Developing Local Resource Persons for Sustainable Forest Management: Experiences of Community Forestry Programme of Nepal1

Nirmal Kumar BK*

*Kathmandu University, Nepal Authors email: [email protected]

Abstract
There are ongoing discussions in the community forestry practices of Nepal that whether forestry professional with formal education can transfer knowledge and skills to the rural community in sustainable way or Local Resource Person with non-formal education can support better to impart technical expertise to the rural users of the forestry. Based on the long experiences of writer in developing Local Resource Persons while working in DFID funded Livelihoods and Forestry Programme, I will argue that such resource person have greater competencies to instruct applicable forestry technical expertise towards the marginalized sections of the rural communities who are forest dependent and actual managers of the resources. Also, they are sustainable because the beneficiaries (community forestry user groups) have system of pay for their services. As they use locally applicable language and suitable words relevant with local situation, it is very effective mechanism to communicate sustainable forest management skills relevant for human development of the poor rural people. In summery, I will recommend that the government of Nepal should establish vocational/non formal education institutions to develop such forestry human resources in our country. In the report, I will include criteria of selection of such local resource person, contents of training/education provided to them, working mechanism with government counterparts, cost benefit analysis of their service delivery, process of their accreditation and issues associated with them.

1. Introductions
Educationist shows that knowledge originates from formal, non-formal and informal education system (Jha, 1997). However, how these knowledge and skills are transfer to empower and capacitate the local communities, how these address the site and situation specific issues and how these adapt with the changing needs and demands of the communities CBFM (Community Based Forest Resource Management) is crucial aspect of community forest management (GTZ, 2004). In these regards, there are ongoing discussions that forestry professional with formal education havent been success to transfer knowledge and skill to forest dependant people of community forestry users as expected. The evidences show that 1 Paper Presented in INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FORESTRY EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOR THE

ASIA-PACIFIC REGION (FORED) in Manila, Philippines, from November 23-25, 2010

reasons behind the situation are that such professional are equipped with education focusing on scientific concept of conservation and biological issues of forestry (Jacobson & McDuff, 1998). They are charged that their concepts and skills are oriented towards technical aspect of forest management. Also, the general model of forest education, their contents and teaching techniques havent suit with diversified and changing havent changing needs of the forest user groups (GTZ, 2004). In addition, there is very less linkages between formal and non formal education context of Community Based Forest Management (Ruiz-Mallen, 2009). Simultaneously, such education has been focusing on the state mechanism little attention has been given in the involvement of private and civil society sector to develop forestry professionals (Yadav et all, 2009).

2. Educating the community forestry professional in Nepal

The community forestry programme of Nepal is considered as one of the successes in community based forest resource management not only within Nepal but also in global practices. In the country, here are 1.6 million households are involved in 14439 community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) which are managing around 1.3 million hectares of forest (25% of total forest) in Nepal MOFSC, 2010). To impart the concept, knowledge and skills to the huge and diversified community forestry users groups of the country, the Institute of Forestry and recently Kathmandu Forestry College to impart formal education. There are ongoing issues and problems that forestry professional taught through formal education have been focusing on the scientific and technical aspect of forest management (LFP, 2009). The education has been focusing on the wood and timber product which results in poor technical quality of forestry operations (GTZ, 2004).In most of the cases target groups community forestry dont understand the word, contents and massage of the professional (FECOFUN, 2003). Also, there is very less linkages between the formal and informal learning of the local communities and mostly forestry professional ignore the peoples knowledge, awareness, attitudes, and behaviors toward forest resource management. Also, the bridging the gap between national planning and local socio-economic and ecological realities remains problematic (GTZ, 2004). The evidences show that education may deter forest clearance (Godoy and Contreras, 2001), it is charged that attitude and education system of the forestry professional was responsible to the historical

deforestation in Nepal. Simultaneously, the present structure and technical capacity of the Department of Forests cannot satisfy the ever-increasing demand for forest inventory and technical inputs in Community Forestry (Yadav, et all, 2009). The increasing numbers and services of the community forestry user groups in Nepal, there is needs of local non governmental service providers through private and civil society sectors. Although CFUGs are legally autonomous organizations which could outsource such technical services, there is no established system for doing this.

3. Local Resource Person Development

The evidences show that there is limited competencies and capacities of the government forestry official taught through formal education to address the increasing changing needs and demands of the increasing number of the groups. Therefore to deal with the site specific needs of the communities Community Forestry User Groups in collaboration with international organization , Department of Forest and Civil Societies have been developing the forestry technical Local Resource Person through non-formal education in Nepal. The innovation of Local Resource Person was initiated during 2000 when there was huge amount of OP backlog by which users were unable legally to utilize forest product (LFP, 2010). The FECOFUN has raised the issues about the quantity and quality of government staff and stress to formulate such LRP (FECOFUN, 2003). The DFID funded Livelihoods and Forestry Programme (LFP), SDC funded Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project (NSCFP), SNV supported BISEP-ST, UNDP supported Micro Enterprise Development Programme (MEDP), CARE- Nepal and FECOFUN (Federation of Community Forest User Group Nepal) have been supporting in the capacity development and mobilizing such human resources for better management of the community forestry and imparting the knowledge to target groups. The data shows that there are about 580 such human resources across the programme (Table-1). Table-1: Number of LRPs across different programme
SN 1. 2. 3. 4. DFIDs LFP SDCs -NSCFP SNVs BISEP-ST Name of organization No of LRPs Male 135 38 54 Female 81 18 21 216 56 75 Total

5. 6. 7. 8.

MEDEP CARE-Nepal FECOFUN Total

14 41 75 357

8 25 69 222

22 66 144 579

From 2007, CTEVT (Council of Technical Education and Vocational Training) of Government of Nepal has initiated the skill test examination of such professional to validate their competencies legally. The national skill test board has been conducting examination in collaboration with Forest Department and civil societies. A body in coordination of FECOFUN has developed skill testing criteria and indicators for level one and level two community forestry facilitators to work in social and technical aspect of community forest management respectively. To date about 100 community forestry facilitator has been accredited by CTEVT working in community forestry in Nepal. Now community forestry guideline (2008) of Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation has recognized the role of such resource person. They are legally authorized to conduct technical aspect of community forest management.

4. Experiences of Livelihoods and Forestry Programme of Nepal

4.1 Practice of developing Local Resource Persons

Non-formal education is designed to fulfill specific needs and aims at solving a particular need (Jha, 1997). Seeking a sustainable way of providing technical support to Forest User Groups (FUGs), the Livelihoods and Forestry Programme (LFP) trains and mentors local community member as Local Resource Persons (LFP) in the techniques of conducting forest inventories, preparation and amendment of constitutions and operational plans and implementation of these plans for sustainable community forest management (LFP, 2009). Livelihoods and Forestry Programme has followed following stage to develop the LRP. Selection The networks of community forest user groups select the LRPs from their groups. The candidate should have informal education in forestry sectors. Therefore the issue of linkage between informal and formal educations are solved. The selection activities have been
Box-1 Process of LRP selection VDC level network of CFUGs call and collect the application. Select candidate from the list by verbal and oral test in collaboration with NGOs and Forest office Appropriate mix of women and marginalized community are selected Qualification At least SLC test pass Working experiences in the community forestry user groups

done in the multi- partnerships approach with the NGOs, private sectors and forestry department (box-1). The FECOFUN village level network has practice to call application and select the person. They select the candidate based on the working experiences and commitment. They have practice of appropriate mix of gender and caste groups. The practices show that there is proportionate representation of caste and gender groups. As it is charged to government forestry professional that there are only 8 % women and 3% dalits in ranger and Forest Guards (Pokharel, 2007). Capacity development of the Local Resource Person There is limitation of education with suitable training contents and materials capable of reaching large numbers of participants including target groups of CFUGs at reasonable costs (ZTZ, 2004). The contents of training for LRPs have been prepared in collaboration with CFUG representative, LRP, DFO and LFP. The training contents cover both technical as well as the social aspect of the community forestry (Box-2). The training has been conducted in modular basis. As success of the non formal education depends upon the practical demonstration of the technique and participation of the candidate (Jha, 1997), field coaching and learning by doing has been given high priority of such capacity development. Therefore, this is very much suited with specific context of the community forest and local people. LFP and District Forest Offices provide technical training in forest inventories, boundary surveys, group facilitation, and operational plan and constitution updating (Chart-2). Mobilization FECOFUN district committee has been the institutional home of such Local Resource Person to date. The LRP has been working independently from the District Forest Office or working in close collaboration with field level DFO staff. It is evidence that LRP who has capacity to analyse the inventory data has been working independently. They have been highly involved in amendment of operational plan and developing capacity of the community forestry user
Box-2 Contents of the training Basic Forestry terms Social mobilization Forest boundary survey Forest inventory Inventory data analysis Operational plan and constitution preparation

groups to implement the provisions included in the plan. However, they have also been involving in formation of new CFUGs in close collaboration with DFO staff. To mobilize the LRPs there has been tri-sector contract among the CFUG/network, DFO and LFP. In the contract role of different sectors are mentioned. Field level staffs of DFO and district level committee member of FECOFUN monitor and ensure the activities at field level and District Forest Office ensure the quality of the operational plan prepared by the person. The payment is given to the village level networks of FECOFUN. During the contract the CFUG whose activities will be implement commit his amount of contribution for the activities. Accreditation of the Local Resource Person Livelihoods and forestry programme has initiated the testing and accreditation of the skill of LRP in Nepal from 2007. To date 75 such LRP has accredited by CTEVT from LFP working area. COFSUN, the network of such resource person has been coordinating the skill test process in the country (Box-4). In the process of accreditation, CTEVT organize the test process ie date and place of the test. Before the test FECOFUN implement the orientation process for better appear in the test. As the test process is in the piloting stage, such kinds of orientation empower to LRP to face the examination. CTEVT has been inviting the technical forestry professional from DFO, LFP to play role as examiner. They give mark to the applicant. Then CTEVT issues the certificate of competency. To date, COFSUN , network of LRP, has been coordinating the activities of application form and fee collection, dealing with the CTEVT and communicating the process in LFP area.

4.2

Comparative advantaged on the Local Resource Person

Cost Effective development and mobilization of forestry professional The practices show that the cost to produce such LRP is very less than field level forestry professional (Ranger and Forest Guards) educated through formal education in the institute. The rough estimation shows that it cost about $ 3000 to produce one Ranger while it costs about $500 to produce one LRP. The LRP can be developed with 15% of total cost of

production of Ranger. It is because the trainings are conducted at field level and through local materials. Also the cost to deliver the services through resource person is lower than those forest department staff. Though forest department staffs receive monthly salary, they need additional cost to deliver services for hand over of community forest, amendment of operational plan and technical capacity development of the community forest user groups. On the other hand the LRP has no such monthly salary. They worked through the allocation of the cost for the activities. The evidence shows that to amend one operational plan costs about $200 in the form of field DSA, printing, transportation cost etc. If we add the cost of regular payment of the ranger, the LRP completes the activities in 50% of total cost of ranger. In addition, it is found that once trained Local Resource Persons often work voluntarily in their own and neighboring FUGs in coordination with the District Forest Office (LFP, 2009). They worked in their forest even there is no provision of investment. Better linkages between informal and formal education system The Local Resource Persons are representative of community forestry user groups. In one hand they have knowledge gained through their life experiences and through informal interaction with other local people. On the other hand they received training and coaching from the department of forest staff who are equipped scientifically. Therefore, they are better interface between the formal and informal methods of teaching. It has been found that Local Resource Persons tend to more correctly collect data, and District Forest Office staffs tend to be stronger on the calculations. Thus they complement and have much to learn from each other (LFP, 2009). Also, the Local people are more skilled in the social aspects of community forestry. With the training they can balance and combine the social and technical aspects. More acceptances from the forestry user groups The LRP has been considered as the local capacity of the community forest user groups. It is found that in the difficult working environment of the conflict situation the role of Local Resource Persons was recognized as being particularly valuable for reaching areas that the 7

District Forest Office staff could not. Being local they could carry on working and provide a service that would otherwise not exist. Also, they are found to be accessible and approachable to FUG members for support in most of the time The needs and interest of both service providers (LRPs) and service receivers (user groups) has clear linkages in case of service delivery through LRP. They both understand each other. Therefore, the LRPs have more acceptances in community level including from the forest dependant and marginalized users. Better Impart forestry skills to marginalized community The government forest staff considers themselves as highly technical person. They are usually reluctant to visit in rural area and build the capacity of the marginalized community (Helvetas, 2004). On the other hand, the LRPs are found to be accessible and approachable to marginalized community of rural area easily (LFP, 2009). Side by side government staff use scientific and jargon words. In most of the cases they cant brief in local context on the other hand the LRP use identifiable common name to communicate the massage. It is found that among the marginalized sections of the community forestry user groups there is very low levels of community awareness about the provisions made in their plans in which the Ranger made. It is because in one hand they very less visit in such households and on the other hand their definitions and meaning used in the plans arent easily understandable to such community. LRP prepared plans are better implemented The communities in community forestry remains too fragmented and the their plan do often not incorporate communities vital needs, perceptions and potentials with regard to land use planning and integrated forest ecosystem management (GTZ, 2004). However, it was found that local resource persons usually prepare a more equitable constitution and operational plan. Local Resource Person prepared the operational plan with more participation of users and more sites specific information about forest condition (Yadav et all, 2009).

Education through non formal education is people focus therefore, the technical skills strongly related to household and individual-level characteristics (Jha, 1997) while education through formal education forest focus related to tree and land. FUG members better understand their constitutions and operational plans after Local Resource Persons have spent time with members of each household. As a result the plans are better used as guidelines for sustainable forest management.

Such Resource Persons are more sustainable Community forest user groups have established payment system to receive the services of such resource persons. The have created forest development funds to pay the services of Local Resource Persons which have increased local ownership towards them. It is found that CFUGs which is in the condition of commercialization of their forest product pay 100% of cost of plan preparation and its implementation. However, most of the CFUGs pay 25%, on an average, of total cost to receive the services. Local Resource Persons are beginning to organise themselves into organizations and networks to support each other in finding employment and gaining accreditation. They establish norms for hiring their services to FUGs or other institutions such as District Forest Offices and in this way can sustainably provide technical and social services locally to FUGs. A Local Resource Person has established an NGO in Parbat called REEC to support LRPs in finding employment and gaining accreditation. In this way they can sustainably provide technical and social services locally to FUGs.

4.3

Issues and Constraint

Lack of Fund in CFUGs: Many FUGs lack sufficient funds to compensate the Local Resource Persons adequately. Some CFUGs has perception that the Government staff should carry out the technical aspect of the community forestry management. Therefore, their priority of investment goes to the other sectors of plan ie livelihoods improvement and community development activities.

The institutional home of Local Resource Persons: To date FECOFUN district office has been the institutional home of LRPs. However, it is not clear, and as a result they do not get adequate supervision and support. As FECOFUN is the organization for advocacy, its focus maynt be in the technical aspect of community forest management. Therefore, LRPs are forming their own organisaiton to deliver the services. Risk of them migrating: It is difficult to create continuous employment opportunities for trained Local Resource Persons and thus there is a risk of them migrating in search of more secure employment. It is found that some LRPs who were trained as resource person have got opportunities in other NGOs and left the resource persons role. Perceptions of government staff: Some DFO staff are concerned that the LRPs are developed to replace them (Yadav et ell, 200). However, most of the forestry officials in the LFP area are supportive of this LRP approach and LRPs are encouraged to provide services to CFUGs. In some district DFO staff less recognizes the LRPs capacity, services and inputs. Business or non-profit making Services: The local resource person to date has been providing in both profit and non-profit making services to the community forestry user groups. However, there issue how it can be diverted toward business. How we can make CFUGs capable to pay their services.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Preparation of field level forestry professional through developing the Local Resource Person by non-formal education in community forestry practices seems alternative mechanism to develop human resources. It can respond the diversified and changing needs of the diverse community forestry user groups. Education through non formal education is people focus and therefore technical skills strongly related to household and individual-level characteristics of the groups while education through formal education forest focus related to tree and land. So, future conservation strategies should promote education programs designed to affect peoples knowledge, awareness, attitudes, and behaviors toward natural resources (Jacobson

10

& McDuff, 1998). It shows that sustainable development and mobilization of such resource person following aspect should consider. Involvement of private sectors: It seems sustainable in establishing field level forestry institute to produce community forestry professional. Introducing an element of competition and choice of services by various agencies private sector consultants, NGOSP and government contribute also to alter power relationship and the local economy by creating more employment opportunities through private, NGO and government sector (NSCFP, 2007). Making CFUGs capable to pay: The sustainability of LRPs depends upon the capability of CFUGs by which they can to pay the services of them. There are potentialities of the groups because there is higher demands of forest product in the market to increase the fund of the groups. Therefore, commercialization of forestry sectors needs to be increased by which they can bye the service from such resources. Restructuring the formal education: The role forestry technical person educated formally through forestry institute should focus on the capacity development of Local Resource Person in community forestry programme. Making CTEVT wider: The CTEVT (Council of technical and vocational training) has been focusing more on the heath and agriculture sector of the country. Its role should broadened and the conducive environment for them should be developed.

11

References BK, N.K. (2003).Technical training for non forester: a case of Livelihoods and Forestry Programme Parbat. LFP, Parbat

COFSUN(2010).SkilltestsysteminNepal.Availableatttp://cofsun.org.np/stest.php.Downloaded in12Novemebr,2010.
Dimopoulos, D.I., and Pantis, J.D. (2003): Knowledge and attitudes regarding sea turtles in elementary students on Zakynthos, Greece. The Journal of Environmental Education. 34(3): 3038. FECOFUN (2003): Paper of fourth national council. FECOUN central committee, Kathmandu German Development Cooperation (2004): Community Based Forest Management Experiences from 25 Years of German Technical Cooperation. GTZ Helvetas (2004): Local Resource Person: Community Technician: Learning and sharing series-3. Helvetas Nepal Jacobson, S.K., and McDuff, M.D. (1998): Conservation education. in Conservation and action ( In W.J. Sutherland Eds.). UK: Blackwell Science. pp. 237255. Jha, L.K. and Shen-Sharma, P.K. (1997): publication Corporation, New Delhi A manual of forestry extension education. APH

Keinath, S.D. (2004): Environmental Education and Perception in Eastern Nepal: Analysis of Student Drawing . MSc Thesis. Michigan Technological University. LFP (2004): Innovations for Sustainable Services: Training local people in forestry techniques. Livelihoods and forestry programme, Nepal LFP (2009): Innovations in Forestry that Support the Poor- Sharing Experiences of the Livelihoods and Forestry Programme. Livelihoods and Forestry Programme, Nepal MOFSC (2010): CFUG Database Record available in MIS. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. Nepal NSCFP (2007): The Multi-Partnership Approach: NSCFP Experiences of working with Multiple Partners. Issue Paper No. 4. Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project Pokharel, B.K. (2007). Forestry sector: problem, issues and learning. FECOFUN, Nepal Ruiz-Mallen, I. , Barraza, L., Bodenhorn, B. and Reyes-Garca, V. (2009): School and local environmental knowledge, what are the links? A case study among indigenous adolescents in Oaxaca, Mexico. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 18( 2); 8296 Yadav, N.P., Yadav K.P., Yadav, K. K. and Thapa, N. (2009): Facilitating the Transition from Passive to Active Community Forest Management: Lessons from Rapti Zone, Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood. 8(2): 51-66 Zahawi, R. A and Moll, K.D (2010): Bridging the Gap between Scientific Research and Tropical Forest Restoration: A Multifaceted Research, Conservation, Education, and Outreach Program in Southern Costa Rica. Ecological Restoration. 28(2): 143-145

12

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FORESTRY EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOR THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION (FORED) in Manila, Philippines, from November 23-25, 2010

13