Doon Valley Integrated Watershed

Document Sample
Doon Valley Integrated Watershed Powered By Docstoc
					                       Doon Valley Integrated Watershed Development Project
                                      Arya K.L., Ranjan A. India

Implementers:
Watershed Management Directorate, Dehradun – E.U. Sponsored.

Time Frame:
9years. (1993- Dec 2001)

Geographically Settings:
Hill Area of Uttaranchal State, India

Target Group:
Rural People In The Project.

Institutional Arrangement:
1) Project Staff.
2) Women Co-ordinator.
3) Village Level Institutions
     a) Village Resource Management Committees. (GAREMA)
     b) Self Help Groups. (SHG)
     c) User Groups.

Opportunities:
1) Resource Developed At Village Level. Revolving Fund at Village
2) Self Help Group:
   a) Fund– Social Capital.
   b) Linkages With Bank.
Capacity Building:
   a) Women Based – Gender Based Project.
   b) trainings In Various IGA.
3) Integrated Approach.
   a) Development of Various Sectors
   b) Live Stock, Agriculture, Horticulture, based Activities.
4) Flexibility + Innovative Approach to meet threshold needs.

Challenges:
1) No well defined legal rights in forest.
2) Market Linkages.

Programme:
1) To arrest the environmental degradation. Uplift the economic standard of local communities by
    involving them.
    a) Participatory process approach.
    b) Women participation ensured.
    c) All sectors forestry, livestock, horticulture, soil conservation, energy conservation, minor
        irrigation and agriculture development.
    d) Local communities and women activity involved in the project.
    e) Sustainability ensured through
        i) 10 years withdrawal plans.
        ii) Village level institutions.
        iii) Revolving funds.
Innovations:
1) Funds at village level.
    a) Revolving fund and self help groups and fund.
    b) Easy access to credit.
    c) Bank linkage.
2) Women trained in various IG, Mushroom cultivation, Poultry floriculture etc

Lesson learned:
1) For stable village level organisation – Need to be focused on common interest.
2) Villagers are capable of developing effective institutional producers for managing their funds
   and for protection of common property resources.
3) Village level institutions build confidence among the community.
4) Women proved more responsive to project intervention
5) Income generation and livelihood to be taken care of for sustainable development.
                 Timber Processing through Community Forest Users Group Network
                              Kunwar G.D., Chand N. and Dangal S.

Implementations:
Five Community Forest users group (CFUG)

Supported By:
Department of Forest + Nepal-Australian Community Resource Management Project.

Time Frame:
1996-on going.

Geographical Setting:
- Altitude 1800 m.-2200 m. from mean sea level.
- Mid hills of central Nepal.
- Seasonal roads.

Forest Background:
- Conifer (Pine spp), Planted, Pole size.
- Getting round timber from thinning.

Target Group:
- Constitution of Network existed.
- Executive committee representing five CFUGs.
- Office building and fully paid office staffs.

Opportunities:
- Well market linkage.
- Excess forest products.
- Good transportation in harvesting seasons.
- Favourable Government Policy for enterprise development (user group have a right to establish
  processing plant and sell them in market).
- Trained Man power within groups.
- Good co-ordination with local Government and line agencies.

Outcomes:
- Users receives more than $US $ 27,000/- year from market by selling only sawn timber.
- More than 600 labour engaged each year.
- Two permanent staff for running enterprise.
- Forest condition has been improved.
- Community development activities:
      a) Four teachers are paid.
      b) School building constructed.
      c) Football ground constructed.
      d) Drinking water.
      e) Loan to disadvantaged group for IGA.
      f) Running health camp for user group member.

Challenges:
- Lack of second generation leadership (because young people migrated to Kathmandu for
   better opportunity).
- No diverse option for pine timber utilisation.

Lesson Learned:
“ Local community can manage forest and enterprise sustainably and use so gained income in
local development activities leads self reliance.”
                                       Developing of CBFM
                                Nawa, Nopillis and Nessy, Indonesia.

Implementers:
Local People (Co-operative)

Supporting Agency:
- SHK (NGO)
- SFMP-GTZ

Time Frame:
- 1995-2000
- 2001-2006

Geographical Setting:
East Kalimantan (8hrs. from p0rovince Capital).

Target Group:
- Indigenous people.
- Government.

Institutional Arrangement:
1) Model:
     a) Training for participatory mapping.
     b) Land use planning.
     c) Forest management plan.
     d) Processing unit.
     e) Market networking.
2) Dissemination:
     a) To Government Policy
     b) To other Groups (village).

Opportunity:
- Government support caused by decentralisation policy.
- Forestry reform issue.
- Resources availability.
- Open market.

Challenges:
- Value added of timber.
- Skill improvement/ capacity building.
- Certification issue.
- Policy supported from central Government.

Lesson Learned:
- It‟s hard to carry participatory process.
- Technical aspect easier than social aspect (c.o.).
                           Studied of food from the forest by women group

Implementers:
Thai NGOs committee on agro-rain reform and rural development (Thai NGOs WCARRD)

Time Frame:
Jan.2000-Dec.2000

Geographical setting:
Tung Yao village.

Target Group:
Women group.
Institutional arrangement:
Divide women group. 12 subgroups. Collecting data every month. Such as: kind of food from
forest/timing/quantity/value/objective: for food and cash.

Opportunities:
- Discussion and conclusion.
- Awareness about forest utilisation and food security source as village supermarket.

Challenges:
Strengthen women group to participate on community forest management.

Lesson Learned:
- Participatory learning process empower (building capacity gender) women group to decision
    making in any aspect.
- People can live with forest: “having from forest must be conserved forest.”
                   Increase the livelihood of Local communities around the forest
                                    Swadia, Ilanova and Pelckala.

Implementers:
EU-SCKPFP (Technical Assistance)

Time Frame:
3.5 years.

Geographical Setting:
5 villages (16 hamlets) around forest. South Kalimantan, Indonesia.

Target Group:
Villagers/farmers groups.

Institutional Arrangement:
- Government.
- NGOs.
- Private Sectors.

Opportunities:
- Decentralisation
- Farmers are innovative.

Challenges:
- Decentralisation
- Land tenure.

Lesson learned:
On-going.
                                Forest Management Foundation-U.K.
                                                                                          -Kwisthout H.

Good or sustainable forest management has 3 components
1. Environmental
2. Social
3. Economic
              These sectors: overlap
                              : are often conflicting
                              : are to a large extent mutually exclusive

1) Environmental:
   a) Deals with impact of human action on the environment-mostly restrictive.

2) Social:
   a) Wider sense: includes legal aspects (e.g. Rights)
   b) Narrow sense: refers to stakeholders (= those with a direct interest in the area.

3) Economic:
   a) Concerned with RESULTS, in other words: does it make money?

Economic activity is market oriented: products are made to be sold.
Market can be: local
                   Regional
                   International

The further away the market, the more professional the producers have to be: is being able to
supply a product
         On a regular basis.
         Of a consistent quality
         At a competitive price.

This means:
           1. Good organisation.
           2. Good planning.

 The organization must have the necessary resources (human & financial) to cope with the
  demands of the market that is targeted.

 The production has to be geared towards the market that is targeted depending on the
  product, this may mean planning ahead for number of years!
               Building up local communities capacity to plan and develop CBFENPs

Implementers:
RECOFTC, Thailand.

Time Frame:
1 yr. (2001-2002)

Geographical setting & Target Group:
4 communities around Phu -Pan, national park, N/E Thailand.

Institutional arrangements:
Working directly with farmers(mostly women group who generate supplementary income from
selling forest products.

Opportunities:
- Forest tree species , are domesticated and planted in farmers land. Therefore, the target group
  members have legal rights to collect products.
- The informed CB enterprise groups already existed in the area.
- Availability of financial support from local government agency to establish CB enterprise.

Challenges:
- ACBFENPS could be formed by one of the interest groups of the project at least.
- The adaptation of MA&D methodology for project implementation in the context of Thailand.

Lesson learned:
- Communication gap between villagers and government agencies.
- Rapport building among target group members from different villagers.
                                         Morinaga/Pig production
                                                                   -David Crest

Implementers:
International technical Asst. Group.

Time frame:
1999

Geographical setting:
Northern Thailand/Mountain and valley areas.

Target Group:
Hmong

Institutional Arrangement:
1. Individual farmers.
2. Starter trees given by ITAF

Opportunities:
1. Lower feed costs in pig production.
2. Raise nutrition.
3. Raise litter size/production/profits.
4. Introduce in village diet.

Challenges:
1. Difficult tree to establish in this area.
2. Farmers busy with traditional crops.
3. Little time for maintenance.

Lesson learned:
1. Demonstrate first.
2. Learn how to establish using Better cultivation methods.
                      Development of methodology for management of NTFP
                                   Dangal S. and Chand N.

Implementers:
CFUG Network comprising 25 forest user groups

Supported by:
Department of Forest and Nepal Australian community Resource Management Project (NACRMP)

Time Frame:
Started in 1998-ongoing.

Geographical Setting:
2000m-3000(MSL), central mid-hills of Nepal.

Target Group:
Forest user group member.

Institutional arrangement:
 Registered Co-operative.
 Constitution for group mobilization.
 Representative in executive committee from each community.

Achievements:
 Most of the NTFP are traded through co-operative.
 Domestication trial success
 Users are getting two to three times more benefit from NTFP than cultivating cereal crops
   (outcomes of experimental trial)
 Planted 100,000 seedlings/cutting of NTFP.
 Establishing NTFP Processing plant.

Opportunities:
 Access to road.
 High potential area for NTFP cultivation.
 Easily accessible market.
 High level of awareness.

Challenges:
 Single buyer for some products
 Gap in appropriate technology.

Lesson learned:
“Empowerment of local communities makes programme success.”
            Process of Empowerment



      Explore Potential site



Informal Meeting with beneficiaries



      Cross visit Organised



     Discussion among Group



    Plan of action development



       Implementation trial



            Replicatio
                n
 Community-based Commercial Enterprise development for conservation of Biodiversity at World
                                      Heritage site.

Place:
Mt. Emei, Sichuan Province, P.R. China
South-West of China, Natural & cultural world Heritage Site-Scenic Areas;
Sea level; 1555m-3099m.; 3200 plants; 87% forest cover; 2000-year, history of Buddhist.

Villages Involved:
4 villages, including 2 inside the scenic areas and 2 outside.

Implementation:
The farmers in Sichuan Forestry department.

Partnerships:
1. Sichuan National Resources Conservation and development Training Center.
2. Mt. Emei Municipal Management Committee.
3. Leshan District Forestry Bureau.
4. Mt. Emei forestry Bureau.

Support:
CFU, FAO, UNF.

Time:
Feb.2001-Aug.,Phase-I, ……..

Opportunity:
1. Rich natural and cultural resources.
2. Existing financial and technical support.
3. Good co-operation among partnerships.
4. High interests of local institutions and local farmers.
5. Implementation of state upland conversion project.
6. Awareness of threats on resources.
7. Existing knowledge and expertise of local farmer.

Challenges:
1. High expectations.
2. Mechanism to ensure the partnerships to work efficiency and input.
3. The methodology of MA & D takes time, stakeholders should be patient.
4. Limited experiences & field staff on PRA & MA & D.
5. Efficient resources management expectations and farmers‟ expectations.
6. Combining training and fieldwork to make sure fieldwork efficiently.
                             North Quabbin Community Forestry Project
                                                                                    -John Heyeb

Implementers:
New England forestry foundation (Regional NGO)

Time Frame:
5-years initiative, started 9 months ago.

Geography:
9-towns Region in Massachusetts, USA.
 Economically struggling region
 Mostly Forested
 Mostly private land.

Target Group:
1. Private sectors.
2. Woodworkers + wood related enterprises.
3. Forest guides (Ecotourism.)
4. Community members.

Institutional Arrangement:
 Mostly private land.
 Land owners make individual decisions.
 “Free Market” Process.

Our work:
1) Training landowners about sustainable forest management.
    Trying to improve forestry + stop land conversion.
2) Marketing locally made wood products to improve viability of these enterprises + create more
   local jobs.
3) Creating new IG-L/CBFE by training forest guides to benefit from forest tourism (a NTFP).
4) Increasing public awareness +pride in forests to enable success of #1-3.
                         Watershed Management through community Forestry
                                                                           -By Sedai R.C., Nepal.

Implementation:
   - HMG-Nepal/EC
   - Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation
   - Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management
   - Bagmati Integrated watershed management Programme (BIWMP)

Time frame:
5years

Geographical setting:
Priority sub-watershed of 6 district, 600 sq. km.

Target groups:
Community people of Sub-watershed.

Institutional Arrangements:
HMG Nepal/European Commission
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation
Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management
District Soil conservation offices (DSCOs)
Community forest user Groups (CFUGs)

Opportunities:
Integrated of 3 subsystem of W/S management.
       Production subsystem -(Agriculture)
       Protection subsystem – (Forest)
       Socio-economic subsystem – people/community.

Challenges:
Marketing (the sale of produced products)
Boundary limitation

Lesson learned:
Holistic development, best promotion of forestry-agriculture linkage.
                                                Watershed




                                                                          Community people
                    Forest                      Agriculture




                   Formation of community forest user groups (CFUGs)




                 Preparation and implementation of CF operational plan




  Forest Managed                25% income got to forest management development   Income generated
Forest protection, plantation
                                                                                    75% income go to C.
                                                                                    development



                                                                Community development

                                                           Trail maintenance, drinking water, erosion and landslide control,
                                                           footbridge construction, literacy programme, ICS programme, school
                                                           & health-post support programme, invest in cottage industry.




Managed Watershed
                                       Leasehold forestry Programme
                                                                      -By Tamrakar J.K.

Implementers:
Department of Forest

Time Frame:
Regular programme, started from 1992/93

Geographical setting:
26 Districts out of 75 Districts in Nepal.

Target groups:
Poorest of the communities

Institutional arrangements:
- Department of Forest
- District forest office
- Range post

Opportunities:
Income generation for poor by improving environment condition.

Challenges:
- Provide services in the communities
- Low literacy
- Remoteness

Lesson learned:
1. Women empowerment
2. Income from forest land
3. Minimise time in grass collection
4. Degraded land improved
   Development of community based forest management certification system in Indonesia.

Implementers:
The Indonesian ecolabelling institute

Time frame:
May 2000-Nov. 2001

Geographical setting:
Not specifically determined (national level)

Target group:
- CF practitioners
- NGO related to CF
- Government
- Academics society
- Industry
- Local parliaments

Institutional arrangements:
To be implemented by relevant stakeholders in Indonesia. (These will be pilot projects conducted
collaboratively).

Opportunities:
1. To recognition of CF at national and international level.
2. To give economic incentives through “premium price.”
3. To give wider market acceptance for CF products
4. To give “pressures” to government to set up pre-conditions (policies) for achieving properly
   managed CBMF.

Challenges:
- Forest-land allocation is not clearly defined
- Schemes for certification cost that will not be added for CF Products
- Develop market information system for CF products in Indonesia
- Develop specific certification systems for non-timber forest products.
                              Community forestry programme (Nepal)

Implementers:
Department of forest + user‟s groups

Time frame:
1978 onwards

Geographic settings:
Hills and mountains

Target group:
Local communities

Institutional arrangement:
- Forest department staff
- Project staff
- NGO/CBOs
- User groups

Opportunities:
1. Medicinal plants collection (bamboo, resin tapping, lokta etc.)
2. Bee keeping
3. Fodder for livestock
4. Compost for agriculture

Challenges:
1. Demand more than supply
2. Difficult to support due to ever increasing number of forest users group.

Lesson learned:
1. Institutional development
2. Decrease the rate of degradation
3. NTFP focused as IG
4. Processing of NTFP.
                             Water shed research and Training center
                                                                                    -By Danks C.

Implementers:
We are a community-based organization. We partner on specific projects with other c-b
organisations and government agencies.

Timeframe:
Since 1992/93-2001+

Geographical settings:
Small forest community in California, USA (Hayfork)

Target groups:
Low income workers living in forest communities in western U.S.

Institutional arrangements (programme areas):
We develop and demonstrate models for forest based income generation and train workers in new
skills. Areas of work include:
           Small scale, low capital technologies for extraction and processing forest products
           Training community members in GIS + GPS + mapping
           Socio-economic research
           Value-added forest industries (e.g. furniture)
           NTFP or sustainable harvest and marketing
           Forest certification (FSC)
           Training local residents to contract w/U.S. forest service
           Secondary education or nature camp W/skills training
           Policy innovations or government advisory committees, testify in congress

Opportunities:
1. Previous 5-8 years was a good political climate in USA for community based forestry
2. Some donor support available
3. Healthy U.S. economy but high poverty in forest communities lent support for change
4. Spirit of optimism and few viable alternatives

Challenges:
1. Limited success to date
2. Changing political and economic climate
3. Opposition by some pro-timber industry and pro-environmental groups
4. Structural issue beyond control

Lessons Learned:
1. Change takes a long time and progress is not continuous
2. Networking is worth it! A source of great ideas and allies
3. Concrete, implemented examples are more powerful than good ideas or paper.
                      Sharing some of Icons Experiences in the Region (Asia)
                                                                           -By Samara and Guido

Starting Point:
         Forest and people linkages
         More interest in forest protection/management
         More responsibility
         More capacity (better organised community)


Improved                   Livelihood         More forest Products (food, medicine, construction.)
  forest                   improved           Forest product for critical times (famine etc.)
condition                                     More income

                                        Products
                                        Income
Product/Services                        Employment etc.
                        Enterprise

Examples:
1. Bitter bamboo marketing in Lao PDR (NTFP Project.)
         Nam Pheng Village, Udomxai Province
         Initial context:
         Villagers collected bamboo shoots from a nearly forest – “open access” + no forest
         management. Bamboo shoots made into bundles and sold to passing traders.
Facilitated changes:
1) Selling products in weight (KGs.) rather than in bundles (better pricing) – Higher income /HH
     (10%)
2) Setting up a „co-operative‟ so all products sold together at a near by market
                                       Each household spent less time selling
                                       Better market
Impact:
1) Better livelihood
      Income
      Community development fund
2) Capacity built – coop management
3) Active forest management
      Improving forest condition

Challenges:
How to replicate this success?
       A small thing can make a big difference.

2. In northern Pakistan, communities are involved in a trophy hunting (Blue Sheep?) scheme, where
instead of communities themselves over harvesting the animal, they allow a hunter to hunt an
animal at a great cost. This generates income for the communities, and they manage their
resources better.

				
DOCUMENT INFO