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External Notes   Discussion Papers   Technical Notes   Workshop Papers   Training Films   Unpublished    Consultancy Reports   Other   Reference Materials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 presents the Project’s results of action research on implementation of the User Group Development Process (UGDP). The UGDP is a process to prepare and implement community development plans through the investment of FUG funds generated from forest management and utilisation activities.

The UGDP was defined in a participatory manner with inputs from government organisations (GOs), non-government organisations (NGOs) and Forest User Groups (FUGs). Key features of the UGDP are: bottom-up planning through a focus on FUG sub-groups, high community ownership, targeting equity and gender balance, utilisation of local resources, and FUG and NGO organisational strengthening. In order to test the process, eight sites and a number of FUGs in each site, were selected. Selection was done purposively in order to obtain representation of a wide range of variables influencing community resource management systems (altitude, forest types, accessibility, size of internal resources and presence of development oriented NGOs and FUG networks). The initial two institutional models for implementing the UGDP were: one in which the District Soil Conservation Office directly facilitated development planning with Community Development Groups (CDGs) and one in which a Resource Organisation (RO) worked through a local NGO, strengthening the latter to facilitate the process at the FUG level. As time went by and experiences were gained, models changed and diversified in order to overcome constraints and institutional deficiencies. In order to strengthen intermediary organisations, both to facilitate the UGDP and to improve organisational capability, organisational strengthening plans were prepared. These were to be implemented by the intermediary organisation, and identified internal processes as well as external processes, seeking Project and other support.

A brief summary of the results of UGDP activities in each test site is presented, as well as an assessment of the UGDP on the basis of evaluations of aspects such as effectiveness of institutional models, institutional strengthening activities conducted and methods and tools used.

The conclusion highlights strong aspects of the UGDP:

•	Production of high quality development plans, brought about by a high degree of participation of all sections of the community, and reflecting a focus on benefiting the poor, underprivileged and women. FUGs showed strong ownership to their plans and commitment to implementation.
•	Improvements in FUG organisational capability included increased understanding of equity and gender issues and how to deal with them, significant improvements in internal communication, account keeping and other administrative skills, and establishment of firm links with relevant service providers.
•	Positive reception, by local service providers and VDCs, of development plans: realising the high quality of the plans, line agency allocation of services was facilitated.

Weak aspects of the UGDP include:

•	The failing to adequately strengthen local NGOs to take a lead in the preparation of community development plans. The process depended on the inputs of ROs who are temporary to the area and have less commitment to its people. The DSCO-led model failed, mainly due to understaffing.
•	The length of time required for ROs to grasp the concepts of the UGDP, to change deep-rooted and inappropriate approaches to development and to implement fieldwork according to UGDP principles.
•	The resulting high cost.

In order to institutionalise the UGDP, the process now needs to be reviewed and adapted along the following lines:

a	Core objectives of the UGDP need to be retained: identification of development priorities, increasing equity and gender balance in community forest benefits and FUG strengthening.
b	The level of expertise required for implementing the UGDP must be compatible with that available with local NGOs, FUGs having undergone the process and FUG networks. Strengthening of these local organisations must not be hampered by circumstances as they exist in the current (basic) development stage of NGOs in Nepal: able to afford only part-time and voluntary staff, lack of a clear structure, mandate and vision and perceived role of staff provider to earn income for the organisation rather than targeting improvements in quality of services.
c	Bring back required inputs to one local motivator assigned the task to prepare a development plan for an average sized FUG, of 150 households, in one to one and a half months. The actual time needed may be longer as FUGs are given time to undergo internal processes to discuss issues and consolidate priorities.
d	Approaches, methods and tools that have worked well will be retained and others dropped.
e	Closer collaboration with the District Forest Office and Range Posts is needed and the link with operational plan preparation (and revision) needs to be strengthened by greater integration of the two.
f	Priority for UGDP work needs to be given to FUGs with large forest resources, earning (or wishing to earn) an income by utilisation of the resources. Self-funding by these FUGs needs to be explored.
g	Support to preparation of development plans needs to be followed by a period of support to plan implementation in order to strengthen committees.