’clock in the evening, a Rath Yatra will start from here. And the leader of our Rath, his name is Rajvani, he will come from Delhi. He will be riding on the chariot and there will be a Rath Yatra.” 

The next day we took out the chariot from there. And I was on top of the cart as a leader. I was dressed such that all the parties were included. The Congress cap and saffron-coloured gamchha (scarf). And the leader sat on a chair on the stage. There was a ghotala umbrella, and on the front it said ‘Ghotala Rath Yatra’. It also said Rajvani. And he came out. And there was also singing, “Ghotala raj ki jai jai bolo, jai-jai bolo, jai-jai bolo. Bhrashtachaar karo, hari hari bolo.” (Praise the reign of scams. Do corruption and take the lord’s name.) “Arey hawala ka halwa chaat chaat khaya.” (We really enjoyed the black money pudding.) 

Whatever scams happened like this, we kept talking about them in songs. 

08.11 | On how people with specialised can collaborate with those working on the ground

Let me give you an example. When this person called Vineet came to us, he said that we can see the Jan Soochna Portal. But how do we show it in the village? For this, he took a projector. Placing his small projector on a white wall, he brought out the Jan Soochna Portal. Then he called over some children, who thought they were being shown a film. So first he played a small film, some seven to 10 minutes long. He showed something related to RTI. The children saw it, enjoyed it. Then he asked one child to bring his ration card. He entered the ration card number in the portal. Vineet then displayed it on the wall, and when he did that the child could see a photo, which was of his father. He said, “Oye, this is my father’s photo,” and was quite amazed. Then Vineet said, look, I will show you all the times you took wheat. When he accessed the information on the portal, he said that the child’s family had taken 80 kg last month.

The child ran home, called his father and brought him back, saying, “They’re saying that you took 80 kg. The film in the projector is saying it.” The father said, “It was not 80 kg, we got 40 kg.” “But they’re saying something else.” The father came and asked to look. Then he saw that it said 80 kg. “Sir, it is not 80 kg. We took 40 kg.” “But here it says 80 kg.” “But I am telling you that I took 40 kg. We have never got 80 kg, we have got 40 kg every time. Every alternate month.”

He went to the dealer, who is from the village, and said, “Look at this, I have got 80 kg on paper and you gave me only 40 kg.” The dealer asked him where he had got this information from, and told him to take the rest of his wheat but not make any noise.

Soon, people queued up before Vineet asking for their ration information, and Vineet kept giving them this information. There was a line outside the ration [shop].

12.30 | On incidents that have left a lasting impact

There is an old couple in the village, they don’t have children. They don’t even have a house; they live under this shed. So I have helped them in getting pension. Sometimes they’re not able to get the ration food, so there are fights with the dealer on why they have not been given it. Sometimes he gives it and sometimes he doesn’t. I could not go for two to three months. Vineet and I both could not go, so they reprimanded us with great authority, that you did not come. I just asked them how things were going. “Okay,” they said.

When I lifted the lid of the drum, I saw that there was nothing in it. And there were no other things either. I asked, “Is there no atta (flour)?” “No, it has been five days. There has been nothing.” “There has been nothing for five days?”

Vineet went to bring her wheat and I was sitting near the old woman. She asked me to write down my mobile number on the wall somewhere. “I don’t have a phone but if someone comes I will tell them to talk to you.” I came [back] after writing [the number]. That day I felt very sad. And the next day I get a call that the old lady has passed away. We had brought that wheat. Even that wheat was of no use.

When we arrived [at the cremation,] there were some very big things being said there. Spiritual conversations. I mentioned that I have met this family, and said that this death happened due to hunger. Then this person asked how. I said I had visited them and there was no food in that house for five days. I said that I had bought the bag of wheat from the ration shop yesterday, and it was not even useful.

17.36 | On maintaining his passion for social change

While doing this work, many times you feel tired and disappointed. It definitely happens. It happens in my mind too. Whenever I have felt that I am in a lot of conflict and trouble, or if I am not sure about what I am doing and feeling stuck, that day I go to some poor person’s house. You sit there for an hour or two, you will understand their whole economics, and you will think, how can I stop? What is the condition of the family I have met? And what about me? I am much better off. I start thinking, personally, I don’t have any problem at all. I would not be doing any good if I withdrew myself. One’s enthusiasm doubles. And there is a lot of strength [in being around] a poor person, who has nothing but darkness all around, how will he survive in his life? Strength is found there. In this area, we know the houses, the families [that are struggling]. A friendship is formed whenever you go and talk to them. They also come to us, and together we try to find solutions. And then I don’t feel any physical fatigue, and my enthusiasm comes back.

Read the full transcript here.

—

Know more

• Watch the first part of this interview here.
• Learn about the Indian theatre movement.
• Watch Shankar Singh sing to bring awareness to the people of Rajasthan.