pfm lecture note.co

ContentsChapter1......................................................................................................................................................1

Fundamentals of Participatory Forest Management (PFM)........................................................................1

1.1. Concepts of PFM..........................................................................................................................1

Why Participatory Natural Resource Management?............................................................................3

1.2. Underpinning Guiding Principles of PFM.....................................................................................4

1.3. Historical background of PFM......................................................................................................8

1.4. Theoretical foundations of PFM................................................................................................10

1.4.1. The direct reasons for introducing PFM.............................................................................10

1.5. Factors that determine success of PFM..................................................................................11

Chapter2......................................................................................................................................................3

Forest resource governance and levels of participation..............................................................................3

2.1. The Concept of good Governance....................................................................................................3

2.2. Principles of Good Governance........................................................................................................5

2.3. Sustainable development and Governance......................................................................................6

The definition is expanded and the following addition is found:..........................................................7

Forest governance:..............................................................................................................................8

2.4. Decentralization of forest resource management............................................................................8

The logic of decentralization..............................................................................................................10

Decentralization of Natural Resources...............................................................................................11

Chapter3....................................................................................................................................................13

The institutional context of participation..................................................................................................13

3.1. Property rights................................................................................................................................13

Property-rights regimes.....................................................................................................................13

1

PFM Compiled by Belachew B

3.2. Community participation................................................................................................................16

Benefits of people’s participation......................................................................................................16

Chapter4....................................................................................................................................................18

Establishment and Application of Participatory Forest Management Projects and Programmes.............18

1.1. Overview of Participatory Forest Management.........................................................................18

4.2. Stages of PFM............................................................................................................................20

4.2.1 Investigating PFM..............................................................................................................20

4.2.1.1. Forest stakeholders, forest users and forest uses...........................................................20

4.2.1.2. Setting up forest management institutions....................................................................26

4.2.1.3. Participatory Forest Resource Assessment (PFRA).........................................................28

4.2.2. Negotiating PFM................................................................................................................35

4.2.2.1. Forest management planning................................................................................................35

4.2.2.2. The Forest Management Agreement.....................................................................................38

4.2.3. Implementing PFM.............................................................................................................40

M&E as part of the Forest Management Plan.......................................................................................47

Chapter5....................................................................................................................................................50

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Forest Management Projects and Programmers............50

5.1. Features of Participatory Forestry projects and Monitoring and Evaluation..................................50

5.2. Objectives of Monitoring and Evaluation System.........................................................................53

5.3. Definition and Purposes of Project Monitoring and Evaluation....................................................53

5.4. Elements of Project Monitoring and Evaluation.............................................................................56

5.5. Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators............................................................................................58

5.6. Design and Implementation of Monitoring and Evaluation systems in Participatory Forestry Projects..................................................................................................................................................61

5.7. Information Delivery Systems.........................................................................................................65

2


5.7.1. Methods of information collection...........................................................................................65

5.7.2. Processing and analysis information........................................................................................65

5.7.3. Reporting results......................................................................................................................67

5.8. Issues and Problems arising from Monitoring and Evaluation experience.....................................68

5.8.1. Quality of monitoring and evaluation information..................................................................69

5.8.2. Resistance to project monitoring and evaluation.....................................................................69

Chapter6....................................................................................................................................................71

Experience of Participatory Forest Management......................................................................................71

6.1. The Ethiopian Experience of PFM...................................................................................................71

6.2. Location of PFM in Ethiopia.......................................................................................................72

6.2.1. Area coverage of PFM in Ethiopia in 2009‐2010................................................................73

6.2.2. Forest types and connectivity of PFM forests.....................................................................75

6.2.3. Commercial activities in and around PFM forests..............................................................76

6.3. Results from introducing PFM...................................................................................................76

6.3.1. Changes to community livelihood and engagement following PFM..................................76

6.3.2. Forest cover and quality change since PFM introduction...................................................77

6.3.3. Changes in extraction of forest products since PFM introduction......................................78

6.4. Challenges and opportunities to establish PFM in Ethiopia...........................................................78

6.4.1. Challenges..............................................................................................................................78

6.4.2. Opportunity........................................................................................................................80

6.4.3. Ingredients for success.......................................................................................................81

3


Chapter1

Fundamentals of Participatory Forest Management (PFM)

1.1. Concepts of PFM

Participatory Forest Management (PFM) is the official and popular term for partnerships in

forest management involving both the state forest departments and local communities.

Participatory Forest Management (PFM) is used to describe systems in which communities

(forest users and managers) and government services (forest department) work together to define

rights of forest resource use, identify and develop forest management responsibilities, and agree

on how forest benefits will be shared.

Participatory Forest Management (PFM) is a mechanism to protect forests and enhance the

livelihoods of communities who use and benefit from them in the process.

PFM is an umbrella name for a process and mechanism which enables community groups living

in and around forests to take part in the management of forest resources.

Joint Forest Management (JFM) is a collaborative management approach which divides forest

management responsibility and returns between the forest owner (usually central or local

government but occasionally the private sector) and forest adjacent communities. It takes place

on land reserved for forest management such as National Forest Reserves (NFRs) (for catchment,

mangrove or production purposes) and Local Government Forest Reserves (LGFRs) or Private

Forest Reserves (PFRs). It is formalized through the signing of a Joint Management Agreement

(JMA) between village representatives and government bodies either the District Council or

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.

Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) takes place in forests on “village land” (land

which has been surveyed and registered under the provisions of the Village Land Act (1999) and

managed by the village council). Under CBFM, villagers take full ownership and management

4


responsibility for an area of forest within their jurisdiction and it is “declared” by village and

district government as a Village Land Forest Reserve. Following this legal transfer of rights and

responsibilities to village government, villagers can harvest timber and forest products, collect

and retain forest royalties and undertake patrols including arresting and fining offenders. They

are also exempt from regulations for harvesting “reserved tree” species, and are not obliged to

share their royalties with either central or local government. The underlying policy goal for

CBFM is to progressively bring large areas of unprotected woodlands and forests under village

management and protection.

Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) in general is loosely defined as a working

partnership between the key stakeholders in the management of a given forest- key stakeholders

being local forest users and state forest departments, as well as parties such as local

governments, civil groups and non-governmental organizations, and the private sector .

The main objective of CFM is to develop sustainable forest management in order to

fulfill the need for forest products,

help reduce poverty by creating employment,

Maintain and enhance biodiversity

Increase national and local income through active management of the forests.

More specifically CFM aims to:

create coordination mechanism for multiple stakeholders of productive forests

Participate multi-stakeholders in decision making from planning through implementation

and monitoring to evaluation of active management of forests

Develop mechanisms for sharing rights, responsibilities and benefits with due

consideration of gender and social inclusion

Develop mechanisms for distribution and marketing of forest products

5


As it is indicated in the above, Joint Forest Management (JFM), Community Based Forest

Management (CBFM) and Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) all denote a similar process

and management arrangement which sometimes differs based on the type of forest ownership,

whether it is communal forest or state forest and involves two or more stakeholders.

Participation:

Definition:

Participation can be defined as a process that facilitates dialogue among all actors, mobilizes and

validates popular knowledge and skills, support communities & their institutions to manage and

control resources.

Defined as a process of activities comprising peoples involvement in decision making,

contributing to the development efforts shared equitably in the benefits derived there from

’‘Concerted efforts by a group of local participants for achieving common goals and sharing

benefits’.

Community Participation

Why Participatory Natural Resource Management?

It is because of:

Political: It calls upon devolution of power

Social: Justice

Economic: Distribution of wealth (fairness)

The participation of local people in planning and managing of their own development is a

means of protecting their interests in the development process.

Participation also increases the chance of success of development projects.

Participation also helps ensure that local people can share the benefits of forestry and can

take decisions on the better management of the forest which affect their lives.

6


The objective of PFM is to make sure that forest management makes a real contribution to

secure local livelihoods and that by doing so it also secures the existence of the forest resource

for future uses

In PFM, local communities can make decision in many ways and at different levels based

on the pre-stated agreement.

In some cases the community may take full responsibility in the management of the forest

or else they may only participate in the process of setting objective and monitoring the

activity while other technical aspects are done by the forest department.

PFM is a forest management system. It may be based on traditional systems of community-based

Natural Resource Management (NRM). Using traditional systems recognizes the importance of

well established roles and rights of different members of the community.

In the absence of traditional systems, PFM may be developed as a new system of resource

management.

1.2. Underpinning Guiding Principles of PFM

I. PFM is based on ‘co-management’ and a ‘give and take’ relationship between the two

major stakeholders : village communities and the Forest Department, mediated in most cases

by a NGO’s

II. Communities as forest managers:

PFM, JFM and CBNRM are different forms of partnership b/n Government forest service and

Community forest management group. It is a working partnership, where each party is dependent

on the other. This requires changes in the activities and role of both partners (Community and

Forest service)

Roles of communities in PFM: Forest management (managers)

Responsibilities: to effectively manage a given forest resources owned by the state or community

In return for this roles and efforts, communities receive a range of concrete benefits such as:

7


Right to harvest forest products,

Share revenue from forest harvesting,

Retain fines as well as confiscated materials/produce, etc.

Role of Forestry service: provision of technical and administrative support to community

groups in order to sustainably manage the resources.

The key principle in this partnership is trust by communities that their local control and user

rights will be respected and supported by the government and, on the other hand, this will

establish trust by the government institutions at all levels that with more user rights, communities

won’t over exploit the forest resource, rather they will actively participate in the development

and utilization of the forest resource, which is fundamental for forest resource conservation and

sustainable management in order to improve the living standard of the rural communities.

III. Securing current and future rights of participating communities:

The key incentive to sustain participatory forest management is to secure current forest use

rights such as:

Access to forest

The rights to enter a defined physical property

Withdrawal right - the right to obtain the products and benefits of a resource

Management right- the right to regulate resource use patterns & transform the

resource by making improvements

Exclusion rights- the right to determine who may have access

Transfer rights- the right to transfer the rights to the other people either in form of

gift, sale, rent etc.

Legally securing these rights in the future will provide the community groups to be involved and

maintain participation in decision making process. Securing these rights in simple terms can be

8


summarized as recognizing local legal control to get rid of open access by having legal control

over the forest and granting user rights to harvest products sustainably and openly and legally

sell forest products.

This could be presented in this simplified PFM equation:

+ = = =

IV. PFM/JFM/CBFM can be applicable as management option to all kinds of natural

resources, forest land, rangeland and wetlands–those which are rich or poor in

biodiversity, intact or degraded, large or small, moist montane, woodland or mangrove,

manmade or natural forest. What is important to understand is that the two agreeing

parties (government and the community) or if it is on communal land the “Goth” or

“Keble” community needs to agree to share management responsibility and the benefits

that could be derived from the forest resource.

V. PFM can be integrated: PFM/JFM planning and implementation process/approaches can

be integrated with other biodiversity conservation approaches such as biosphere reserves,

watershed management approaches and others. The management regime may be

protection or production or a combination of both.

VI. Communities as the target population for PFM/JFM/CBFM: ‘Local people’ or

‘community’ in this context means those who live within the forest or those living next to

the forest boundary and those community groups who have traditional/historical

relationship with the forest and their closeness to the forest makes them the people best

able to sustainably manage the forest. Usually, those who are not close to the forest are

secondary stakeholders.

9


Recognized local legal control (to stop open access)

Formally recognized user rights to sustainably harvest & sell legally allowed forest products (to provide benefits)

Forest conservation by communities (Sustainable Forest Management

VII. Communities as decision makers' not just protectors: ‘Management’ in

PFM/JFM/CBNRM includes all aspects of forest management such as forest protection,

regulation of access and use of the forest, and actions to rehabilitate or develop the

productive capacity of the forest. It includes not just the practical responsibilities of

management but the authority to make decisions, which guide those operations.

PFM has two main objectives, environmental sustainability and economic sustainability,

meaning livelihood improvement of the participating community. To attain these objectives,

PFM process builds upon the national policy and regulations to enable local participation in

forest management and the real need to bring control and management to more practical local

levels. It aims to secure forests through sharing the right to control and manage them, not just the

right to use or benefit from them. Therefore, PFM targets communities not as passive

beneficiaries but as forest managers. This will establish mutual understanding and trust among

community groups and implementing government institutions and/or other development partners.

VIII. The changing role of forestry staff: Traditionally forestry staffs have had a role

as “policemen” around forest areas. Changing the roles of professional foresters is a key

to determining the success of PFM. The role of the professional forester in PFM is

radically different to the roles and tasks of the traditional professional forester. The

success of PFM largely depends on the technical and administrative support provided to

the community groups. The PFM planning process relies upon foresters as facilitators

(encouraging, supporting, coordinating, linking and guiding). In the process the

relationship of the foresters with the community changes from a policing role to:

Technical adviser to the community – giving practical technical information or advice;

Liaising between community and Woreda offices, the judiciary and administration

offices in forestry matters;

Liaising between community groups and other livelihood development agencies working

in the area;

Mediator (as needed) between PFM communities or groups;

Coordinator- linking up different villagers and actors with each other;

10


Negotiators of forest management rules and regulations;

Monitors of PFM processes and forest management agreements;

Analysts of forest management problems; and

Generators of new technologies and innovations.

In the process, the main learning is not from training but through the process of learning by

doing.

IX. Establishing and legalizing representative and accountable Community Based

Institutions: Experience elsewhere indicates that whenever possible PFM does not create

new institutions but builds upon those that exist but when there are no such existing

institutions, as in the case of Ethiopian highlands, the experience is establishing new

CBOs (either in the form of associations, cooperatives and PLCs). The PFM process in

Ethiopia has not resolved the form of legal and PFM best fitting form of CBO and

looking beyond the current practice is the innovative nature of PFM process. Organizing

the community to form Forest Management Associations (FMA) could be the best option

provided that the legal provision for benefiting its members is resolved and community

groups choose to organize themselves in the form of management associations. There are

other conservation efforts such as the watershed and water users associations, working to

legalize associations as community institutions and foresters should strive by creating

synergy with other conservation groups to legalize forest management associations.

X. Building on traditional forest management practices: Rural people have a long history

of protecting and managing forests. Pastoralists and some highland communities have a

traditional system of reserving dry season grazing in their localities and currently area

closure is widely practiced. In South west forests of Bonga and Sheka, forest

communities have been protecting parts of the forest for spiritual reasons. PFM planning

process should recognize such traditional practices and has to work to make it

environmentally and economically sustainable for the community groups. A notable

example of traditional management system is the case of the Guassa community

conservation area in Menz, North Shoa of Amhara National Regional State.

11


1.3. Historical background of PFM

the first attempt to manage forest in more planed way was started in 1304 when

Switzerland develops the first working plan

colonial massive extraction of endogenous forest in the tropics in the 17th century

forest clearance for industrial forest plantations in the 19th century

The high level of endogenous forest distraction in the tropics raise the idea of

conservation in the mid-19th century (institutionalization of forest departments, research

institutes etc…)

high level of large scale fast growing forest plantation in the mid of 20th century

establishment of woodlot to combat the energy crisis which arises during 1970s

High concern on nature conservation and the raise of ‘people first’ concept which leads

in community participation in forest management from late 1980 to mid 1990.

PFM was first evolved as a pilot project in India in 1970s by a forest worker initiative to reduce

the degradation of the forest which was aggravated by the residing community. This project was

based on involving communities in the protection of degraded forest lands dominated by sal

(Shorea robusta). In return for protecting the sal forests, the Forest Department agreed to give

villagers all non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and a 25% share in timber. This arrangement

proved to be quite successful, the project demonstrating that with the aforementioned incentives,

villagers would protect the natural sal forests from fuel wood cutting.

In Ethiopia this PFM approach has been introduced in 1995 in the Oromiya Region by FARM-

Africa to establish PFM at the Chilimo forest site. The Southern Nations, Nationalities and

Peoples Region (SNNP Regions) followed this early initiative with the establishment of the

Bonga PFM project in 1996, again working with FARM-Africa. Some years later in 1999, the

Oromiya Regional State Government and SOS Sahel set up the Borana Collaborative Forest

Management Project.

Participatory Forest Management (PFM), as it stands today in Ethiopia, is a management regime

aimed at achieving better and sustainable forest development through balancing conservation and

utilization by mobilizing, organizing, participating and transferring management responsibilities

12


to local communities living in and around forest areas where resources are linked directly. It is,

therefore, characterized to critically involve those communities and giving them clear

responsibilities in forest protection and management aspects ensuring user rights of the available

resources.

Few NGOs championed the introduction, expansion and experimentation of PFM approaches in

Ethiopia. Prominent agents are FARM-Africa/SOS Sahel, GIZ/AMBERO-GITEC, Ethio-

Wetlands Natural Resources Association (EWNRA) and Japan International Cooperation

Agency (JICA). In particular FARM-Africa/SOS Sahel have supported and financed several

PFM and CBNRM projects in Ethiopia for the last decades.

Participatory forest management is now considered an effective approach to encourage

sustainable management of forest resource as well as support the sustainable livelihoods of

forest-dependent communities. It promotes the need and the crucial role of community

involvement in decision making processes (active involvement of communities at all stages

of implementation, i.e. ;

familiarization, being organized in community-based institutions, demarcation and

resource assessment, planning and implementation of the management plan as agreed)

over the management of forest resources on sustainable basis, which aim at alleviating

poverty by improving rural livelihoods;

promoting more effective and efficient management over forest resources; more

sustainable land management; and

Developing partnerships between rural people, state, civil society and private sector; as

well as providing a mechanism to solve potential conflicts over control and flows of

natural resources in rural areas.

13


1.4. Theoretical foundations of PFM

There are many reasons for introducing PFM. The main two objectives are social and

environmental. The one emphasizes mitigation of biodiversity loss, forest degradation and

deforestation; while the other views a concern for livelihoods in forest neighboring areas as well

as the rights to utilize forest resources legally. These two are closely interlinked under PFM.

1.4.1. The direct reasons for introducing PFM

The utmost reason for the introduction of PFM in a forest area is the degree of threat to the forest and

the external pressure it is facing. The two second most given reasons is watershed protection and the

commercial value of NTFP.

Reasons behind introducing PFM

Degree of threat to the forest

Watershed protection

Commercial value- NTFP

Biodiversity inventory showing

special values

Enabling connectivity of forest

fragments

Social-cultural needs

Commercial value-timber products

Request from community

Commercial value-tourism

Ceremonial sites

Commercial value-NTFPs

1.5. Factors that determine success of PFM

1.5.1. Issues to consider before PFM establishment

Before introduction of PFM we have to consider some policy related issues to begin with:

the objective of the state to share or relinquish its property right over the forests by

allowing participatory management

whether the initiative is based on villagers’ lost right or individual motivation

Is it because the state has failed to protect its property against encroachment and has to

submit to encroachers by sharing its rights?

14


Passing to the more practical aspects we have the following issues to consider in prior to the

establishment of PFM:

What are the theoretical ground and practical experiences drawn upon to analyze the

problem of the forest?

Were there sufficient field evidence presented or gathered that enabled to draw PFM

project objectives?

Are the PFM objective in line with state policy and program?

What is the level of authority system’s commitment to realize PFM project?

Are the strategies clear to all stakeholders equally?

Is there conflict between or among communities to be organized under PFM?

What formal and informal institutions exist to manage conflict?

1.5.2. Issues to be examined before the start of PFM

Levels of decentralization and political will

decentralization is one of the pre-conditions for PFM to be conducted by the central

government

currently, it is believed that worldwide development decisions taken at the lowest

possible level may perform and succeed better than centrally planned programs

in the case of forests, decentralization means that the local governments can introduce

different forest management options that suits the actual setting of the area

Allowing communities and individuals to own, mange and use forest resources

Adequacy of the legal and policy environment

Detailed and clear settings that enhance the potential of forestry to contribute to

household livelihood improvement are essential.

the constitutional setting and governance

the land tenure system

the adequacy of forest policies and laws

rural development policies and programs

participatory development agendas

State and community capacity

15


Technical, financial and administrative capacities

Chapter2

Forest resource governance and levels of participation

2.1. The Concept of good Governance

As with other popular concepts in the conservation and development discourse, definition of

governance abound (thrive). The Commission on Global Governance provides the following

lengthy definition:

Governance: is the sum of many individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their

common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be

accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes

empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institution

have either agreed or perceived to be in their interests.

This definition is instructive in highlighting that governance is not the purview governments

alone, nor that it refers only to formal decision-making arrangements. Managing common affairs

is an issue for both state and no-state institutions, and arrangements to manage these affairs can

clearly be informal. A more succinct (short and brief) but nevertheless complementary definition

is provided by the institute on Governance:

Governance is the process whereby societies or organizations make important decision,

determine whom they involve and how they render (make) account.16


It becomes clear from these definitions that governance refers to the types of decisions that are

made by different actors at different levels of society. The concept of an ideal state of

governance, or at least elements of such a state, can assist in gauging present transition in forest

governance.

The UNDP (1997) defines governance as the exercise of political, economic and

administrative authority in the management of a country's affairs at all levels.

Traditionally all countries transfer this responsibility and vest this authority in the

government or “the state”

There is recognition that good governance must manifest the values of effectiveness

and efficiency, justice in the rule of law, accountability, participation and consensus

orientation, responsiveness and equity (UNDP, 1997). However, not many countries

have been able to achieve these higher ideals of good governance. Part of the problem

has been the top-down and bureaucratic approach to governance.

Governance refers to the process by which various constituents in a society exercise

power and authority and, thereby, influence and pass policies and decisions

concerning public life and economic and social development.

Good governance is, among other things, participatory, transparent, accountable,

effective and equitable.

Good governance ensures that political, social and economic priorities are based on

broad consensus in society and that the voices of the poorest and the most vulnerable

are heard in decision-making over the allocation of development resources.

17


Economic governance: includes decision-making processes that affect a country's

economic activities and its relationships with other economies. It clearly has major

implications for equity, poverty and quality of life.

Political governance: is the process of decision-making to formulate policy.

Administrative governance: is the system of policy implementation.

Encompassing all three, good governance defines the processes and structures that

guide political and socio-economic relationships.

Governance encompasses the state, but it goes beyond the state by including the

private sector and civil society organizations.

The institutions of governance in the three domains (state, civil society and the

private sector) must be designed to contribute to sustainable human development by

establishing the political, legal, economic and social circumstances for poverty

reduction, job creation, environmental protection and the advancement of women.

18


Governance

Economic PoliticalAdministrative

2.2. Principles of Good Governance

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) identified the following nine principles

of Good governance:

The characteristics of good governance defined in societal terms are:

Participation - All men and women should have a voice in decision-making, either directly or

through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests. Such broad

participation is built on freedom of association and speech, as well as capacities to participate

constructively.

Rule of law - Legal frameworks should be fair and enforced impartially, particularly the laws on

human rights.

Transparency - Transparency is built on the free flow of information. Processes, institutions

and information are directly accessible to those concerned with them, and enough

information is provided to understand and monitor them.

Responsiveness - Institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders.

Consensus orientation - Good governance mediates differing interests to reach a broad

consensus on what is in the best interests of the group and, where possible, on policies and

procedures.

Equity - All men and women have opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being.

Effectiveness and efficiency - Processes and institutions produce results that meet needs while

making the best use of resources.

Accountability - Decision-makers in government, the private sector and civil society

organizations are accountable to the public, as well as to institutional stakeholders. This

accountability differs depending on the organization and whether the decision is internal or

external to an organization.

19


Strategic vision - Leaders and the public have a broad and long-term perspective on good

governance and human development, along with a sense of what is needed for such

development. There is also an understanding of the historical, cultural and social

complexities in which that perspective is grounded.

2.3. Sustainable development and Governance

Sustainable development is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while

preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also

for generations to come. The field of sustainable development can be conceptually broken

into three constituent parts: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and socio-

political sustainability.

Economic sustainability: It stresses the need to change from old sector-centered ways of

doing business to new approaches that involve cross-sectoral co-ordination and the

integration of environmental and social concerns into all development processes.

Furthermore, broad public participation in decision making is a fundamental prerequisite

for achieving sustainable development.

Environmental sustainability is the process of making sure current processes of

interaction with the environment are pursued with the idea of keeping the environment as

intact as naturally possible way

Consumption of renewable resources

State of environment Sustainability

More than nature's ability to replenishEnvironmental degradation

Not sustainable

20


Equal to nature's ability to replenishEnvironmental equilibrium

Steady state economy

Less than nature's ability to replenish Environmental renewalEnvironmentally sustainable

The Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) has attempted to advance a common

understanding of sustainable development governance through discussing sustainable

development strategies. CSD sates that:

“A sustainable development strategy is defined as a coordinated, participatory and iterative

(repeating) process of thoughts and actions to achieve economic, environmental and social

objectives in a balanced and integrated manner at the national and local levels.”

The definition is expanded and the following addition is found:

“A sustainable development strategy is a tool for informed decision-making that provides a

framework for systematic thought across sectors and territory. It helps to institutionalize

processes for consultation, negotiation, mediation and consensus building on priority societal

issues where interests differ.”

Institutions at the local level are strong driving forces for national sustainable development

strategies. For a strategy to succeed it should reflect the needs and aspirations of the local people

and at the same time be fully backed by adequate commitment from the local level for its

implementation.

There are five aspects to sustainable human development - all affecting the lives of the poor and

vulnerable:

Empowerment - The expansion of men and women's capabilities and choices increases

their ability to exercise those choices free of hunger, want and deprivation. It also

increases their opportunity to participate in, or endorse, decision-making affecting their

lives.

21


Co-operation - With a sense of belonging important for personal fulfillment, well-being

and a sense of purpose and meaning, human development is concerned with the ways in

which people work together and interact.

Equity - The expansion of capabilities and opportunities. It also means equity, such as an

educational system to which everybody should have access.

Sustainability - The needs of this generation must be met without compromising the right

of future generations to be free of poverty and deprivation and to exercise their basic

capabilities.

Security - Particularly the security of livelihood. People need to be freed from threats,

such as disease or repression and from sudden harmful disruptions in their lives.

Forest governance:

The quality of governance often determines whether forest resources are used efficiently,

sustainably and equitably, and whether countries achieve forest-related development goals.

Poor forest governance has ripple effects and often reflects overall weakness in governance

within a country.

2.4. Decentralization of forest resource management

Decentralization is any act in which a central government formally cedes powers to actors and

institutions at lower levels in a political-administrative and territorial hierarchy.

Political or democratic decentralization occurs when powers and resources are transferred to

authorities representative of and downwardly accountable to local populations.

Democratic decentralization aims to increase popular participation in local decision making.

Democratic decentralization is an institutionalized form of the participatory approach.

Decentralization takes place when a central government formally transfers powers to actors

and institutions at lower levels in a political-administrative and territorial hierarchy

22


Effective decentralization is defined by an inclusive local process under local authorities

empowered with unrestricted decisions over resources that are relevant to local people.

The underlying logic of decentralization is that local institutions can better differentiate

and are more likely to respond to local needs and aspirations. Because they have better

access to information due to their close proximity and are more easily held accountable to

local populations.

De-concentration or administrative decentralization involves the transfer of power to local

branches of the central state, such as prefects, administrators, or local technical line-ministry

agents.

These upwardly accountable bodies are local administrative extensions of the central state.

They may have some downward accountability built into their functions, but their primary

responsibility is to central government.

De-concentration is a “weak” form of decentralization because the downward accountability

from which many benefits are expected are not as well established as in democratic or

political forms of decentralization.

Privatization is the transfer of powers to any non-state entity, including individuals,

corporations, NGOs, etc.

Although often carried out in the name of decentralization, privatization is not a form of

decentralization. It operates on an exclusive logic, rather than on the inclusive public logic of

decentralization.

Development agents, natural resource managers, and some environmentalists are also

promoting decentralization as a way of increasing both efficiency and equity in natural

resource management.

Privatization is the transfer of powers to any non-state entity, including individuals,

corporations, NGOs, etc.

23


Although often carried out in the name of decentralization, privatization is not a form of

decentralization. It operates on an exclusive logic, rather than on the inclusive public logic of

decentralization.

Development agents, natural resource managers, and some environmentalists are also

promoting decentralization as a way of increasing both efficiency and equity in natural

resource management.

Downward accountability of local authorities—accountability to local populations—is the

central mechanism in this formula.

In brief, effective decentralization is defined by an inclusive local process under local

authorities empowered with unrestricted decisions over resources that are relevant to local

people.

The logic of decentralization

1. Accounting for costs in decision making: When communities and their representatives

make resource use decisions, they are believed to be more likely to take into account (or

“internalize”) the whole array of costs to local people.

2. Increasing accountability: By bringing public decision making closer to the citizenry,

decentralization is believed to increase public-sector accountability and therefore

effectiveness.

3. Reducing transaction costs: Administrative and management transaction costs may be

reduced by means that increase the proximity of local participants, and access to local skills,

labor, and local information.

4. Matching services to needs: Bringing local knowledge and aspirations into project design,

implementation, management, and evaluation helps decision makers to better match actions

to local needs.

5. Mobilizing local knowledge: Bringing government closer to people increases efficiency by

helping to tap the knowledge, creativity, and resources of local communities.

24


6. Improving coordination: Decentralization is also believed to increase effectiveness of

coordination and flexibility among administrative agencies and in planning and

implementation of development and conservation.

7. Providing resources: Participation in the benefits from local resources can also contribute to

development and to environmental management agendas by providing local communities

with material and revenues.

Decentralization of Natural Resources

Three key variables shape the synergy between environment and democracy. These are

accountability, Powers, and Security.

1) Accountability

Accountability of the state to the people defines democracy.

In decentralization, accountability relations are critical for local democratic governance.

Applying accountability measures in environmental decision making supports a broader

culture of democracy.

Conversely, applying these measures broadly supports increased democratic and effective

environmental decision making.

2) Power: The legal decentralization of natural resource management provides local authorities

with

Executive (decision-making and implementation),

Legislative (rulemaking), and

Judiciary (dispute-resolution) powers.

Having meaningful discretionary powers in any or all of these three domains provides legitimacy

for new local authorities by making representatives and their decisions relevant to local people.

25


3) Security: Local authorities need unrestricted powers to adapt, act, and react effectively.

Neither local authorities nor local people will invest in the responsible exercise of powers if

they believe they will not hold these powers for long.

When privileges are delegated, people remain subjects of higher authorities. Because they

fear losing their powers, they may exercise little discretion of their own.

The domain of local discretionary autonomy in which local authorities can act freely is

defined by secure rights.

Decentralization of legislative and judicial functions may be more important in decentralized

management of natural resources because:

(1) Natural resources are locally specific, diverse, have multiple uses, and therefore require local

knowledge in designing their management, and

(2) Access to natural resources and restrictions to that access involve existing, new, and often

multiple overlapping claims that can generate conflicts requiring local mediation.

(3) Local governments need flexibility in natural resource management in order to

Use local knowledge,

Respond to local needs, and

Mediate among multiple interests.

For these reasons, local authorities need flexible powers to adapt, act, and react effectively.

26


Chapter3

The institutional context of participation

3.1. Property rights

A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that

resource is owned by government, collective bodies, or by individuals. All economic goods have

a property rights attribute. This attribute has four broad components:

1. The right to use the goods

2. The right to earn income from the goods

3. The right to transfer the goods to others

4. The right to enforcement of property rights

Property-rights regimes

Property rights to a good must be defined, their use must be monitored, and possession of rights

must be enforced. The costs of defining, monitoring, and enforcing property rights are termed

transaction costs. Depending on the level of transaction costs, various forms of property rights

institutions will develop. Each institutional form can be described by the distribution of rights.

The following list is ordered from no property rights defined to all property rights being held by

individuals

1. Open access

2. State property

27


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_costs

3. Common property

4. Private property

Open-access property: is property that is not owned by anyone. It is non-excludable (no one can

exclude anyone else from using it) and non-rival (one person's use of it does not prevent others

from simultaneously using it). Open-access property is not managed by anyone, and access to it

is not controlled. There is no constraint on anyone using open-access property (excluding people

is either impossible or prohibitively costly). Examples of open-access property are the

atmosphere or ocean fisheries.

State property (also known as public property): is property that is owned by all, but its access and

use is controlled by the state. An example is a national park.

Common property or collective property: is property that is owned by a group of individuals.

Access, use, and exclusion are controlled by the joint owners. True commons can break down,

but, unlike open-access property, common property owners have greater ability to manage

conflicts through shared benefits and enforcement.

Private property: is both excludable and rival. Private property access, use, exclusion and

management are controlled by the private owner or a group of legal owners.

28


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excludable

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open-access_property&action=edit&redlink=1

It is believed that clearly defining and assigning property rights would resolve

environmental problems by internalizing externalities and relying on incentives of private

owners to conserve resources for the future.

In empowering communities with the management and use of certain natural resources,

the state is transferring part of its rights or conferring new right to the people concerned.

When we establish PFM we are in effort creating property rights institutions where forest

management, utilization and protection are jointly done often between the state and

communities, the latter sharing not only the benefits, but also the responsibility of the

management of the forest resource owned by the former.

3.2. Community participation

Participation is about being involved in, and contributing to, a process. But an invitation

to participate remains worthless unless efforts are taken to ensure that genuine and

significant participation is actually possible.

‘Concerted efforts by a group of local participants for achieving common goals and

sharing benefits’

The idea of participation emphasizes a process of social action in which the people of the

community organize themselves for identifying their common needs and problems.

Participation in the real sense should involve people in any program based on mutual

respect. It involves a capacity to identify oneself with others in the community without

being conscious of any socio-economic barriers.

It is found that there is a clear relationship between the extent of participation and the

creation of good life. According to the finding the best state was one where there was

broad participation with no class dominating others.

Benefits of people’s participation

People can mobilize local resources in the form of cash, labor, materials, managerial

talent and political support which are critical to program success.

Participation by the poorer element of the society may prevent the “hijacking” of

program benefits by wealthier members of the community.

Programs involving people are more likely to sustain after outside financial and technical

support is withdrawn

People accept more readily the programs in which they or their recognized leaders have

been involved.

Involvement of local people in decision making generates commitment for

implementation of the program.

It enhances people’s ability to take responsibility and show competence in solving their

own problems.

In the planning and programming stages and throughout the implementation of

development programmers, rural people can provide valuable social-cultural, ecological,

economic and technical indigenous knowledge ensuring consistency between objectives

of development and community values and preferences.

Chapter4

Establishment and Application of Participatory Forest

Management Projects and Programmes

I.1. Overview of Participatory Forest Management

Participatory Forest Management (PFM) is used to describe systems in which communities

(forest users and managers) and government services (forest department) work together to define

rights of forest resource use, identify and develop forest management responsibilities, and agree

on how forest benefits will be shared.

PFM is a forest management system. It may be based on traditional systems of community-based

Natural Resource Management (NRM). Using traditional systems recognizes the importance of

well established roles and rights of different members of the community. In the absence of

traditional systems, PFM may be developed as a new system of resource management. If

building on traditional NRM systems, it is important to recognize that present day contexts often

require the system to be modernized so that the traditional system can function in present day

realities. For example it is likely that the system will have to address issues of gender inequality.

A key challenge to establishing PFM is to put in place a system of management that works in the

present day context of increasing resource demand and land use competition.

It is critical that any PFM system is developed by an appropriate community group, working

together with government services (forest department).The community group and government

foresters need to develop a clear understanding of who the forest users are and how they use the

forest. They need to jointly carry out a forest resource assessment and develop sustainable forest

management plans and agreements. Once these key steps have been carried out, the community

group will put the forest management plans and agreements into action. In order to do this

effectively they will need the support, technical advice and legal backing of government forest

services.

To establish PFM systems the process is broken into three distinct stages.

I. Investigating PFM – the gathering of information about the resources in the forest; the

development of an understanding about the forest users and other stakeholders; the

establishment of an appropriate forest management group; the assessment and mapping

of forest resources.

II. Negotiating PFM – the negotiation and signing of forest management plans (detailing

forest management activities); the negotiation and signing of forest management

agreements (specifying roles, responsibilities and rules).

III. Implementing PFM – the implementation of the forest management plan, and adherence

to the forest management agreement by the community forest management group,

supported by government; joint plan and agreement reviews and revision as part of

monitoring and evaluation systems.

On the establishment of PFM, the community forest management group is legally enabled to

sustainably manage forest resources. PFM involves the legal transfer of forest resources (use

rights) from the government forest services to a community management group. This transfer is

enabled by, and dependent upon, a negotiated and documented Forest Management Agreement

(FMA).

The Forest Management Agreement clearly details:

The negotiated and agreed rights and responsibilities of both parties; and

The negotiated and agreed rules and regulations for the sustainable management of the

forest resources.

The FMA is a legally binding contract between a defined community-based institution (Forest

Management Group) and the government (represented by the Forest Service’s). Practical forest

management actions are set out in The Forest Management Plan (FMP) which sets out the

management objectives. These objectives may range from the conservation of the forest and its

environment to the sustainable use of forest resources for economic returns.

The Forest Management Plan has four thematic sections. These are:

1. Forest development

2. Forest use

3. Forest protection

4. Forest monitoring.

The FMP also contains important information gathered through the Participatory Forest

Resource Assessment (PFRA), which forms the basis for periodic monitoring and review of the

forest resources and the FMP.

NB. Once the PFM process is complete, the system is legalized within an official signed Forest

Management Agreement.

4.2. Stages of PFM

4.2.1 Investigating PFM

4.2.1.1. Forest stakeholders, forest users and forest uses

A. Forest stakeholders

It is essential to understand the different interest groups and resource user groups who should be

involved in sustainable forest management. These groups are referred to as stakeholders. The

principle of inclusive management depends on an understanding of the different stakeholders and

the institutions that they represent. There is a need to clearly understand who could gain or lose

by changes in resource management systems.

Identifying how people perceive their own rights and responsibilities, as well as those of others,

is a crucial starting point in initiating discussions over who should have which rights and

responsibilities in the management system. Therefore, a crucial part of the first stage in

establishing PFM is to undertake a review of stakeholders and carry out a stakeholder analysis.

The immediate objective of a stakeholder analysis is to identify and analyses the different

stakeholders in terms of direct and indirect resource uses. This information is then used to begin

to assess appropriate rights and responsibilities for the various interests among the different

groups.

The key stakeholders in PFM are:

1. Local Communities (Forest users & managers)

2. Government Services (Foresters)

Forest user Groups (FUGs) are:

1. Direct users (Local Communities)

2. Indirect users(Foresters)

Stakeholders can be divided into primary and secondary stakeholders, if there is a need to

differentiate between levels of rights to the forest resources. For example primary and secondary

stakeholders may be differentiated by proximity of their settlement to the forest.

The stakeholder analysis can also reveal the different relationships among resource users. In this

way potential and actual risks and conflicts between groups can be identified.

Formal methods should be used to undertake the analysis in order to record and document the

details and dynamics of the various stakeholders. The analysis should involve group exercises

and discussions to identify forest stakeholders, and should involve as many actual stakeholders

as possible. The process allows local government foresters and local communities to crosscheck

stakeholder involvement, to develop a better understanding of each other, and the different

perceptions and concerns of the various stakeholders involved. Specific questions that the

stakeholder analysis ought to answer focus on four elements of forest use and management.

Who has what rights to use the forest? (Rights)

Who takes what actions in terms of forest management? (Responsibilities)

How do the different stakeholders relate to each other? (Relationships)

Who benefits from the forest? (Revenues)

In order to gather information concerning stakeholders, a 4Rs (Rights, Responsibilities,

Relationships and Revenues) matrix can be constructed. Working with community groups,

information can then be compiled (see Table 1) about different stakeholders, under defined

headings.

Table1. Stakeholders- the 4Rs

Stakeholder Rights Responsibilities Relationships Revenues

name

Stakeholder1 Forest Gatherers

–To collect firewood

–To hang beehives

–To collect medicinal plants

– To guard against fire

– To stop tree cutting

– To stop agriculture

With grazers – mutual support

With forest service – conflict

With timber cutters – conflict

Firewood sales

Honey sales

Medicine sales

Stakeholder 2

Forest grazers

– To graze livestock

– To cut grass

– To harvest tree seeds

– To guard against fire

– To stop tree cutting

– To stop agriculture

With forest gatherers – mutual

support


With timber cutters – conflict

Livestock income

and products

Seed sales

Stakeholder 2

Timber cutters

– To demand right to

cut timber

N/A With forest gatherers – conflict


With forest grazers – conflict

High income

from timber sales

The end result of a stakeholder analysis is a clear understanding of who is doing what

concerning the forest. The information provides the basis for community discussions of

who should be involved in the new forest management system.

B. Forest users and forest uses

Other forest use and forest user information is also gathered at the investigation stage.

Baseline and background information can be collected. A clear understanding of forest

resources and uses can be developed by carrying out participatory forest investigation

exercises.

Examples of tools for gathering forest information include forest area mapping, forest species

use matrix, forest condition historical trend analysis and forest use seasonal calendars.

Tools for gathering forest information: forest area mapping

Forest mapping is a participatory field tool by which the field worker helps a community

group to draw a map of the forest area.

The map displays important information, such as forest boundaries, physical features

(rivers, roads, paths), and key forest resources.

Information on different forest stands and conditions can be laid out on the map.

Forest use and product areas can also be recorded on the map.

Community drawn forest maps can be related to topographic maps fairly easily.

A community drawn forest map is the basis for developing a forest map to be included in

the forest management plan (see Guide Sheet 3 for an example map).

Tools for gathering forest information: forest species use matrix

A species use matrix is a participatory field tool that enables the identification of forest

tree species and the specific uses of those species.

The basic information is laid out in a matrix table (as shown in the illustration).

Tree species are laid out along one axis and tree uses are laid out along the other axis.

Then ranking and scoring can be carried out in order to determine which tree species and

their uses are considered the most valuable.

The information gathered provides an understanding of the most important species, in

terms of their use, in the forest.

This information will later be useful in the development of the forest management plan.

Knowing which tree species are of the most use value enables forest managers to plant

and protect those particular species.

Tools for gathering forest information: forest condition historical trend analysis

Forest condition historical trend analysis is a field tool used to focus on changes over

time.

The tool can be applied to assessing forest condition or forest product abundance,

demonstrating what has happened to the resources over time.

The basic information is laid out in a matrix table (as shown below), with time periods

along one axis and forest products along the other.

Then ranking and scoring can be carried out in order to determine the status of forest

products over time.

Once the information has been laid out, the field worker can generate discussion and

develop understanding of the reasons and consequences of the changes.

Again this general information can later be useful to the Forest Management Plan.

For example, knowing which forest products are in short supplies enables forest

managers to take the appropriate actions in order to improve the supply of those products.

Table2. Forest products

Haile Selassie Derg Regime EPRDF

Firewood * * * * * * * * * * * **

Wild Honey * * * * * *

Hive Honey * * * * * * * * *

Timber * * * * * * * * * *

Medicinal Plants * * * * * * * * * * * *

As is shown in Table 2, forest products are scored in terms of use value. In this matrix we can

see how firewood use and wild honey collection is decreasing, hive honey production and timber

trade are increasing and medicinal plant use is decreasing. Discussions with the community will

reveal the reasons behind these changes. Again such information is useful for the Forest

Management Plan.

Tools for gathering forest information: forest use seasonal calendars

Forest use seasonal calendars are another example of a tool that can be used to analyze

the annual cycles in forest use.

The different seasons are set along one axis and forest products along the other.

Ranking and scoring are then carried out in order to determine the use level of a product

during a specific period.

Varying forest product demand can be identified, i.e. high firewood demand in the rainy

season or high forest product sales during the dry season.

Again, this generates important information for forest management planning, providing

critical detail of how Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) are used seasonally.

There are two additional objectives of gathering forest user and use information using

participatory field exercises.

First it demonstrates the considerable knowledge that the community have

concerning forest resources. This is often contrary to the expectations of

professional foresters and is a key point in their learning and re-orientation.

Second through undertaking the exercises, the community and foresters begin to

get to know each other. This trust building is essential as the two parties develop

both a new respect for each other and a new working relationship.

4.2.1.2. Setting up forest management institutions

The existence and establishment of functional community-based forest management institutions

is at the centre of successful PFM. If the community does not have the capacity to organize itself

as members within a management group, PFM will not work. The strength of the community-

level forest management institution is critical. Adequate time and investment must be given to

build management skills and capacity since the forest management institution is the body or

group that takes on the roles and responsibilities of community-based forest management.

Identification of a suitable institution should be undertaken at the investigation stage of the PFM

process. Different types of institutions will exist at the community level. Generally, if institutions

already involved in the management of natural resources exist, then these are the most

appropriate institutions to work with. However, existing institutions should not be assumed to be

functionally effective, gender balanced and/or pro-poor.

An example of where such community NRM institutions exist in Ethiopia is in pastoralist areas,

for example the Gad systems of Oromo pastoralists. If working with an existing community

based NRM institution, getting legal recognition is a critical challenge. This is due to the limited

legal recognition of community-based institutions under Ethiopian law (discussed in more detail

below).

In the absence of existing suitable institutions, the community will need to form a new forest

management group.

As mentioned above, a key issue that requires attention is the legal status of the forest

management group. In order to enter into a legal agreement with a government body, a

community body should have legal status. Ethiopian law recognises legally certain types of

organization at the community level. Communities can form NGOs, cooperatives, and private

enterprises.

Given this context, the formation of a forest management cooperative is the most appropriate

form of community-based, legally registered institution.

Forest management cooperatives can be formed at different scales. In our experience, village

level (single village) cooperatives and grouped village (several villages) cooperatives have both

been formed. The groups have to conform to the cooperative law and its rules and regulations of

operation. The Government Cooperatives Bureau is responsible for building community capacity

in order for new groups to function effectively as a cooperative.

The main purpose and objective of a Forest Management Cooperative is the sustainable

management of forest resources. The cooperative consists of an executive committee and a

number of subcommittees which are responsible for specific areas/aspects of forest management:

for example, a forest development subcommittee, a forest utilization subcommittee or a forest

protection subcommittee.

It is necessary to call a series of community meetings to actually set up a new forest management

institution (or when working with an existing institution) and to negotiate forest management

roles. During these meetings, the options for forest management institutions should be

thoroughly discussed. It is very important that the community review their options and then

decide themselves what type of institution they want to set up.

Ongoing support to community-based forest management institutions is essential. They will need

many skills in order to take on the challenges of forest management. If the group has formed a

forest management cooperative, there are the challenges of business management and economic

viability. The cooperative will need a manager and an accountant. These skills need to be

carefully built.

NB. Forest management groups are often newly set up community institutions.

The role of the forest management group is defined in the Forest Management Plan and

Agreement. Central to the role of the management group is the ability to both make decisions

and take action to implement those decisions. Good decision making will determine the success

of the overall forest management systems. Therefore capacity building focused on appropriate

decision making for forest management is crucial.

Linked to the legality of the Forest Management Group is the critical issue of law enforcement.

The Forest Management Group must be a legal entity in order to bring offenders to the

appropriate law bodies, the police or the court. The Forest Management Group needs to build

recognition and understanding of itself and its institutional status regarding the other institutions

with which it will work.

4.2.1.3. Participatory Forest Resource Assessment (PFRA)

PFRA is the formal forest monitoring method required by the Government of Ethiopia before

handover of forest areas to communities. The PFRA undertaken at the outset of community

forest management can be repeated at appropriate intervals (say every five years) in order to

compare results and monitor forest condition.

There are three stages in the PFRA process.

1. Initial planning of the PFRA, including forest block boundary mapping

2. Carrying out the PFRA

3. Production of the PFRA report.

The PFRA involves technical mapping of the forest block boundaries and then the physical

assessment of the forest resources within those boundaries. The PFRA enables the government

and community to produce a technical baseline of the forest resources. PFRA data is important

for both the government and the community and is used for forest management planning and for

monitoring forest conditions. The PFRA must be carried out by a joint government and

community (Forest Management Group) team.

PFRA data can be used to determine any changes in the resources over time. This is done by

repeating the assessment and comparing the resulting PFRA reports to determine what changes

have occurred to the forest resources.

Both positive planned and unplanned changes, such as reduced damage due to control and

protection and unexpected species regeneration, will occur in the forest. Equally negative

impacts and changes can also occur, such as accidental fire, wind damage or tree disease

outbreaks. Detailed understanding of changes in forest condition can be identified and

determined by comparing the results of the initial PFRA and subsequent PFRAs. It is important

that relevant forest management activities, as set out in the Forest Management Plan, are also

related to the forest condition at the time of assessment.

NB. Government foresters and community members carry out the Participatory Forest

Resource Assessment (PFRA).

The PFRA provides the Community Forest Management Group with forest resource data. This

data can then be used to develop and support the appropriate management of the resources.

PFRA information about the resources is used to decide appropriate management actions and to

develop a relevant Forest Management Plan. The PFRA reporting structure has been designed to

assist forest management planning.

Ownership of the PFRA report should be joint – i.e. both the community and the government

Forest Department services should agree on the content of the report and maintain a copy for

their records. The report should be available in the appropriate local language.

The PFRA report is part of the key documentation for PFM that enables communities to take up

the legal management of the resources. The community should be supported to use the PFRA

exercises and PFRA report as key forest management tools.

The PFRA data recording sheet (Form 1 & 1a), the PFRA report format (Form 2), and the Forest

Management Prescriptions (Form 3) are provided hereafter.

PFRA data recording sheets

Form 1: Participatory forest plot assessment form

Note: It is essential that the guidance notes for completing this form are read in detail before

filling it in.

Forest/Compartment name:

Plot number: Date:

Plot: Fixed Point Sample (Ocular and Basal Area)

1. Basal area: (No. of trees through relascope)

2. Fire

evidence:

Yes: (comment) No:

3. Soil exposure: (High, Medium, Low)

4. Felling intensity, and comments:

5. Grazing intensity: (Class as high,

medium or low, based on evidence of

grazing paths, tracks, browsing etc., and

discussion with the PFRA community

team.)

6. Crown cover: (For both upper and

lower canopy if appropriate)

Closed Moderate (<70%) Open (<30%)

Upper

Lower

7. Natural regeneration:

(Below 2m height)

Species Plentiful Moderate Scarce None

8. Description of natural regeneration:

(Taller than 2m) (Describe size/age and

condition of natural regeneration).

9. Main important species: (Commercial,

community, fodder, NTFPs)

10.Dominant species: (For both upper

and lower canopy if appropriate)

11. Quality of the forest:

(High, medium, low, with government

and community perspectives) or

perspective.

12. Forest/land class: (Description of

forest and size class structure. Brief

description of the plot, including any

important features. A description of the

size-class, including saplings, pole stage,

mature and over-mature. Does the plot

have young, mature or over-mature

trees?)

13. Main uses of the forest: (Mainly by

the community within the area of the

plot)

14. Problems and issues with the

resource: (Mainly by the community

within the area of the plot).

Form 1a: Participatory forest sub-plot assessment form

This form is only to be completed for assessment in extensive forest management (forest areas

>500ha) where a 1km sample grid is to be used, with sub-plots at 500m between main plots.

Forest/Compartment name:

Plot number: (Note – should refer to main plot number) Date:

Plot: Fixed Point Sample (Ocular and Basal Area)

1. Basal area: (No. of trees through relascope)

2. General description of subplot and comments: (Include species description, use of forest, quality of forest)

3. Management implications:

(Mainly from community)

4. Other comments:

Form 2: PFRA report – [Name] Forest

Date of assessment:

(Q. 11,12,13) General description:

(Q. 14) Problems and issues with the resource:

Area assessed and sampled:

Total area assessed:

Number of sample plots:

Assessment team: community and Woreda foresters (with PFMP staff)

(Q. 1)

Basal

Area:

Basal

Area

Count:

Averag

e Basal

Area:

Range:

Implica

tions

for

mana

gement:

Basal area Number of Counts

Range

(Q. 2) Fire:

Implications for management:

(Q. 3) Soil Exposure:

High: Medium: Low:


(Q. 4) Felling:

Felling intensity:


(Q. 5) Grazing:


(Q. 6) Crown Cover:

Closed: Moderate: Open:


(Q. 7, 8) Regeneration:

Plentiful: Moderate: Scarce: None:


(Q. 9) Main Important Species:


(Q. 10) Dominant Species:


Form 3: Forest management prescriptions

[Name] Forest:

Site Description (Geographic description from section 1 of assessment report):

Special Management Considerations (Implications of management from assessment report):

Forest Protection (From community discussions):

Forest Utilization (From community discussions):

Forest Development (From community discussions):

Forest Monitoring (From community discussions):

4.2.2. Negotiating PFM

4.2.2.1. Forest management planning

Forest management planning produces a Forest Management Plan (FMP) that is part of the key

documentation for PFM. The Forest Management Plan is approved when the Forest Management

Agreement is signed.

An outline for the Forest Management Plan has been developed to provide an easy format

to follow. There are seven sections to the Plan.

1. Introduction

2. Description of the forest

3. Objective of the Forest Management Plan

4. Forest management actions

5. Monitoring and evaluation

6. Revision of the plan

7. Approval of the plan

The PFRA report helps both the community and the government services develop meaningful,

realistic forest management activities based on detailed information about actual forest resource

conditions. The PFRA provides the basic information for formulating the main sections of the

forest management plan (see PFRA Data Record. Form2. Questions1-10 – Implications for

management).

When collating PFRA, the forest management implications of actual forest resource conditions

are noted in the PFRA report. These are collected at each sample plot for each of the 14

questions in Form 1.

This management information is then collated to develop Forest Management Prescriptions

(Form 3) which are presented to the community forest managers for them to use during forest

management planning and from which to develop forest management activities.

Section 4: Forest Management Actions (FMA) is the key section of the Forest Management

Plan. It is here that the actual forest management actions are listed. The section is organized

under four main themes.

1. Forest protection

2. Forest utilization

3. Forest development

4. Forest monitoring.

Forest management activities should be developed through discussions with the

community and then documented in the plan.

This should be done in a series of participatory forest management planning meetings

held between the community and the Government Forest Department.

Negotiation between the Forest Department and the Community Forest Management

group may be needed during these meetings.

NB. Forest management planning uses the results of the PFRA as the basis for decision

making in forest management planning.

For example, when deciding upon levels of forest product use, the forest product harvest

potential is limited by the sustainable productivity of the resource. The Forest Department needs

to be able to estimate what the sustainable harvest levels of different products are and agree with

the community a harvestable overtakes below that level.

Case Study:

Say a community decides that it wants to take (harvest) 300 donkey loads of firewood each

month from a specific forest area (x hectares). It is possible to work out the annual off take from

the forest area in cubic meters by calculating the average weight of a donkey load of firewood,

multiplied by 300 (loads) multiplied by 12 (months). The total annual off take can then be

compared with the estimated annual production of the forest type.

Plans should be kept relatively simple and brief, and should be reviewed on a regular basis. As

the management activities are carried out, it is important to test their effectiveness and impacts.

Skills and knowledge need to be built through practical experience and operation of the

management plan.

The most important thing to remember is that the Forest Management Plan must be made by the

community and include their decisions of how to manage the resources. Foresters must resist the

urge (recommend) to impose rules and regulations; this simply takes us back to the traditional

top-down approach.

Issues of sustainability must not be compromised in the Forest Management Plan. Measures of

sustainable harvesting of timber and non-timber forest products must be contained in the Forest

Management Plan. Often this data is not readily available. If this is the case then gathering of

required data and experimentation with harvesting levels should become part of the action plan.

This work can be an important technical role of professional foresters in support of community

managers.

The Forest Management Plan is a vital document for PFM and both parties should hold a copy of

it. It should also be available in the local language.

4.2.2.2. The Forest Management Agreement

Formulation of the Forest Management Agreement requires further meetings, discussions and

negotiations between the Government Forestry Department and Community Management

Groups. Once signed, the Forest Management Agreement becomes the legally binding contract

document for PFM. The signatories are the Woreda Administration and/or the Natural Resources

Department, on behalf of the Government, and the Chairperson and executive committee of the

forest management group, on behalf of the community.

An outline for the Forest Management Agreement has been developed in order to provide an

easy format to follow. There are 8 sections and 7 Articles to the Agreement:

1. Introduction

2. Article 1. Definitions

3. Article 2. Objectives of the agreement

4. Article 3. Location and condition of the forest

5. Article 4. Description of agreeing parties

6. Article 5. Benefits of the agreeing parties

7. Article 6. Rights and responsibilities of the agreeing parties

8. Article 7. Condition, legality and duration of the agreement

The first four sections of the Forest Management Agreement are same as/similar to the Forest

Management Plan.

Section 5 contains detailed information about the agreeing parties. On the government side this

will include which offices are involved in the agreement. On the community side, this includes

the listing of forest management group executive committee members and group members.

Section 6 of the Forest Management Agreement describes benefit-sharing arrangements. For

example, if the community is intending to sell forest products or is managing a former

government plantation area, the Agreement should state the revenue benefit share from any sales.

This may be tax payments to government on product sales or an actual shared revenue. For

example, in the case of the Chilimo Forest, the benefit share from the sale of plantation products

was set at 70:30.That is 70 per cent revenue to the community and 30 per cent revenue to the

government.

NB. The community forest management group, Woreda government authorities and Forestry

Department office sign the Forest Management Agreement.

Section 7 of the Forest Management Agreement is the clear specification of the rights and

responsibilities of the two parties. Rights and responsibilities should be developed through

discussion with, and between, the government and the community. Rights and responsibilities

are directly related to the rules and regulations that have been agreed concerning the forest, for

example who can do what in the forest.

Decisions concerning rights, responsibilities, rules and regulations need to be negotiated.

Decisions need to relate to the objectives of sustainable forest management.

Agreement formulation meetings need to be held between the community and the Woreda

Forestry Department services.

Once rights and responsibilities, and rules are decided and agreed, they are written into the

Forest Management Agreement.

.

The final section of the Forest Management Agreement stipulates the legal conditions of the

agreement. This includes the procedures to be followed in the event of a disagreement between

the two parties, a default of contract by one of the parties, or the termination of contract.

The duration of the Forest Management Agreement, in most cases 99 years, is stated. Other legal

terms, conditions and/or requirements are also noted.

The Forest Management Agreement is a vital document for PFM which should be held by both

parties. The Agreement should be available in the appropriate local language.

4.2.3. Implementing PFM

4.2.3.1. The roles of the community as forest managers

PFM is a partnership between the Forest Department and a community Forest Management

Group. It is a working partnership where each party is dependent on the other. This requires

changes in the activities and roles for both community forest managers and forestry

professionals. These changing roles are given attention in this because of the importance of the

changes that need to occur. If people do not change their roles and behavior, it is unlikely that

PFM can work.

The new activities that the community undertakes are critical in determining the success of PFM.

In the implementation of PFM, it is very important to understand the various activities that will

now be carried out by the community in their new roles as forest managers. Their relationship

with professional foresters and the forest resources will change significantly.

Some examples of the new roles and activities for the community are:

Information providers of forest users and uses

Legal forest resource managers and forest resource users

Assessors of forest resources through the Participatory Forest Resource Assessment

(PFRA)

Managers of forest management group / cooperative

Resolvers of conflict and competition between and within Forest Management

Groups (FMGs)

Decision makers of forest rules and regulations

Implementers of Forest Management Plans

Protectors and controllers of forest resources

Evaluators of new ideas and technologies

Silvicultural experimenters and actors

Communicators of own knowledge and findings to others

Monitoring and evaluators of participatory forest management systems and practice

Selectors of tree species for nursery production and plantation

Planters of trees for forest enrichment and improvement

Marketers of timber and NTFPs

However, the listed actions are not exhaustive (complete).

Activities evolve as the community Forest Management Groups understand and develop their

management operations and skills. This is done through learning and practical experience.

The community may have been carrying out some of these roles previously, but informally

without recognition. Other activities will be new.

An important point is the recognition of new roles and actions. It is important that the

community takes up the new roles and that this is recognized by the professional foresters.

Forest Departments must be able to see community members as new forest resource managers

and partners. This recognition is the basis of the new natural resource management relationship

between government foresters and community forest managers.

In order to successfully manage PFM, taking up these new roles requires new skills as

community forest managers. This implies considerable investment in skills development,

learning by doing, experimentation and training.

What is also implied is that building skills is a critical support role for government in general and

professional foresters specifically. Community forest managers will need ongoing support from

the Government Forest Department. Clarifying the new roles of forestry professionals in PFM is

also very important.

As the communities manage forest resources, other new roles will arise, such as new livelihood

opportunities. The sale of NTFPs is a good example of this. As such opportunities arise; the

community groups will need support in their commercial organization, product processing and

development, and marketing of products

4.2.3.2. Changing roles for professional foresters

PFM is a partnership between the Forest Department and any local community Forest

Management Group. It is a working partnership where each party is dependent on the other. The

new approach requires changes in the activities and roles for both forestry professionals and

community forest managers.

When implementing PFM, it is important to understand the different activities that will now be

carried out by professional foresters. Changing roles is given particular attention. Changing the

roles of professional foresters is a key to determining the success of PFM. The role of the

professional forester in PFM is radically different to the roles and tasks of the traditional

professional forester.

The new roles and activities for forestry professionals are listed below. The list of actions is not

exhaustive.

Investigators of local forest uses and users – rights and responsibilities

Identifiers of local forest management systems – rules and regulations

Actors in Participatory Forest Resource Assessment

Facilitators of forest based problem-solution analysis

Moderators of different interests and of conflict and competition over resources

Negotiators of forest management rules and regulations

Monitors of PFM processes and of forest management agreements

Advisors to Forest Management Groups (FMG) and silviculture experimenters

Facilitators of FMG to FMG learning, communication and exchange

Trainers in community forest management skills and practice

Analysts of forest management problems

Generators of new technologies and innovations

Providers of information to complement FMG knowledge

Documenters/analysts of methods of PFM/disseminators of PFM results

NB. Government foresters are now supporters and promoters of community-based forest

management.

Forestry professionals themselves will develop and understand their roles through learning and

practical experience. In addition to the specific skills above, new rural development technical

capacity is also essential. Particularly skills in participatory development are useful: Participatory

Planning, Participatory Technology Development (PTD), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E).

Other new skills implied in the new roles include conflict management skills, facilitation and

negotiation skills, community institutions skills and forest product processing and marketing

skills.

All these skills are new in terms of what forestry professionals usually do.

Ultimately, what is being asked for is a new commitment from professional foresters to support

new systems of community managed forests. If foresters are to rise to the challenge, then new

PFM curricula and professional training will need to be put in place. This is perhaps a long term

change. In the short term, forestry professionals should request and seek out specialist training.

4.2.3.3. New silviculture

Hand-in-hand with the new roles for community forest managers and forestry professionals is the

need to develop new forestry/silviculture practices for foresters and community forest managers.

The aim is for both parties to work together to develop, adapt and share technical forestry

knowledge, skills and practices.

Developing new silviculture through a practical working partnership is essential for the success

and maximum effectiveness of PFM. Communities should not be left to get on with managing

forests alone. They need the support, skills and technical knowhow of professional foresters.

Working together as partners requires a new relationship. A relationship based on common

goals, mutual respect and collaboration. The common goal is optimum sustainable forest

management.

The management of a specific forest area is determined by the specific conditions of the forest

and the uses required of it. An area of undisturbed good natural forest will require different

management skills and practices to those required for an area of highly disturbed forest. A moist

tropical forest will require different management skills and practices to those required for a dry

land forest or woodland.

Management skills and practices need to be developed for the sustainable use of the various

forest products – for example, managing NTFPs, such as forest coffee, spices, honey, medicinal

plants, bamboo, and edible plants. All these products require specific practices in order to

maintain sustainable harvesting levels. Maximizing potentials and minimizing negative impacts

on the forest is the optimum management strategy. How to do that will take community forest

managers and foresters time to learn.

Foresters have technical forestry skills. Communities have indigenous technical knowledge and

practices. In a working partnership, foresters and community members can combine these skills

to achieve the greatest effect.

Using participatory and experimental approaches to develop new community silviculture practice

is one way forward. Participatory Technical Skills Development (PTD) can be used in order to

develop and test appropriate forest-based trials, such as where the management plan aims to

rehabilitate a forest area and encourage the growth of specific high value tree species. The

community members, supported by the forester, can set up a number of forest area based

experiments in order to determine the best species to plant and the most appropriate silvicultural

practice.

NB. Developing new skills in community Forest Management Groups is an opportunity for

improving management and incomes from the forest.

In addition to technical skills, new skills for forest planning, management, monitoring and

evaluation need to be developed. These skills are best learnt on the job while the community is

managing the forest, supported by the forester. Days for reflecting on and assessing the skills

acquired and their impact on development can be organized in order to identify, share and fortify

(build up) new skills as they are learnt.

Specialist skills, such as conflict management and/or product certification and marketing also

need to be developed. Specialist skills will often require specialist inputs from external experts.

Such skills should be brought in as part of capacity building programmes.

Managing forests for sustainable harvests and for profit is not easy. Legalization, labeling and

local level certification are new areas for forestry in Ethiopia.

FARM-Africa Ethiopia and SOS Sahel Ethiopia hope to continue supporting and building skills

and knowledge in these areas. Experience from other African countries will be very useful in

developing Ethiopian experience yet further.

Focusing on developing the skills and practices of new silviculture is a key area for further work

and innovation within the continuing development and promotion of PFM systems.

4.2.3.4. Monitoring & evaluation of Forest Management Plans

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) can be looked at from two sides.

From one side there is the traditional view, as seen by the government that M&E is part of their

regulatory role. As the overall owners of the forest, they have been responsible for monitoring

forest condition. In keeping with this view, monitoring forests under community management

has been a critical debating point in PFM development in Ethiopia. The government has

requested formal systems of forest monitoring with which they can check on the condition of

forests under community management.

The other view of M&E is in the context of community management systems. If communities

are going to take up forest resource management roles, then they need to develop their own

M&E systems within that management context.

Monitoring and evaluation of community forest management plans is a critical part of the overall

management of the forest by communities. It is important to understand the need for different

types of M&E, and the need for M&E systems that go beyond a (government) checking

mechanism over community forest managers. Therefore, developing both government and

community M&E systems are the key for success of PFM.

Monitoring and evaluation in PFM needs to be recognized as part of PFM management practice.

Enabling the community to carry out monitoring and evaluation of their forest management

practices is, therefore, a key area of capacity building, in order to improve and develop

community management skills and systems.

Distinguishing between monitoring as an activity and evaluation as an event is a useful starting

point.

Monitoring is the on-going process of collecting data in order to measure progress, and/or

conditions, of an activity. For example, if seedlings have been planted, the forest manager will

monitor (collect information on) their survival rate and/or growth rate.

Evaluation is the periodic review of all the data and information gathered through the

monitoring system.

Evaluations should be events for joint learning and review, undertaken at a six monthly or annual

intervals.

In PFM there are two key monitoring and evaluation methods.

M&E as part of the Forest Management Plan

The Participatory Forest Resource Assessment method

M&E as part of the Forest Management Plan

Monitoring the Forest Management Plan means monitoring all the activities that the forest

management group is undertaking. The Forest Management Plan is designed in such a way as to

break up management activities into four action themes. The fourth theme is forest monitoring

and entails the monitoring of all the actions undertaken under the other three themes (forest

development, forest utilization and forest protection).

NB. Boundary marking is a key activity within forest monitoring systems.

Critical to monitoring is the systematic collection and collation of data (information). Data

should be simple, collectable and relevant. The identification of measurable indicators by the

community is central to the activity. For example, if the community wants to monitor firewood

collection off take, they need to devise an accurate system of calculating or counting the number

of firewood bundles being collected from the forest area over time and compare that with an

estimate of availability and production of fuel wood.

The professional forester has an important role here, helping the community devise accurate

systems of counting and sharing information of how to estimate resource availability and area

production.

Collected data sets need to be analyzed and reviewed and results concluded. Data should be

stored and, when needed, shared and/or presented to other stakeholders, for example in an

evaluation meeting.

This collection and use of data presents a key challenge to community Forest Management

Groups, particularly to non-literate groups. They are unlikely to have formal systems of data

collection, although they will have their own systems and methods for monitoring their other

resources, for example their livestock herd or their crops. These local systems of monitoring can

be developed and adapted to help monitor forest management activities.

Examples of community-based forest monitoring systems emerging from our PFM experience

include:

monitoring of farm land in the forest;

forest boundary monitoring;

regular patrolling by the forest management group members; and,

Either written or verbal reporting.

Regeneration counting to develop data concerning seedling regeneration from year to year is also

being carried out. Regular Woreda level PFM working group meetings to bring key government

and community PFM actors together to discuss issues arising and resolve problems have also

emerged as a useful M&E mechanism.

Generally the conclusion is that monitoring is necessary to evaluate the development and

effect of the PFM and also that it is of importance for adaptive management.

In Ethiopia, Participatory monitoring by communities would be preferred than only by

the government services. It proves trust in these communities. At the same time it is said

to be difficult to control the procedure and follow up the results if monitoring is carried

out by communities.

In PFM, the monitors are:

Local Communities

Government services &

NGOs

There are requirements on the skills of the government officer who carries out the monitoring

and they generally need specific training such as a forester diploma. On the community side,

awareness of the forest resource value and a good knowledge of the forest are required.

Monitoring also implies a financial cost that needs to be dealt with. How this cost should be

covered? By:

Community volunteer service &

Actors from outside, from the initiating organization, government or by a donor run

project.

The time intervals that monitoring is carried out in differs widely between all actors. The

following examples can illustrate this:

Communities patrol the forest daily and government representatives patrol every second

month.

Woreda official and NGO monitors every month.

Development Agents and community representatives patrol every six month.

Community and regional government patrol every three to five years.

Two important reasons for monitoring are:

To allow the adaptation of the management plan and

To allowing for evaluation of the PFM

The Participatory Forest Resource Assessment (PFRA) method

In order to develop baseline information about the forest condition, a Participatory Forest

Resource Assessment (PFRA) methodology has been developed and carried out as part of the

Investigation Stage of PFM.

The PFRA is used as the basis for assessing changes in forest resources when monitoring is

carried out. This is achieved by repeating the PFRA after a set period of three to five years. The

PFRA report from the first and subsequent PFRA exercise can then be compared, and changes in

forest condition noted.

M&E in the PFM context is about learning

M&E encompasses tools for learning. In a new discipline, like PFM, it is essential that M&E is

used positively to improve the PFM system. This is especially important in this early period as

PFM is established, developed and expanded.

Chapter5

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Forest

Management Projects and Programmers

5.1. Features of Participatory Forestry projects and Monitoring and

Evaluation

Traditional forestry projects, which are concerned with planting, growing, maintaining, felling or

conserving trees, have two broad objectives - industrial or commercial and environmental or

protective.

The products of industrial forestry include saw logs and veneer logs, fuel wood, poles,

gums and resins, and a range of by-products.

Environmental forestry provides catchment protection (by controlling run-off and water

supplies), soil erosion control (through shelter belts, common land reclamation, etc.) and

conservation of ecology and wildlife (national parks, protecting species, etc.).

Traditional forestry projects have been and still are the major activity of forestry

departments of national governments and of international agencies, which are also

directly responsible for decisions relating to the design, implementation and management

of projects.

In recent years, however, "community" or "social" or "rural development" forestry projects,

which have a different set of objectives and activities and a different management style from the

traditional forestry project, have grown greatly in important. Although some of the products of

such projects may overlap those of traditional forestry projects, and to some extent have a

commercial or market outlet, most of them are for indigenous consumption by rural people.

They include fuel wood and charcoal (for cooking, heating, etc.), poles and timber (for

building, etc.), animal fodder and food products (leaves and grazing, nuts/fruits, fungi, herbs,

etc.). They may also have environmental and protective objectives similar to the traditional

forestry projects, but they have additional objectives which makes them quite dissimilar. These

include increasing rural employment and raising the living standards of the rural poor - not only

by increasing the output and income of a project, but by trying to channel project income and

welfare benefits to the poorest groups of rural people.

But the essentially unique objective of these projects is that which promotes self-reliance of the

rural people through their active participation in the project activities. A participatory forestry

project therefore aims to satisfy economic and welfare basic needs, based on a high level of

involvement and participation of the rural people – consistent with the physical, and socio-

economic environment within which the project operates. A forestry project which covers rural

people's participation has been defined:

“as a set of interconnected actions and works executed primarily by local community residents

to improve their own welfare. There may be outside inputs - extension, training, guidance,

technical help, financing, etc. - but its basic focus is on community involvement in doing

something for itself.”

Without this involvement or participation, a participatory forestry project will not produce its

expected benefits.

The achievement of different project objectives can require a different type and style of project

management. On traditional forestry projects, decisions will normally be taken by management

and carried out by project employees; whereas on participatory projects, many of the decisions

and their execution will involve both management and project participants, whose views should

be sought on important issues. Different project objectives and management problems will,

therefore, call for different monitoring and evaluation systems; or, at any rate, they will have a

different emphasis. For example, as between traditional and participatory forestry projects, the

emphasis of monitoring and evaluation will be less on production and more on people. An

important objective of monitoring and evaluation in this case is to establish whether the project is

meeting the needs of the rural people.

The extensive involvement of the rural community in many participatory forestry projects calls

for new management skills and methods which forest services are in the process of learning.

The implementation of this type of project has also given rise to a need for new kinds of

information and new issues to be evaluated, especially concerning project objectives and the

problems and effects of implementation on the participating peoples and their environment.

Monitoring and evaluation systems will therefore tend to be more wide ranging and perhaps

more difficult to operate than on traditional forestry projects. They will also be of particular

importance for effective project implementation. Monitoring and evaluation is the newest

component of the project planning cycle and its relation to other planning activities is shown in

Figure 1.

Regional Plan

Fig. 1 Schematic Representation of Project Planning and Operation Activities

Source: E. Clayton and F. Petry (1983): Monitoring Systems for Agricultural and Rural Development

Projects. FAO, Rome.

5.2. Objectives of Monitoring and Evaluation System

The establishment of a separate monitoring and evaluation unit within the structure of project

management refers the emphasis placed on these activities during project Design.

Since the nature of the project itself was so innovative for the forest department and the country,

it was decided that M&E would be crucial to improving Project management and finding out

what was happening in the field.

The M&E was thus designed with the following explicit objectives in mind.

Macro Plan Sector Plan Identification

Appraisal

Ex-post

Evaluation

Implementation

Monitoring and On-going

Evaluation

(1) To improve project performance by:

o Providing timely information to management and implementing units on project

operation and performance (inputs and outputs), with implication for support

requirement;

o Generating socio-economic information required for effective project implementations;

o Identifying and analyzing problems arising during implementation and suggesting

possible solutions;

o Increasing people’s communication with project staff and participation in project

activities.

(2) Evaluate project results and improve future planning process through:

o measuring project effects and impacts;

o identifying and analyzing factors affecting project success;

o evaluating project concepts, assumptions and models in light of actual performance and

rural conditions.

5.3. Definition and Purposes of Project Monitoring and Evaluation

In a general sense , project monitoring and evaluation are together the means by which project

managers and planners can chart the progress of project implementation towards the achievement

of its objectives, and which enables them to take corrective action when implementation

deficiencies are detected by the monitoring and evaluation system. Secondly, the system also

enables management to assess the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of a project, together

with its impact on project participants and the environment. Thirdly, the two related but distinct

activities of monitoring and evaluation can provide guidance and lesson for the planning of

future projects.

Useful definitions of the two related activities are:

"Monitoring is a continuous or periodic surveillance over the implementation of a project to

ensure that input deliveries work schedules, targeted outputs and other required actions are

proceeding according to plan."

Its purpose is to supply management with the means of achieving efficient and effective project

operation and performance, by providing it with appropriate information and feedback relating to

the critical activities of a project. It thereby provides management with the basis for taking

timely corrective action by identifying constraints and inadequacies of performance of the

project. Monitoring should be considered part of a management information system, an integral

component of management decision-making and hence an essential ingredient of good

management practices. In most cases, therefore, monitoring should be undertaken at all levels of

the management hierarchy.

"Evaluation is a systematic process which attempts to assess as objectively as possible the

relevance, effectiveness and impact of a project in the context of the project objectives." To

elaborate further, evaluation essentially analyses the rationale and logic of the project

(objectives/design), reviews the implementation process (inputs, activities, outputs and

implementation management) and the emerging results (outputs, effects, impact), and assesses in

the light of the foregoing, the validity and relevance of project objectives/design and the project

effectiveness and efficiency in achieving the intended results.

It is a learning and action-oriented management tool which seeks to improve the effectiveness,

relevance and impact of currently operating projects and of future projects. On current project,

on-going evaluation makes a continuous analysis and assessment of the output, effects, impact

and (to some extent) the relevance of a project. It provides information (In concert with

monitoring) for management to make any needed adjustments to the objectives, activities,

operation and performance of an on-going project. It includes examination of whether project

assumptions are valid - because the planners may have got them wrong, or unforeseen factors

have made them invalid, or experience with the project requires their redefinition.

Participatory evaluation will usually form part of on-going evaluation. It involves the feedback

of information and opinions from participants and others to project staff, during informal and

formal discussions. It is an important means of detecting unforeseen outcomes which have

adverse effects and impact on the rural people, and of checking the validity of project activities

and objectives.

Terminal evaluation at the completion of a project, and ex-post evaluation some years after the

completion of a project, assesses the achievement of long term objectives and their impact on

and relevance to its intended beneficiaries and the project environment. Its purpose is to assess

the overall achievements of a project, in terms of its activities, outputs, effects and impact, and to

provide lessons to assist the planning of future projects.

It will be seen that monitoring and evaluation are critically linked together providing and

analyzing relevant information for decision-making; together they provide an information system

for management decision-making. The essential issue is that the major purpose of monitoring

and evaluation is to provide reliable and timely information to assist the solution of specific

problems which are of importance and concern to the management and participants of a project.

A monitoring and evaluation system in thus oriented towards problem-solving; but to achieve

this, for the many different types of projects, it must be flexible in its use of the various means of

information collection and analysis. It must be dynamic, in the sense of responding to the needs

of management which faces a changing situation that bring about new problems to resolve. The

original design of monitoring and evaluation system must therefore continuously change to

provide the information for it to perform its problem-solving role.

A complete monitoring and evaluation system should extend from the project, through the

administrative hierarchy, up to ministry and sectoral level. At higher levels it will be more

"strategic", concerned with overall progress, major problems, budget disbursements and the

planning of future projects. As the monitoring and evaluation information possess up the

hierarchy, it will be increasingly summarized for strategic surveillance purposes (in quarterly and

annual reports).

As experience is gained with monitoring and evaluation, the value of information systems

becomes increasingly clear. The surveillance and assessment of project activities, input

deliveries, work schedule and project outputs arc seen to be a valuable means of improving

project efficiency. It is important too as a means of improving project effectiveness, by the

surveillance and assessment of project objectives, assumption, effects and impact. The probing

of objectives and impact by monitoring and evaluation studies can reveal deficient planning, due

to invalid assumptions, which may take a project in the wrong direction.

5.4. Elements of Project Monitoring and Evaluation

A project monitoring and evaluation system will focus on five project elements – the operation,

performance, effect, impact and context of a project. These elements are the constituent parts of a

comprehensive system, all equally important; a continuum of activities.

Project operation: embraces the many tasks and activities performed regularly or intermittently,

which are essential for the prescribed functioning and implementation of a project. They include

the delivery and distribution of project inputs such as fertilizers and seedlings; activities such as

credit and extension programmes; the operation and maintenance of machinery and equipment;

financial flows and staffing.

Project performance: is measured by the outputs which result from project operation. It may

include aspects such as nurseries constructed seedlings produced and distributed, area planted to

trees, forest area managed, fuel stoves distributed.

Project effects: are the outcome of project operation and performance and include immediate

project objectives and goals. Effects include more trees grown, increased supply of fuel wood,

improved adoption of new methods, labor time saved collecting forest products, providing the

forest product needs of rural families.

Project impact: is the result or consequence of project operation, performance and effects.

Impact relates the results of a project to its long range objectives and goals and indicates the

extent to which they have been achieved. It denotes changes in the status of beneficiaries

resulting from a project; for example, in fam1ly incomes, nutrition, and living standards. It

includes the achievement of wider welfare objectives such as increased literacy and wider

participation of project beneficiaries in project decision-making. Project impact is further

concerned with unplanned changes in the local environment and economy that result from

implementation of the project. For example, soil erosion, environmental damage to wildlife and

natural flora, forest resources, catchment areas and adverbs price effects on forest inputs and

products.

The monitoring and evaluation of project impact will require a longer time horizon than the other

elements. Some impact changes may be detected during the implementation of the project -

increased farm incomes may be generated quickly on a very successful project. But in other

cases, the full impact of a project will not emerge, in a substantial way, until some years after its

full development or completion. Increased literacy or increased capacity for self-sustained

development is obvious examples. The impact of traditional and participatory forestry projects

will also tend to have a long time horizon because of the relatively lengthy period required for

many trees to reach maturity. Quick maturing trees will of course shorten this period.

Project context: relates to the physical and socio-economic: "situation" to which the project is

intended to respond, the attitudes of rural groups (on and off a project) to the activities and

objectives of a project, and the activities of project and non-project people which arc relevant to

the project objectives. This element of monitoring and evaluation attempts to test the validity or

relevance of project objectives and their related activities. Its purpose is to make clear the overall

context within which a project is operating and to which it is intended to respond, in order to

judge whether the original assumptions and major objectives of a project are in line with the

situation and consistent with the "needs of the people". It recognizes the problem of planning

projects with insufficient information and unclear objectives, and seeks to improve their

accuracy and relevance and hence the outcome of a project.

The difference in style of management on traditional forestry projects and forestry participatory

projects will call for monitoring and evaluation systems with a different focus and emphasis. The

focus in the case of traditional forestry projects will be on monitoring project inputs, outputs and

financial flows, with limited attention being given to the evaluation of project context and

impact. By contrast, on forestry participatory project there will be more emphasis on the

evaluation of project effects and context, in addition to monitoring project inputs and activities.

Forestry participatory projects will increase the involvement of the~ rural people through

monitoring and evaluation activities by discussing and questioning participants and others on

their views of the assumptions, objectives and effects of the project. It will include "participatory

evaluation", achieved by Informal encounters and formal meetings of the~ rural people (or their

leaders) and the project staff.

5.5. Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators

Monitoring and evaluation of project operation, performance, effects and impact is mainly based

on the observation and validation of variables or indicators of project inputs, outputs, activities

and effects; also of project objectives, external factors and constraints. A first step in this process

is therefore to identify, specify and select the' appropriate indicators. Many of the selected

indicators will be derived from an inspection of the objective structure of a project (or project

logic), which spells out the planned inputs, activities, outputs, effects and objectives of a project.

It is not too difficult to identify and select most indicators, especially where they are objectively

verifiable (certifiable) measures of facts and events such as delivery and distribution of inputs,

seedlings production and disposal, number and area of (village) woodlots established, species

composition of woodlot planting, seedling survival rates, tree growth rates, Yield and output of

fuel wood, number of extension visits and demonstrations, sales and prices of forest products,

etc. It is fairly straightforward to identify and measures such indicators.

The selection of indicators (monitoring and evaluation of "context") to test the validity and

relevance of a project assumptions and objectives is less straightforward. Indicators are likely to

relate to production and consumption of forest products by wood growers and wood users; their

perception of an attitude to wood scarcity; the degree of commercialization of wood products;

the prices of forest products in various markets, from the source of wood to the final users;

preferred patterns of social organization for tree planting and similar activities; responses, both

on and off the project, to wood scarcity in terms of tree planting the use of wood substitutes, the

adoption of more efficient wood using technologies, etc.

The monitoring and evaluation of 'critical external factors' must not be neglected.

These are exogenous to a project, and can have unexpected~ effects on it. Market prices of

purchased inputs and project outputs and weather conditions are examples of these. Other

external factors which can adversely affect project operation and performance, and which are

outside the control of management include domestic inflation, shortages and late delivery of

materials, failure to provide infrastructure to a project on time (such as electricity or a road),

distortion of forestry price policies and other market defects.

It is necessary to select and monitor indicators relating to these factors, not always to assist

project management to adjust or adapt to them - often this is not possible - but to pinpoint

(identify) possible causes of deficient project performance arising from these - which might

otherwise be laid at the feet of project management.

Sometimes it is not possible to directly observe and measure project monitoring indicators. There

are many reasons for this, sometimes the high cost or practical difficulties of collecting

information (field surveys for example can be costly), or it can be difficult to distinguish the

effects of a project input or activity (for example, increased fuel wood production may be the

result of improved extension services or fertilizer supplies) or a long time horizon of production

may make direct measurement impracticable. In these cases, it may be necessary to use indirect

or proxy monitoring indicators. Because income surveys of rural households are often costly to

undertake and rather slow to produce results, proxy indicators of income status are sometimes

used. The standard of family housing and the amount of household equipment possessed by rural

families have been used as proxy indicators for income. Information on these items can be

obtained relatively quickly and cheaply by a Single visit, visual observation survey. But this

saving can be at the expense of lost precision. For example, these indicators deal with the

disposal of income for one Purpose only - the purchase of household durables - which ignores

the disposal of income in other directions inducing consumptions, investment on the' family

holding and savings.

The yield and production of most forest product is linked to the often lengthy period of growing

trees, it is therefore not possible in the short and medium term to use the direct effects and

impact indicator of forestry projects; instead proxy indicators for these are used, such as seedling

survival rates and tree growth rates. Since many untoward (improper) events occurred between

planting and felling of tree, proxy indicators will sometimes diverge from the true effect and

impact Indicators. A degree of caution is, therefore, necessary when interpreting proxy

indicators, especially where the linkage between them and the direct indicators is uncertain.

The process of identifying and selecting monitoring indicators has an important influence on the

usefulness of monitoring and evaluation system and on the efficiency and effectiveness of

project implementation, because it will determine the total amount of information in the system.

The full range of indicators derived from the project objective structure and consideration of

unexpected effects will often far exceed the capacity of the monitoring and evaluation resources

to handle them. Priorities of indicator selection will, therefore, be influenced by constraints - for

example, when information is too difficult to collect or to measure or when the motivation and

ability of staff affects the accuracy of information collected. And on the other side, the demands

of the major users of system must receive consideration.

The aim will be to balance these issues so that the total amount of data or information can be

adequately handled by the monitoring and evaluation resources. In practice, this will be a process

of trial and error which will call for modifications to the system, influenced by experience gained

in operating the system and by feedback from the users of the system. "Data requirements thus

become a function not only of what should logically be collected and measured, but also of

relevance, measurability, feasibility, timeliness and simplicity".

5.6. Design and Implementation of Monitoring and Evaluation systems in

Participatory Forestry Projects

As with non-forestry projects, participatory forestry projects will vary in size, organization and

purpose. But, in general, they will aim to achieve some or all of the following objectives;

to improve the living standards of rural peoples, especially the poorest groups, in terms of

cash income or home consumption, by encouraging them to increase the production of

fuel wood, fodder, timber, poles and secondary forest products;

to decrease the consumption of fuel wood by testing and distributing improved energy

systems such as charcoal braziers, improved wood stoves, charcoal kilns etc. ,

to promote the self-reliance of rural peoples by their active participation in the

management of forest resources - individual and village woodlots and communal forests;

to avoid or reduce environmental degradation including conservation of soil and water

resources.

The pursuit of these objectives will usually involve the following kind of project activities:

Construction and operation of nurseries for seedling production and distribution;

establishment of different types of plantations, e.g., plantations established by forestry

departments for communal use, community and village woodlots, household woodlots

and windbreaks.

Distribution of seed or seedlings to rural peoples for their own planting and development

and distribution of improved wood burning stoves.

Increased forestry extension services to improve the establishment and maintenance of

trees, to encourage the use of improved stoves, to promote better farming methods

(including increased forage production within plantations and improved livestock

husbandry) and to encourage a more active participation of the rural people in the project

activities and their management.

This wide range of objectives and activities implies the need of a comprehensive monitoring and

evaluation system whose emphasis will vary according to type of project. The focus will be on

the surveillance and assessment of project inputs, outputs, effects, and context and to a lesser

extent on impact. Close attention will be given to the number of nurseries constructed, seedlings

distributed, number of hectares planted, improved stove& distributed, and so on - these are the

indicators which reflect project inputs and outputs. The survival of seedlings by species, the

number of trees planted and surviving, increased output of forest products, increased grass and

forage production, and the increased use of improved stoves are the indicators which will reflect

project effects. Monitoring and evaluation of project effects and context will focus on prevailing

forestry and farming practices and attitudes of the people to project objectives and activities.

On participatory projects some impact monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken which will

include surveillance and assessment of timber and forest products produced against people's

needs, increased income and living standards of project participants, decrease in fuel wood

consumption due to improved wood burning technologies, increased participation of the rural

people in management of the project, and improvement in the physical environment and its

resources. Because the studies which measure and assess these effect and impact indicators

require quite significant monitoring resources for baseline and ad hot field surveys, they will be

undertaken only once or infrequently during project implementation.

The different elements of a monitoring and evaluation system often require different methods of

data acquisition and processing. The monitoring and evaluation of project operation (inputs,

activities) and performance (outputs) is closely connected with technical and managerial duties

of project staff. Monitoring their activities relates to the extension and recording of scheduled

task such as constructing nurseries, producing and distributing seedlings, establishing woodlots,

operating extension and credit activities and so on. The records are then processed and

transmitted to a prescribed point in the management structure. The efficiency of this aspect of the

system depends on the specification of procedures and indicators and on the motivation of

project staff.

The monitoring and evaluation of project impact, much of project context and effects, are based

on data and indicators which are usually gathered by field survey. In planning, designing and

implementing, monitoring and evaluation systems, it is important to be aware of this crucial

distinction in information gathering methods. In general, information deriving from field surveys

is more difficult to acquire, measure, process, analyses and can be subject to greater error. These

difficulties arise because they are associated with the usual problems of empirical field studies

such as inadequate sampling and survey design, untested field questionnaires, response bias, visit

frequently and faulty analytical procedures used for interpreting the results.

Monitoring and evaluation based on field surveys can also have a different time dimension for

data acquisition, processing and analysis - this is especially true for impact monitoring and

evaluation which uses baseline and household surveys. Where projects have a farming

ingredient, impact monitoring will involve baseline and Subsequent field surveys to establish,

among other things, net household incomes (which are far from easy to define). And for this,

data acquisition (field visits) can take up to a calendar year and then many months after that for

data processing and analysis of results. In short, those elements of monitoring and evaluation

systems which rely on data acquisition by field surveys can be difficult, lengthy and costly.

Sometimes a once for all survey is sufficient, but where impact indicators relate to levels of

income, living, nutrition, etc. then surveys are likely to continue intermittently over the period of

project implementation.

Having said that, the monitoring and evaluation project effects, impact and context can be based

on surveys which are once for all, relatively easy to design and execute (though sampling and

non-sampling problems will not be avoided) and which can be completed in a relatively short

period of time. Single focus surveys can be like this; for example surveys of seedling and

plantation survival rates, the extent of private tree planting, species preference, improved stove

use, and surveys of extension effects. A good deal of context monitoring and evaluation involves

one-off surveys of relatively short duration. Such things as rural and urban energy surveys

investigating wood and charcoal consumption patterns, marketing studies of wood, charcoal and

other forestry products and surveys of wood availabilities. Participatory monitoring and

evaluation is somewhat different in that it is continuous and based on an informal survey

approach (often private or small group dialogues with participants and others). It can provide

quite rapid feedback on implementation problems and successes as well as on adverse effects and

impact.

Monitoring and evaluation of the physical and socio-economic environment (unplanned effects)

is an important and somewhat neglected area. One reason for this neglect is due to uncertainty

about what is to be monitored until the project has been operating for some time. It is important

because the impact of a project, both on and off it, can be negative as well a positive and because

it can be difficult to predict.

“The impact of rural development and agriculture projects on the environment is important, not

only to maintain the quality of life but also to sustain the natural resources base on which future

agricultural production and growth depend. Past utilization of natural resource like land, water,

forest and fisheries have often promoted the use of these ecologically interlinked systems in

excess of their biological carrying capacities, leading not only to environmental stress, but also to

a reduced food and fuel producing capability and thus the impoverishment of the rural poor who

depend directly on the environment for their basic needs."

The aim of monitoring the unplanned effects of a project is to identify and predict their likely

effects on the bio-geographical environment and on the health and well-being of the rural people

on and off a project. Projects which involve clearing of land can have several environmental

effects, such as:

where land is marginal, its use for cultivation can lead to soil compaction, erosion,

mineral leaching and hence the degradation of land which may have future agricultural

potential;

it can contribute to increased erosion on sloping sites with increased sedimentation;

it can affect future forest production on affected areas;

it can lead to loss of shade and forage available in the dry season;

it can cause destruction of plant and wildlife species.

Socio-economic unplanned effects of a project cover items like the demand for project inputs and

the supply of forest products and their impact on the respective markets. Occasional market

studies are, therefore, required to monitor changing conditions which might follow project

implementation and the continuous monitoring of input and output prices are also necessary.

The implication of all this is that the design of a monitoring and evaluation system will not only

be influenced by the type of project and the needs of the users but also by the resources available

to implement the system. The focus or the balance of the system on the different elements, with

their different data acquisition and processing methods and differing time horizons, will require a

careful choice to be made regarding the disposition of resources between the different elements,

where the resources are limited - which will commonly be the case.

5.7. Information Delivery Systems

5.7.1. Methods of information collection

The well-designed properly functioning project monitoring system should provide the right

information, in the right form, at the right time, to the right place (in the management structure)

and with the right frequency. But whether this is achieved depends greatly on the nuts and bolts

of the system. These relate to the observation, measurement, recording, processing, presentation

and reporting of data. Observation and measurement can take the form of noting and recording

tangible events, such as seedlings production and disposal, woodlots established species

composition, seedling survival rates, area, density and girth of trees planted, etc. Another source

of information comes from formal and informal surveys; also interviews and dialogues with

project participants and others. These data are recorded in field notebooks, on specially devised

forms and on survey questionnaires. The use of surveys and questionnaires to collect project

information is a skilled activity requiring careful planning by trained personnel.

5.7.2. Processing and analysis information

Then follows the data preparation, processing and/or analysis; phase to cast them into the

appropriate form for evaluation purposes. Data recorded on individual field notebooks, field

sheets and questionnaire must be transferred to analysis Performa, progress charts and computer

disc. The processing/analysis stage ran vary from the simple assembly of a time series to

statistical analysis and computation of complex project parameters to discern causality between

project variables. Following this, there is the presentation and display data which it is to be calls

"converting data into information". This means that the user of the monitored output must find it

usable. Failure to give due attention to this critical phase can seriously impair the value of

monitoring and evaluation systems in the following ways:

data remain on the questionnaires, unanalyzed and valueless;

magnetic tapes containing large data files are prepared but they remain unusable due to

lack of proper validation procedures or documentation;

tabular printouts, large in volume, long in detail, lie in files gathering dust in the data

library;

reports contain adequately presented summary tables derived from a baseline survey, but

are available to the user only at the end of the project; and

reports are full of tests of significance, analyses of variance, correlation matrices, etc., but

do not set out any conclusions or suggest a range of options for action.

At this stage, those responsible for operating the monitoring and evaluation system must have

clear cut answers to the following questions: to whom is the information to be directed? At what

time' and with what frequency? And in what form? The recipients of information will include

project officers and participants, project managers, coordinating agencies and ministries, sector

planners, government ministers and donor agencies. These data will be transmitted to these

recipients in a very different form, with different levels of aggregation and brevity (briefness)

and with different frequency.

Casley and Lury suggest the following guidelines for converting data into information in a

form appropriate to the particular user:

the definition of variables and tabular headings should be clear to the user who will not

always have either a numeric background of technical knowledge of the topics

discussed;

the depth of statistical analysis must be geared to the level of user (correlation

coefficients and significance tests will confuse rather than enlighten the user untrained in

statistics);

the' tabular layout, including the use of average, dispersion indices, ratios, etc., should be

simple and clear - a set of simple two-way tables may be' better than a complicated four-

way cross classification;

text accompanying tables should summaries the main highlights revealed by thetables,

indicating the conclusions that may be drawn;

graphical and other diagrams will be particularly useful in focusing the user's interest and

aiding his understanding.

5.7.3. Reporting results

Having converted data into information, it must then be reported to the appropriate user. The

transmission of information can be done verbally, formally or informally, at project meetings; by

regular up-dating of charts or graphs in project offices; in short memoranda for urgent and rapid

distribution; in regular or formal reports of surveys. Reports can be quite brief summarizing the

observations and impressions of project officers following a field trip; they can be bi-annual or

annual reports summarizing the state of the project or they can deal with particular aspects or

special problems of the project, usually resulting from a field survey.

Reports should be standardized so that the information received can be easily compared to

previous reports; short and summarized further as they move up the management hierarchy; easy

and interesting to read. They should also identify problems, exceptions, and deviation as well as

special achievements, to facilitate the process of management by exception; specify data

reliability and explain deviations and exceptions where possible; suggest alternative actions and

decisions to be taken; and be timely.

5.8. Issues and Problems arising from Monitoring and Evaluation

experience

As the concern of this volume is to underline the value of monitoring and evaluation and

encourage its use on participatory forestry projects, it is relevant at this point to mention the

difficulties that have sometimes been experienced in order to reduce the likelihood that thus

emerge as problems in the future.

The implementation of a monitoring and evaluation system raises the important question of who

should undertake it. Should the tasks be undertaken by the project management staff or by a

separate monitoring and evaluation unit? Where project staff undertakes monitoring and

evaluation activities, their influence, at the design stage, will be to keep the system as simple and

cheap as possible; to collect only the information which is relevant and useful and deliver it to

the right place, in a form which will ensure its operational use. One problem with this approach

is that project staff often complain of the heavy burden incurred by their monitoring and

evaluation duties which can adversely affect their normal project duties. Another problem is that

propjet staff is probably less disposed to question project assumption or evaluate their own

performance.

A separate unit is more likely to be professionally competent and efficient being made up of

qualified staff. And it will take much of the burden off the shoulders of project staff. It will also

have a degree of independence from project management to allow it to perform critically and

independently. This especially applies to monitoring and evaluation which questions the

relevance of project objectives and hence the validity of some of it activities. Without some

degree of independence, a monitoring and evaluation unit may be prevented from pursuing this

critical approach. However, if carried too far, it could soon alienate (separate) management to the

detriment of all.

Indeed, the introduction of units having sole responsibility for the design and implementation of

monitoring and evaluation systems has underlined the need to involve project management more

closely at all stages. Since the purpose of monitoring and evaluation is to assist project

management to function more efficiently and effectively, it is increasingly recognized that

management collaboration in the design and implementation of monitoring and evaluation

systems is very desirable.

Project management collaboration not only allows it to understand what monitoring and

evaluation is for, it enables it to have an important say in what information should be collected

and to keep within bounds the amount of time spent on these activities. Management

participation is likely to be an antidote (solution) to the generation of excessive, unnecessary and

unused information, and is a vital means of increasing the effective use of results.

5.8.1. Quality of monitoring and evaluation information

Monitoring and evaluation systems produce information of varying accuracy and validity.

The direct measurement of physical variables is likely to be most accurate – such things as

nurseries established, seedlings distributed weekly prices of forest products, etc. But if' the

variables relate to household plots and woodlots, for example, seedlings planted and surviving,

tree growth, etc., then Sampling (and perhaps measurement) errors come in. Indirect

measurement of sample variables using socio-economic surveys will certainly involve sampling

and measurement errors (arising from many sources including faulty recall of respondents).

Problems of validity arise especially if opinions on context and impact are sought (required). The

informal contacts increase the change of biased sampling (and group leaders may not be

representative): also, it is not easy to summaries from unstructured interviews a sample of

judgments and opinions or be sure of its validity. Monitoring and evaluation units should try to

give users some idea of the accuracy of its results, for if it gives the impression that they are of

equal accuracy, some very wrong decisions could result.

5.8.2. Resistance to project monitoring and evaluation

It is fashionable now to approve project monitoring and evaluation without question.

In practice, however, monitoring and evaluation systems are sometimes found to be poorly

operated and of limited effectiveness, even where they have been well designed and run by

competent staff. The problem here may be that of unstated opposition or covert resistance to

monitoring and evaluation systems for several reasons. Sometimes there is a dislike of

monitoring because, in exposing deficiencies of project implementation, it reveals on occasions

weaknesses of managements; sometimes theme can be linked to individual members of project

staff which obviously is not welcome. In some cases, project staff gives a great deal of their time

to monitoring activates which diverts their efforts from the day-to-day running of a project and

which they sometimes resent. Again, much of the monitored output may not be used by project

staff because they have not been consulted about the monitoring system and, therefore, may have

little idea of what the information is for and understandably assume it will be of little value to

them in the performance of their project duties.

Chapter6

Experience of Participatory Forest Management

6.1. The Ethiopian Experience of PFM

In the Ethiopian case excepting for agricultural lands, property relations over such resources like

forests, water bodies, aquatic resources (fish), wildlife, etc, remained loosely defined and

undecidedly enforced throughout our modern history. The Imperial government is remembered

for its notorious scheme of agricultural expansion at the expense of forests to increase its tax

revenue through indiscriminate individualization of the forest resource. The Socialist

government nationalized all forest resources of the country making itself, not only the exclusive

owner, but also the sole forest developer. From 1991, in sharp contrast to the previous years, the

State retreated from its huge obligations it assumed in the previous years as forest custodian and

developer without putting appropriate institutions in place (Melaku Bekele, 2003). Many of the

country’s forests remained in a state of open-access and rapid deforestation continued

uninterrupted for several years. At certain point, it is this situation that seems to have created a

favorable environment to initiate PFM aiming at taking the forest resource out of a non-property

situation, give communities rights and help rehabilitate the forest resource.

Nevertheless, the phrase of public ‘participation’ has been widely used in Ethiopia starting from

the DERG period. Key manifestations of public participation during that time were the concept

of Hizbawi Tesatfo (mass participation) and Yelimat Zemetcha (Mass mobilization for

development). However, both Tesatfo and Limat were being exercised by coercing people to take

part in centrally-planned conservation activities and enforced by political cadres during the

socialist period. Contrary to the current global principle of participatory management, the

practice was founded on the forceful mobilization of people under the threat of penalization.

Cooperation in resource management is better practiced among Ethiopian villagers than in

government policies and programs. It is a key part of indigenous cultures like that of the

traditional Gada systems of the Oromo, the Gedeo, and other people. In these systems decisions

concerning natural resource use are based on the principle of fair distribution. The advantage of

such culture is that it is all-inclusive and management is based on knowledge (accumulated

through time from personal experience) about the resource. At certain point in time, however,

traditional institutions and their effectiveness were undermined when they were super-imposed

by alien modern State structure that replaced the ways resources were owned and managed.

Most of the participatory forest management exercises in Ethiopia are those introduced by

international NGOs. Since the mid 1990s a number of pilot activities were started in central,

southern and southwestern forested regions of Ethiopia, which for the first time attempted to

transfer forest management responsibility from central government to forest adjacent

communities. Among the pilot interventions, the prominent are the PFM in Chilimo, Borana,

Bonga run by Farm-Africa/SOS Sahel, and the IFMP at Adaba Dodolla run by GTZ. Although

the experiences from these pilot projects have demonstrated good achievements, PFM is not well

established in Ethiopian forest management system.

6.2. Location of PFM in Ethiopia

Source: Proceeding of a workshop held at Chilimo Forest and Ghion Hotel, 2008.

6.2.1. Area coverage of PFM in Ethiopia in 2009‐2010

Participatory Forest Management is quite new to Ethiopia ‐ it was first implemented 13 years ago

(Andargachew, 2009). As such, it is difficult to know the exact expanse of PFM forests and

project areas in Ethiopia. Data on the current area coverage is lacking. As some scholars

suggested that, the coverage in 2010 will be more than 211 076 hectares of forest.

The largest pockets of remaining natural forests of Ethiopia are located in the south of Oromiya

and Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples (SNNP) regions (figure 1. and 2). The majority

of the PFM intervention sites are located in these same regions. A smaller number of recently

introduced sites are located in Amhara in northern Ethiopia. There are few if any plantation

forests under PFM.

Figure1. Forest and wood land cover of Ethiopia 2009

Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD).

Figure2. Natural forest and plantation cover in Ethiopia 1994‐ 2004

Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD).

Figure3. Zones where PFM is being implemented by the reporting actors

Source: FAO, 2010.

Zones where PFM is being implemented in Ethiopia are as follows:

South Gonder

North Shewa (Amhara Regional

State)

North Shewa (Oromiya Regional

State)

West Shewa

East Shewa

West Arsi

Bale

Guji

Borena

Jimma

Sheka

Kefa

Benchi Maji

NB: The majority of the PFM forests consist of large homogenous non isolated blocks. The

second largest part consists of discontinuous blocks separated by farmland. A minor part

consists of plantations or highly degraded fragments of natural forest.

Due to the inconsistency and lack of detail of data, the smallest scale to picture PFM presence in

is zonal level. PFM is present in at least 12 out of the 68 zones of Ethiopia. The zones which

have PFM projects present that are represented in this study are shown in figure 3. However

these zones are only covered by forest to some extent as seen in the previous maps. Some of the

zones only harbor a small number of small scale PFM projects. Other zones harbor a vast

number of projects by different actors, such as Bale. Each project covers all from a few hundred

hectares up to some hundred thousand hectares of forest (see fig. 3).

6.2.2. Forest types and connectivity of PFM forests

The forests that remain in Ethiopia are close to each other. There are a few larger forest regions

left (see fig. 1and 2) where most of the PFM projects are being implemented. The forests that are

included in PFM activities are in many cases separated by farmland. They are constituted by

forest patches with some degree of connectivity or they are found as parts of larger homogenous

forest blocks or forest belts as stated below.

To summarize, Forest fragmentation properties of PFM forests:

Part of large homogenous block/belt

Forest patches with connectivity

Separated by farmland

Isolated forest blocks

Until now, the majority of the forests represented in PFM projects in Ethiopia have been

highland forests but recently there has been an indication of more lowland forests being included

in PFM solutions (Andargatchew, 2009). The most frequently represented forest types in PFM

are afromontane and moist forests. Only in a few cases are dry forests included in PFM projects

To summarize, Forest types included in PFM (Forest classification):

Afromontane

forest Moist forest&

Dry forest

6.2.3. Commercial activities in and around PFM forests

There are a number of investments and corporate activities going on in PFM forest areas and

their vicinity. These are:

Coffee Plantation

Tea plantation (Tea estates)

Incense& Gum

o However, these activities have a negative effect on the environment.

6.3. Results from introducing PFM

6.3.1. Changes to community livelihood and engagement following PFM

Introducing PFM in communities adjacent to forests in general brings considerable changes. The

utilization of forest products is usually restricted and quotas for extraction are lowered to

ecologically sustainable levels. If the allowed utilization is enough to be socially sustainable is

an important question.

The results are:

increasing in living conditions,

increasing in health condition,

eradication of malnutrition,

Increasing the degree of income.

Improvement of the marketing possibilities of NTFPs

Increasing the utilization of NTFPs to local communities

Bringing of behavioral change (the community)

Proper regulations, actively managing and patrolling the forest area.

Encourage entrepreneurship

Case Study

During the process of introducing PFM some actors arrange exchange visits to earlier PFM

projects and most actors have activities aimed at increasing awareness and educating the

community about the forest. As a result, communities feel encouraged to proceed with the PFM

and their awareness and knowledge of forest value and user rights generally increase during the

introduction process. Exchanging experiences with other PFM communities can also be an

important component to provide input and ideas along the way to enable development of the

PFM and encourage entrepreneurship which in turn can improve livelihoods further.

6.3.2. Forest cover and quality change since PFM introduction

The general consequence of introducing PFM is that the forest gains some degree of protection

by the community and thus many of the negative impacts that were previously affecting the

forest decrease. This generally has positive impacts on the forest. i.e.

Forests are increasing through natural regeneration

Forests are increasing through planting of indigenous species.

Improvement of forest quality in terms of recovering biodiversity, higher seedling

survival and improved water quality

Degraded lands are being rehabilitated by tree plantations and area closure implemented

following the PFM introduction.

6.3.3. Changes in extraction of forest products since PFM introduction

Introducing PFM includes putting limitations on forest resource extraction. Together with the

commitment in management of the communities it has the consequence that the outtake levels of

forest products from the forests decreases. Generally,

Free access to the forests is prohibited

Timber extraction is limited

Extraction of NTFPs is come up with ecological sustainability

Extraction of fire wood (excluding of dead wood) is forbidden and etc.

6.4. Challenges and opportunities to establish PFM in Ethiopia

6.4.1. Challenges

The PFM actors in Ethiopia are experiencing a variety of hindrances throughout implementation

of their projects. These may in some cases cripple the effectiveness and success of the PFM

projects. These obstacles are of different nature:

Social

o resistance and skepticism from communities

o boundary disputes during the delineation of the forest and difficulties

o in building mutual trust between farmers and implementers

Financial

o financial limitations for carrying out activities as well as for expanding

Administrative

o support from government institutions at both regional and local level is reported

to be inconsistent and sporadic

o high turnover of officials in key positions, e.g. development agents and

government staff

o lack of clarity in policies and regulations for ownership and utilization rights

Conflicting motives

o participating development agents is minimal for trainings and exchange

Policy related

o policy and legal limitations that restrict business and income earning from forest

resources for forest management associations

o poor legal enforcement when illegal forest users are brought in court

o very little support for forest management decentralization among policy makers

Contradictory agreements

o illegal private investments going on in the state forest areas

o contradictory agreements made for overlapping forest areas where external

corporate farming gets licensed in PFM forests

Moving the deforestation problems

o When restricting the use of a particular forest area there is a risk of redirecting

extraction pressure to other forest areas.

The main conclusions that were drawn from the encountered obstacles show some key

points to take into consideration to enable successful implementation of PFM. The

following conclusions were stated by the organizations:

Before the PFM process can even start it is essential to take time to sensitize the

community and local government to the concept and get them onboard and become part

of the process. The local government is especially important to have onboard for

facilitation and negotiation since NGO mandates are limited.

Overall transparency and a good approach to the community build trust for the concept

and ease the introduction and implementation of PFM as well as problem solving along

the way.

Undermining of traditional knowledge and local culture which would damage the

process can be avoided by especially involving key people from the community and

letting them make their voice heard.

Clear roles and responsibilities need to be defined for all actors especially to committees

and planning teams. There must be a clear commitment and accountability from

involved actors at all levels and no contradictory actions carried out.

Securing budget is important to enable smooth implementation

Clear policies are fundamental to success of PFM and must state responsibilities, tenure

rights, user rights and benefits for the parties.

The motives and aims for PFM in Ethiopia need to be clarified and kept transparent. As

part of this, consensus is needed between all PFM proponents at all levels.

The communities’ demands for firewood and charcoal need to be full filled not to put

too much pressure on neighboring forests. For this, offering fuel saving technologies and

alternative fuel sources should be more widely implemented.

6.4.2. Opportunity

PFM will enable local communities to benefit from a sustainable forest resource base

Developing new skills in community Forest Management Groups is an opportunity for

improving management and incomes from the forest.

Improved NTFPs management, production and marketing that to some extent improved

total forest productivity is an exciting new income opportunity for community forest

managers

Reduction in deforestation and so emissions are being pursued through the PFM approach

increased presence of wild animals that were rarely seen in the forest mainly due to reduced

human interferences

significant reduction in forest encroachment, forest fire, illegal logging and unauthorized

harvest of forest products

supporting agricultural intensification, establishing woodlots and promoting the uptake of

fuel efficient stoves,

It can serve as a tool to mitigate climate change

A way of developing self dependency and responsibly over the forest resource

6.4.3. Ingredients for success

The components that are reported to have been important for successes in the different

intervention areas are:

Collaboration, involvement, continuous follow‐up and support of relevant regional and

local government sectors.

Comprehensive and unified understanding within project staff at all levels including

training of all field practitioners.

Making use of and strengthening already present traditional systems; repeatedly consulting

the community; communicating and building consensus with local elders, politicians and

religious leaders and recognizing traditional knowledge and customary rights.

Linking income generation to forest management as well as improving market access for

NTFP forest products.

Enabling exchange of experiences between farmers and communities at different PFM

sites.

Exchange between farmers of more informal character can have positive impacts on

neighboring communities. It often leads to farmers copying the methods that are introduced

in the PFM areas, such as farming spices in their home gardens for income generation.

Thus the success spreads to indirect beneficiaries apart from the directly targeted ones.

pfm lecture note.co

Documents