There is no single solution which will lead to simpler FMPs for CFMs. FMPs should be purpose-built and used as an enabling forest management and (where appropriate) business tool. Although in practice plans for livelihood-oriented forest management have been more successfully simplified than those for enterprise-oriented forest management this should not be seen as a standard. Opportunities exist for all types of FMP to be significantly simpler than those currently being produced, or those which are required by legislation, at present. The most suitable level of complexity should be defined according the capacity and needs of the collective forest managers rather than according to any historical or imposed formats. The broad guiding principles for preparing simpler FMPs can be applied to a range of different forest and socio-economic situations with benefits both in terms of sustainable forest management, and livelihood improvement and the socio-economic status of forest dependent communities.
FMP preparation is an important opportunity for an interactive process leading to more equitable management and use of forests within local societies. Forest extension services need to play a key role in this process as facilitators, communicators and technicians assisting local communities to develop their forest management capacity leading to resource sustainability, social & institutional sustainability, technical sustainability and market sustainability.
Iterative processes, experiments and learning-by-doing among CFMs and communities are crucial for establishing equitable and objective-led local forest management and governance mechanisms driven by CFMs themselves. Policies need to provide space for local institutions to experiment through more locally appropriate legal provisions. Sufficient time should be given to communities for this learning and planning period. However, policy changes need to be much wider than simply providing for FMPs at an appropriate level of simplification. In particular, they need to include provisions for better services frontline staff and the associated organizational changes needed to achieve this.
Community based forest management rests on the principle of local forest-governance ingrained in the values and institutions which local people trust. Part of building such trust involves better communication in order to transfer management planning rights over resources to collective forest managers – party of the process of “turning ‘participation’ into citizenship” (Brown et al, 2002). Simpler FMPs can help to build this level of trust and ensure that the potential benefits from collective forest management can be realized.
The following actions are suggested in order to facilitate simpler FMPs for collective forest management:
What communities and community-based institutions could do:
• allow plan preparation processes to become vehicles for discussions on stakeholder participation; local forest governance; negotiation of local powers and controls; pro-poor benefits and appropriate local democracy;
• define responsibility-, benefit- and risk-sharing mechanisms based on local concepts of equity and justice;
• carry out experiments to improve capacity through learning and information sharing;
• cultivate a business consciousness in community-based forest enterprises; and
• evaluate the effectiveness and equity of forest management through regular monitoring and reflection.
What frontline support institutions (e.g. Forest Department, NGOs and projects) could do:
• provide and coordinate appropriate technical advisory services especially in multiple–objective forest management and business planning;
• link CFMs with wide range of services such as marketing support, micro-credit and other company-community collaboration;
• facilitate group learning and experiments in communities;
• offer a facilitation and negotiation service as part of the forest management plan preparation process and establish a system for checks and balances in this through third-party monitoring, public reporting and civic education;
• carefully analyse political aspects of local CBFM. Support disadvantaged groups with selective coalition building and strategic information;
• improve personal and institutional capacity for service provision;
• introduce new organizational arrangements which support better service delivery by frontline staff; and
• strengthen capacity to monitor and cross-check the performance of CBFM.
What policy-makers could do:
• reduce legal barriers regarding FMPs. Make legal provisions specifically tailored to both livelihood-oriented and forest-enterprise oriented collective forest management based on simple environmental and social standards in place of full forest inventories and concepts such as annual allowable cut;
• allow for sufficient time for an effective FMP preparation process to take place by not imposing external targets or controls;
• provide secure land tenure and forest management rights to successful CFMs;
• provide legislation facilitating company-community collaboration;
• support forest departments in organizational changes; and
• establish feedback – feed-down mechanisms for iterative forest policy revision.
Analog Forestry Network (1997): Analog Forestry Manual, Falls Brook Centre, New Brunswick, Canada.
Arnold, M. (2002): Identifying links between forests and poverty, ECTF/IIED Forestry and Poverty Reduction Workshop, Edinburgh, 13 June 2002.
Balasubramanian, A. (1999): Testing Classical Indian Knowledge, COMPAS Magazine – February 1999, p.p. 26-27, ETC Ecoculture, Leusden, The Netherlands.
Barandun, A. (2001): More Accountability of Extension Providers through Financial Reforms and Service Markets, A Summary of Our Internet Debate in the Year 2000, Berater Innen News 1/2001, p.p. 9-15, Landwirtschaftliche Beratungszentrale CH-8315 Lindau.
Bass, S., Balogun, P., Mayers, J., Dubois, O., Morrison, E. and Howard, B. (1998): Institutional change in public sector forestry: A review of the issues, IIED Forestry and Land Use Series No. 12, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Becker, A. and Goldman, E. (2001): The challenge of risk management within Analog Forestry interventions, Sustainable Development International Edition 3, pp 73- 77.
Branney P. (1994) : “Thumb rules” for assessing the sustainability of harvesting by forest user groups. Nepal-UK Community Forestry project, Kathmandu
Branney, P., Malla, Y.B., Bhattarai, B. and Tamrakar, P.R. (2001): Innovative forestry: A synthesis of small-scale forest management practice from Nepal, A field worker’s guidebook for supporting community forest management, Livelihoods and Forestry Programme (HMGN/DFID), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Brown, D., Schreckenberg, K., Shepherd, G. and Wells, A. (2002): Forestry as an entry point for governance reform, ODI Forestry Briefing, Number1, April 2002, Overseas Development Institute, UK.
Brunt R. S. (2001): Applications of participatory research in the development of the Arabuko-Sokoke joint forest management plan - a model for Kenya’s forestry sector. MSc Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, UK
Centeno, J.C. (1995): Destrucción de reservas forestales en Venezuela, available at http://www.metla.fi/archive/forest/1995/10/msg00241.html.
Chidley, L. (edited by Marr, C., 2002): Forests, People and Rights,. Down to Earth, International Campaign for Ecological Justice in Indonesia, Special Report, June 2002, available at http://dte.gn.apc.org/srfin.htm.
Djeumo, A. (2001): The development of community forests in Cameroon: origins, current situation and constraints, Rural Development Forestry Network, network paper 25b, ODI.
Donnelly-Roark, P., Ouedraogo, K. and Ye, X. (2001): Can local institutions reduce poverty? Rural decentralization in Burkina Faso, Environmental and Social Development Unit, Africa Region, World Bank.
Dubois, O and Lowore, J. (2000): The ‘journey towards’ collaborative forest management in Africa: Lessons learned and some ‘navigational aids’ – An overview. IIED Forestry and Land Use Programme Series No15, July 2000.
Edmunds, D. and Wollenberg, E. (2001): Historical perspectives on forest policy change in Asia – An introduction, Environmental History, April 2001.
Edmunds, D. and Wollenberg, E. (2002): Disadvantaged groups in multi-stakeholder negotiations, CIFOR Programme Report, June 2002, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
FAO (2000): Proceedings of the international workshop on community forestry in Africa, Participatory forest management: a strategy for sustainable forest management in Africa, Forests, Trees and People Programme.
FAO (2001): How forests can reduce poverty, Policy brief prepared for policy makers, Forest Policy and Institution Service, FAO, Rome.
Fomete, T. (2000) Communautés et gestion de la faune au Cameroun. Rapport au DFID Cameroun/CFDP, avril 2000.
Gilmour, D.A. and Fisher R.J. (1991): Villagers, forests and foresters: The philosophy, process and practice of community forestry in Nepal, Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu.
Gonese, G. (1999): The Three Worlds, COMPAS Magazine – February 1999, p.p. 20-22, ETC Ecoculture, Leusden, The Netherlands.
Haverkort, B. and Hiemstra, W. (eds) (1999): Food for Thought: Ancient Visions and New Experiments of Rural People, COMPAS, p.p. 237, Zed Books, London, available at http://www.sustdev.org/explore/forestry/articles/edition3.shtml.
Hilhorst, T. and Coulibaly, A. (1998): Elaborating a local convention for managing village woodlands in southern Mali, Issue paper no. 78, Dec. 1998, Drylands Programme, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Hountondji, P. J. (2001): Tempting traditions: Internal debate needed in traditional cultures, COMPAS Magazine - March 2001, p.p.12-13, ETC Ecoculture, Leusden, The Netherlands.
Kaimowitz, D. and Ribot, J. (2002): Services and infrastructure versus natural resource management; Building a base for democratic decentralization, Conference on decentralization and the environment, Bellagio, Italy, 18-22 February, 2002, World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.
Kant, S. and Cooke, R. (1998): Case study on JFM in Madhya Pradesh, International Workshop on Community-Based Natural Resource Management, Washington D.C., May 1998.
Lecup, I. and Nicholson, K. (2000): Community-based tree and forest product enterprises: Market Analysis and Development, Forests, Trees and People Programme, FAO, Rome.
Lele, S. (2000): Godsend, sleight of hand, or just muddling through: joint water and forest management in India, Natural resource perspectives No 53, ODI, UK.
Lindayati, R. (2000): Community forestry policies in selected Southeast Asian countries, CBNRM Programme Initiative, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.
Lindsay, J. (1998): Designing legal space: Law as an enabling tool in community-based management, Plenary presentation, International CBNRM Workshop, Washington D.C., 10-14 May 1998.
Lindsay, J. (2002): Is participation a poor excuse for democracy? Lessons from the forest sector, Meeting summary: Rethinking ‘good governance’ (2), 12th March 2002, ODI, http://www.odi.org.uk/speeches/envgov2002/meeting2.html
Maharjan M. R. (1998) Yield regulation techniques for community forestry management in Nepal: Some constraints and opportunities. Paper presented at International Seminar on Cultivating forests: Alternative practices and techniques for community forestry Sept. 1998, RECOFTC, Bangkok
Makarabhirom, P. and Raintree, J. (1999): Comparison of Village Forestry Planning Models Used in Laos, The Lao Swedish Forestry Program, Department of Forestry, Lao PDR, Report of the Consultants, Feb. 1999.
Malla, Y. (2001): Changing policies and the persistence of patron-client relations in Nepal – Stakeholders’ Responses to changes in forest policies, Environmental History, April 2001.
Malla, Y., Barnes, R., Paudel, K., Lawrence, A., Ojha, H., and Green, K. (2002): Common property forest resource management in Nepal: Developing Monitoring systems for use at the local level, NRSP Project 7514, Developing Monitoring Process and Indicators for Forest Management in Nepal, A report prepared by IRDD, University of Reading, UK in collaboration with Forest Action, Nepal and ECI, University of Oxford, UK.
Malla, Y. B. Neupane H. R. and Branney P. (2003) Why aren’t the poor benefiting more from community forestry? Journal of Forest and Livelihood 3 (1) July 2003.
Mayers, J. and Bass, S. (1999): Policy that works for forests and people, Policy that works for forests and people series no.7, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Mayers, J., and Vermeulen, S. (2002): Company-community forestry partnerships: From raw deals to mutual gains?, Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry series, International Institute for Environment and Development.
Messer, N. (2001): Decentralisation and devolution of forest resources management: status of experiences in the world, lessons learnt and challenges to be met - An analytical diagnosis based on a literature review, Study prepared for Forests, Trees and People Programme, Forest Policy and Institution Service, FAO, Rome, September 2001.
Miagostovich, M. (2002): Forest Management Learning Group – Facilitator’s field manual, Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC), Bangkok.
Miagostovich, M. and Triraganon, R. (2001): Training workshop on Farmers’ Forest Management School for field level facilitators, Yen Chau, Son La Province, Vietnam, 8-18 January 2001, RECOFTC.
Millar, D. (1999): From T&V to Learning about Cosmovision, COMPAS Magazine – February 1999, p.p. 7-9, ETC Ecoculture, Leusden, The Netherlands.
Nepal-Swiss Community Forestry Project (2001): Participatory inventory guidelines for non-timber forest products. NSCFP, Kathmandu, Nepal
Pacheco, P. (2001): Bolivia, country profile for the forum on “The role of forestry in poverty alleviation”, FAO.
Pacheco, P. (2002): Decentralización y reformas a la política forestal en Bolivia: Implicaciones para las poblaciones locales y los bosques (borrador).
Poffenberger, M. (ed.) (2000): Communities and forest management in Southeast Asia: A regional profile of the working group on community involvement in forest management, IUCN.
Rathore B. M. S. and Campbell J. Y. (1994): Evolving forest management systems: Innovating with planning and silviculture. In “New voices in Indian Forestry” pp 3-35, ed. J. V. S. Kurup, Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development, New Delhi, India
Recknagel A. B. (1913) The theory and practice of working plans. John Wily and sons, London
Ribot, J. (2001 draft): Local actors, powers and accountability in African decentralisations: A review of issues, Prepared for IDRC, To be published by United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), available at http://www.odi.org.uk/speeches/envgov2002/ribot/Ribot_local_actors.pdf.
Ritchie, B., McDougall, C., Haggith, M. and Burford de Oliveira, N. (2000): Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Community Managed Forest Landscapes, CIFOR, Bogor.
Schindele, W. and Lux, M. (2001): Forest management planning: Guidelines for community based forest management, Social Forestry Development Project, Sanggau, West-Kalimantan
SEMARNAT (N.D.): Nuevo San Juan, Parangaricutiro Michoacán, Secretaria De Medio Ambiente Y Recursos Naturales, Mexico, available at http://www.semarnat.gob.mx/regiones/nuevo-san-juan/index.shtml.
Shepherd, D. (1998): The Extension – Client Boundary, Unpublished class notes, Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Department, University of Reading.
Suryanarayan, J. and Kothari, A. (N.D): Jardhargaon – self-initiated conservation, Kalpavriksh, Pune, India.
Tanaka, H. (2001): The new paradigm for the community forestry research and the implication to the extension system: Lessons learned from “Farmer Forest Management School”, Paper prepared for International Workshop “Participatory Technology Development and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Land Use in Southeast Asia”, 6-7 June 2001, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
WRI (1998): All That Glitters is Not Gold: Balancing Conservation and Development in Venezuela's Frontier Forests, Forests Frontiers Initiative, World Resource Institute, available at http://www.wri.org/wri/ffi/atg-eng/atg-toc.htm.
References to laws, legislation and management plans
• Manual of the procedures for the attribution, and norms for the management, of community forest (1998): Ministry of the Environment and Forestry
• Document de la convention de gestion, La forêt communautaire de Moangue Le Bosquet
• Document de la convention de gestion, La forêt communautaire de Koungoulou
Forest Bill (1998)
• Field Manual on Community Forestry Start-up and Implementation (1999): Community Forestry Unit, Forest Department
• Detail Five-Year Management Plan (name of the village withheld)
• Lei de florestas e fauna bravia (2002): Direcção Nacional de Florestas e Fauna Bravia, Ministério da Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural
• Política e estratégia de desenvolvimento de florestas e fauna bravia (1999): Direcção Nacional de Florestas e Fauna Bravia, Ministério de Agricultura e Pescas
• Land Law (No 19/97, of 1 October)
• Decreto No12/2002 (2002), Conselho De Ministros
• Plano de maneio comunitário dos recursos florestais e faunísticos de Narini (2001): Projecto FAO GCP/MOZ/056/NET
• Plano de maneio comunitário dos recursos florestais e faunísticos de Goba (2002): Projecto FAO GCP/MOZ/056/NET
• La Loi No 98-164
• National Forest Policy (1998)
• Forest Resource Management and Conservation Act (No.10 of 1996) (Zanzibar)
• Community-based Forest Management Guidelines (2001): Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism
• Establishment of a community forest (the source not confirmed)
• Forestry Extension Division (2002). Private forestry manual for DzFOs and DFOs. Department of Forest Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan (2nd Draft)
• Forestry Extension Division (2003) Community Forestry Manual, Department of Forest Services, Wang Watershed Management Project, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan (draft)
• Forestry Law (2001, Draft)
• Sub-Decree on Community Forestry (2002, official final draft)
• Guidelines for strengthening joint forest management in India. Letter circulated by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to all State Forestry Departments (2000)
• The State Forest Policy (2002, draft), The State of Chhattisgarh
• Uttaranchal Panchayti Forest Rules (2001)
• Training course on procedures for registering village forestry associations, approving village forest management plans, and signing village forest management contracts (1998): Forest Management and Conservation Programme (FOMACOP), Forest management Sub-programme, Training Guide Series no.13
• Village forest management annexes, FOMACOP
• Participatory land use planning and land allocation: Manual (edition 2) (2001): Lao-Swedish Forestry Programme
• Procedures and methods for land use planning and land allocation: Technical Booklet 1 (2001): Lao-Swedish Forestry Programme
• Preparing participatory village forest and agricultural land management agreements: Technical Booklet 2 (2001): Lao-Swedish Forestry Programme
• Community Forestry Instructions (N.D.)
• Forestry policy guidelines, Forestry Sector of the Watershed project (MYA/99/007)
• Appropriate forestry practices, Forestry Sector of the Watershed project (MYA/99/007)
• Forest Act 2049 (1993)
• Forest Regulation 2051 (1995)
• Guidelines for inventory of community forests (2000). Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.
• DENR Administrative Order No.96-29 (1996): Rules and regulations for the implementation of Executive Order 263, otherwise known as the Community-Based Forest Management Strategy, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• DENR Administrative Order No.22 (1993): Revised Guidelines for Community Forestry Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• DENR Administrative Order No. 2000-29 (2000): Guidelines regulating the harvesting and utilization of forest products within Community Based Forest Management Areas, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• DENR Memorandum Circular No.97-12 (1997): Guidelines for the formulation of community resource management framework and annual work plan for Community Based Forest Management Areas, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• DENR Memorandum Circular No. 97-13 (1997): Adopting the DENR Strategic Action Plan for Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM), Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• Circular No.56/1999/TT-BNN-KL of March 30, 1999 Guiding the elaboration of the convention on protecting and developing
• Conceptos básicos para la presentación de proyectos enforma individual (2001): Resolución No. 22/2001, Dirección de Forestación
• Ley De Inversiones Para Bosques Cultivados (1999): Ley 25.080, Dirección de Forestación
• Inversiones Para Bosques cultivados (1999): Decreto 133/99, Dirección de Forestación
• Resolución 168/2000 (2000): Dirección de Forestación
• Registro del diagnostico inicial del predio de productor o grupo/Inventario inicial de las actividades productivas del productor (N.D.): FORM-PPCP 1, Dirección de Forestación
• Normas tecnicas para la elaboración de instrumentos de manejo forestal (censos comerciales, planes de manejo, planes operativos y mapas) en propiedades privadas con superficies iguales o menores a 200 hectareas en zonas tropicales y subtropicales (1997): Resolución Ministerial No 132/97, Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente.
• Normas tecnicas para la elaboración de instrumentos de manejo forestal comercial (inventarios, planes de manejo, planes operativos, mapas) en tierras comunitarias de origen (1997), Resolución Ministerial No 136/97, Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente.
• Reglamento General De La Ley Forestal (1996): Decreto Supremo 24453
• Instructivo técnico – operativo OL SCZ – 006/2000 (2000): Procedimientos para la autorización de aprovechamiento forestal para pequeños propietarios, Superintendencia Forestal, Santa Cruz
• Procedimientos para autorixación de manejo forestal y/o aprovechamiento de arboles individuales en superficies menores o iguales a 3 ha (N.D.)
• Instrução Normativa No 4, De 4 De Março De 2002, Gabinete Do Ministro
• Portaria No. 29, de 26 de abril de 1996, IBAMA
• Norma de manejo aplicable al tipo forestal siempreverde (corta de regeneración) (N.D.): Corporación Nacional Forestal (CONAF)
• Estudio tipo de acreditación de ejecucion de actividades de forestación para pequeños propietarions forestales (N.D.), CONAF
• Estudio tipo de reconosimiento de suelos forestables para paqueños propietarios forestales (N.D.), CONAF
• Estudio tipo de calificación de terrenos de aptitud preferentemente forestal para pequeños propietarios forestales (N.D.), CONAF
• Plan de manejo forestal (name of the forest owner with held) (2001), elaborated by Manejo Tecnico Ambiental S.A.
• Acuerdo Número 84-99 (1999): Formato plan de manejo, hasta 5 hectáreas, Coníferas, Instituto Nacional de Bosques (INAB)
• Acuerdo Número 83-99 (1999): Formato plan de manejo, mayor a 5 hasta 15 hectáreas, Conífera, Instituto Nacional de Bosques (INAB)
• Acuerdo Número 85-99 (1999): Formato plan de manejo. mayor a 15 y hasta 45 hectáreas, Conífera, Instituto Nacional de Bosques (INAB)
• Acuerdo Número 86-99 (1999): Formato plan de manejo. hasta 45 hectáreas, Latifoliada, Instituto Nacional de Bosques (INAB)
• Acuerdo Número 88.99 (1999): Formatos para planes operativos, Instituto Nacional de Bosques (INAB)
• Acuerdo Número 54-2001 (2001): Formato plan de manejo de mangle, Instituto Nacional de Bosques (INAB)
• Manual para la Elaboración de Planes de Manejo Forestal en Bosques de Coníferas (modelo centroamericano) (2001), INAB
• Modelo simplificado de Planes de Manejo para Bosques Naturales Latifoliados en Guatemala (1996), Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas (CONAP)
• Plan general de manejo (N.D.): CATIE, Costa Rica
• Reglamento De La Ley Forestal (1997), Secretaria De Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales Y Pesca
• Ley No 422 Forestal (N.D.)
• Decreto No 11.681 (1978): “Por la cual se reglamenta La Ley No 422 – Forestal”
• Resolución SFN INT No 07/2002 (2002): “Por la cual se reglamenta la elaboración y presentación de los planes de manejo forestal”, Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia
• Guía breve para el manejo del bosque nativo en el Paraguay (N.D.), Servicio Forestal Nacional
Suggested contents of a simpler forest management plan for collective forest management
Administrative and background information
• Location of the forest, villages and administrative information
• Cadastral information of the forest
• Other relevant background information on the forest and local people e.g. brief history of local forest management, population and livelihoods of local people, other social composition of the population (i.e. ethnic groups/castes, religious/linguistic social groupings, immigrants) and the records/evaluation of previous forest management phases if applicable)
Natural resource assessment:
• Simple participatory resource assessment: The result of participatory assessment of forest resources and current land use shown on a sketch map.
• System of blocking or dividing the forest into locally understood management units (shown on a map)
• Forest boundaries: based on resolving any conflicts on land tenure and forest use (indicated on maps)
• Objectives of forest management as agreed during multi-stakeholder negotiation.
• Forest governance system including:
o Forest management institution membership
o Institutional structures e.g. steering committee; treasurer; auditing system; representation system; information-sharing mechanism; decision-making mechanism; benefit and responsibility sharing; internal sanctions and rules; internal accountability assurance mechanism (especially for decision-making and financial management); authority and responsibility of the management body (in relation to other institutions); authority of decisions made by the forest management institution (in relation to other stakeholders); and representation system in relation to other stakeholders
• This information should be presented as a written constitution with special attention should be paid on the preparation, presentation and language of these information if the use of oral codes is a common local practice
o Multi-stakeholder arrangement in the local forest governance framework: primary stakeholders97, secondary stakeholders, roles and responsibilities of each primary stakeholder, authorities/rights of each stakeholder, benefit sharing, coordination mechanism, system for mutual checks and balances system in performance evaluation of each stakeholder.
o Agreement on the basis for operating any community-based enterprises (CBEs) within the collective forest management institution (where appropriate)
• Environmental Criteria and Indicators for guiding the use of forest resources and management based on minimum environmental standards specified in the legislation e.g. crown cover, maximum number of trees felled per ha, restrictions against harvesting on slopes and watershed areas, minimum diameter at breast height for tree felling, a list of species to be protected, cutting techniques to optimize natural regeneration, prohibition of particular silvicultural treatments (e.g. ring barking for apiary, lopping of the trees for the collection of fruits/leaves), regulation on the use of fire and fire control.
• For each identified forest management unit (or block), the specific management objective(s) and the related management activities (table)
• For each identified management unit (or block) a simple treatment plan for the duration of the management plan and including the following e.g. protection system, use and extraction of forest products, forest enrichment activities, control of the unwanted species, experiments, and monitoring.
• These operations should be presented as a simple calendar of activities or using annotated maps indicating the persons responsible for each activity and the time when it is proposed to carry it out.
Business plan (if needed)
The community-based forest enterprise should prepare a business action plan (see Box 14 for an example) covering analysis of:
• Market and economy (see below)
• Resource management and environment (see below)
• Social and institutional issues (see below)
• Science and technology (see below)
• Business action plan (based on the above)
• Potential risks identified
• Capacity building needs identified
• Other support needed
• Financial projections
• Necessary financial services (including loans)
Key areas of analysis98
• Market and economic analysis: demand, competitors, infrastructure, distribution, access to credit (local savings system), market positioning, economic forces and constraints, quality requirements, potential distribution and promotion agencies at different appropriate levels e.g. at district, province, national, and international level
• Resource management and environment analysis: environmental impact, sustainable forest supply, resource management experiences and models, forest inventories, comparative yield studies
• Social and Institutional analysis: access and control of resources, taxes and fees, role of local institutions, seasonal activities, permit application procedures, impact of gender, cultural and social perspective towards a product, policy constraints, regulations, international trade agreement.
• Science and technology analysis: local technology (harvesting, extraction, storage), support services/partners, new technical research, processing, human resources.
97 Primary stakeholders are the ones who actually take responsibilities in forest management and governance and its checks and balance.
98 Based on Lecup and Nicholson (2000)