National Park Management Planning in the South Caucasustjs-caucasus.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/TJS-NPMP...vide a rationale for incorporating an adaptive management process into

Promoting cooperation in nature conservation

National Park Management Planning in the South Caucasus an adaptive, people-centred approach

Draft Guidelines

Important note This document is work in progress which is being coordinated by the Transboundary Joint Secretariat for the Southern Caucasus on behalf of the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, Minis-try of Ecology and Natural Resources of Azerbaijan and Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia and is supported by KfW Development Bank, Germany.

NP Management Planning in the Southern Caucasus. Draft Guidelines.

National Park Management Planning in the Southern Cauca-sus – Draft Guidelines published by the Transboundary Joint Secretariat for the Southern Caucasus in the framework of the BMZ/KfW Ecoregional Programme for the Southern Cau-casus.


i

Preface

This document is an output from the Ecoregional Programme for the Southern Caucasus. This Programme is carried out within the bilateral cooperation between the German Fed-eral Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, KfW Development Bank and the countries of the Southern Caucasus. The Transboundary Joint Secretariat1 coordinates implementation of the Programme in cooperation with the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia, Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Azerbaijan and Ministry of Envi-ronment Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia.

The Programme is supporting the creation of three new national parks – in the Samur-Yalama region of Azerbaijan and around Lake Arpi in Armenia and in the Javakheti region of Georgia. One of the Joint Secretariat’s tasks is to provide guidance to the national park implementation teams on management planning including participatory land use plan-ning and range land management planning. This document is intended to provide that guidance.

As a step towards preparing the document, the Joint Secretariat carried out an assess-ment of current approaches to national park management planning in the region. Con-sultants hired on behalf of the Joint Secretariat visited the region in January, February and March 2008. Through workshops, key informant interviews and by studying man-agement plans and other documents the Consultants obtained information about the cur-rent legal and institutional frameworks of the three countries and actual practice in management planning for national parks. They then contrasted current approaches in the region with internationally accepted good practice, for example IUCN’s guidelines for the management of protected areas and lessons from the management of national parks in other regions.

The Consultants’ assessment of current approaches in the region identified in particular a need to strengthen the adaptive character of management and to put greater emphasis on co-management of those natural resources, the conservation of which are the reason for a national park’s designation. Those two aspects of management are at the heart of the guidance in this document.

The document is intended to complement IUCN’s guidelines on protected areas manage-ment planning and to fit with international policies and conventions including the Millen-nium Development Goals (MDG), Convention on the Conservation of Biodiversity (CBD), UNESCO World Heritage, Ramsar Convention, Bonn Convention and the Berne Conven-tion. It also introduces a number of concepts and principles that will need to be adopted should biosphere reserves become an additional component of the protected areas sys-tem in the region.

The guidance has no legal force and is “work in progress”. It will be tested during the implementation of the three national parks and adapted and improved in the light of les-sons learned by the implementation teams.

Transboundary Joint Secretariat for the Southern Caucasus Baku, Tbilisi and Yerevan May 2008

1 The Transboundary Joint Secretariat is managed through a consortium consisting of Österreichische Bundes-forste(ÖBf) AG, Austria and GITEC Consult GmbH, Germany


ii


iii

Contents

Preface............................................................................................. i

Acronyms ........................................................................................ v

1 Introduction .............................................................................. 1

1.1 Why these guidelines?.................................................................................... 1

1.2 How the guidelines are structured.................................................................... 1

1.3 Terminology.................................................................................................. 1

1.4 Regional context............................................................................................ 2

1.5 Adaptive, people centred management............................................................. 3 1.5.1 Adaptive management ..................................................................................... 3 1.5.2 Participation.................................................................................................... 3

1.6 Capacity of protected areas agencies................................................................ 4

2 Purpose and content of a management plan .................................. 5

2.1 Purpose of the management plan..................................................................... 5

2.2 Territorial scope of the management plan ......................................................... 6

2.3 Structure and content of the management plan ................................................. 6

2.4 Detailed content of the management plan......................................................... 7 2.4.1 Description ..................................................................................................... 7 2.4.2 Vision............................................................................................................. 8 2.4.3 Zoning plan .................................................................................................... 8 2.4.4 Objectives and Strategic Actions........................................................................ 8 2.4.5 Monitoring plan ............................................................................................... 9

3 Preparing a management plan ................................................... 11

3.1 Facing up to complexity, change and incomplete information .............................11 3.1.1 Applying adaptive management to deal with complexity, change and incomplete

information....................................................................................................13 3.1.2 Relevance of an adaptive management approach................................................13

3.2 Steps in preparing a management plan ...........................................................13

3.3 Preparation for planning ................................................................................16 3.3.1 Pre-planning ..................................................................................................16 3.3.2 Initial data gathering and analysis ....................................................................16

3.4 Planning ......................................................................................................17 3.4.1 Developing the Vision......................................................................................17 3.4.2 Defining zones ...............................................................................................18 3.4.3 Developing objectives and strategic actions .......................................................20 3.4.4 Developing a monitoring plan...........................................................................22

3.5 Involving resource users................................................................................24 3.5.1 Sharing authority and responsibility with users...................................................24

4 Putting the management plan into action .................................... 27

4.1 Operational planning – main principles............................................................27

4.2 From management plan to operational plan .....................................................27

5 Development Planning for Support Zone Communities. ................. 31

5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................31


iv

5.2 The planning context.....................................................................................31 5.2.1 Land resource management problems: symptoms and causes..............................31 5.2.2 Participatory planning for community-based natural resource management ...........32 5.2.3 Community development approach ...................................................................32 5.2.4 Farming systems approach ..............................................................................33 5.2.5 Rangeland management planning .....................................................................33 5.2.6 Overall approach and scope of planning.............................................................34 5.2.7 Planning guidelines .........................................................................................34

5.3 Farming systems and rangeland management participatory planning ..................34 5.3.1 Key planning principles....................................................................................34 5.3.2 Rangeland planning approach and specific issues................................................35 5.3.3 Participatory planning: overview, approaches, methods and outputs .....................37 5.3.4 Planning activities...........................................................................................40

5.4 Farming systems and rangeland management implementation and monitoring and evaluation ...................................................................................................42 5.4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................42 5.4.2 Farming systems and rangeland component activities .........................................42 5.4.3 Appropriate training and extension materials .....................................................45 5.4.4 Training.........................................................................................................46 5.4.5 Monitoring and evaluation; revised plans...........................................................47 5.4.6 Village rangeland management plan and agreements..........................................47 5.4.7 Community development plans ........................................................................48 5.4.8 Project documentation ....................................................................................48

References..................................................................................... 50

Annexes Annex 1: Some commonly used participatory planning tools

Annex 2: Circumstance affecting a farmer’s choices of enterprises and technology

Annex 3: Steps in implementing participatory FSD

Annex 4: Ecological management model

Annex 5: Catchment management – land use types

Annex 6: Using rangeland images for focused farmer group discussions

Annex 7: Examples of flip charts for animal husbandry development options

Annex 8: Example of on-farm demonstration leaflet

Annex 9: Example of extensions note


v

Acronyms

APBP Action Plan for Biodiversity Preservation

BMZ Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development)

FSD Farming Systems Development

GEF Global Environment Facility

GIS Geographical Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

IBH Important Habitats for Birds

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, KfW Entwicklungsbank (German Develop-ment Bank)

KIS Key Informant Surveys

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NP National Park

PA Protected Areas

PEEN Pan European Ecological Network

PLUP Participatory Land Use Planning

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

PTDP Protected Territories Development Project

QFRMP Qinghai Forest Resource Management Project (Qinghai Project, China)

RDB Red Data Book

RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal

SAP Strategic Action Plan

SMME Small, medium and micro sized enterprise

SNR State Natural Reserve

SNR Strict Nature Reserve

SPNT Specially Protected Natural Territory

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

TJS Transboundary Joint Secretariat for the Southern Caucasus

WB World Bank

WCU World Conservation Union



1

1 Introduction

1.1 Why these guidelines?

The three South Caucasus countries, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, are establishing new national parks with financial assistance from the Government of Germany through KfW Development Bank. These three projects will increase significantly the area legally protected for nature conservation in the three countries.

The new national parks are components of the BMZ/KfW Nature Conservation Programme for the Southern Caucasus. The Programme aims at the protection of the rich biodiversity of the region and promotes and supports collaboration between the three countries in nature conservation. Programme implementation is coordinated by the Transboundary Joint Secretariat for the Southern Caucasus (TJS).

The guidelines set out in this document have been prepared for the purpose of assisting the three national park projects with the task of preparing management plans. They draw from the generic guidelines for protected areas management planning published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and add to them to make them more relevant to the specific challenges and requirements of the region.

The three national park projects will act as testing houses for the guidelines. Lessons learned from those projects will be used to improve the guidelines so that they might be adopted into the three countries’ formal procedures.

1.2 How the guidelines are structured

In the rest of this chapter we define certain terms which we use in the document, we dis-cuss the regional context in which the guidelines will be applied and introduce and pro-vide a rationale for incorporating an adaptive management process into management planning and involving communities, users and other actors in that process. We conclude the chapter with a short discussion about capacity for carrying out management plan-ning.

In chapter 2 we explain the purpose of the management plan and describe its content. In chapter 3 we describe the process of preparing a management plan, explain adaptive management in more detail and provide guidance on identifying the users of resources in the protected area and support zone who should participate in management planning.

Chapter 4 describes the process of preparing an operational plan to achieve the objec-tives of the management plan.

Chapter 5 provides guidance for developing an action programme for the support zone around a national park, including farm development programmes and rangeland man-agement programmes.

1.3 Terminology

Different practitioners use different words to describe the same components of the man-agement plan and the planning process. This can lead to confusion about the meaning of words. In this document we consistently use the same words to describe certain key components except when we quote directly from other sources.


2

• Vision. A description of the desired state or condition of the national park and its support zone many years into future.

• Programme. A broad topic or theme under which Objectives and Strategic Ac-tions are grouped.

• Objective. An outcome at which the management team is aiming during the life of the management plan.

• Strategic action. The intervention or set of interventions which the man-agement team will make to achieve an Objective.

• Activity. A concrete step taken by the national park administration as part of an intervention.

1.4 Regional context

The most widely accepted definition of a national park is set out in the International Un-ion for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines for the management of protected areas (IUCN 2003). IUCN categorises protected areas between I2 and VI in order to pro-vide a universally accepted terminology to define types of protected areas systems.

Under IUCN’s classification a national park is classed as a Category II protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation and is defined as:

A “Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integ-rity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visi-tor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.”

Under this definition: • The protection of intact ecosystems is given the highest significance; • The authority to prohibit certain activities is explicit, and; • There is clear recognition of the various use values to society in general.

This generally accepted definition of national parks covers a broad variety of protected areas. While the IUCN Category II classification is useful for international comparison and clarity, the overall guidelines for managing any protected area other than a category I Strict Nature Reserve will essentially follow the same principles. The differences between various national parks are on the whole a reflection of national differences in cultural, government and legislative approaches. The objectives, and therefore the planning proc-ess remain the same.

In the South Caucasus countries the creation of national parks as part of a range of pro-tected areas categories ranging from strictly protected areas (IUCN Category I) to multi-ple use (IUCN Category VI) areas is increasingly being used to accommodate traditional land uses and the conservation of natural values. This approach marks a progressive move towards protected areas and biodiversity management but creates challenges to protected areas administrations. The approach requires considerable conceptual adjust-ments by managers, a breaking down of barriers between protection and utilisation, a rational framework for decision-making and the adaptation of old management tools as well as a greater range of tools for managers to develop innovative management tech-niques.

2 Category I having the strictest controls and regime of management in place


3

To meet the challenges of an expanded protected areas system and the changing nature of the threats to biodiversity it is important to think not in terms of increased protection and regulation, but rather in developing different approaches to the challenges the pro-tected areas will face. Protection measures will always be necessary but policy makers, planners and managers also need to consider rural people as managers of the resources which they use and to acknowledge that the livelihoods of rural people are intricately linked to the management of the natural biological wealth of the region.

1.5 Adaptive, people centred management

This document emphasises two aspects of management planning which are particularly relevant to situations in which managers are working in complex and unpredictable envi-ronments and in which rural communities have traditionally used the natural resources within protected areas. Those two aspects are adaptive management and participation.

1.5.1 Adaptive management

In the past national park management has tended to be protectionist and heavily influ-enced by scientific or technocratic approaches with very specific and short term objec-tives. Modern parks management is moving towards an adaptive management approach that recognises the unpredictability of the biological, social and economic environment in which action has to be planned. Longer time horizons and a multiplicity of drivers of change require an approach in which national park administrations regularly check the assumptions underlying their choice of actions and then make changes in response to an increased understanding of the system of causes and effects which they want to influ-ence.

Adaptive management is a way to avoid lengthy and costly in depth studies and allows managers the flexibility to adapt management strategies and interventions in the light of experience. This is particularly important when the cause of a particular problem or threat may be several steps removed from the symptoms and, as a result, unpredictable. Therefore, protected areas management must be an iterative process; that is, it must constantly keep referring back to the vision and objectives and critically assessing (through a broad spectrum of stakeholders) the impacts of the strategic actions.

A more detailed explanation of adaptive management is provided in Chapter 3.

1.5.2 Participation

National park managers in the southern Caucasus are familiar with the term participation in the sense of involving in some way communities who interact with the park’s re-sources, NGOs and others in the preparation of the park management plan. Often that involvement is limited to consultation. In these guidelines, in particular in Chapter 5 where we present detailed guidance on participatory planning, we emphasise that re-source users - in particular people who depend for their livelihoods on the resources of the national park and its support zone - should be actively involved in preparing the management plan and in subsequent monitoring and revision of the plan. In Chapter 3 we take participation a step further into co-management, in which authority and respon-sibility to conserve resources inside the national park can be conditionally devolved to resource users.


4

1.6 Capacity of protected areas agencies

Adaptive management and participatory planning bring with them new challenges which require particular skills. Protected areas agencies will need to decide whether to develop those skills themselves (either within a centralised unit which provides planning services to all of the protected areas in the country or within each protected area’s administra-tion), or to meet the new challenges through partnerships with external organisations such as NGOs or consulting companies.

Regardless of whether these services are met internally through training and hiring of new staff or outsourced to external organisations it is important that national administra-tions have dedicated members of staff with an appropriate background and training to facilitate the implementation of adaptive management and co-management.


5

2 Purpose and content of a management plan

In this chapter we describe the purpose and content of a management plan for a national

park. We distinguish between the management plan, which gives direction to the national

park administration in the medium term, and the operational plan, in which the national

park administration sets out the activities it will carry out in each of the next two or three

years and the resources needed to carry out those activities. The management plan

should cover the national park and its support zone. It should set out the long term vision

for the national park, define the internal zones of the national park and of the support

zone (if any), set out the objectives of the management and the strategic actions that will

be taken to achieve those objectives. The management plan should include a monitoring

plan, designed to check progress towards the objectives, the effectiveness of the strategic

actions and the assumptions behind the choice of strategic actions.

2.1 Purpose of the management plan

The management plan is the central policy document for the national park and the na-tional park administration. It guides the management of the national park during a period of several years (typically 5) towards a vision for the national park in the longer term (typically 20 years). The management plan provides the basis for the national park ad-ministration to decide what activities to carry out each year and then to set out the ac-tivities in an operational plan together with a budget.

The IUCN’s guidelines for management planning of protected areas note that the man-agement plan may be associated with other plans or documents which derive from it or support it (Box 1). In this document we describe the content of the management plan (this chapter), the process of preparing it (chapter 3) and an operational plan to imple-ment it (chapter 4). We recommend that all of the information which is necessary to guide the management of a national park and to specify activities, budgets and sources of financing should be included in just those two documents.

Some programmes or projects will need to be specified and costed in more detail than can be included in the operational plan, for example: constructing a visitor centre, estab-lishing a hiking trail, implementing a farm development activity, or implementing a train-ing programme for national park staff. They should be listed as programmes or projects together with their budgets in the operational plan.

Some protected areas administrations do choose to include details of financial and opera-tional information in their management plans. However the separation of the detailed activities into an operational plan is less complicated. It allows managers to focus on is-sues within the broad framework of the management plan. Furthermore, the operational plan can then assign authorities and responsibilities amongst the various stakeholders so that co-management is also embedded in the operational plan.

Box 1 - Other plans sometimes associated with management plans

Corporate plans are business plans for the protected area agency which explain how the agency operates, set out its objectives and priorities, and provide a means to measure its perform-ance in relation to these.

Business plans are plans to help the protected area be more financially self-sufficient. They exam-ine the “customer base”, goods and services, marketing and implementation strategy for the protected area.

Zoning plans are produced when different areas or ‘zones’ of a protected area are to be managed


6

in different ways. They identify the boundaries of the zones and contain detail on how each of the zones is to be managed.

Sectoral plans may be required for different management activities, for visitor management and species protection. These are more detailed than the Management Plan, but lead from it – taking their direction from the overall management objectives for the area provided by the Management Plan.

Development plans may be required to guide investment and works affecting a part of the area – for example for particular infrastructure like a visitor centre.

Site management plans. Within larger protected areas, these may be produced for sites within the area that require intensive management, for example, around a major visitor attraction.

Conservation plans. The term is now used mainly in cultural heritage conservation. Thus a conser-vation plan is usually a plan for a heritage building or site, where an owner, manager or de-veloper is planning restoration, conservation, or installation of a modern structure into older fabric.

Communications Plan – Communications is an important part of national parks management and an effective communications plan will greatly facilitate building transparency and trust with policy makers, the wider public and local communities.

Training Plan – Describing the institutional structure, staffing levels and competencies and detail a programme of both induction and career training.

Adapted from IUCN’s guidelines for management of protected areas (IUCN 2003)

2.2 Territorial scope of the management plan

National parks have a support zone around them. The purpose of the support zone is, as its name suggests, to support the objectives of the national park. Usually that means engaging with the people living and working around the park and people using resources in the park with the aim of protecting the conservation values for which the park has been designated and reducing conflicts between the people and the national park admini-stration.

In the past national parks tended to be managed as islands of protection with little or no connection to the economic and social landscape within which they were situated. The importance of the support zone - and of the interaction between the people living there - has been become better understood. The purposes of the two territories are different (the purpose of the national park is to protect nature and natural landscapes, the purpose of the support zone is to contribute to the purpose of the national park) but planning the management of one cannot take place in isolation from the other. The territorial scope of the management plan should therefore include the national park and the support zone.

2.3 Structure and content of the management plan

The structure and some of the content of the management plan varies. It is not the inten-tion of these guidelines to lay down rigid rules. Structure and content are partly a func-tion of custom and practice and of legislation. The structure should make it easy for the reader to understand what the plan contains and how the different parts relate to each other. The content should be sufficient for the purpose of the plan, i.e. to guide the man-agement of the national park and engagement with communities in the support zone and other actors. Essential components of the Management Plan are:

• Description of the national park and its support zone


7

• Long term vision for the national park and its support zone and the rationale for the vision.

• Zoning plan and the rationale for it. • Objectives and strategic actions and the rationale for selecting them. • Monitoring plan, including indicators and the rationale for selecting them.

A summary, and introduction and any information required by law can be added to the essential components.

IUCN’s guidelines on the content of protected areas management plans include an evaluation of the national park’s features of conservation significance and an analysis of threats and opportunities. In this document we integrate the results of the evaluation into the description (2.4.1 below) and the outcome of the analysis of threats and oppor-tunities into the rationales for the vision, zoning plan and objectives and strategic actions (3.4 below).

2.4 Detailed content of the management plan

2.4.1 Description

The descriptive part of the Management Plan presents information about the national park and its support zone. It normally includes a summary account of the features of the area (biodiversity, cultural, historical and socioeconomic) and the regional and interna-tional importance of the values which it will protect, how it is used, and its legal and management framework (see Box 2). It can also include a description of the broader le-gal and institutional frameworks within which the national park operates and references to other relevant policies and plans.

Box 2 – Information which should be included in the description

Corporate information

• Location • Area • IUCN PA category • Legal status • Institutional structure • Administrative structure

Physical-geographic Information

• Climate • Hydrology • Geology

Biological information

• Landscape and habitats • Flora • Fauna

Social and cultural Information

• Settlement and population • Current land use (traditional use, grazing) • Legal ownership, occupancy, tenure, access, other conditions and restrictions • Economical activities

Historical overview

• Archaeology


8

• Historical sites

Adapted from IUCN’s guidelines for the management of protected areas (IUCN 2003)

2.4.2 Vision

The vision is a description of the desired state or condition of the national park and its support zone many years into future (typically 20 years). The vision should be detailed enough to provide a sound basis for developing objectives and strategic actions but con-cise enough that it can be easily grasped and understood by everyone who has an inter-est in the future of the national park (see Box 3 for an example).

Box 3 – Vision statement for Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park

By the year 2015: • The Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park and its support zone will be known as an

outstanding wilderness area which is successfully protected through cooperative management between support zone communities and the protected area man-agement team.

• The protected area has enhanced the economic environment in the planning re-gion that includes the BKNP and its designated support zone and has contributed to rising living standards through an innovative job creation program based on sustainable land use development and environmentally friendly industry.

• The tourism sector has been well established, centred on the numerous natural and cultural/historic attractions in the region.

• The Borjomi-Kharagauli planning region has become a model for progressive land use planning and sustainable development in Georgia.

Adapted from Borjomi-Kharagauli national park management plan (State Department of Protected Areas, Nature Reserves and Hunting Economy 2003)

2.4.3 Zoning plan

The zoning plan defines the boundaries of the internal zones of the national park (and of the support zone if it has been divided into different zones), explains the rationale for the zones and describes specific constraints and conditions in each zone including activities that are prohibited or restricted. Typically a national park will have one or more strict protection zones where all activities apart from scientific study are prohibited (a strict protection zone will usually be legally established as a Strict Nature Reserve), a managed conservation zone in which activities (but not use) are allowed in order to achieve con-servation objectives, and a traditional use zone in which exploitation is allowed within limits decided by the park administration and users.

2.4.4 Objectives and Strategic Actions

This is the part of the Management Plan which describes what the management team will be aiming to achieve during the life of the plan (objectives) and how they intend to achieve it (strategic actions).

It is helpful to organise the objectives and strategic actions under programmes, for ex-ample, conservation programme, visitor programme, administration programme (see Box 4 for some examples). Each programme should have a description so that people can understand its scope, how it contributes to the vision and any critical assumptions which have been made during the design of the programme.


9

Box 4 – Examples of objectives and associated strategic actions

Conservation Programme

Objective 1. Restore alpine pasture in the traditional use zone to improving or positive conser-vation status

Strategic actions

• Protection of specific areas through agreement and fencing where necessary • Imposing a grazing regime through regulations, and; • To reduce conflicts the park will develop alternative livelihoods for the shepherds by pro-

moting ecotourism, and; • To compensate for reduced sheep numbers there will be a programme of adding value to

livestock produce to increase the financial return per grazing unit.

Objective 2. Maintain the conservation value of forest in the traditional use zone

Strategic actions

• Set annual extraction levels and introduce a system to allocate and control quantities in agreement with users.

• Promote and support investment by households and entrepreneurs in more efficient com-bustion systems.

Visitor Programme

Objective 1. Increase income to the national park administration and the local population.

Strategic actions

• Establish and maintain a network of hiking trails, camp sites and overnight shelters. • Establish and maintain a visitor centre to provide information about the national park,

recreation opportunities and accommodation. • Develop a network of local providers of accommodation, guiding, horse trekking and kay-

aking and a system of licensing which distributes income fairly between the national park and the providers.

• Obtain Pan Parks certification.

Administration Programme

Objective 1. Develop a management team with the necessary skills, motivation and discipline to achieve the objectives of the national park.

Strategic actions

• Establish and maintain a transparent and equitable personnel management system. • Provide staff with the equipment they need to carry out their tasks effectively and effi-

ciently. • Provide appropriate training to staff members. • Ensure that staff comply at all times with the national park’s administrative procedures.

2.4.5 Monitoring plan

The monitoring plan lists and explains the rationale for selecting the indicators which the management team will use as the basis for determining success or failure in achieving the objectives of the Management Plan and the reasons for failure. It also describes the sources of information which will be used for monitoring. As we will see in Chapter 3, the process of adaptive management requires some indicators that can be used to test the assumptions behind the selection of management actions.

In developing the indicators in the monitoring plan it will be important to distinguish be-tween performance and impact, in other words the park staff could carry out their duties diligently and to the very best of their abilities but there might be little or no impact on


10

conservation values because they are doing the wrong things because their understand-ing of the system is incomplete.


11

3 Preparing a management plan

In this chapter we describe the process of preparing a management plan using an adap-

tive management approach to deal with the complex and changing array of factors which

influence the conservation and other values of the national park and the absence of com-

plete information. The steps we describe are significantly different from the steps in

IUCN’s guidelines for the management of protected areas (IUCN 2003). These guidelines

focus on the preparation of a management plan and monitoring plan, and in the next

chapter an operational plan; IUCN’s guidelines describe the entire cycle of planning,

monitoring and review. In keeping with the adaptive management approach we have

added the step of developing a conceptual model of the factors influencing the state of

the national park and its support zone. We describe how to select monitoring indicators

which are derived logically from the objectives and strategic actions and the assumptions

underlying the choice of strategic actions. In the final section of the chapter we describe

how authority and responsibility can be delegated to resource users, thus involving local

people directly in the management of the national park.

3.1 Facing up to complexity, change and incomplete information

Managers and planners face a number of problems3 when it comes to deciding what ac-tion to take to achieve the long term vision for a national park.

National park managers act within complex systems. They need to deal with a wide range of factors and circumstances. In every national park there is a huge array of factors that influence the status of biodiversity and its conservation. There are geophysical fac-tors like climate, weather, winds and currents, and soils. There are ecological factors like regeneration rates and predator-prey interactions. There are social factors like culture, demographic and family structures, and religion. There are political factors like the type of government and the willingness of national governments to address local problems. There are economic factors like cash needs, employment opportunities, exchange rates, and markets. There are institutional factors like the strength of leadership in government agencies and the ability of people in national park administrations to work together.

The world is a constantly and unpredictably changing place. The complex world in which national parks are managed is constantly changing. Changes in the behaviour of people who interact with the national park as a result of changes in the economic envi-ronment or of actions taken by the national park administration can impact on the con-servation values which the park is protecting. Furthermore, not all change is predictable. Changes in climate and weather patterns and in ecological systems all represent the types of change that prove difficult for humans to control or understand. The existence of change of any sort makes adaptability an essential element of national park manage-ment.

Information is never complete. National park managers would like to be able to base their management decisions on complete information. Unfortunately, measuring and fully understanding biodiversity at a given site is a difficult, if not impossible, undertaking.

3 The problems described in this section are adapted from Salafsky, Nick, Richard Margoluis, and Kent Redford. 2001. Adaptive Management: A Tool for Conservation Practitioners (1.8 mb). Biodiversity Support Pro-gram, Washington, D.C.


12

Box 5 – Summary of Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is the integration of design of intervention strategies, management of interventions and monitoring the impacts of interventions to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn.

Testing assumptions involves thinking about the situation at a project site (for example a na-tional park and its support zone), developing a specific set of assumptions about what is occurring and what actions you might be able to take to influence the situation.

Adaptation is about taking action to improve the management of your site based on the results of monitoring. If your actions did not achieve the expected results, it is because you assumptions were wrong, your actions poorly executed, the conditions at the project site have changed, your monitoring was faulty, or some combination of those problems. Adaption involves identifying which of your assumptions were wrong and revising them, and changing your interventions to respond to the new information obtained through monitoring.

Learning is about systematically documenting the process that your management team has gone through and the result you have achieved. That documentation will help your team avoid making the same mistakes in the future. It will enable other people managing similar projects to benefit from your experience. By sharing the information that you have learned from your project, you will help conservation efforts in other project sites.

An adaptive management framework should provide: • A clear vision of what you want to achieve … • A clear statement of management objectives, for instance to ensure that the species

diversity of a particular habitat is maintained measured by diversity, abundance, mini-mum viable population, number of sites, extent, structure of habitat, etc.;

• A basic hypothesis of the system that is being managed, for instance, local livelihood strategies are negatively impacting upon a particular resource due to weaknesses in the management system (uncontrolled access) and a lack of incentives for sustainable man-agement due to poor and inappropriate pricing;

• A clearly articulated set of interventions which together will achieve the objectives including a coherent strategy – the strategic action - of how the sum of the outputs con-tribute to achieving the objective, for instance, the management will seek to strengthen tenure of the resources, develop appropriate pricing mechanisms and return the benefits of sustainable management to those that are closest to the resource and bear those man-agement costs in order to provide the motivation for conservation management. Areas that cannot be used will be placed under intense protection. Furthermore, the protected area will target specific species and develop species recovery plans that include ex situ conservation measures for critical component species and develop alternative livelihood activities and replace certain resources with alternatives where appropriate;

• A monitoring system to provide information needed to modify the management system or the objectives or to revise the hypothesis if necessary. This must include a reporting system that captures the “mistakes” as well as the successes and regularly reviews the various interventions against the successes and the constraints, that is, the monitoring programme develops a number of indicators to determine if interventions are having a positive effect on the resources and will also monitor progress indirectly by annually as-sessing the level of identified threats such as grazing intensity, and;

• The means to modify the system to bring it in line with the objective, that is, regular review of the appropriateness of the intervention through the operational plan and annual work plans and a 3 – 5 year review of the management plan.


13

Likewise, social, economic and political information related to communities living around the national park is rarely complete. National park managers do not have the luxury to wait until all the biological, ecological, and social characteristics of a given area are known and understood before they implement project activities. Often they must act us-ing only existing information. Incomplete knowledge of biological and social conditions should not be a barrier to action, but should be used as efficiently and wisely as possible to design effective interventions. Important gaps in knowledge must be identified and addressed early on in order to make the better informed decisions later on.

3.1.1 Applying adaptive management to deal with complexity, change and in-

complete information

Adaptive management is an approach which increasingly is being applied in the man-agement of conservation projects in order to deal with the problems of complexity, un-predictable change, incomplete information and the necessity to act. The main features of adaptive management are summarised in Box 5 opposite. Adaptive management in-volves:

• developing a model of the system of causes and effects which you want to influ-ence in order to achieve your Vision;

• developing and implementing a set of objectives and strategic actions which, based on your understanding of the system, will achieve your Vision;

• monitoring the impacts of your strategic actions and then adapting them in the light of information from monitoring.

By following a structured process in which a strategic action is selected based on clearly articulated assumptions about cause and effect and then the actual effects monitored, managers can adapt by changing their strategic actions in the light of information about the validity of their assumptions. An example of the process is described in section 3.4.4 - Developing a monitoring plan.

3.1.2 Relevance of an adaptive management approach

The management plan includes all of the strategic actions which the national park man-agement team will implement during the life of the plan. These include actions such as maintaining and improving the administration of the national park, developing infrastruc-ture for recreation and establishing a visitor service – actions which may not appear to be suited to an adaptive management approach. Whenever we make assumptions about the effects of our actions and therefore of the results we will achieve, adaptive management becomes relevant. In the section of the management plan which addresses administra-tion of the national park, assumptions are made, but usually not stated, about the effect of training programmes on the effectiveness of the management team or of a perform-ance based remuneration system on motivation. However, the advantages of following the adaptive management process described in this document to every aspect of the management plan may be outweighed by the time required to apply the process rigor-ously. Furthermore, as a completely new approach to management in the South Cauca-sus it will be better to experiment with it and use it first for planning, implementing and monitoring strategic actions aimed at achieving conservation objectives.

3.2 Steps in preparing a management plan

Preparing the management plan is one step in the management cycle of planning, im-plementation, monitoring and review. The IUCN guidelines address the entire cycle (Box 6 below). In contrast, in this chapter we go through steps 1 to 7 and add step 12 to ar-


14

rive with a draft management plan including a monitoring plan. However, there are sig-nificant differences between the steps followed here and those in the IUCN guidelines. In chapter 4 we address implementation, focusing on preparation of an operational plan.

We do not address directly IUCN’s step 8 (public consultation on the draft plan), step 9 (assessment of submissions) or step 13 (decision to review and update the management plan). For those steps key points of process from the IUCN guidelines are presented in Box 7 opposite. We do not address IUCN’s step 10 (approval or endorsement of the man-agement plan) because it is governed by the countries’ laws, which lay down specific pro-cedures.

We have reorganised and regrouped the steps to bring them more into line with the adaptive management approach advocated in this document. The steps are:

• Preparation for planning (IUCN steps 1 - 3) o Preplanning o Initial data gathering and analysis

• Planning (covering IUCN steps 4 – 7) o Developing the Vision o Defining Zones o Developing objectives and strategic actions o Developing a monitoring plan

It can be argued that zoning is a type of intervention and that it should be done at the same time as developing objectives and strategic actions. However, zoning is such a criti-cal part of the process that we recommend it be treated as a separate step.

The process described in this Chapter is designed for preparing a management plan for a new national park. The process can easily be adapted to the revision of a management for an existing national park, for example: the steps of scoping and initial data gathering would be narrowed to focus on things that have changed since the previous plan was prepared; the step of zoning would be changed to a review of zone boundaries and man-agement policies. This document does not touch on the legal process of establishing the

Box 6 – IUCN process of management planning

1. Pre-planning – decision to prepare a management plan, appointment of planning team, scop-ing of the task, defining the process to be used

2. Data gathering – issues identification, consultation

3. Evaluation of data and resource information

4. Identification of constraints, opportunities and threats

5. Developing management vision and objectives

6. Developing options for achieving vision and objectives, including zoning

7. Preparation of a draft management plan

8. Public consultation on the draft management plan

9. Assessment of submissions, revision of draft management plan, production of final manage-ment plan, submission analysis and reporting on the results of the consultation process

10. Approval or endorsement of management plan

11. Implementation‾

12. Monitoring and evaluation

13. Decision to review and update management plan; accountability considerations

Taken from IUCN’s guidelines for management of protected areas (IUCN 2003)


15

Box 7 – Guidance on IUCN steps 8, 9 and 13

Step 8 - Consultation on the draft management plan

The consultation process must create confidence among all stakeholders. This requires the agency to: - identify all the stakeholders; - approach all of them on the basis of equality and transparency; - produce materials that are informative, clear and user-friendly; - use a variety of culturally appropriate means to seek views ; - emphasise the draft nature of proposals; - be ready to revisit any proposal; - keep a complete, documented record of all comments, and log all contacts; - ensure that all requests for meetings, materials etc. are responded to promptly; - make sure that every view has been considered, whether it is adopted or not; - allow time so that people do not feel rushed by the process, but not so much that they lose

interest; - engage in further consultation if changes in the plan are envisaged that will affect other stake-

holders than those seeking these changes; - feedback the results of consultation to all who commented; and - above all treat the stakeholders as essential partners in the conservation of the protected areas,

not as obstacles.

Step 9 - Revision of draft and production of final plan

This step in the process involves revision of the draft, taking into account the comments received from stakeholders and the public. Good practice requires that all written comments received, and those noted at public meetings etc., should be recorded and considered. Even if not incorporated into the final version, it would be appropriate for the planning team to summarise each comment received and include these as an annex to the published Management Plan, or to make it a sepa-rate document.

The planning team will be required to exercise judgment of the highest order in considering which comments to accept. Comments from user groups and stakeholders will tend to focus on single issues rather than the plan as a whole. The views of a particular group, however strongly advo-cated, should not be allowed to put at risk other elements of the plan. It may be helpful to prepare a report on consultations to accompany the final plan. This report will detail how the comments received have been taken into account and indicate why some comments have not been used. It will help the public and stakeholders to understand the final version of the plan and appreciate how the management actions [equivalent to strategic actions] included in it have been arrived at.

Step 13. Decision to review and update the Management Plan

The final step in the planning process is to decide on either review or update of the Management Plan. In many cases, the plan will be time-limited by legislation, typically for five, seven or ten years. The decision to undertake a revision needs to be made in sufficient time to allow the new plan to be in place before the expiry of the old one. In cases of a complex plan with extensive pub-lic consultation process, it may be necessary to consider embarking on the review two years prior to the new plan coming into effect. In less complicated situations, the process should commence at least 12 months before the new plan takes effect.

An integral part of this step is to ensure that feedback from the monitoring cycle is available to guide drafting of the new document. It may be appropriate to commission an evaluation study to collect monitoring information where this is not available, or to commission further studies to pro-vide in-depth information on issues that have not been well covered by monitoring. The time needed for this work should be factored into the decision to update the Management Plan, so that it does not cause delay, and indeed the intent to undertake the evaluation should form part of the Management Plan itself. Adapted from IUCN’s guidelines for the management of protected areas (IUCN 2003)


16

national parks and their administrations as legal entities; the process is governed by na-tional laws and differs between countries.

3.3 Preparation for planning

3.3.1 Pre-planning

Preplanning should include a rapid assessment of the issues surrounding current and fu-ture use of the national park. The assessment should be grounded in reality and, for the purpose of possible co-management arragements and participation, consider the follow-ing:

• Significance and status of the biodiversity resources remembering that there is insufficient time for detailed studies;

• Unique habitat and species considerations – there is normally sufficient knowl-edge to make an educated estimate about these resources;

• Community structures and organisation – has the local community been dis-rupted or undergone significant changes recently or are there likely to be exist-ing mechanisms in place;

• Land tenure status of the intended areas – remembering to include informal ar-rangements that may exists such as community use of state lands that is not of-ficially recognised but still goes on;

• Existing land use practice and uses of natural resources – remembering that local hunting and other practices may not be readily volunteered by local communities and may be clandestine in nature;

• Levels of local government support; • Levels of traditional or community organisation, support and cooperation, and; • The national and local enabling environment and political support and stability –

rationalisation of the enabling environment can often take place later as result of experience and it is often possible to make significant alterations and within the existing framework. Be aware of perverse incentives – for instance a law pre-venting the privatisation of pasture lands is designed to sustainably manage these areas but by allowing rent by outsiders who “own” the leases seeking it may prevent management for biodiversity.

3.3.2 Initial data gathering and analysis

Standard baseline data sets are an obvious requirement for the planning process. How-ever, it is rare that there is sufficient time to carry out in-depth studies to determine the most suitable management regime. Adaptive management allows planners to develop strategic actions by using the incomplete information which is available to them and making reasonable assumptions in place of missing information. In addition to baseline ecological and physical data obtained by the planning team, co-management requires information about the interactions between communities and other users of resources in the national park and support zone. That information should be collected through partici-patory means in such a way that interviewees understand why the questions are being asked of them and should seek to determine the reality in terms of the issues set out earlier, for the purpose of possible co-management arrangements and participation, that is:

• Are there any existing resource allocation systems? – It doesn’t matter if they are not sustainable; they represent an important starting point.

• Does the prevailing management system attribute positive and tangible values to these resources that can be realised by the people who live closest to the re-sources and bear the costs of conservation management?


17

• What rights, if any, do these people have to protect their investment in these re-sources?

• Who bears the cost of sustainable management and who benefits? • Who are the de jure authority and the de facto managers (responsible people)? • What uses currently exist that might provide the motivation for conservation

management?

Some useful participatory tools that can be applied in the initial data gathering phase are described briefly in Annex 1.

3.4 Planning

Planning is a process which begins with deciding the long term vision, moves on to set-ting objectives that will take the national park towards the vision, selecting strategic ac-tions to achieve the objectives, and finally establishing indicators for monitoring progress and checking the validity of the assumptions which have been made. The process starts with the information collected during the preparation phase. Additional information needs will be identified as the planning team goes through the planning process together with communities and other stakeholders.

Everyone involved in the planning process needs to accept that certainty is unattainable. Planners must make decisions based on incomplete and perhaps out of date and unreli-able information and in most instances without a clear understanding of all of the impor-tant variables. Furthermore, the planning team should not place too much emphasis on in depth studies; the time available for collecting information is short and it is unlikely that such studies would identify all the factors which influence the state of the national park or the relationships between those factors. For example, if seasonal grazing is an issue then at least one cycle would be needed to determine the factors.

It is still possible to move ahead as long as the uncertainty is acknowledged, assumptions clearly stated and strategic actions and even objectives are updated and adjusted in light of experience through adaptive management.

3.4.1 Developing the Vision

The vision can be regarded as the overarching rationale for the existence of a national park, serving as a long term goal and a means of agreeing the goal with a wider audi-ence. The vision will be guided to some extent by national policies and legislation includ-ing the decree establishing the national park. It must also be guided by the needs, concerns and aspirations of people who interact with the national park and support zone. The vision must therefore be developed through a participatory process.

The vision should be developed in one or more workshops with representatives of stake-holder groups. The vision needs to be grounded in reality. A useful way of starting a vi-sioning workshop is with a participatory analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the people and institutions who can contribute to the development of the national park and of the opportunities presented by, and threats to, the national park. The analysis provides an opportunity for stakeholders to identify issues and possible conflicts that have not been identified by the planning team in the preceding steps and helps ensure at a later stage that the management plan has a wide acceptance. Conducting such an analysis has the added advantage that it prepares stakeholders and the planning team for the step of deciding objectives and selecting strategic actions.


18

The vision must be broadly shared with all the stakeholders. Rural people may place more utilitarian values at the forefront of their vision and objectives. Therefore, it is im-portant to reach a common vision that captures all of these values. This will essentially depend on the communication and interaction skills of the planners and community workers. If the communities associated with the protected area cannot agree the vision due to the poverty and lack of economic perspectives, the overall conservation vision might need an adjustment or at least allow a staged approach to get consent to meas-ures which are in line with the development visions of the majority of stakeholders – these are the trade-offs that the planners must make.

While there may be a common objective for the key players, the motivation behind each agenda can be very different. For instance the protected areas authority will have a strong ethic of conservation and a genuine desire to carry out the duties entrusted in them by the state whereas local communities may wish to secure a small but important component of their livelihoods, their cultural values and identity. It is important that the planning team think about community uses of natural resources as an opportunity and not as a threat. This becomes particularly important when considering the support zone; allowing biodiversity resources to realise tangible values in the support zone can expand the territory available for conservation management by linking rural livelihood to sound management practices and may be particularly important in the management of large and charismatic species and in establishing wildlife corridors.

3.4.2 Defining zones

In the southern Caucasus much of the protected areas system has been heavily influ-enced by people in the past and is currently under significant human use. Furthermore, a large proportion of the protected areas system, including national parks, forms an impor-tant component of many rural people’s livelihoods. There is often a strong perception of formal or informal customary ownership or tenure of many of the resources at the local level and in some cases the continued use of these resources may have strong connec-tions with specific cultural identities.

While protection will be the simplest form of management, under conditions where there are contested rights of access and use of the resources it will also be the most expensive and likely to result in the greatest conflicts. Therefore a well thought out zoning plan and a reasonable interpretation of “traditional use” that reflects the realities of rural life in the region is an imperative to successful management of the national parks territory. Na-tional protected areas legislation prescribes zones which must be defined in each national park. Terminology varies between countries but in generic terms the following zones should be defined:

• A core protected zone managed (through exclusion of most human activities) principally for ecological process or the protection of extremely vulnerable spe-cies;

• Traditional use zones where traditional users have conditional access to biodiver-sity resources under an agreed plan aimed at improving and/or maintaining the conservation status of those resources, and;

• A support zone in which human activity is geared towards improving and/or en-hancing the values of the national park.

Zoning is of paramount importance. However, before starting to develop a zoning plan it is important to consider a number of principles which can be used to allocate material or institutional resources for protection and determine the means of managing the biodiver-sity resources. Those principles can be summarised as the options of:

• Protection;


19

• Utilisation, and; • Abandonment4.

It is important to develop a system that provides a continuum from the core protected zone(s) through the traditional use zone and into the support zone in which biodiversity is conserved or managed sustainably through a variety of different mechanisms ranging from:

• Strict protection; • Agreed or permitted activities; • Management contracts, through to; • Devolved management rights.

The decision to define a zone as strictly protected or traditional use should be based upon a number of criteria and above all should be pragmatic. Therefore in determining what should be core zone and what should be under sustainable management with a priority for biodiversity conservation the planners should consider the following:

• Conservation importance – using IUCN national and regional red listing and other national, regional and globally agreed criteria;

• Level of threat – how threatened is the resource (species, habitat, complex, etc.). Consider the level, magnitude, extent ,immediacy5 and hazard6 of the threat. Prioritising the threats can aid the management of the national park in al-locating resources, including time to specific issues and zones;

• Is the area or resource contested7 – if it is not contested then it should become a core zone. However, it if is contested then consideration should be given to other criteria – planners and managers should choose their battles carefully!

These criteria should also be measured against those set out above and repeated here for emphasis:

• What is the level of threat? o What are the risks (likelihood of it occuring) and what is the hazard (if

it does occur how catastrophic is the impact likely to be)? • Is it so important that I must spend material resources on total exclusion? Con-

sider: • How many staff will I need to protect it? • What is the likely level of conflict going to be? • How great will the impact be on local livelihoods?

o To what level will the park authorities be prepared to escalate a conflict with existing users?

o Will the courts perceive this to be fair and reasonable? Token fines are unlikely to deter illegal use and will diminish the authority of the pro-tected area.

o Are any alternative livelihood strategies really going to compensate for the opportunity costs?

4 It should be noted that abandonment of a resource (species, community, ecosystem, etc.) should not be considered as a reasonable option except in extremis and is include here to serve as a reminder that if a re-source cannot be adequately protected then utilisation should be the favoured option to avoid abandonment through neglect. 5 Immediacy considers how imminent the threat is – for instance the construction of a factory may present an immediate threat whereas grazing by local communities may be something that can be addressed over time. 6 Hazare considers the effect of a threat (as opposed to the risk which is the probability of it happening). Therefore grazing may be a high risk as it is actually happening but the hazard might be low in terms of imme-diate loss of biodiversity. Whereas the draining of a wetland carries very high hazard in that its effects on bio-diversity – should it occur – are catastrophic. 7 A contested area or resource is one where there may be existing claims of ownership or use.


20

• Are there any opportunities for agreed co-management or devolved manage-ment?

• Does the particular resource extend outside the protected area?

It is important to remember that the process of zoning should entail some lateral think-ing. That is; there are limited resources available for management and even though a particular resource is of very high conservation importance and the resource is contested but the level of threat is not considerable then strict protection may not be the most cost-effective use of material resources.

Therefore, zoning should be kept flexible although the external limits of a national park and possibly the core zone may be required to be set in law, the more flexibility in the internal zones and the softer the management prescriptions the greater the opportunity to integrate the park into the local social and economic framework. Flexibility in the in-ternal zoning will allow the manager to adapt interventions in light of management ex-perience as he or she realises the military strategist’s adage that; “no plan survives first contact with the enemy” and “wars are won by the side that makes the least mistakes”.

3.4.3 Developing objectives and strategic actions

3.4.3.1 Develop a conceptual model of the national park8

Once the planning team and communities and other stakeholders have decided the vision for the national park, the next step is to work out how to achieve the vision. National park management takes place in incredibly complex situations. Managers have to under-stand the complicated ecosystems that they are working in. If this were not enough, they also have to understand the cultural, social, economic, and political systems that influ-ence the behaviour of the park’s many stakeholders. And all of these different ecological and human factors interact with one another in dynamic and unpredictable ways.

Getting an understanding of the system is typically done through the development of a model. Models are simplified versions of reality. They are important for a number of rea-sons. They help you to organize information. They provide you with a framework for comparing alternative courses of action. They provide an intellectual paper trail that lets you see what the chain of logic was behind a given action. And finally, they provide a vehicle for members of your team to work out a shared view of what is being managed and how the management should be done.

A conceptual model is a diagram of a set of relationships between certain factors that are believed to impact on or lead to your vision. A good conceptual model presents a picture of the assumed linkages between the factors that influence the state of the national park. A conceptual model also enables people to make their different perspectives explicit and then to work out a shared understanding. An example of a model of part of the national park system is at Figure 1.

Developing a conceptual model with stakeholders requires specific facilitation skills. The person facilitating a modelling workshop needs to be able to help stakeholders express their ideas about the factors which are driving change in a simple way but one that eve-ryone else can understand. The facilitator should have his or her own ideas about the factors and their relationships but should not impose those ideas.


21

Figure 1 – A simplified model of part of a national park system

3.4.3.2 Design objectives and strategic actions

After you have developed the model, the next step involves working out what actions you are going to take. The key here is to identify the factors that you want to affect and the specific actions that you will undertake to change them. Instead of focusing on the ac-tions that you will ultimately take, first think about the specific results that you want to achieve and then base your selection of activities on how best to achieve them. By doing so, you can maximize your potential to leverage change on the system with the resources you have. You can also set up experiments that will help you learn which actions work and which do not. And finally, you can make more informed decisions as to how to bal-ance the risks of action and inaction.

Developing objectives and strategic actions starts by ranking the various factors that you have identified in your model and deciding which are causing the biggest problems and 8 Adapted from Salafsky, Nick, Richard Margoluis, and Kent Redford. 2001. Adaptive Management: A Tool for Conservation Practitioners (1.8 mb). Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C.


22

which are most easily addressed. Once you have selected the main factors you think you might want to address, you then use your model to determine which of the factors linked to them you might be able to change to thus change the main factors. After selecting a factor that you think you can affect, the next step is to develop a specific objective for that factor. Once you have developed the specific objectives that you want to accomplish, the next step is to develop the strategic actions (Figure 2).

Figure 2 - – A simplified set of objectives and strategic actions

3.4.4 Developing a monitoring plan

Monitoring takes place at different levels in a country’s protected areas system, for ex-ample: at the national level to monitor performance across the protected areas system; in each national park at the level of objectives and strategic actions (i.e. monitoring the effectiveness of the management plan); monitoring the progress and impact of specific activities; monitoring the performance of staff. These guidelines focus on monitoring the management plan.


23

While monitoring is critical to an adaptive management approach, there are three broad reasons for instituting a monitoring programme9:

1. Assessing the effectiveness of an intervention (management); 2. Regulatory (audit function), and; 3. Detecting incipient change (early warning)

Monitoring of the management plan will be carried out largely to assess the effectiveness of the various strategic actions in achieving the plan’s objectives, the first reason given above. Monitoring checks actual results achieved by the national park administration against verifiable indicators of the results which a strategic action is designed to achieve and tests assumptions about cause and effect on which a strategic action is based.

The following example illustrates the relationship between objectives, strategic actions, indicators and assumptions. Let us suppose that the management plan includes an objec-tive to conserve alpine meadows which are being degraded by overgrazing. A strategic action could be designed to reduce grazing pressure. The strategic action might include such interventions as:

• Imposing a grazing regime through regulations, and; • Protection of specific areas through agreement and fencing where necessary,

and; • To reduce conflicts the park will develop alternative livelihoods for the shepherds

by promoting ecotourism, and; • To compensate for reduced sheep numbers there will be a programme of adding

value to livestock produce to increase the financial return per grazing unit; • The Park will compensate shepherds for loss of livestock to problem animals.

This strategic action requires a number of discrete interventions by the national park ad-ministration, but how does the manager know if the strategic action is working, or if one particular intervention – for instance the promotion of ecotourism - is having any impact on the Alpine meadows by indirectly compensating the shepherds?

Firstly, the management plan must describe the objective with sufficient clarity and in enough detail that the management team will be able to identify if they are achieving it or not. In our example of alpine meadows the objective can be described in terms of spe-cies composition, extent, structure, associated fauna, etc.

Secondly the management plan should articulate clearly the factors which are driving the condition of alpine pasture in any one direction. For instance, “overgrazing” might be a very simplistic assessment or understanding of the threat that might be driven by issues associated with the local tenurial agreements, changes in external markets or even issues affecting the alternative (e.g. winter) pastures of the shepherds. Without such considered analysis, any proposed solutions or interventions are simply wild guesses or “hit and miss” approaches.

Thirdly, the monitoring plan must set out indicators of what alpine meadows should look like if the strategic action is successful; for example:

• Increase in species diversity; • Increase in abundance; • Reduction in soil erosion; • Reduced number of livestock units on key areas; • Increased incomes for the shepherds from alternative livelihoods; • Reduction in grazing infractions and conflicts with parks staff, etc.

9 Adapted from Monitoring for Conservation and Ecology. Ed. Goldsmith F. B. Chapman & Hall, 1992


24

… and the assumptions on which the Management Action is based, for example: • Grazing is unsustainable and the cause of biodiversity loss; • The benefits from ecotourism are captured by the owners of the sheep; • The benefits from ecotourism are equal to or greater than the opportunity costs

of reducing herd size; • The level of grazing in the target area is a result of conditions (and drivers) af-

fecting that particular part of a seasonal rotation; • Compensation for loss of stock to predators is adequate and addreses husbandry

and cultural dimensions, etc.

Lastly, the management team uses the information from monitoring to identify if they are making progress towards their objectives. If monitoring reveals that the objectives of the management plan are not being achieved, the management team must then consider:

• Why is the plan not working – which indicators are failing to live up to expecta-tions?;

• Are we simply not doing what we said we would do, i.e has implementation been poor?

• If we’ve done what we said we would do and it is still not working, which of our assumptions are wrong, what new assumptions should we make, and what changes should we make to our strategic actions to achieve the results we want?

It is important to remember that monitoring costs money and each data point should be justified. With scarce resources monitoring for the sake of monitoring is an unaffordable luxury. Monitoring requires a clear idea of why a strategic action or activity is necessary. In its simplest form in the zapovednik zone this might take the form of some very simple indicators such as an increase in the number of leopards that can be cross-checked against an increase in prey species such as large ungulates. In areas where there may be multiple uses this becomes more complicated but it is worth remembering that the sim-pler the monitoring system, the more effective it will be; don’t collect un-necessary data and be clear in the management objective.

3.5 Involving resource users

In the introduction to these guidelines we emphasised the importance of actively involv-ing resource users - in particular people who depend for their livelihoods on the resources of the national park and its support zone - in preparing the management plan and in sub-sequent monitoring and revision of the plan. This degree of involvement is essential; when it is done well it results in better plans, greater trust, less conflict and better per-formance. Detailed guidance is presented in Chapter 5. Involvement can go further and actively involve users in the management of the resources in the national park through mechanisms which share authority and responsibility between the national park admini-stration and users.

3.5.1 Sharing authority and responsibility with users

In section 3.4.2 we noted that managers have two broad options for conserving biodiver-sity: protection and use. If neither is selected, managers are taking the implicit decision to abandon biodiversity to whatever its fate may be.

If managers opt for protection, they can select one or more of the following strategies: • Confrontational – in which the state simply denies access to existing users; • Compensation – in which the state compensates resource users for their oppor-

tunity costs;


25

• Alternative livelihoods trade-off strategy – in which those that are dependent upon the resource are provided with alternative livelihoods that are equal or more profitable than those that they are expected to give up;

• Resource replacement – in which an alternative resource is offered to ease pres-sure on wild harvested resources, for instance gas can replace the need to collect firewood.

In all of the above strategies, authority and responsibility rest entirely with the national park administration, though the administration can of course decide to outsource protec-tion activities such as guarding to service providers including community associations or community owned enterprises.

When managers opt for sustainable use instead of protection, they open the possibility of involving users in the management of the national park’s resources. Sustainable use of a resource requires a clear framework in which the benefits of conservation management are equal to or greater than the costs and are captured at a local level where those who are incurring the costs of management are effectively represented. In particular, the planners need to develop mechanisms that can contractually delegate or conditionally devolve the costs and benefits and authority and responsibility to local resource users.

The people to whom authority and responsibility are delegated or devolved must be clearly defined (we’ll call these people the managing body10). Also the territory and the particular resources assigned to the managing body must be defined so that it is clear that the rights to the resources and authority and responsibility within the given territory are assigned to the body. Defining the extent of the area is a means to determine the tenure11 of the resources. The importance of this becomes clear when managing body make decisions about harvest levels or the pattern of grazing. For instance if they are to reduce harvesting of a resource in order to allow it to recover they must be sure that no one else can come and take their “investment” and the benefits will be secure for them at a later date.

The conditions of delegation or devolution from the national park administration to the managing body could include:

• A constitution for the managing body setting out the rules, regulations and sanc-tions to be applied to offenders, reporting, and how the management unit will be governed, benefits distributed, etc.;

• A register of all the members of the managing body; • An undertaking that specific resources or areas will be protected; • A reasonably detailed plan as to how the resources might be managed, and; • Other conditions appropriate to the specific resource (e.g. close seasons, etc.). • Signed agreements with neighbouring individuals and communities stating that

they agree that they have no claim to the resources to be managed; • A rudimentary or detailed management plan according to the complexity of the

management issue that can determine who will harvest, when they will harvest and what records they will keep, etc.

While such arrangements might be entered into informally, the strength of resource ten-ure and thus the willingness to invest in sustainable management is weakened if the unit

10 This might loosely equate to the “community” or “user group”, etc. 11 Tenure is used to describe the parcel of proprietary rights that will motivate an individual or group of indi-viduals to manage a resource. It can be interchanged with other definitions such as “ownership” and even “access”. Its importance is in providing the security to individuals or groups of individuals to invest in the con-servation management of the resource – the security of tenure - and it should be noted that it need not neces-sarily be absolute.


26

of management does not have legitimacy. This may require new mechanisms however; it is likely that existing mechanisms can be used12.

12 For instance in Georgia a system of hunting farms currently infers both the authority and responsibility and the right to benefit from wildlife resources on land rented from the state by a private individual. Such mecha-nisms are not available for the community unless it established a legal entity that can enter into legal agree-ments.


27

4 Putting the management plan into action

In this chapter we describe the process of preparing an operational plan in which are set

out the activities which the national park management team will carry out to implement

the management plan together with a resource schedule and budget. The operational

plan typically covers three years of activities and identifies the resources which will be

needed in each of those years. Each national protected areas authority has its own sys-

tem of recording the information contained in the operational plan and its own procedures

for approving the operational plan; a system which is governed by government budgeting

procedures. We provide examples of tables for presenting some of the information which

an operational plan should contain but only to illustrate the scope of the information and

not to prescribe rigid rules for presenting the information.

4.1 Operational planning – main principles

The management plan sets out the vision for the national park, the objectives which the plan aims to achieve, and strategic actions which will be followed during the life of the plan. Before any work can start on the ground the national park administration has to specify the activities which will it will carry out, and prepare a resource schedule (people and materials), a budget and a financing plan.

The various words people use when they talk about this level of planning can be confus-ing; the differences between work plans, business plans, budgets and financing plans can easily become obscured. It’s simpler to think in terms of a single document which we’ll call the operational plan13. The operational plan specifies activities, resources, budget and source of funds for each year for two or three years ahead. It is revised and rolled for-ward every year.

Some national park authorities include financial and operational information within the management plan itself. Broadly speaking, separating those details into an operational plan that is linked to annual budgets is less complicated and allows site managers to fo-cus on issues within the broad framework of the management plan.

4.2 From management plan to operational plan

The logic of the management plan (vision � objectives � strategic actions) must be car-ried through to the operational plan. The logical relationships of the activities in the op-erational plan to the strategic actions and objectives in the management plan need to be clear. If the director of a national park is asked: “why are you carrying out this activity?” he or she should be able to explain which objective the activity is contributing to and how it will help to achieve the objective.

Activities and the resources allocated to them can be presented in a number of ways, most commonly by:

• Zone – actions required within each zone, those that affect more than one zone and those that extend outside the protected area;

• Objective – where activities are grouped into specific strategies, for instance bio-diversity conservation, visitor management, etc., and;

• Projects – in which activities are arranged into individual projects.

13 The Operational Plan is essentially a work plan detailing the specific activities and is seperate from any Busi-ness Plan


28

Arranging the operational plan into projects offers a number of advantages. First, it al-lows managers to focus more clearly on a number of different tools and options that will all work towards a single objective. Second, arranging the activities into projects allows the use of a log frame matrix to arrange the activities into outcomes, the sum of which will support a strategic action, the benefits of this approach are outlined below. Such an arrangement will also facilitate the use of log frame planning if the specific management action is a complex one and assists with the adaptive management in that it allows the manager to review the specific outcomes and see where a management action is failing and therefore needs to be adapted or strengthened. And third, it facilitates prioritisation; projects that have high priority and need to be completed within a year (or immediately), projects that are part of the routine management and need to be completed within a given timeframe but there is some flexibility, and projects that maybe undertaken when resources and time are available (for instance capital projects). This can be very useful when funding is irregular or larger development objectives may be beyond the current resources available but still it is desirable to include them within the management plan.

The operational plan should be developed from the various strategic actions with each action requiring a number of activities that can be fed into the annual work plans. One way of achieving this is to use a log fame matrix to help make it clear how each strategic action and associated activities are contributing to the objectives of the management plan. In this way the indicators and risks can also be articulated in order to develop an adaptive management approach.

We’ll build on the example in Figure 2 which shows a strategic action (Strategic Action 1) that includes a number of discrete interventions. Those interventions can be designed as projects within an overall programme to conserve alpine pasture:

Objective - Reverse the loss of species and reduction in species abundance in alpine

pasture

Project 1 - Support the development of SMMEs to increase incomes

Project 2 - Pilot devolution of control of stocking levels to shepherds and households

Project 3 - Train farmers in techniques to add value to produce

Project 4 - Explore ways of capturing the full value of natural products

Project 5 - Explore ways of increasing farm productivity in the support zone

The management team can then design results and activities for each project together with indicators and assumptions which can be monitored. We’ll take Project 2 as an ex-ample (note that in this example the column of the log frame matrix showing the sources of information for verifying the indicators has been omitted to keep the matrix simpler): Intervention Logic Indicators Assumptions

Overall

objective

Reverse the loss of species and reduction in species aboundance in alpine pas-ture.

• By [date] the alpine pas-ture in the traditional use zone will harbour [quan-tity] species, RDB spe-cies will have populations in excess of [quantity], RDB species will occur at [quantity] separate sites.

Project

objective

Pilot the devolution of con-trol over pasture manage-ment to shepherds and households

• By [date] the project has provided sufficient infor-mation to determine if devolution works.

Result 1 Devolved management body established.

• By [date] management body is functioning.

Users are willing to partici-pate in the management


29

Intervention Logic Indicators Assumptions

body.

Activities 1.1 Carry out analysis of users and identify po-tential membership of management body.

• By [date] the analysis has been completed.

1.2 Facilitate discussions among users to achieve to achieve con-sensus on membership.

• By [date] there is con-sensus among users.

1.3 Facilitate legal estab-lishment of manage-ment body.

• By [date] the body has been legally established.

Result 2 Rights and responsibilities of management body for-

mally agreed.

• By [date] a legal agree-ment has been made be-tween the NP administration and man-agement body.

NP administration and management body are able to achieve compromises.

Activities 2.1 Negotiate the scope of rights and responsibili-ties with the manage-ment body.

• By [date] the scope of rights and responsibilities has been agreed.

2.2 Prepare a legal agree-ment with the manag-ing body

• By [date] the NP admini-stration and manage-ment body have signed a legal agreement.

Result 3 Management body has the skills necessary to exercise

its rights and fulfill its re-sponsibilities.

• By [date] the manage-ment body has acquired the necessary skills.

Members of the manage-ment body have the capac-ity to develop the necessary skills.

Activities 3.1 Arrange training for members of the man-aging body.

• By [date] members of the management body have received training.

Result 4 The NP administration iden-

tifies whether devolved management works.

• By [date] the NP admini-stration has completed an evaluation of the pi-lot.

Activities 4.1 Joint monitoring by the NP administration and management commit-tee.

• Monitoring results are compiled every year.

4.2 Annual review of moni-toring results.

• A monitoring report is prepared after the end of each year.

For some types of activities there is no advantage in using a project based approach to operational planning, for example the day to day tasks of running the national park can simply be grouped under a single heading of administration.

When the national park administration has decided all of the planned activities to be in-cluded in the operational plan, the next steps are to schedule the activities and schedule the budget for the resources needed to complete the activities. Each government has its own procedures for those steps and its own formats for setting out the information. Ex-amples of an activity schedule (Figure 3) and resource schedule (Figure 4) are provided to show the type of information which should be included.


30

Figure 3 – Example of an activity schedule

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Project 1 – Pilot devolution of pasture management Result 1- Management body established

Activity 1.1 – Analysis of users � Activity 1.2 – Facilitate discussions among users � Activity 1.3 – Legal establishment of management body �

Result 2 – Rights and responsibilities agreed Activity 2.1 – Negotiate rights and responsibilities � Activity 2.2 – Prepare legal agreement �

Result 3 – Equip management body with necessary skills Activity 3.1 – Train members of the management body �

Result 4 – Identify from the pilot if devolved management works Activity 4.1 – Joint monitoring � � Activity 4.2 – Annual review of monitoring results � �

Figure 4 – Example of a resource schedule

Quantities Costs

Unit Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3

Cost per unit Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3

Project 1 Activity 1.1

Resource 1 Resource 2 Resource 3

Activity 1.2 Resource 1 Resource 2 Resource 3


31

5 Development Planning for Support Zone Communities.

This chapter addresses preparation of a specific programme aimed at achieving the con-

servation objectives of the national park through rural development and co-management

by the people using resources in the those zones inside the national park where exploita-

tion is permitted and in the support zone. The chapter focuses on farming systems includ-

ing rangeland management. The process could be applied with some adaption to other

types of use and livelihood opportunities including provision of visitor services. The chap-

ter highlights the importance of community farming systems and rangeland development

as part of co-management and potentially devolved management.

5.1 Introduction

This section outlines the implementation of recommended “best practice” guidelines for developing long-term ecologically sustainable rangeland management plans for the South Caucasus.

The guidelines will outline the participatory planning, implementation and monitoring of rangeland management plans within the broader framework of community and farming systems development. The guidelines are designed to achieve the most realistic chance of successfully protecting the national parks and their support zones conserving their bio-diversity. The plans involve the active participation, co-management and adaptive man-agement by the national park managers with the adjacent communities and outside migrating herders. Community farming systems development planning, including range-land management, has to be incorporated into the overall national park planning activity.

The following section outlines the planning context and the steps in the participatory planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the farming systems and rangeland development plans. The rangeland management planning and implementation guidelines further build on the outputs of the only rangeland management study and plan yet completed in the three countries, i.e. the Borjomi-Kharagauli NP management plan. These are guidelines only and need to be adapted to the local conditions and the human and financial resources available.

5.2 The planning context

5.2.1 Land resource management problems: symptoms and causes

In land resource management it is important to go beyond the symptoms of problems and identify the root causes. The threats to protected areas and fragile environments, eco-systems and ecology in all three countries include overgrazing, cutting of wetlands for hay, uncontrolled fuelwood collection, unregulated irrigation water use and overuse of resources. The root causes of these threats are some or all of the following - poverty, low productivity subsistence agriculture, lack of affordable energy alternatives to fuelwood and lack of alternative employment opportunities. In Azerbaijan, for example, the refugee and unemployment problem has exacerbated the problem. In the area of the proposed Samur-Yalama NP the lack of coverage of the World Bank’s projects on irrigation scheme rehabilitation and credit supply to the villages in the support zone has placed even more pressure on the villagers to graze in the proposed NP forests. The root causes of specific problems need further detailed technical and socio-economic analyses.


32

5.2.2 Participatory planning for community-based natural resource manage-

ment

Extensive worldwide experience has shown that developing a partnership between the national park, the government and the community is the most effective way of jointly identify priority needs to effective management of natural resources and to developing a plan of activities to address them.

Involving farmers and communities in planning will achieve an improved understanding of environmental (conservation and biodiversity), social and economic problems from various perspectives. This will lead to an informed consensus on the main issues (e.g. protection and conservation by the national park and the priority needs and problems and opportunities of the community) and broad agreement on what actions to take. New roles and responsibilities will have to be developed (e.g. for co-management or for devolved management) and there will be a greater commitment to achieving the agreed outcomes by all parties.

Participatory planning can take place on many levels including: • Community level – involves the whole village social and economic structure; • Farming systems – including the crop, rangelands, livestock and forestry compo-

nents of the rural household economy; • Rangeland – focusing on this specific sub-section of the farming system either in

the traditional use zone or in the whole farming system including the support zone as it directly impacts the goals of a national park.

5.2.3 Community development approach

There is a very strong case for considering rangeland management in the overall context of community development of which farming systems are a major component in rural areas. To achieve the goal of ecologically sustainable rangeland management multiple supporting activities are often required. Improved incomes and/or productivity in one part of the farming system enable can reduce dependence on unsustainable resource management, e.g. overgrazing and rangeland degradation. This could then allow de-graded rangelands to be rehabilitated and improved grazing management and animal production techniques to be demonstrated. Some of these demonstration results might be proven to be technically feasible and socially and economically acceptable. In the longer term these results could enable links could be established between community development and improved conservation outcomes in the form on incentive-based con-servation and biodiversity.

Some examples of activities that could reduce the household dependence on the range-land and/or improve the rangelands include:

• Improved crop varieties or pig production technologies could increase incomes; • Energy efficient stoves could reduce the animal manure used for fuel. This could

be used to increase hay or forage crop production; • Increased hay production could enable various rangeland grazing management

strategies and tactics to be applied, e.g. delayed grazing in spring, reduced car-rying capacity, rotational grazing, rest and rehabilitation of pastures;

• New enterprises could increase farming incomes; • Vocation skill training could increase income from off-farm sources.

A good starting point to increase farm incomes is the improvement various components of the existing farming system with new techniques (e.g. new crop varieties and fertilis-ers, improved animal feeding) and with socio-economic support (e.g. training, extension,


33

marketing, credit). At the same time new enterprises and technologies can be demon-strated for evaluation by the community.

5.2.4 Farming systems approach

A guideline used in rural development is that: “Farming systems (or rural) development (FSD) starts and finishes with the farmer (community)”. Ultimately it is the farmer or community who will accept or reject the technology, intervention or proposal put forward. However, while the farmers know their socio-economic situation, resources, specialised local knowledge and risk aversion, technical and social scientists, national park managers and government officials can provide additional insights into helping solving their prob-lems and developing new opportunities. In the end it is a partnership – an iterative two-way process which experience has shown greatly increases the chances of sustainable success. The circumstances affecting a farm family’s decision-making process are com-plex and involve natural, biological and socio-economic circumstances (see Annex 2). Not all households are the same.

Method and process manuals have been developed for the implementation of participa-tory land use planning (PLUP). For FSD, including rangeland management, an example of a set of steps for participatory planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation, is found in Annex 3. This was taken from the successful Qinghai Forestry Resources Man-agement Project (2002-2007) in China14. As part of the project over 6,000 on-farm farm-ing systems technology demonstrations were conducted over five years. Annual participatory reviews were conducted and after about three years very high rates of vol-untary adoption of new technologies were made by farmers. The FSD falls easily into the adaptive management approach.

During the protected areas and farming systems development processes there is commu-nity/village/user group participation at various levels and stages including:

• Initially informing the community of the project activities and possible impacts; • Initial key informant surveys to collect general information: e.g. boundaries,

broad land use, land tenure and land use, livestock populations, ownership and grazing management;

• Assisting the geo-botanical surveyors and animal husbandry specialists in the field to help understand the rangeland use and historical trends;

• As a whole community at the start of the PLUP process; • User groups and committees for detailed planning.

5.2.5 Rangeland management planning

Rangelands in the traditional use zones of national parks and in their support zones are very important parts of the local household farming systems in many areas, e.g. in Ar-menia’s Javakhqs and Georgia’s Javakheti regions where new national parks are being created. Also, rangelands are important to the management of the national park for both the protection of the core strict nature reserves as well the protection of unique biodiver-sity and for ecologically sustainable use by herders in parts of the traditional use and support zones.

14 Qinghai Forest Resource Management Project (QFRMP), China (2002-2007), managed by ANZDEC Ltd in Association with Hassall and Associates for AusAID. Set of Manuals (2007). A set of 10 manuals was prepared detailing the project’s processes in participatory planning and management of demonstration areas for the catchment management concept.


34

Given the importance of rangeland management planning it will be a key component of the farming systems and national parks development planning. Resources surveys, e.g. rangeland geo-botanical and vegetation surveys, are an essential part of rangeland man-agement planning. It is essential that early results of the initial rangeland surveys be used as a focal point for the initial community public meetings given its importance to protected area planning. The techniques for this process will be discussed in Section 5.3.

5.2.6 Overall approach and scope of planning

The overall approach to developing an ecologically sustainable rangeland management plan should be to include rangelands in the broader context of FSD. In the longer term aspects of community development (e.g. alternative energy supply, repairing roads, vo-cational skill training) will need to be considered, especially in the context of incentive-linked conservation and biodiversity.

The approach should be participatory involving the communities, national park manage-ment and rangers, local government officials and independent facilitators. Participation should apply to the planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation cycle – a rotating cycle which has the characteristics of adaptive management.

The land use, rangeland and socio-economic surveys should cover both the protected area traditional use zone, the support zone and also consider the seasonal migrating herders that live further away. Including the support zone land resources will:

• The establishment of priority development options for the whole farming system and community;

• Provide a baseline for possible development of the PA into a Biosphere Reserve in the future. Biosphere reserves allow economic, cultural and ecological develop-ment. Although there is no IUCN category for biosphere reserves and there are none in the Caucasus it is possible in the longer term that the Lake Arpi and Javakheti NPs in Armenia and Georgia could be introduced to the international network.

5.2.7 Planning guidelines

These guidelines are based broadly on the steps in IUCN’s guidelines for the management of protected areas (Box 6 above) but some additional steps implemented during the FSD will be described within this framework.

5.3 Farming systems and rangeland management participatory plan-

ning

5.3.1 Key planning principles

In the southern Caucasus countries the “best practice” will be the set of approaches, methods and tools that can realistically be implemented and achieve the goals of ecologi-cally sustainable management of the national parks including their rangelands. Some key principles which should be applied to rangeland management planning and implementa-tion in the protected areas and in the support zones are:

• The local communities and outside migrating herders using the national park and support zone rangeland should be involved in the participatory planning, man-agement and monitoring of the rangelands. National park staff and rangers and local government officials should also participate;


35

• Rangeland planning and extension methods should build on the strengths of the local systems and personnel for components of the rangeland planning system, e.g. vegetation surveys and analyses; rangeland rehabilitation experience;

• The rangeland management activities should aim to achieve ecologically sustain-able land management not just sustainable animal production, e.g. maintenance and improvement of natural plant species in the vegetation types;

• Modern GIS systems and GPS equipment should be introduced to facilitate sur-vey processing and produce flexible and user-friendly mapping for planning and future monitoring, e.g. topography, boundaries, vegetation types, rangeland conditions etc.;

• Adopt the principle of ecologically sustainable rangeland management and pro-duce appropriate charts that allow the interpretation of landscape processes within the ecosystem;

• Simple sets of photos on large charts showing the present vegetation types and conditions of the rangelands should be a starting point for the mass commu-nity/user group PLUP planning;

• The use of flip charts and/or PowerPoint presentations of rangeland management options (e.g. rehabilitation, temporary rest, grazing management strategies and tactics) to interact with the community during public meetings;

• The local community should be fully involved in decision-making. A commu-nity/village/user group should implement improved grazing management and animal production activities for several years ultimately leading to a grazing management plan should be developed involving the community as co-managers or contracted managers of the natural resource, i.e. the rangeland;

• Produce appropriate and simple user-friendly training and extension materials for rangeland co-managers: community/user leaders, herders, shepherds, rangers and NP managers;

• Overall management planning should consider rangeland management in a whole farming systems and community context to address the root causes of the threats to the protected areas.

5.3.2 Rangeland planning approach and specific issues

5.3.2.1 Geographical information system and land use surveys

A description and presentation of the physical resources, other information and plans is required in any project. A starting point is reviewing all existing materials. The modern computer-based geographical information system (GIS) is recommended for recording, processing and presenting information on topography, administrative boundaries, land use, rangeland vegetation and condition, infrastructure, plans etc.

Land use surveys and mapping of both the protected area and the support zone should be conducted using the best available and affordable information. These could include satellite imagery, topographic maps, aerial photographs and standard photographs of the landscapes, ideally all in a digital form. Following preliminary mapping “ground-truthing” surveys are conducted to verify and modify the draft maps. Global positioning system (GPS) equipment should be provided for all field surveys. This approach and these mate-rials were very effectively used for the Qinghai Project in China and are being planned for use in the protected areas management planning projects in Armenia and Georgia. Maps produced must be useful for both national park management and for communities.


36

5.3.2.2 Rangeland botanical surveys and vegetation classification

It is recommended that the standard rangeland geo-botanical survey methods and vege-tation classification system used throughout the Caucasus be used as the basis for range-land surveys. Consideration should be given to the modification of these methods for ecological succession in Volume 4 of the Qinghai Project manuals, in particular the use of ecological software. At some time in the future the classifications used might need to be modified to consider various wildlife and bird habitats relevant for zoologists in the Cau-casus and for issues of ecological succession. Classification systems used in the PEEN organisation (e.g. Emerald network) should be considered.

Outputs for these surveys should include a description of the vegetation types and spe-cies of ecological and grazing significance. Vegetation should be assessed for ecological status, vigour, erosion and weediness with the goal of determining and overall condition of the rangeland and vegetation type. A good example of these outputs is found in the Rangeland management plan for the Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park Project in Georgia.

Key outputs of these surveys should be mapped and placed on the GIS system to enable to presentation of appropriate maps for various administrative areas and enable the cal-culation of areas. Digital photos should be taken of landscape, vegetation types and key species.

These rangeland surveys should cover both the protected area and the support zone. Possible adaptation of these surveys is to simplify them according to the purpose of the survey. This is especially so in the support zone where rangeland managers, i.e. farmers and herders, only need to know the current vegetation type and condition as determined by key indicator species and erosion status and its location.

5.3.2.3 Ecological management model

It is highly recommended that the photos of major vegetation types identified in the rangeland surveys be arranged into an Ecological Management Model Chart. This simple and effective approach was developed in the Qinghai Project in China (QFRMP, 2007; Manual No. 3) (see Annex 4). The chart displayed the major vegetation types found ac-cording to their condition (or degree of modification or degradation) and clearly showed the range of vegetation across the landscape and pathways of degradation, some of which are reversible with improved rangeland management however, in some cases the degradation is irreversible.

This simple information can be used in the following ways: • 3-D images of the communities’ catchment or landscape showing land use and

vegetation types (see Annex 5). Attached photos can show each vegetation type and be presented to user groups to discuss their present land use, rangeland management, grazing and animal husbandry practices (Annex 6);

• Farmers can see the rangeland types in their villages and see the extent of eco-logical degradation;

• The sequence of degradation of each vegetation type can be discussed in terms of causes and management strategies and tactics to prevent further degradation and to rehabilitate the rangeland.

Processing of satellite imagery of large areas of rangelands can be used by regional and national managers for planning, implementing and monitoring.

The QFRMP also prepared a simple manual entitled: Decision Support System for Ecologi-cally-based Sustainable Land Management. For each of the major vegetation type found


37

in the project areas (i.e. vegetation association and condition) (say 10) there was a se-ries of pictures showing the situation on one way and some text don another describing the vegetation type and key indicator species, and rehabilitation, management and moni-toring requirements. This simple adapted approach does not require the use (e.g. live-stock owner, herder, ranger) to have an extensive botanical knowledge to use it by being able to identify say 10-15 key species.

5.3.3 Participatory planning: overview, approaches, methods and outputs

5.3.3.1 Overview

The earlier discussion about the unit of (resource) management has highlighted that there is no simple distinction between The Park and The Population but a complex net of competing but partly also synergetic management interactions of a variety of resource users inside and in the vicinity of existing or proposed national park. Planning has to ac-cept that the resource users frequently make their living using resources also located on state or common lands even if these might have been or should be earmarked for con-servation. It is essential to learn about the actual status of resource uses and find ways of consensual resource management in the PA Biomes in question.

Most of the landscapes and ecosystems found in the Southern Caucasus are managed, although not all of them sustainably. Some of these management systems are not based on formal legal rights or titles. Although this is a genuine rural development and govern-ance problem, any intended land use change (and the establishment of a National Park or other protected area potentially induce severe changes) has to acknowledge the facts as they are and design the interventions accordingly.

One of the largest challenges is the prevalence of non permanent resource users such as migratory pastoralists, who use definite resources and areas in a particular pattern. Often these remote users and their interests have no representation in local or district institu-tions. The involvement of all official stakeholders is regulated in the Southern Caucasus and strictly adhered to, but it does not suffice if the establishment of a PA shall not lead to an alienation and deprivation of traditional resources users

15. Public consultation is

mandatory and a prerequisite for the establishment of national parks, yet a mere institu-tional consultation is not enough if the land management in and around the PAs is to be changed sustainably.

Finding platforms and mechanisms to coordinate the activities inside and outside the park delineation is one of the major challenges in conservational resource management. The establishment and participation of village, municipal and district committees for the rep-resentation of users is a requirement of practicability as these institutions can serve as counterpart and dialogue partner. Yet it is unrealistic to assume that the village commit-

tee(s) represents all resource users fairly and sufficiently. More user groups and institu-tions may be present and will have to be consulted and potentially entrusted with planning and decision making. As explained Section 2 one of the early and major chal-lenges for the conservation planning to identify the units of management presently in place and also units that were desirable to form in case a new type of management is to be introduced. Many of the management units are informally organized and hence diffi-cult to be institutionally involved. Participatory Tools may help to find responses for this challenge, but alike silver bullets it depends how and where they are targeted at.

15 A very helpful guidebook on extending formal consultation to participation is provided by Metsähallitus, Finnish Forest and Park Service: “Participatory Ap-

proach to natural Resource Management, A Guide Book, 1999” ISBN 952-446-130-7


38

It is understood that participation as a process that does not only formally inform or con-sults the people, but actively involves users in the management of resources that are supposed to be conserving values of superior interest. Therefore the tools to be applied are contextually linked to Participatory Learning and Action, and not confined to Partici-patory Rural Appraisal and Planning. As the general IUCN planning steps have been commented and clarified already only the most significant elements of participatory ac-tion are highlighted below. Naturally the cultural context of traditional ethnic groups in a post soviet new market economy bears specific challenges, but the discussions with prac-titioners have shown that with sufficient sensitivity and an understanding of village sys-tems the fundamental tools generate the best results

5.3.3.2 Approaches to participation

There are a range of approaches to participation but the most useful types of participa-tion are:

• Interactive participation – people participate in joint analysis, which leads to ac-tion plans and the formation or strengthening of local groups that determine how the resources are used. Learning methods are used to seek multiple viewpoints;

• Self-mobilisation – people participate by taking initiatives independently of ex-ternal projects or government agencies. They develop contacts with external in-stitutions to access resources and technical advice but retain control over how the resources are used. It is expected that initial interactive participation will be encouraged to evolve into sustainable self-mobilisation over time.

Other less effective forms of participation to be aware of are manipulative participation, passive participation, participation by consultation and functional participation.

5.3.3.3 Planning participants

The participants should include: • Community:

o all resource users o men and women o owners of large livestock populations o poorest, better off and wealthiest

• Government: o various bureau, e.g. agriculture, forestry o local government o national park managers and facilitators

• Project: o Facilitators; specialists

5.3.3.4 Approaches and methods (tools)

Initial planning usually involves working with smaller groups of key informants for: • Initial broad baseline data on the village; • Secondary data collection and analysis; • Geo-botanical and vegetation surveys. • Key informant surveys

Field planning involves working with farmer groups. Community members could be split into say three groups of 20-50 people of which one group is women only. Topic areas, methods of investigation (tools) and the main sources of information include:

• Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools of data collection and analysis with farmer-friendly materials;


39

• Village mapping – social and physical infrastructure; • Village mapping – resource map; • Transect walks, field verification and participatory inventories; • Historical trends matrix; • Decision support systems (vegetation ecological management framework); • Forestry/rangeland resource management matrix; • Problem analysis matrix; • SWOT analysis; • Venn diagrams and social maps; • Scoring and ranking methods; • Solutions/supporting activities matrix.

Following the public meetings smaller groups and committees will be involved in detailed planning. It is proposed that elections be held to establish the committees. There should be quotas for a minimum number of women to be represented on the committees.

The uses of several of the tools are discussed in more detail in Annex 1 with particular emphasis on the context and care that needs to be taken when using them. These are

• Secondary data review; • Public meetings; • SWOT analysis; • Key informant interviews; • Resource use and village development maps; • Transect walks, field verification and participatory inventories; • Venn diagrams and social maps.

5.3.3.5 Outputs from the participatory planning process

The outputs of the participatory planning process form the basis of detailed planning which would probably be done with small sub-groups or elected committees.

The outputs include: • Capacity building:

o government staff can present the ecological classification model, assist communities make decisions and apply and range of participatory tools in the communities;

o communities can develop preliminary plans with broad-based agree-ment and commitment, ready for detailed annual plan development; elect a committee to assist with implementation; most villagers are aware of and committed to these activities.

• Rangeland/village natural resource management strategy with identification of: o ecological types, current use, problems and main cause of problems; o households most affected/main users; o management strategy described; o responsibility and source of support; timing.

• Problem analysis matrix including identification of: o identification of primary causes and other problems associated with low

farm productivity and income o reasons why these still occur o factors making it difficult to find a solution

• Supporting activities matrix includes identification of: o summaries of problems and causes; o factors/reasons why these still occur;


40

o benefits/impact of addressing these factors/how will they support the natural resource strategy (environmentally, socially and economically);

o - what activities/actions are required; o who will benefit/implement; responsibilities; timing; o contributions required by community, government and the project.

5.3.4 Planning activities

National park planning activities were discussed in Chapter 3. Specific activities related to farming systems and rangeland management should be closely coordinated with the other disciplines and are as follows:

Step 1: Pre-planning • Scoping and definition of the project area; • Identification of stakeholders; • Presentation of the project and its parameters and possible impacts to the villag-

ers; • At some stage the villages will have to agree to participate in the project; • Collecting basic information using rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and key informant

survey (KIS) techniques: e.g. o government and community structures; o administrative, boundaries, land tenure and land use; o farming systems, grazing use and organisation.

• Training staff to facilitate the planning with classroom and field-based activities.

Step 2: Data gathering • Collate existing information: secondary data, maps, reports; • Village baseline data collection focusing on land use and aspects on the farming

systems and rangeland. This activity uses a 3-4 page questionnaire compiled af-ter initial discussion with key informants (Also, Step 2 of the FSD process);

• The detailed geo-botanical and vegetation surveys as discussed in Section 5.3.3 could start at this stage. Also, information should include:

o historical use and vegetation trends should be obtained from the herd-ers;

o on the growth patterns, productivity and usefulness for animal produc-tion of the major vegetation types;

o extensive digital photos of landscapes, vegetation types and key spe-cies.

Step 3: Data analysis • Analyses of secondary data and reports; • Analyses of the geo-botanical surveys:

o description of the major vegetation types and species; o preparation of draft Ecological Management Model; o mapping and estimation of areas of vegetation types, conditions etc.; o preparation of charts and materials for initial public meetings discus-

sions; o recommended technical options for rangeland rehabilitation and prepa-

ration of “flip charts” for public meetings (see Annex 7). • Farming systems and rangeland KIS with groups of leading male and female

farmers o discuss the data collected in the questionnaire in Step 2 using a check-

list of pre-prepared points;


41

o discuss a set of pre-prepared technical and management options for farming systems and rangeland development – presented using “flip charts” (see Annex 7) and/or PowerPoint modules together with some examples of actual materials and training modules (Step 3 of the FSD process).

Step 4: Constraints, opportunities and threats • This is the start of the large-scale public meetings in which various tools listed

above could be used to facilitate the discussions, e.g. SWOT analyses etc.; • Various aspects of the protected area planning processes will be coordinated be-

fore the public meetings commence; • It is recommended that the large-scale charts describing the condition of the

rangelands and the technical options should be presented at the beginning of this process as the eventual development of a Village Rangeland Grazing man-agement plan to protect the biodiversity of the NP is a major goal;

• At this stage flip charts or PowerPoint presentation of the options for rangeland rehabilitation and improved grazing animal husbandry techniques.

Step 5: Development of the management vision and objectives • This will be largely guided by national policy and legislation; • The rangeland management plan will evolve in this step.

Step 6: Developing options • Decisions will be made to protect, utilise and/or abandon various natural re-

sources including various vegetation types in the rangeland; • Defining zones will be an important part of this activity: e.g.

o strict nature reserve; o traditional use zone; o support zone.

Step 7: Integration into a draft plan

The farming systems and rangeland management plan will be one of the discrete pro-grams to meet the objectives in the overall protected area vision and objectives. Some key considerations for this plan include:

• It may take a number of years before the community, national park management and the government officials feel confident that an effective and sustainable Vil-lage Rangeland (Grazing) management plan can be agreed under a Co-Management or Devolved Management agreement. The possible contents of a plan and an agreement are detailed in Section 5.4.6.

• Activities in the process to developing a plan and agreement include a series of on-farm activities, demonstrations and training for rangeland rehabilitation and improved grazing management and animal husbandry techniques, other farming systems development as well as developing further incentives including broader community development activities;

• Community development activities are an important consideration of the incen-tive-based conservation approach. Possible components of a community devel-opment program are list in Section 5.4.7;

• Plans will also have to detail what activities will take place, when, who will be re-sponsible and financial and in-kind contributions from the community, the na-tional park and the government agencies. Training of staff and communities is an important activity;

• Implementation requires: community organisation, budget, participatory ap-proach, effective monitoring, annual revision of plans and effective cooperation


42

and/or co-management with the national park management and with the local government.

Step 8: Public consultation on the draft plan

Step 9: Refining the management plan

Step 10: Approval or endorsement of the management plan

In the FSD process this is MILESTONE 1.

Steps 11-13: Implementation; Monitoring and Evaluation; Review and updating the plan • Broad details of how these will be done are included in the plan; • Detailed aspects on implementation of the farming systems and rangeland man-

agement plan will be covered in Section 5.4.

5.4 Farming systems and rangeland management implementation

and monitoring and evaluation

5.4.1 Introduction

This section discusses aspects of implementing a farming systems and rangeland pro-gram. Aspects covered under the IUCN Planning Guideline steps are:

Step 11 Implementation; Step 12 Monitoring and evaluation; Step 13 Review and updating of the management plan.

More detailed steps are listed in Annex 3. Detailed implementation will take several years resulting in time as which a Village Rangeland Grazing Management Plan and Co-Management Agreement could be confidently agreed between the community, the na-tional park and the local government agencies.

5.4.2 Farming systems and rangeland component activities

A national park manager will have a range of priorities that might include: • Protection the core strict protection zone, traditional use zone and support zone

for conservation and to sustain biodiversity; • Protection of rare species, plant associations or vegetation types on the range-

land; • Increasing biodiversity in rangeland vegetation types where is has been modified

or degraded; • Reducing soil erosion on the rangelands; • Ecologically sustainably utilising the rangeland for livestock production.

5.4.2.1 Protection of rangeland vegetation

Activities will involve an agreement to set aside and protect, with or without fencing, ar-eas of unique rangeland species, plant associations or vegetation types.

5.4.2.2 Rangeland rehabilitation

An extensive list of activities to rehabilitate degraded rangelands (pastures and hay-lands), including improved grazing practices, has been made for the Borjomi-Kharagauli NP in Georgia. Consideration must be given to ecological degradation (e.g. loss of key natural species, reduced vigour, invasive weeds and noxious plants) as well as physical


43

degradation (e.g. mild and severe soil erosion in pastures, gully erosion, erosion near roads).

These recommendations are sound but would have to be adapted for local conditions and turned into practical field activities with funding, field demonstrations, training and ap-propriate training and extension materials.

Possible rangeland rehabilitation activities include: 1. Improved grazing management system: spring rest, grazing rotation, reduced

carrying capacity etc.; 2. Re-seeding with pasture species (with seed obtained locally from “nursery

plots”); 3. Rejuvenating compacted areas by “raking” etc.; 4. Fertilising with animal manure (together with “raking”); 5. Converting sub-alpine pastures into meadows (for hay) on a rotational basis 6. Converting hayland into meadows on a rotational basis; 7. Organising “buschlage” (horizontally planting cuttings) on eroded areas; 8. Cutting “cornices” and sowing seeds on eroded land; 9. Specialist soil conservation works along roads and in gullies; 10. Planting shrubs and trees on some degraded areas; 11. Trimming back weeds and noxious and poisonous plants biannually in spring

and autumn; 12. Allocating plots for high productivity high quality fodder to reduce the pressure

on other areas; 13. Ploughing valleys and sowing wild seeds; 14. Additional watering points to relieve pressure on traditional water sources; 15. Level tussocks and remove stone from some areas; 16. Remove excess water from some marsh areas.

Fencing (wires, electric wires etc.) might be required to protect some degraded areas from overgrazing while rehabilitation takes place.

5.4.2.3 Improved grazing management

There many strategies and tactics for improved grazing management including delayed spring grazing, rotational grazing to maximise growth rates, autumn rest and perhaps several years of rest for seriously degraded land. Livestock production can be improved by such tactics as dividing and feeding according to productive status (dry, growing, pregnant and lactating), rotating livestock objectively according to the amount of bio-mass on offer, supplementary feeding of certain livestock on grass and improve stall feeding over winter.

Pasture and hay growth can be described in three phases: (1) early growth phase - short pastures and slow growth although high quality, (2) mid-growth phase – taller, good ground cover, rapid growth and good to high quality and (3) maturing phase – tall with slower growth and reduced quality due to shading and increased proportion of dead mat-ter. Pasture condition and productivity and animal production can be greatly improved by understanding and managing this process. At the same time ecologically threatened spe-cies can thrive and ground cover improve reducing weed invasion and soil erosion, i.e. vegetation modification and degradation can be reversed.

Opportunities for ecologically sustainable improved pasture production and utilisation include:


44

1. Spring rest (say by delaying grazing by one month) with increase pasture growth rates and reduce damage from tramping during the “spring flood”;

2. Rotation grazing improves the pasture growth rate, species composition, vigour, rangeland condition and production. By resting pastures species can recover from grazing and establish strong root systems;

3. By rotating pastures to achieve maximum growth rates, production and feed-on-offer to livestock can be increased thereby greatly increasing livestock pro-ductivity;

4. Autumn rest is also useful to allow pastures to set seed and nutrients to be re-turned to the root to ensure strong growth in the following spring

5. Rehabilitate degraded pastures (see above); 6. Hay production and quality can be improved with weed control, fertiliser with

and manuring, “raking”, over-seeding and rotation with pastures.

5.4.2.4 Improved animal husbandry

Opportunities for improved livestock production cover aspects of improved breed, health, housing and nutrition. When used in combination with improved grazing management significant improvements in livestock productivity and incomes can be made. The oppor-tunities include:

1. Improved veterinary services; good care of animal in bad weather; 2. Warm housing in spring, winter and autumn; 3. Maximising feed intake levels of livestock, according to productive status, is

critical to obtaining higher productivity, by increasing the ratio of nutrients used for production to maintenance of body weight. This can be achieved with good management;

4. Improved grazing – improve feed on offer to livestock by resting and rotating pastures according to a set of objective rules. A reduced stocking rate might be required in the short-term;

5. The use of electric fences might facilitate grazing management; 6. Improved watering points to increase pasture availability; 7. Rangeland rehabilitation will improved pasture quantity and quality; 8. If possible partition livestock according to productive status and nutritional re-

quirements, i.e. dry, growing young animals, pregnant and lactating; 9. Aim to get females to the required minimum body condition at mating times; 10. Strategic supplementary feeding of some classes of livestock while grazing; 11. Strategic feeding of young animals while on their mothers with high protein

feeds; 12. Balanced feeding of livestock during stall-feeding over winter; 13. Improved quality and quantity of hay.

5.4.2.5 Rangeland condition and carrying capacity

One of the critical issues which are often raised is: “what is the sustainable carrying ca-pacity of the different vegetation types?” Under the former Soviet system range of maxi-mum carrying capacities were established for rangeland of varying types and condition. These were based on the extensive vegetation surveys conducted during the 1940s and 1950s.

While it is technically possible to estimate the useful production from different vegetation types and to match it with the nutrient requirements (say energy and protein) of various classes of livestock on the rangeland it would be a very time consuming exercise and with many assumptions (e.g. grazing management tactics, species content, tramping losses, residual vegetation remaining, livestock species). Such an exercise could be useful in


45

providing an initial guide to maximum carrying capacities but it would not address to is-sues of ecological degradation of the vegetation types.

A longer term approach would be an assessment of the current vegetation type, ecologi-cal status and trends, and stocking rate. Various stocking rate strategies, in combination with improved grazing management, could be used: e.g.

• If the vegetation type is in a degraded state but stable – either maintain stocking rate to sustain the current status or to reduce stocking rate to reverse the deg-radation.

There are many practical and farmer-friendly tools to enable improved rangeland man-agement by farmers and rangers. These include:

1. Sustainable ecological management model created for the project area – this al-lows a simple assessment of the current vegetation type and condition and pro-vides a basis for monitoring;

2. Many simple charts and tables have been developed (e.g. in Australia) to allow farmers to make an estimate of the amount of feed in a pasture and relate this back to the number of livestock that can be carried for how long.

Tables of nutrient contents of animal feeds and the nutrient requirements of livestock are especially useful when formulating diets and rations for supplementary feeding and for stall feeding during winter. These tables have not been commonly available in the Cauca-sus since the Soviet era but are readily available from international sources. Another practical tool for livestock management is the animal condition scoring systems com-monly used by farmers in Australia. By feeling the animal fat cover at a standard position or viewing the animal from behind scores can be established on a scale of 1 to 5. Certain minimum scores are required by mating time to ensure a good calving or lambing rate. Farmers can simply manipulate their grazing or supplementary feeding regimes or carry-ing capacity to meet the minimum condition score.

5.4.2.6 Other farming systems activities

Improvements to components of the farming system can be demonstrated including: • Food, forage, vegetable, fruit and herb crops; varieties, fertilisers, crop protec-

tion, processing, mechanization, storage etc.; • Pigs – housing, breeding, animal health and nutrition; • New enterprises – greenhouse vegetables, bee-keeping, mushrooms etc.; • Socio-economic constraints to development – training, credit, processing, mar-

keting etc.

5.4.3 Appropriate training and extension materials

Effective extension and implementation of improved grazing and animal husbandry man-agement options requires appropriate extension and training materials and activities. Part of the planning process should be to prepare drafts of these materials rather than a sim-ple list of recommendations. There are many effective training and extension tools which have been proven in the field. These materials might include:

5.4.3.1 Flip charts

Flips charts are an effective tool for informing and interacting with larger groups of farm-ers in a public meeting. These consist of sets of large sheets of paper on a stand. These may consist of a series of sheets of key information or blank sheets of paper. The amount of information on each sheet should be minimal: a little text plus some simple cartoons


46

or drawings and/or cartoons. The pace of the meeting can be controlled by turning the page to the next subject. Examples are shown in Annex 7.

5.4.3.2 PowerPoint modules

With the increased available of digital cameras PowerPoint slides are an excellent method of presenting technical demonstration and management options to communities and for training – seeing is believing, doing is better.

5.4.3.3 On-farm demonstrations

In extension there is an expression:”Doing it is better than seeing it which is better than listening about it”. On-farm demonstrations for an improved grazing management tech-nique or any other activity allow the farmer to experience the new technique and adapt it to their situation (or even reject it if it is unsuitable). Successful demonstrations can then become the basis for farmer field days. On-farm demonstrations can be monitored at mid-term and again at the end of the demonstration period/season. Participating farmers received a demonstration leaflet on how to conduct the demonstration plus on-the-job training as required. Farmer field days and cross visits

Farmer field days or “open day” allow groups of farmers who couldn’t participate in the on-farm demonstrations to visit promising demonstration sites and discuss the objectives and results with the demonstration household and technicians. Hosting such field days is a condition of receiving inputs for demonstrations. Cross-visits are a program of taking farmers further away to inspect promising technologies and new ideas. The opportunities are taken to train farmers and distribute extension materials. An example is found at An-nex 8.

5.4.3.4 Extension leaflets

Proven results from on-farm demonstrations and other activities can be prepared as sim-ple extension leaflets, say 2 pages per subject, consisting of some basic text, drawings and photo as necessary. An example is found in Annex 9.

5.4.3.5 Booklets

More detailed but simple booklets, perhaps consisting of a set of leaflets, might be pre-pared for covering a major subject, e.g. barley production or cattle production.

5.4.3.6 Posters

Large posters can be prepared for key technical or management information and can be placed in prominent public places.

Extensive methods were used in the Qinghai Project (Manual 6) and these can be adopted for local conditions and cultural sensitivities by field testing with the farmers.

5.4.4 Training

Extensive and effective practical training is required: • Facilitator training for the both the implementation of the rangeland manage-

ment, farming systems and community development planning processes • Training for the implementation of management and technical options for reha-

bilitation of rangelands, improved grazing management, animal husbandry and farming systems demonstrations, and for community development activities


47

• Capacity building in the community/user groups to manage the affairs of their group, to implement the agreed programs and to manage the co-management or devolved management agreements.

Targets of training should be national park managers and rangers, other rural develop-ment people, livestock owners, shepherds and community leaders. Training should be practical, ideally “on-the-job” (i.e. in the field at the demonstration site with minimum time in the classroom) and with appropriate materials used. On-farm demonstrations, farmer field days and cross-visits are all forms of training. A handbook on Training Man-agement is found in Volume 8 of the Qinghai Project.

5.4.5 Monitoring and evaluation; revised plans

M&E systems will be put in place for monitoring NP and support zone activities. Volume 9 of the Qinghai Project covers participatory review and monitoring including rangeland monitoring techniques.

5.4.6 Village rangeland management plan and agreements

It might take several years for the farmers to test and adopt some of the recommend tools for improved grazing management and animal husbandry. Additional environmental performance-linked incentives might be required including components of a community development program. Eventually all the partners in a co-management or devolved man-agement agreement would be confidence to sign. Careful consideration should be given to the key issues of:

• Tenure and pricing; • Costs and benefits; • Authority and responsibility.

A brief but comprehensive rangeland management plan should be prepared for each management unit (village or user group). Aspects covered should include:

• Village or user group; • Location; • Introduction and purpose of the plan; • Traditional zone and support zone rangelands; • Rangeland and hayland areas; • Vegetation types, condition, location, problems and goals for pastures and hay-

land; • Locations to be preserved for biodiversity conservation; • Permanent grazing ban areas: preserved areas, heads of watersheds, seriously

degraded areas, steep and fragile landscapes, hayland etc.; • Temporary grazing ban areas: erosion and ecological degradation rehabilitation

areas, rotational grazing, spring rest, autumn rest etc.; • Grazing rules; • Improved grazing management strategies and tactics to preserve biodiversity,

maintain or improve rangeland condition and improve livestock productivity; • spring rest, rotational grazing, autumn rest etc.; • Improved hayland strategies and tactics; • Rangeland rehabilitation activities and budget: demonstrations, program imple-

mentation; • Technical support (grazing management, animal husbandry, rehabilitation etc.):

extension and training; on-farm demonstrations; • Rights and responsibilities; • Maximum livestock carrying capacities (by vegetation type and overall);


48

• Incentives and penalties; enforcement; • Fees and charges; • Co-management with protected area management; devolved management; con-

tracted management; • Relationships with PA management, rangers, community leaders, government

agencies etc.; • Endorsements; • Maps.

The plans should be supported by sets of appropriate extension materials and other documentation.

5.4.7 Community development plans

The approach to ecologically-based sustainable land management in the Qinghai Project was to include a community development component. The manual for preparing village-based catchment management plans is found in Volume 7.

To address to overall community problems and root causes of the threats to biodiversity it is essential that integrated community development programs be considered for the support zones and that a substantial part of the financing be embedded with the funding of the NP. Co-management arrangements involving the community, local government offices and the PA management will have to be developed. Development plans should be partly linked to the achievement of various environmental goals.

Components of an integrated community development program could include: • Environmental awareness education, including global warming • Environmental project funds (e.g. rangeland rehabilitation, alternative energy

sources, energy efficient stoves; preserving areas unique biodiversity; soil con-servation; tree planting; fuelwood lots)

• Community infrastructure (e.g. repairing irrigation canals, water supplies, village and field repairs, school repairs etc.)

• Farming systems development (e.g. on-farm demonstrations, farmer and staff training and extension, veterinary services, marketing and credit support etc.)

• Vocational skill training for off-farm work. • Micro-credit for income generating activities • Training for income generating activities

5.4.8 Project documentation

The extensive project/protected area activities should be documented by a series of sim-ple manuals or handbooks. The Qinghai Project developed a set of manuals but these could be simplified and adapted for the local situation. Drawing from the Qinghai experi-ence, national park managers in the southern Caucasus should consider producing the following documents:

5.4.8.1 Geo-botanical Survey Methods and Vegetation Classification Manual

Briefly outlines the rangeland (and/or forestry) survey design, field methods and formats, data analysis methods, vegetation classification system, summary formats (GIS, maps, tables etc.) and reporting requirements. It should include all major references.


49

5.4.8.2 Ecologically-based Sustainable Land Management: A Decision Support System

This is a field manual derived from the vegetation survey outlining the major vegetation types found, their position in an ecological management model showing the major land-scapes and their degree of degradation. Each major vegetation type is shown in photo-graphs and described using key indicator species. The causes of degradation are given and the management options to maintain or improve/restore the ecological conditions outlined. Key points to monitor are listed. The manual is targeted at community leaders, livestock owners, shepherds and national park managers and rangers and only a minimal botanical knowledge is required (i.e. sufficient to identify a limited range of indicator spe-cies of vegetation type and stage of degradation).

5.4.8.3 Rangeland Rehabilitation Handbook

This handbook would consist of a set of simple extension leaflets covering the range of approaches for the rehabilitation of rangelands. Examples of the options have been listed elsewhere.

5.4.8.4 Rangeland Monitoring Manual

Briefly outlines the monitoring program: number and size of sites; surveys methods, forms and analyses. The frequency of monitoring could be outlined, e.g. rangeland condi-tion 1 every 4 years, condition 2 every 2 years, conditions 3 and 4 annually. Herders and field workers should be making regular observations to manage their rangeland better.

5.4.8.5 On-farm Demonstration Handbook

This handbook would contain a set of the on-farm demonstration leaflets.

5.4.8.6 Improved Grazing Management Handbook

This handbook would consist of a set of simple extension leaflets.

5.4.8.7 Improved Animal Production Handbook

This handbook would consist of a set of simple extension leaflets on all livestock species – sheep, goats, cattle, pigs etc.

5.4.8.8 Improved Farming Systems Handbook

The leaflets in this handbook would cover a broader range of subjects including food crops, horticulture, herbs, forage crops, farm machinery etc.

5.4.8.9 Community Development Planning and Implementation Plan

This document would cover the longer-term and annual plan for the community develop-ment activities described elsewhere.


50

References

IUCN. 2003. Guidelines for management of protected areas. World Commission on Pro-

tected Areas (WCPA). Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 10.

Salafsky, Nick, Richard Margoluis, and Kent Redford. 2001. Adaptive Management: A Tool for Conservation Practitioners. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C.

State Department of Protected Areas, Nature Reserves and Hunting Economy. 2003. Bor-jomi-Kharagauli National Park Management Plan. Second Draft December 2003.


51

Annex 1: Some commonly used participatory planning tools Secondary Data Review

There is a wealth of information and experience available in the PA systems of the South-ern Caucasus, especially in the field of biodiversity conservation. Therefore it is worth screening and collecting the current information in all institutions which are, or have been, involved in resource management of the PAs envisaged. This refers to all organiza-tional levels, starting from international and supranational bodies and initiatives, via the national and regional levels down to statistics and data collected on village or e.g. forest district and site level.

All the information available, especially data from line departments and regional authori-ties, will have to be scrutinised against their relevance, validity, and topicality. Naturally a triangulation, i.e. a verification of information by different sources (verifying that these sources have not just copied and pasted the data from other studies) is a basic principle in all appraisal and analysis approaches. Nevertheless it is a principle matter of profes-sionalism and sincerity to know the data and information available before the next scien-tist/official/planner approaches the same villagers to collect livestock data, energy sources, income patterns and the like. Public Meetings

Awareness and information campaigns often address the general public and can only be the starting step to introduce objectives and opportunities of envisaged PAs. Logically mass media, especially newspapers, radio and TV can spread basic information widely, yet most readers/listeners/viewers cannot assess what the general information given there means concretely in their individual environment. Public events and group meetings should inform formal and informal groups sufficiently and clearly in the language of the user group (without scientific, political or development jargon) about the PA plans and the potential consequences of these.

The framework for minimum and maximum interventions has to be set out, also showing the respective array of plans and positive or negative actions. Planners must avoid raising expectations and clearly address potential difficulties as well as the realistically achiev-able improvements for the concrete group. This initial one-way communication, fre-quently in a school type setting of lectures or presentations, often ended with passing the message and then wondering why this was not eagerly and immediately taken up.

Information sessions must clarify roles and mandates of the PA planners and develop-ment workers. Most importantly the group must be given time and opportunity to digest and discuss the information, before any decision or directions are taken.

Formalised group sessions, hearings and interviews may also be applied when diverging individual user perceptions and preferences have to be negotiated between distinct groups or between authorities and users. It may also spark discussions and encourage different opinions to be raised in order to safeguard individual and common interests.

Later in the process round tables and committees may be formalised, rules and appropri-ate mechanisms for authority in decision making will have to be developed individually by the users, potentially facilitated by project or PA staff as and when the need arises. It should go without saying that all official structures and representative institutions should be part and parcel of the interaction; however, they often only meet the specific interests


52

of a planned PA in a specific region, as they are designed and equipped for the regular tasks of administration only.

Several projects and programmes have collected experience in PA and support zone ac-tivities and community based organisations already. Specific trainings for proposed plan-ners and implementation staff of the PAs can and should be organised in the region as appropriate. An exchange of experience between the different institutions may identify local and regional best practices and further support the development of community based resource management systems in conservation. SWOT Analyses

The group meetings have a variety of objectives and for all these facilitation is, at least initially, required. Tools like a SWOT analysis help to structure meetings and document agreements and disagreements. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis is a structured brainstorming process to elicit group perceptions of a specific aspect of, for instance, a resource management limitation. The aspect is analysed in terms of the positive factors (strengths), negative factors (weaknesses), possible im-provements (opportunities) and constraints (threats).

SWOT analysis can be especially useful for evaluating activities carried out in a manage-ment plan. It can also be focused on specific aspects of the plan, such as services pro-vided by external agencies or activities being undertaken by the user group. As SWOT analyses also have a strong grounding along a timeline (strengths and weaknesses refer to the status quo, opportunities and threats describe planning aspects in the future) these can be used in planning and later on in monitoring as well, because the groups be-come familiar with the tool and tend to use it efficiently to develop scenarios or to weigh risks and assumptions. Key Informant Interviews

The most important means of communication is direct dialogue with the actual resource users. As it is literally impossible to speak with all users there is a requirement to identify key informants. These can best be identified by the users themselves (e.g. during group sessions) or by professionals originating from the relevant groups or region. Local experi-ence and familiarity with societal structures and customs (gender aspects, ethnic differ-ences, marginalised groups) is often more important than a specific scientific background for identifying key persons. In the beginning confidence building is the main objective; therefore sufficient time for the process shall be allotted. The interviews should avoid any extractive character but shall be adapted to the communication culture of the PA region. No communication partner likes to be seen as a living database or reference source only; understanding the social, cultural and political setting can be achieved only if the actors are actively interested and listening to each other. Resource use and village development maps

Many rural development programs base their interventions on documents like village or community based strategies, village conceptual maps or other documents that are de-signed within the specific (development) project context16. These are made to facilitate,

16

‘The village conceptual map is a conceptual framework and the primary tool for analysis – an iteratively agreed, partly visual model for identifying and classifying aspects of community life, resources and forces that act upon these’, see http://www.policy-powertools.org/ a useful compilation of specifically useful tools for participatory work.


53

visualise and document the perception of reality, potential for change and vision of the communities. The risk of this approach in resource management is the often differing priorities of the user groups and the feasibility of visions developed. Therefore it is indis-pensable that the group is aware of the potential interventions that a new PA would real-istically be able to offer.

Resource mapping appears to be the most appropriate method to clarify the current re-source uses and the intentions that specific user groups have. The main idea of resource mapping is visualising the understanding of resource status and use from different user perspectives. It is important to know the groups you are interacting with in order to re-ceive more than the official picture.

The tools used at the user group level depend on the familiarity of the users concerning maps, photos or other sketches. Ideally the resource mapping is based on ortho-photos that allow a bird’s eye view of the area17. As many protected areas are situated along or adjacent to state boundaries it may not be easy to get aerial photos, even if the re-sources were available to produce these. Hence satellite imagery or maps may be used. Google Earth or other free satellite images have made these views economic and add attractiveness to the exercise so that even villagers who would not have taken part ear-lier will be present, even if it partly only for curiosity. If other spatial data (such as zapovednik, village boundaries, hydrological or cadastre information) are digitally avail-able, even hybrid maps could be prepared before hand, yet it has to be kept clear that these are only bases for assessment, not results.

It is important to allow sufficient time for the users to familiarise with the base material in order to enable the users to indicate and finally map the actual uses. Any uses that are not confined to specific areas, but still important shall be recorded as well, either in sepa-rate tables or as footnotes to the map produced.

In case images and maps are not appropriate, sketches on blackboards or large papers serve the purpose as well. It is then only more difficult to transfer the contents of the resource map into exact maps or other geographic information systems. Digital cameras have provided to be helpful in conserving the map contents and making these easily available in the office.

The scale of the maps should generally cover the whole intervention area of the group, not only the village and/or park boundaries. It is important to mark the third party uses on these maps as well, because neighbours, migrant or seasonal users may not be pre-sent in the specific session but still use the area.

Unsurprisingly it is difficult to document unauthorised uses by the actors themselves, but it is possible to record them attributing it to ‘unknown causers’. The discussion with sepa-rate groups (men, women, farmers, shepherds, traders, officials…) shall provide diver-gent opinions and overlapping uses. It has to be clarified, if the users perceive these overlapping uses as conflicts. If so the current mechanisms to resolve/sustain the conflict should be recorded. If the conflicts are currently not resolved it has to be discussed why this is the case and if this causes further negative effects.

The sketch maps will have to be verified in the field. Several transect walks will be re-quired, especially concerning disputed influence spheres, borders of (resource) authority

17 A very good MANUAL ON PARTICIPATORY VILLAGE MAPPING USING PHOTOMAPS can be found at:

http://www.iapad.org/publications/ppgis/participatory_mapping_using_photomaps_ver2.pdf


54

or other management essentials. It is essential that all neighbours jointly verify bounda-ries, this is mandatory when it comes to village /community/park borders.

At the end of this resource mapping process one topical and agreed resource use map should indicate which management units (individuals, groups, and institutions) are man-aging the resources of the community/village at present.

Overlaying the synthesized maps with the legal situation may probably show that the actual land use and the document situation do not always coincide. This does not neces-sarily constitute a conflict on authority, as traditional uses or original designations of land may have been change in a consensual manner, but have not been documented accord-ingly.

Participatory planning can start only after the above mentioned analysis of the situation. Only then the protected area planning can be realistically balancing the costs and bene-fits of the intended change for the resource users and the distant beneficiaries.18 The in-centive and compensation mechanisms to facilitate the changes must be transparent and clear for everyone in order to allow informed decisions of the target group.

After the group consensus of the status quo separate sessions on the vision and prefer-ence ranking of alternative activities and strategies will be required. These may actually end in a conceptual map or a development plan, yet this often exceeds the mandate and means of PA planning. It appears advisable to involve the rural development and poverty alleviation institutions into theses exercises from the very beginning , especially when rural poverty with lack in infrastructure and communication often override environment or conservation concerns. Transect walks, field verification of boundaries and participatory inventories

Boundary and transect walks are an important opportunity to communicate with all re-source users as many questions and issues only arise during the walks. Direct observa-tion allows discussions on good and poor examples of resource management. The walks also provide the opportunity to contact those persons or groups that do not regularly at-tend meetings or other venues. Try to make sure that all owners/managers of the area are present in the field during the discussion about ‘their’ resources. It has proven helpful to record the documented proprietary situation (border stones...) characteristic waypoints or other landmarks by GPS in order to allow an exact location in geographic reference systems. Still the GPS is a tool and should be demystified from the very beginning. It has to be clear for everyone that data recorded by the receiver are indicative and not abso-lute.

The field and user group visits will differ in frequency and duration, depending on the familiarity of the stakeholders with each other. Apart from informal village and transect walks more formalised resource mapping exercises can be applied, e.g. when forest re-sources and their uses are to be dealt with. Then the users and the planners should jointly inventorise the existing stock of fuel, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), timber and wildlife. Traces of recent and historical use should be documented as well in order to assess intensity and effects of the actual management regime. These joint efforts are also excellent opportunities to find our which local knowledge is still present and where this is used in the management. Rootstock or fodder plant inventories with farmers provide a

18 WWF has just published ‘The Protected Areas Benefits Assessment Tool, A methodology, Nigel Dudley and Sue Stolton, February

2008’, a potentially helpful compilation of benefits to consider during PA management


55

more concise basis for management discussions than any plant sociological definition or caloric values of fuelwood per ha. Venn Diagrams and social maps

As mentioned earlier the resource managers are mostly organised in groups starting from families to extended kin group, professional temporary teams and any other social com-position. A helpful tool for analysing the social landscape within communities are Venn diagrams as they show the linkages between groups and also identify key stakeholder and players of the social network. They can be extended to a complete social map

19 in

which the interactions between groups and individuals and the roles of key persons are visualised.

In this way these tools help to clarify units of management and conflicting and complying resource uses and visions. Sometimes these diagrams can be compiled in the office and brought for discussion already.

19 FAO has compiled a library on participation tools where an online search for specific purposes can be made: http://www.fao.org/Participation/resources.html


56

Annex 2: Circumstance affecting a farmer’s choices of enterprises and technology


57

Annex 3: Steps in implementing participatory FSD

MILESTONE FS3: Sustainable Management by Farmer Groups


58

The main steps in the FSD process are as follows: Participatory planning

• Step 1 Review overall community situation from socio-economic surveys and PLUP and priority problems, needs and opportunities

• Step 2 Collect specialist farming systems information • Step 3 Farmer groups discussions and participatory planning

MILESTONE 1 Farming systems development program and budget Participatory implementation

• Step 4 Select demonstration households • Step 5 Prepare demonstration and extension leaflets • Step 6 Procure and distribute demonstration materials • Step 7 Initiate on-farm demonstrations, with farmer training • Step 8 Specialised farmer training courses and cross-visits • Step 9 Demonstration mid-term review • Step 10 Farmer field days

MILESTONE 2 Farming systems demonstrations, training and extension completed

Participatory monitoring and evaluation

• Step 11 Strengthening of farmer group management • Step 12 Participatory monitoring • Step 13 Participatory evaluation and planning for the following year • Step 14 Publicise the results

MILESTONE 3 Eventual sustainable management by farmer groups Note Steps 2 and 3 are especially important in the process. Initial key informant surveys (KIS) will enable a 3-4 page table to be prepared for collecting key information for a village profile of demographic, land use and farming systems information to be collected (Step 2). This table should be prepared in conjunction with other members of the team to re-duce duplication. The data can be collected from a group of village leaders. On the basis of the data in this table and other secondary information (e.g. local technical recommen-dations) two major activities should be conducted to enable Step 3:

1. Prepare a checklist of technical and management questions to discuss in more depth with a group of leading farmers and herders in the village or user group

2. Prepare a set of flip charts or PowerPoint slides of the major technical on-farm demonstration, management, training or other options to be discussed in the plan.

Step 3 involves detailed interaction with a small group of male and female leading farm-ers who arrive at a draft plan, within the budget available, to be taken to the broader community to comment, refinement and endorsement. It is proposed that the technical and management demonstration activities associated with improved grazing management, animal husbandry development, rangeland rehabili-tation and rangeland eco-system protection be included under farming systems until the community, national park and government officials are sufficiently confident to agree a long-term Rangeland Management Plan.


59

Annex 4: Ecological management model


60

Annex 5: Catchment management – land use types


61

Annex 6: Using rangeland images for focused farmer group

discussions


62

Annex 7: Examples of flip charts for animal husbandry devel-

opment options

3. FORAGE AND ANIMAL

HUSBANDRY DEMONSTRA-

TIONS

3.3 GOATS AND SHEEP: IMPROVED HOUS-ING

OBJECTIVE: • SIMPLE LOW-COST RENOVATATIONS WITH:

- ELEVATED FLOOR WITH PENS

- FEED AND WATER TROUGHS - OUTSIDE YARDS AND TROUGHS

BENEFITS: • GOOD ENVIRONMENT; LESS DISEASE

• REDUCED DEATHS OF KIDS AND LAMBS

• ENABLES IMPROVED STRATEGIC FEEDING, E.G.

PREGNANT, LACTATING AND FATTENING ANIMALS


63

3. FORAGE AND ANIMAL

HUSBANDRY DEMONSTRA-

TIONS

3.4 GOATS AND SHEEP: IMPROVED

FEEDING

OBJECTIVE: • TO DEMONSTRATE STRATEGIC FEEDING OF PREG-

NANT, LACATING AND FATTENING ANIMALS:

- SUPPLEMENTARY AND/OR PEN FEEDING - CUT-AND-CARRY, SILAGE, ALFALFA, CONCEN-

TRATE

BENEFITS: “FEED FEWER GOATS AND SHEEP BETTER” • INCREASED SURVIVAL AND GROWTH RATES

• IMPROVED KIDDING AND LAMBING RATE

• REDUCED SALE AGE AND INCREASED SALE WEIGHT

• REDUCING GRAZING PRESSURE


64

Annex 8: Example of on-farm demonstration leaflet

HIGH QUALITY DIETS FOR PIGLETS AND FOR WEANER PIGS Aim: To demonstrate the benefits of feeding a high quality

diet to piglets and weaner pigs in villages where it is not practiced

Most farmers buy piglets at a young age, often 4-5 weeks old

when piglets are about 10-20 jin. Piglets come from a variety of sources including

breeders within the village, traders who come to the village and farmers/traders in the

townships. Often piglets are poorly handled and on arrival in the house get fed a very

poor diet often very low in protein. Subsequent performance is very poor and pigs can

take from 10-14 months to fatten on the local diets.

Weaning is a very stressful time for piglets. Piglet growth rates often drop from 300

g/day to 100 g/day after weaning. Recovery requires good diet, good environment and

skill operators. Commercial high protein feeds are available for piglets starting at 21%

protein when still on the sow and decreasing to 18% protein at 25-30 jin liveweight.

Feed supplements should be introduced to piglets at 4-5 days of age. Up to 600g

should be fed before weaning. It is important to buy piglets from a known breeder if

possible. The protein levels in pig diets decrease with age: 30-60 jin (16% including

any straw fed), 60-120 jin (15%), 120-200 jin (14%). Very little straw should be fed to

pigs.

Inputs

Project supplies: 10 jin/piglet of high protein concentrate feed; extension leaflet, training and extension support.

� Farmer supplies: Good pigsty; piglet; normal husbandry inputs; agrees to fol-low the demonstration guidelines and the village grazing plan; makes the site and livestock available for Farmer Field Days (“open days”)

Pre-conditions include:

1. Good pigsty is available with straw beds for piglets 2. The pigsty should have permanent access to water and kept clean 3. Piglets are kept separately from the older pigs 4. Animal health (vaccinations and internal and external parasite control) is up to

date Method: Steps in the demonstration include:

1. Vaccinate piglet and if breeding the piglets offer feed from 4-5 days after birth


65

2. Introduce the piglet to the concentrate feed: 150g/day during the first week after weaning increasing to 250-300 g/day in Week 2. Feed little often – 4-5 times per day.

3. Gradually changed over to a locally formulated high quality diet or 16% protein commercial feed after 25-30 jin liveweight

4. Continue to feed a local high quality diet with minimal straw

Monitoring: Note piglet and weaner performance (e.g. deaths, behaviour and growth rates)


66

Annex 9: Example of extension note ALFALFA DEVELOPMENT Introduction:

Alfalfa is a deep-rooted perennial leg-ume capable of supplying high fields of quality forage for cattle, goats and pigs with good management. Seed can be harvested. Many villages in the pro-ject area have grown alfalfa and its value is appreciated. Productivity and longevity could be higher with better establishment and management. Al-falfa forage development is offered by the SFDP as part compensation for the loss of grazing land due to afforestation. Site selection: Alfalfa can be estab-lished on previously ploughed crop-land intercropped with economic forest or directly sown into waste-land. The strict SFDP conditions for the alfalfa establishment are: 1. There are long-term private user

rights certificates or written agreements for the land

2. Land can only be fully ploughed where the slope is less than 10o, e.g. most economic forest land

3. Land between 10o and 25o slope must not be ploughed, but the alfalfa can be sown into single furrows spaced 70-100 cm apart with natural grass in be-tween.

4. Land over 25o slope must not be used for alfalfa.

Varieties: There are two broad groups of varieties: • North America origin: these establish quickly, reach a maximum and high forage

yield in 3-4 years which then decline with a productive life of 7-10 years. These varieties are ideally suited for alfalfa sown as an intercrop with economic forest

• Chinese origin: these varieties establish slowly and reach a lower maximum yield in 5-7 years but then declines for a productive life of 10-12 years. These varieties are most suited for sowing in wasteland.

Sowing time: Sow in early spring (March-April) to enable establishment before the hot summer or in early autumn (September-October) to enable establishment before winter and while there is still moisture. Autumn is preferred to avoid weed competition, espe-cially on previous cropland.


67

Alfalfa establishment: ploughed fields (less than 10o slope) • Row spacing: about 30-50 cm apart • Sow in rows: sowing rate: 1.5-2.0 jin/mu; sowing depth: 2.0-2.5 cm

Alfalfa establishment: wasteland – inter-sowing into grassland (less than 25o slope)

• Plough single furrows around the contour 70-100 cm apart • Sow in the furrows: sowing rate: 1.5-2.0 jin/mu; sowing depth: 2.0-2.5 cm

Fertiliser: As legume, alfalfa responds strongly to phosphate fertiliser in the establish-ment year. Guolinsuangai can be applied at 20-40 jin/mu and placed 2-3 cm below the seed and covered with soil before sowing the seed. Do not let the fertiliser come in con-tact with the seed! After several years of harvesting alfalfa may need an application of potassium fertiliser. Weeding: While there are fewer weeds in autumn previously cropped land might be very weedy in the following spring and summer. Weeding is recommended to ensure alfalfa has a long life. Harvesting: Only cut 2-3 times per year - cut at about 25% flowering for harvest 1 and 2 for the best balance of quantity and quality. Cutting can be con-tinuous but do not start until 30-50 cm high. • Harvest 1 - about June • Harvest 2 - about July/August • Harvest 3 - after haying off in the autumn (see background in

photo)! Haying-off before the final harvest is necessary to re-charge the tap roots which is necessary for grow growth of new shoots the following spring.

• Grazing should be avoided to protect to growing points in win-ter.

Yield potential: Maximum yields up to 1000 jin dry/mu with on the less steep intercrop-ping fields and up to 500-800 jin dry/mu on the steeper furrow-sown wasteland are pos-sible with good establishment and management. Seed harvest: Part of the alfalfa area can be let go to maturity (e.g. at the second cut in August) and seed harvested and used for expanding the area grown or re-seeding. Feeding alfalfa: Alfalfa is an excellent high quality forage fed green to cattle, goats, sheep and pigs. Alfalfa hay is a good quality roughage and replace low quality wheat and maize straw in diets especially for pregnant, lactating and young animals. Feeding green and hay alfalfa must be carefully managed to prevent bloat (zhangqi or quzhangbing), especially with cattle. Bloat is characterized by the rapid build-up of gas in the rumen after cattle consume certain legumes, such as, alfalfa and clover. In serious cases it can put excessive pressure on the internal organs and cause death if not treated quickly.

• Cattle must not be allowed to graze alfalfa • Green alfalfa must be fed with other roughages such as straw. • The proportion of alfalfa in the diet must be increased gradually from a low level

(over 15 days) • Alfalfa hay fed to cattle as the only roughage with wheat and wheat bran can

cause bloat. • Alfalfa hay should be fed at less than 40% of the roughage portion (e.g. 40% al-

falfa hay, 60% maize or wheat straw). • If good quality alfalfa hay used the proportion of roughage in the diet could be in-

creased from 20-25% to 30-40%.


68

Good management for high yield and long life of alfalfa

• Timely establishment at a low seeding rate (1-2 jin/mu only) to reduce competi-tion between alfalfa seedlings

• Ideally use phosphate fertiliser in the establishment year • Weeding in the early years • Only cut 2-3 times per year • Spring rest until the first cut in June • Let the third and final growth hay off before harvesting as hay

Caution: These notes are only general guidelines and farmers should check with their Township Agricultural Service Centre or County Animal Husbandry Bureau before pro-ceeding with adoption.

Documents

National Park Management Planning in the South Caucasustjs-caucasus.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/TJS-NPMP...vide a rationale for incorporating an adaptive management process into