 |
|
Current Activities
>
Component 4: Project handover phase effectively managed
Once innovative Project approaches have been consolidated
and institutionalised, the Project will transfer its own roles,
responsibilities, assets and lessons learned to appropriate institutions,
either government or non-government, which it will select on the
basis of conflict sensitivity analysis. The final decisions about
handover will be the outcome of negotiation between AusAID and
GoN’s Ministry of Finance.
The approach to handover will be guided by
conflict analysis and do-no-harm policies throughout. NACRMLP
will assist partners in implementing handover plans and developing
the capacity to absorb Project assets and responsibilities for
management systems. Asset divestment will take place in stages,
while the management of consolidation and institutionalisation
will be carried out by specific task teams comprising national-level
PMC members and district-level officers supported by the Project.
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting using the Project-designed
simplified monitoring toolbox will be ongoing, but the main means
of evaluation will be the project completion report, which will
assess achievements against targets and document
lessons learned. The Project will try to get the MFSC to incorporate
GSE and GG indicators in its own monitoring and evaluation framework
and groom CFUGs to do the same. It will also write a policy paper
on its best practice approaches and activities, participate in
PCCs, and sit in on the planning and budgeting for the MFSC and
DFOs and DSCOs for the 2006-2007 fiscal year.
An advancement over NACRMP, which the TAG cautioned
against seeking to outdo government agencies rather than work
with them, was the fact that the 2005-2006 Red Book programmes
and budgets, for both direct and indirect funding of DFOs and
for direct funding of DSCOs, were developed in consultation with
the Project; and have since been approved. Almost all the GoN
targets support the NACRMLP’s four revised result areas
described above. In addition, the Project has begun work to integrate
the GoN activities into its final stage work plans so that whatever
activities are funded will contribute directly to achieving its
results and thereby to facilitating the handover process.
In line with its desire to be highly responsive,
flexible and dynamic, the Project has included a reserve of unallocated
short-term consultancy time so that it can engage experts quickly
for discrete tasks, primarily those related to conflict sensitivity,
the do-no-harm approach, and data analysis. The budget allocation
is to be flexible enough to respond to changing priorities and
opportunities.
Another key change is the updating of the terms
of reference of all Project specialists to reflect the fact that
their Stage Two roles are facilitating and supporting ones and
that the tasks they are required to perform are consolidation,
institutionalisation and handover.
A final change is the priority awarded to
collaboration with other CF projects and I/NGOs, which is viewed
as an institutional sustainability strategy. Benefits from cooperation
will be reaped in areas as diverse as training curricula in conflict
situations, policies governing DFCCs, integrating LIPs into OPs,
human resource development, monitoring and evaluation frameworks,
GSE and GG guidelines and approaches, and NGSP guidelines.
Institutionalisation
of project principles and partners
Due to the current uncertain socio-political environment, NACRMLP has selected a broad-based
strategy for institutionalisation which includes more than ten
major categories of partner institutions. It considers that institutionalisation
is complete once all the conditions required for its concepts
and principles to be continued and replicated, without any further
project or other external supports, are in place.
In general, business development- and natural
resource management-related Project interventions are eagerly
embraced, particularly by CFUGs and DFOs, while social equity
is welcomed by the poor but is not well received by those in
power. The status of institutionalisation of key principles is
laid out below.
Institutionalisation
of GSE and conflict sensitivity
The MFSC has adopted a GSE vision identifying key areas for change
and indicators for monitoring that change. Since NACRMLP is still
developing training packages to bring about those changes, institutionalisation
is only partial. In addition, MFSC staff have not yet participated
in any SEDC training. Moreover, NACRMLP’s guidelines on WEP
and LIP are yet to be finalised, approved, and implemented.
Institutionalisation
of BDS mechanisms
The novelty of the BDS mechanism has meant that no tangible institutionalisation
has taken place, though the MFSC, DFOs and CFUGs are positive about
the idea and DFCCs are being formed.
Institutionalisation
of sustainable NRM systems
The institutionalisation of the Project’s newest approaches
to conservation management are all in process: local service provider
training programmes need national accreditation and replication;
guidelines for updating CF to include second generation issues are
written but need national-level commitment. The revised silvicultural
and NTFP guidelines also await approval. Similarly, while the community
forage programme and forage resource centers (FRCs) are institutionalised
at the community and DSCO-level, they need to be taken up by DFOs
and DLOs and at the national level. The role of VAHWs, in contrast,
is well-established: it enjoys nationally-recognised accreditation
and working modalities.
Institutionalisation
of Project partners
What follows is a discussion of what the Project sees as the key
actions its partners need to take if institutionalisation is to
be achieved. Some of these indicators, or “outcome requirements,”
are adapted from the FSPSES while others were developed during a
workshop of NACRMLP specialists.
MFSC
The Project will assist the MFSC in carrying
out the following major tasks:
• Apply GSE principles in the award of scholarships
• Launch the practice of collecting and reporting on GSE
indicators at district levels
• Develop a training package and train officers in SEDC
• Adopt the updated version of “Guidelines for Community
Forestry Development Programme” which the Project will write
• Take up and replicate WEP procedures
• Approve LIP guidelines
• Accept the pine silviculture guidelines to be written
by the Project
• Accept NTFP screening and inventory guidelines
• Recognise the service delivery mechanism for OP revision
• Reflect recommendations for facilitating business development
in forest regulations
MFSC Training Section
This section is a key institution because once Project training
modules are taken up for national-scale replication, the Project
can have a wide impact. Some of the principles that need to be
incorporated are GSE and GG, SEAAP and CAP, LIP, OP, and
SEDC.
DoF
This department will play a crucial role in deciding what is
of value in NACRMLP and sharing it with other districts. Through
support to the PMC, the Project will help the DoF to achieve
several key tasks:
• Apply its GSE vision at the district level and implement
the collection of GSE indicators
• Institutionalise SEDC after ministry officials participate
in a workshop
• Accept WEP and LIP materials, facilitators and training
modules and instruct district offices to implement WEP and LIP
• Instruct DFOs to promote pro-poor forest-based business
and help form a central-level forest enterprise regulation working
committee
• Approve the simplified OP revision guidelines and facilitators’
training modules
• Instruct DFOs to implement silvicultural guidelines
• Instruct DFOs to implement NTFP screening guidelines
• Promote community forage programmes and FRCs
DSCWM
The Project encourages the Ministry to take these steps:
• Institutionalise SEDC after ministry officials participate
in a workshop
• Accept Project WEP and LIP materials
• Promote community forage programmes and FRCs as well
as other cost-effective approaches
DFCCs
First of all, these committees, which are expected to promote
locally-appropriate, pro-poor forest-related business opportunities,
need to be established. Secondly, they will need to form a business
development sub-committee of representatives of FECOFUN, producers’
associations, District Chamber of Congress and Industry (DCCI)
and DFOs which can provide marketing information services to CFUGs.
Of course GG, GSE, SEDC, WEP, LIP, and the service delivery mechanism
of OPs should be understood, accepted and implemented.
DFOs and DSCOs
These important partners in Kabhre Panchok and Sindhu Palanchok
are to help develop Project interventions, pilot and monitor their
implementation and refinement, and present outcomes to the PMC
and their respective Departments. The Project will help them take
up these tasks:
• Start collecting standardised gender, poverty and social
equity (GPSE) indicators
• Undertake district-level SEDC after national-level officials
participate in workshops
• Finalise WEP and LIP guidelines and submit them to the
MSFC
• Participate in training in WEP and LIP
• Support pro-poor, forest-based enterprises through the
DFCC, especially by disseminating market information, encouraging
the formation of CFUG producer networks, and making recommendations
on business-related forestry regulations
• Complete the revised guidelines for the CF development
programme, prepare model OPs and lobby for national acceptance
of the programme
• Present the PMC with model sustainable service delivery
mechanisms for OP revision and facilitator training modules for
national-level uptake
• Support the preparation of a pine and sal forest profile
and pilot the new silvicultural guidelines
to be released
• Broaden the uptake of NTFP inventory guidelines
• Spread community forage programmes and FRCs and other
cost-effective soil conservation practices
Project-supported local NGSPs
Since DoF’s resources are limited and CF has expanded, NACRMLP
has developed a cadre of facilitators which can provide CFUGs
with key services as well as the training materials to produce
more. The challenges lie in sustaining such service in conflict
and ensuring that it will be replicated without Project resources.
On the one side, facilitators need to be paid; on the other, they
need to improve their skills, network and get national accreditation.
Service providers also need to be conversant with and to accept
the principles of several Project approaches: GG, GSE, SEDC,
WEP, LIP, and OP revision and its service delivery mechanism.
They must also know about the pine and sal forest profile, coordination
of log sales, and silvicultural guidelines. They must be skilled
in getting CFUGs to embrace these ideas, too.
Federation of Community Forestry Users, Nepal (FECOFUN)
Because of the intense pressure exerted upon them by the MFSC
and the Maoists, the strong national-level representation provided
by FECOFUN is essential if CFUGs are to survive.
Some of the pressures CFUGs are up against include the actions
of zonal commissioners:
• Banning MFSC-approved logging activities
• Freezing CFUG bank accounts
• Seeking to influence executive committee members
• Eroding democratic accountability
Maoist pressures are as follows:
• Taxing up to 50% of the harvest value
• Requiring CFUGs to register with them
• Requiring CFUGs to get permission before launching any
activity
• Forcing CFUGS to change their names to commemorate “martyrs”
• Demanding that democratically elected committees be
changed
To combat these pressures, FECOFUN district offices will have
to be conversant with and support SEAPP, CAP, SEDC, WEP, LIP,
OP, OP service delivery, OP facilitators’ training modules,
and NTFP screening and inventory guidelines.
CFUGs and CDGs
These groups of users must accept certain principles, including
GG, GSE, SEAPP, CAP, and LIP. They also must conduct businesses
like community sawmills, log sales, lapsi candy production, and
sal leaf plate production, to the benefit of all and in a way
recognizing the value of their resource. They must accept OP revision
and its service delivery mechanism, as well as the new silvicultural
and NTFP screening and inventory guidelines. Forage development,
management, production and marketing; establishment and payment
of VAHW; and adopting fodder and forage-based soil conservation
and watershed management practices are other activities they should
embrace.
Public/private sector partnerships
In order for CFUGs to be able to pay for services, they must be
able to sell forest produce to private sector processors. The
Project will try to establish a central-level forest enterprise
regulation working committee to develop pro-poor, pro-business
forest regulations. It will also work at district and national
levels to increase understanding of the needs of the private sector
and to establish relationships with private sector processors
that will be of long-term advantage to the poor.
|
 |
|
