Common Property Forest Resource Management in Nepal: Developing Monitoring Systems for Use at the Local Level A Report Prepared by IRDD, University of Reading, UK in collaboration with ForestAction, Nepal and ECI, University of Oxford, UK Yam Malla, Richard Barnes, Krishna Paudel, Anna Lawrence, Hemant Ojha, Kate Green Reading, United Kingdom June 2002 NRSP Project 7514 Developing Monitoring Process and Indicators for Forest Management in Nepal Table of Contents Acknowledgement v Acronyms vi Executive summary vi i 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 2. THE CONTEXT 3 2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Community forestry in Nepal 3 2.3 Biological diversity 5 2.4 Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) 6 2.5 Experiences from previous related research 7 2.5.1Community forestry processes, process indicators and micro-action planning 7 2.5.2 FUG planning and self-evaluation 7 2.5.3 Participatory Action and Learning (PAL) 8 3. PROJECT PURPOSE, EXPECTED OUTPUTS, AND GENERAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS 10 3.1 Project purpose 10 3.2 Expected outputs 10 3.3 General research questions 11 3.3.1 Overall policy for forest management planning and monitoring. 12 3.3.2 The community forestry process at the DFO/RP level 12 3.3.3 Community forestry at the forest users level. 12 4. OVERALL APPROACH TO RESEARCH AND SELECTION OF RESEARCH SITES 13 4.1 Introduction 13 4.2 Participatory Action Research. 13 4.3 Overall research methodology - major stages involved 14 4.4 Activities in the preparatory stage 15 4.4.1 Consultations 15 4.4.2 Selection of district and Range Post 16 4.4.3 Outside research team formation 16 4.5 Selection of field sites for detailed research 16 4.5.1 Selection of forest user group (FUG) sites 16 4.5.2 Selection of non-FUG site 17 4.5 Development of site specific research questions 17 4.6 Field research approaches and methods 18 4.6.1 Working with the Range Post staff 18 4.6.2 Working with local forest users – the process 19 4.6.3 Key feature of the field investigation process 20 4.6.4 Nominations of tole representatives 20 4.6.5 Reaching linguistic understanding 20 4.7 Exchange of experiences / lessons between five research sites (joint workshop) 21 4.8 Meeting with Range Post level FECOFUN members and RP staff 22 4.9 District level stakeholders meeting (in Baglung) 22 4.10 Time spent in the field research 23 4.11 Arrangements for follow-up work 23 5. GENERAL INFORMATION ON RESEARCH AREA 24 5.1 General information on Baglung District 24 5.2 Kushmisera Range Post area 25 5.2.1 Area and people 25 5.2.2 The Range Post 26 5.3 Basic information and characteristics of the case study sites 26 5.4 Description of individual case study sites 27 5.4.1 Pallo Pakho 27 5.4.2 Jana Chetana 28 5.4.3 Bhane 29 5.4.4 Sirupata 30 5.4.5 Jyamire 31 ii 6 CURRENT COMMUNITY FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO DEVELOPING MONITORING SYSTEMS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL 32 6.1 Introduction 32 6.2 Planning practices in the District Forest Office / Range Post 32 6.2.1 Management of national forests 32 6.2.2 FUG formation 33 6.2.3 Operational Plan Review 35 6.2.4 Preparation of FUG annual action plans 35 6.2.5 Technical support to FUGs 36 6.3 DFO/ Range Post monitoring practices 36 6.3.1 FUG annual report 36 6.3.2 Forest resource inventory 37 6.3.3 FUG categorisation 37 6.3.4 Range Post monitoring 38 6.4 Local level common forest management planning and monitoring issues 39 6.4.1 Overview 39 6.4.2 Participation in planning 41 6.4.3 What are forests being managed for? 41 6.4.4 The process of FUG formation: selection of users and forests 42 6.4.5 Process of Operational Plan preparation 43 6.4.7 Monitoring of biological diversity by community forestry stakeholders 46 6.5 The role of FECOFUN in local level community forestry 47 6.5.1 Description of organisation 47 6.5.2 Relationship with local people 47 6.5.3 Relationship with the Range Post 48 6.5.4 Monitoring information 49 6.6 Involvement of VDCs 50 6.7 Summary 50 7 DEVELOPING FOREST USERS' PLANNING AND MONITORING SYSTEMS: THE FIELD PROCESS 52 7.1 Introduction 52 7.2 Commentary on the methodology used 52 7.3 Research methodology used for a detailed field investigation towards developing forest users’ monitoring system 53 7.3.1 Preparatory phase 53 7.3.2 Discussion with tole representatives (workshop) 56 7.3.3 Sharing / reflections the outcome of the workshop with the rest of the group members 62 7.3.4 Second workshop with tole representatives 63 iii 7.4 A generic process of developing forest management planning and monitoring systems with and for use by forest users 64 7.5 Basic features of the process 64 7.5.1 Participatory action and learning 66 7.5.2 Participation of interest groups 66 7.5.3 Sequence of information analysis 66 7.5.4 Flexibility in the use of specific tools and techniques 67 7.5 Aspects of forest management monitoring 67 7.5.1 Monitoring of new issues and trends 68 7.5.2 Monitoring of implementation 68 7.5.3 Monitoring of impact 68 7.5.4 Monitoring biological diversity 69 7.6 Role of outside facilitators 72 7.7 Summary 72 8. IMPROVING MONITORING SYSTEMS OF ORGANISATIONS OPERATING AT THE RANGE POST LEVEL 76 8.1 Introduction 76 8.2 Authority and accountability of the Range Post 76 8.3 Integrating monitoring with the forest management planning processes 77 8.4 Information flows between stakeholders 77 8.5 Monitoring information requirements and the capacity of organisations 79 8.6 The cost of developing monitoring system / process for FUGs 79 8.7 Community forestry and livelihoods 80 8.8 Matching forest users' perceptions and values for biological diversity with other stakeholders' monitoring requirements 80 8.9 Summary 82 iv 9 LESSONS LEARNED AND CONCLUSIONS 83 9.1 Introduction 83 9.2 Assumptions about community forestry processes and monitoring 83 9.3 Monitoring systems for use at different levels: by who, for what and how? 84 9.4 Variations in forest users situations and the challenge of group monitoring 84 9.5 Non-FUG site 85 9.6 General conclusions 86 9.7 Conclusions relating to the main project outputs 87 9.7.1 Current forest management planning practices and constraints to effective monitoring systems 87 9.7.2 Process for developing forest users’ planning and monitoring systems 87 9.7.3 Suggestions for improving monitoring systems at the Range Post level 88 REFERENCES 89 APPENDICES 92 - 133 v Acknowledgement The materials presented in this report are the products of much discussions, practical applications and field testing during 2000 – 2001. We would like to thank particularly the members of five local communities, namely Pallo Pakho, Jana Chetana, Bhane, Sirupata and Jyamire for their willingness to participate in the participatory action research process with us. We would also like to thank to the staff of Kushmisera Range Post, namely Madhav Baral (Ranger), Yajendra Paudel (Forest Guard), Daya Ram Paudel (Forest Guard), Gyan Bahadur KC (Forest Guard), Kaladhar Joshi (Forest Guard) and Krishna Prasad Paudel (Forest Guard). The development of an understanding of the current forest management practices at the local level and the process of initiating monitoring systems for use at both the village and Range Post levels would not have been possible without active involvement in the process of the concerned communities and field staff. We would like to mention the support of LFP staff, in particular Mr Peter Neil, Clare Hamilton- Shakya and Poonam Joshi, Udhave Bhattarai, who helped us during the period of this project, both through their interest in our work and by helping us out with administrative and logistical arrangements. We are extremely grateful to the various staff of the Department of Forests who have supported us in planning project activities. In particular, Mr K. B. Shrestha, Chief of the Community and Private Forestry Division (CPFD), Kathmandu, Mr. Mahesh Hari Acharya, the District Forest Officer, Baglung, and Mr. Kedar Paudel, Assistant District Forest Officer, Baglung and the various field staff. The project was managed by the University of Reading’s International and Rural Development Department (IRDD) and executed in collaboration with the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute (ECI), ForestAction (a Nepalese NGO) and a DFID supported Livelihood and Forestry Programme (LFP) in Nepal. The UK government’s Department for International Development (DFID) through its Natural Resources Systems Programme (NRSP) provided fund to support the project activities. vi Acronyms AFO Assistant Forest Officer CBO Community Based Organisation CF Community Forest CNRD Centre for Natural Resources and Development (University of Oxford) CPFD Community and Private Forestry Division dbh Tree trunk diameter at breast height DFID Department for International Development DFO District Forest Office(r) DoF Department of Forest FECOFUN Federation of Community Forest Users, Nepal FFMP Forest User Groups Forest Management Project ForestAction Forest Resources Studies and Action FRP Forest Research Programme FUG Forest User Group FUGC Forest User Group Committee HIMAWANTI Himalayan Women’s Associations Network International HMGN His Majesty’s Government, Nepal ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development IoF Institute of Forestry, Pokhara IRDD International and Rural Development Department (University of Reading) LFP Livelihood and Forestry Programme (previously NUKCFP) MoSFC Ministry of Soil and Forest Conservation M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NANSAP Natural Resources Management Sector Assistance Programme NACRMP Nepal Australia Community Resource Management Project