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.