NACRMLP

Reports & Publications

NACRMP

External Publications   Discussion Papers   Technical Notes   Workshop Papers   Training Manuals   Extension Notes

NACFP 4

External Notes   Discussion Papers   Technical Notes   Workshop Papers   Training Films   Unpublished    Consultancy Reports   Other   Reference Materials

NAFP ( 1 - 3 )

External Publications   Information     Pamphlets   Discussion Papers   Technical Notes   Workshop Papers   Occasional Papers   Training Films   Reports

Summary:

This paper describes the testing of a process for Operational Plan (OP) revision involving various institutional models, initiated mid April 2000 by NACRMP and the DFOs from Kabhre Palanchok and Sindhupalchok. This action research was initiated in response to a directive issued by the DOF on February 15, 2000, requiring that all OPs should include information on total resource inventory, growing stock, annual increment and allowable cut not exceeding the percentage of annual increment. The directive calls for the revision of all existing OPs, not just those that have OPs with an expired validity. In Kabhre Palanchok and Sindhupalchok this would mean the revision of over 700 OPs. The objective of the action research was to identify sustainable and replicable models in the national context of Nepal.

Five institutional models were identified as follows:

Model 1:	OP revision handled by the District Forest Office without external support.
Model 2:	District Forest Office hiring external staff to revise OPs with support and approval provided by District Forest Office staff.
Model 3:	Donor agencies revising operational plans and District Forest Office approving.
Model 4:	NGOs, FUG networks, VDCs revising operational plans and District Forest Office supporting and approving.
Model 5:	Local NGOs and Range Post staff revising operational plans in close collaboration, with NGOs taking the lead in social aspects and Range Post staff taking the lead in technical aspects, and District Forest Office approving.

All models excepting Model 3 were tested and 59 OPs were revised. Model 5 did not work because it was not possible to establish a functional relationship between the Range Post and a NGO. A summary of the results for the remaining models are given in the table below:

Indicator	Model 1	Model 2	Model 4
			NGO*	FUG funded
Type of FUG selected	“Easy” FUGs (small forests, few HHs, no conflicts)	“Difficult” FUGs (large forests, many HHs, conflicts)	FUGs interested in NTFP commercialisation	FUGs interested in timber commercialisation
No. of OPs revised	18	23	6	9
No. of OPs approved	0	0	0	0
Total cost per OP	Rs 18,000	Rs 40,000	Rs 35,000	Rs 20,000
Paid person days per OP	45 to 60	150 + full time Forest Guard	120	30 to 60
Time needed to complete one OP	30 days	40 days	24 days	30 days
Quality of first draft submitted	Below average	Average	Good	Good
Ownership and commitment of FUGs	Average	Average	Good	Excellent

* This model focused on OP revision with a NTFP management perspective, and therefore involved more detailed fieldwork and analysis than in other cases.

Models 1 and 4 (especially the case where the FUG funds OP revision) are the most sustainable models.
NACRMP plans to continue testing the most promising models, based on the results gained to date. Recommendations given include:

•	Categorisation of FUGs into 3 groups: those which (want to) use their forest commercially, those which (want to) harvest products and sell just locally, and those which only use subsistence products or who (want to) protect their forests. Inventories would be needed for the first two groups only, with the second group requiring a lower intensity sampling. Third group FUGs need to be given simple extensions of their OPs once the term has expired, without need for further fieldwork or negotiation.
•	Development of clear selection criteria for FUGs needing OP revision, giving priority to FUGs wanting to commercialise their forest and having road access, and those requesting OP revision and able to contribute financially. Selection criteria are to ensure that there is no room for discretion.
•	A step by step process has been identified for OP revision, to be implemented and further tested. The process links OP revision to Range Post planning and it identifies participatory methods for conducting forest and social/organisational assessments. The social/organisational assessment emphasises community mobilisation, FUG institutional analysis and strengthening and gender and equity. Social and technical data are then to be comprehensively integrated in order to develop forest management prescriptions. The approval process needs to have a maximum duration of 30 days (as provided for in the Forest Act of 1993).
•	The institutional capability of the District Forest Office is to be further analysed in order to determine the number of revised OPs it can handle and therefore the number of revised OPs to be produced by Rangers with any of the models.
•	Development of OP revision guidelines needs to become a clear objective of the OP revision work. Guidelines need to distinguish FUGs wanting to harvest timber/NTFPs for commercial use and those wanting to harvest for local sales only. Other important issues in the development of the guidelines include: methodologies for social/organisational data collection, methodologies for integration of social/organisational and forest data, and methodologies for the assessment and management of NTFPs.
•	Future action research will focus on models 1 and 4. Model 2 may be included in order to further test the effectiveness of methodologies and tools proposed to form part of the guidelines for OP revision.
•	Opportunities need to be explored for further incorporating Forest Assistants and Forest Guards into OP revision activities. Roles and responsibilities must be identified and fed into the design of a training program. Possibilities of certification of ToT graduate Rangers also must be explored.
•	OP revision fieldwork needs to be limited to the period between November and May to avoid the busiest agricultural season.
•	Finally, involvement of Department of Forest staff in the monitoring and evaluation of the testing process is imperative.