Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
T H E M U LT I S TA K E H O L D E R F O R E S T RY P RO G R A M M EK AT H M A N D UJ U LY 2 0 1 6
Results, Good Practices and Lessons Learnt from MSFP
Government of Nepal
Published by: The Multi Stakeholder Forestry Programme (MSFP)
A Programme of the Government of Nepal (GoN) supported by the Governments of Finland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Authors : Sarika Gurung, Dipak Bishwokarma, Bishwas Rana, Sita Rana
Reviewer and editor : Richard Allen
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( i )
ABBREVIATIONS
AFEC Agriculture, Forestry and Environment CommitteeCAPA Community Adaptation Plan of ActionCAPs Community Adaptation PlansCBFM Collaborative Forest ManagementCF Community ForestsCS Civil SocietyCV Climate VulnerableDADO District Agriculture Development OfficeDAG Disadvantaged groupDCCI District Chamber of Commerce and IndustriesDFID Department for International Development, UKDFO District Forest OfficeDFSCC District Forest Sector Coordination CommitteeDFSP District Forest Sector PlanDiSCO District Soil Conservation OfficeDLO District Livestock OfficeECARDS Environment, Culture, Agriculture, Research and Development Society, one of MSFP’s
main implementing partnersENPRED Environmental Preservation Services for Development, one of MSFP’s main implementing
partnersFECOFUN Federation of Community Forest Users, NepalFED Forest Enterprise Division (of FNCCI)FFA Fund Flow AnalysisFNCCI Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and IndustriesFRA Forest Resource Assessment 2015GDP Gross Domestic ProductGESI Gender, Equity and Social InclusionGoF Government of FinlandGoN Government of NepalGPSE Gender, Poverty and Social Equityha Hectarehh HouseholdIA Implementing AgencyJFA Joint Funding AgreementLAPA Local Adaptation Plan of ActionLFG Local Forestry GroupLFP Livelihood Forestry Programme (DFID funded) LGCPP Local Governance and Community Development ProgrammeLi-BIRD Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development, one of MSFP’s main
implementing partners
LIP Livelihood Improvement PlanMIS Management Information SystemMoFSC Ministry of Forests and Soil ConservationMoPE Ministry of Population and EnvironmentMoWCSW Ministry of Women and Children and Social Welfare MSFP Multi Stakeholder Forestry ProgrammeNAPA National Adaptation Programme of ActionNFE National Forest EntityNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNPR Nepalese RupeeNSCFP Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Programme (SDC funded)OP Operational PlanPCO Programme Coordination Office (of MSFP)PCR Programme Completion ReportPLMG Public Land Management GroupPS Private SectorREDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest DegradationRIMS Resource Identification and Management Society, one of MSFP’s main implementing
partners RN Rupantaran Nepal, one of MSFP’s main implementing partnersRRN Rural Reconstruction Nepal, one of MSFP’s main implementing partnersSDC Swiss Agency for Development and CooperationSFM Sustainable Forestry ManagementSSU Services Support Unit (of MSFP)VCDF Value Chain Development FundVFCC Village Forest Coordination Committee (formed by MoFSC/LFP)VDC Village Development Committee
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( ii )
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations i1. Summary of Results from MSFP 12. More Detailed Results of MSFP against the Log frame Indicators (2012 – 2106) 63. Achievements against the Key Operational Outputs in the MSFP Clusters 24
3.1 Achievements in Cluster 1 243.2 Achievements in Cluster 2 253.3 Achievements in Cluster 3 263.4 Achievements in Cluster 4 273.5 Achievements in Cluster 5 283.6 Achievements in Cluster 6 293.7 Summary of Cluster Achievements by the IAs 30
4. Summary of Databases 344.1 The AFEC Database 344.2 The LAPA and CAPA Database 364.3 The LFG Database 404.4 The LIP Database 42
5. Good Practices of the MSFP 435.1 The Multi-Stakeholder Approach 435.2 The Value Chain Approach 445.3 The Targeting Approach 445.4 Building Climate Resilient Communities 455.5 Collaborative Forest Management 465.6 Consultative and Action Learning Approaches 465.7 Social Mobilization 47
6. A Summary of Lessons Learnt from MSFP 486.1 General Overall Lessons 486.2 Lessons from the Private Sector Promotion Programme 486.3 Lessons from the Livelihood Improvement Programme 496.4 Lessons from the Climate Change Adaptation Programme 506.5 Lessons from the Forest Management Activities 516.6 Lessons from Mainstreaming GEIS Values and Approaches 526.7 Lessons of a Financial Nature 536.8 The Main Difficulties and Challenges 54
References 56
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 1 )
1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM MSFP
This section presents a summary of major results achieved by the Multi Stakeholder Forestry Programme (MSFP) during its 4 year duration, 2012 to 2016.
The results from the Programme’s working districts (see Figure 1) through its main implementing agencies (see Table 1) are presented in summary in Table 2
The following sections provide more details on the key results, as follows:
a) Section 2 results against all the logframe indicators.
b) Section 3 achievements against 19 key operational outputs by MSFP cluster, by implementing partner, and in some additional districts.
Of the total 49 indicators in the Logframe at Goal, Purpose, Outcome and Output level, 8 indicators are considered to be un-assessable due to a greater period of time required to ascertain achievement level, or the complexity of the indicator. In addition, in several cases, milestones, set for measuring achievement after the first 4 years, were not established for some reason.
The indicators where assessment cannot take place after 4 years concern the following areas of work:
goal level: 1) the no. of people in income poverty, 2) the % of poor & disadvantaged households with 4 significant sources of
income,purpose level: 3) contribution of forest-based income generating activities to household
income, 4) deforestation rate per yearoutcome level: 5) area of degraded forest with improving forest conditionoutput level: 6) average biomass/volume of wood and non-wood products per ha of forest managed by local forestry groups 7) % of local demand for forest products managed by local forestry groups 8) average quantity per hectare of timber, fuel wood, NTFPs, and fodder
sustainably managed and extracted from forests
Of the 43 indicators at Outcome and Output level, 39 are considered assessable, and are ranked as follows - see Section 2.
Indicator Achievement Outcome Level Output LevelNo. % No. %
Achieved 3 27% 14 44% Substantially Achieved 3 27% 4 13%Partially Achieved 4 36% 6 19%Poor Progress 0 2 6%Not Achieved 0 3 9%Not assessable 1 9% 3 9%
Total 11 100% 32 100%
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 2 )
In summary, 40% of the indicators have been fully achieved, and 56% have been either fully or substantially achieved. Poor progress has been made on 2 indicators, and no achievement has been made on 3 indicators, all of the later relating to the failure to establish the National Forestry Entity (NFE).
Out of the 19 selected key outputs (see Table 2), measured against 17 indicators, 7 were achieved, 4 were substantially achieved, and 3 were partially achieved. Good progress was made on the remaining three outputs, for which there was no 4 year target. 64% were fully or substantially achieved.
Achievement Key Operational Output vs. 4 yr Target
No. %Achieved 7 41%Substantially Achieved 4 23%Partially Achieved 3 18%Good Progress (no 4 year indicator) 3 18%
Total 17 100%
Progress on meeting the logframe or key operational indicators in the different clusters varies as the focus of the Programme was different in each cluster, and cluster size varied as did the local forestry context.
Section 4 summarizes the databases that have been established at MSFP in 2016; these 4 databases include information on the Programme’s development efforts in supporting a) the Agriculture, Forest and Environment Committees (the AFECs); b) the climate adaptation plans (LAPA and CAPA); c) the Local Forestry Groups (the LFGs); and livelihood improvement plans (the LIPs).It should be noted that these are an incomplete best effort, due to the announcement of the Programme closure in late 2015, the preparation of the exit strategy and plan in January 2016, and the difficulty of obtaining sound data in similar formats from the implementing partners, when all staff involved in MSFP were extremely busy in the exit. They provide, at the least, a summary of the target groups which were supported by MSFP, and on which the MoFSC and other current and future programmes and projects can focus attention. The full databases have been provided to the donors. Others information is available on the MSFP website (www. mfsc.org.np) which will be available until December 2017, before being absorbed into the MoFSC website: http://www.mfsc.gov.np/.
Sections 5 and 6 cover a summary of good practices (section 5) and lessons learnt (section 6) from the 4 years of MSFP implementation.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 3 )
Figu
re 1
MSF
P’s W
orki
ng D
istric
ts
S
EW
N
Forw
ard-
Nep
alIA
Lot
IV -
LIB
IRD
EN
PR
ED
-Nep
al
IA L
ot II
- E
CA
RD
S-N
epal
IA L
ot I
- RR
N-N
epal
IA L
ot II
I - R
IMS
-Nep
al
Wor
king
Dis
tric
ts
Sun
dar
Nep
al S
anst
ha
IA L
ot V
- R
upan
tara
n N
epal
Mid
/Far
Wes
tern
Clu
ster
Mid
-Wes
tern
Clu
ster
Wes
tern
Clu
ster
Wes
tern
Ter
ai C
lust
er
Cen
ter/E
aste
rn C
lust
er
Eas
tern
Clu
ster
Them
atic
Pro
gram
me
Dis
trict
s (2
0)S
usta
inab
le F
ores
t Man
agem
ent
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Ada
ptat
ion
Fore
st-b
ased
Ent
erpr
ise
MS
FP S
SU
clu
ster
offi
ce
Act
iviti
es o
n S
usta
inab
le F
oers
t Man
agem
ent i
s im
plem
ente
d in
som
e m
ore
dist
ricts
than
sho
wn
abov
e
Full-
fledg
ed P
rogr
amm
e D
istri
cts
(23)
Mul
ti St
akeh
olde
r For
estry
Prog
ram
me
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 4 )
Table 1 MSFP working districts/clusters, themes and implementing agencies# District Cluster Coverage/Theme Channel1 Dhankuta 1 Eastern Full-fledged, includes SFM * RRN and DFO2 Bhojpur 1 Eastern Full-fledged, includes SFM RRN and DFO3 Terhatum 1 Eastern Full-fledged, includes SFM RRN and DFO4 Sankhuvasabha 1 Eastern Full-fledged, includes SFM RRN and DFO5 Morang 1 Eastern SFM * DFO6 Okhaldhunga 2 Center/Eastern Full-fledged, includes SFM ECARDS and DFO7 Khotang 2 Center/Eastern Full-fledged, includes SFM ECARDS and DFO8 Ramechhap 2 Center/Eastern Full-fledged, includes SFM ECARDS and DFO9 Dhanusa 2 Center/Eastern SFM * DFO10 Mahottari 2 Center/Eastern SFM * DFO11 Sarlahi 2 Center/Eastern SFM * DFO12 Sindhuli 2 Center/Eastern SFM * DFO13 Rupandehi 3 Western Terai Full-fledged, includes SFM * RIMS, DFO and DiSCO14 Kapilbastu 3 Western Terai Full-fledged, includes SFM * RIMS, DFO and DiSCO15 Nawalparasi 3 Western Terai Full-fledged, includes SFM * RIMS, DFO and DiSCO16 Palpa 3 Western Terai Climate Change Adaptation, SFM* ENPRED and DFO17 Rautahat 3 Western Terai SFM * DFO18 Bara 3 Western Terai SFM * DFO19 Makwanpur 3 Western Terai SFM * DFO20 Chitwan 3 Western Terai SFM * DFO21 Baglung 4 Western Full-fledged, includes SFM LIBIRD and DFO22 Parbat 4 Western Full-fledged, includes SFM LIBIRD and DFO23 Myagdi 4 Western Full-fledged, includes SFM * LIBIRD and DFO24 Mustang 4 Western Climate Change Adaptation ENPRED and DiSCO25 Kaski 4 Western Climate Change Adaptation, SFM * ENPRED and DFO26 Lamjung 4 Western Climate Change Adaptation, SFM * ENPRED and DFO27 Dang 5 Mid Western Full-fledged, includes SFM * Rupantaran and DFO28 Salyan 5 Mid Western Full-fledged, includes SFM Rupantaran and DFO29 Rukum 5 Mid Western Full-fledged, includes SFM Rupantaran and DFO30 Rolpa 5 Mid Western Full-fledged, includes SFM Rupantaran and DFO31 Pyuthan 5 Mid Western Full-fledged, includes SFM Rupantaran and DFO32 Arghakhanchi 5 Mid Western Climate Change Adaptation / SFM * ENPRED and DFO33 Gulmi 5 Mid Western Climate Change Adaptation / SFM * ENPRED and DFO34 Bajhang 6 Mid/Far Western Full-fledged, includes SFM LIPOs and DFO35 Achham 6 Mid/Far Western Full-fledged, includes SFM LIPOs and DFO36 Kalikot 6 Mid/Far Western Full-fledged, includes SFM LIPOs and DFO37 Dailekh 6 Mid/Far Western Full-fledged, includes SFM LIPOs and DFO38 Jajarkot 6 Mid/Far Western Full-fledged, includes SFM LIPOs and DFO39 Surkhet 6 Mid/Far Western Forest Based Enterprise / SFM * Sundar Nepal and DFO40 Jumla 6 Mid/Far Western Forest Based Enterprise / SFM * Sundar Nepal and DFO41 Bajura 6 Mid/Far Western Forest Based Enterprise / SFM * Forward Nepal and DFO42 Doti 6 Mid/Far Western Forest Based Enterprise / SFM * Forward Nepal and DFO43 Kailali 6 Mid/Far Western SFM * DFO
* Includes districts where Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) activities were started with a new active approach. Please see Abbreviations for full names and MSFP’s main partners.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 5 )
Tabl
e 2
Ove
rvie
w of
Ach
ieve
men
ts ag
ains
t the
key o
pera
tiona
l out
puts
, 201
2 to
2016
#K
ey O
utpu
tsU
nit
4 Ye
ar
Targ
etPr
ogre
ssPr
ogre
ss %
Com
men
t on
Ach
ieve
men
t
1Va
lue
chai
n of
fore
st pr
oduc
ts ex
plor
edpr
oduc
ts12
4537
5%Ac
hiev
ed
2N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises s
treng
then
eden
terp
rises
585
248
101%
Achi
eved
3
No.
of e
nter
prise
s esta
blish
eden
terp
rises
344
4N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
thro
ugh
ente
rpris
esjo
bs32
,000
17,2
4374
%Su
bsta
ntia
lly A
chie
ved
5N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
thro
ugh
SFM
jobs
6,57
4
6N
o. o
f for
estr
y gr
oups
form
edLF
G40
080
720
2%Ac
hiev
ed
7Ar
ea o
f for
est h
ande
d ov
erha
40,0
0061
,983
155%
Achi
eved
8N
o. o
f hhs
cov
ered
hhs
40,0
0083
,227
208%
Achi
eved
9N
o. o
f ope
ratio
nal p
lans
revi
sed
OPs
5,70
02,
914
51%
Part
ially
Ach
ieve
d
10N
o. o
f ope
ratio
nal p
lans
pre
pare
dO
Psno
targ
et80
7(g
ood
prog
ress)
11N
o. o
f LF
Gs
inte
nsiv
ely
supp
orte
d w
ith s
ocia
l mob
iliza
tion,
live
lihoo
d an
d fo
rest
man
agem
ent a
ctiv
ities
LFG
5,00
04,
025
81%
Subs
tant
ially
ach
ieve
d
12N
o. o
f new
AFE
Cs f
orm
edAF
EC11
9355
947
%Pa
rtia
lly A
chie
ved
13N
o. o
f AFE
Cs r
e-fo
rmed
and
stre
ngth
ened
AFEC
no ta
rget
846
(goo
d pr
ogre
ss)
14N
o. o
f hh
s su
ppor
ted
with
liv
elih
ood
impr
ovem
ent
activ
ities
(qu
ick
impa
ct a
ctiv
ities
)hh
s10
5,00
079
,468
76%
Subs
tant
ially
Ach
ieve
d
15N
o. o
f ada
ptat
ion
plan
s pre
pare
dpl
ans
6,00
02,
529
42%
Part
ially
Ach
ieve
d
16N
o. o
f ada
ptat
ion
plan
s im
plem
ente
dpl
ans
no ta
rget
1,96
0 (g
ood
prog
ress)
17N
o. o
f hhs
rece
ived
ada
ptat
ion
serv
ices
to re
duce
thei
r vul
nera
bilit
yhh
s22
9,00
023
9,61
710
5%Ac
hiev
ed
18N
o. o
f see
dlin
gs p
lant
edse
edlin
gs25
,000
,000
22,9
73,5
2392
%Su
bsta
ntia
lly A
chie
ved
19Aff
ores
ted/
refo
resta
tion
are
asha
2,20
08,
810.
240
0%Ac
hiev
ed
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 6 )
Log
fram
e an
d in
dica
tor
sets
Lo
g fr
ame
indi
cato
rB
asel
ine
Targ
ets
(201
2-20
21)
Mile
ston
e 20
12-
2016
Ach
ieve
men
ts (
Jan
2012
-Jul
y 20
16)
Stat
us
Goa
l:
Impr
oved
live
lihoo
ds a
nd re
silie
nce
of p
oor
and
disa
dvan
tage
d pe
ople
G1
No.
of p
eopl
e in
inco
me
pove
rty
3.1
m in
35
distr
icts
(2
.0 m
in 2
3 D
istric
ts 20
13)
1.7
m (i
e. re
duct
ion
of 1
.4
mill
ion)
Not
Ass
essa
ble
G2
Perc
enta
ge o
f poo
r and
di
sadv
anta
ged
hous
ehol
ds w
ith
four
sign
ifica
nt so
urce
s of i
ncom
e
In 2
3 di
stric
ts (2
013)
Ag
ricul
ture
– o
vera
ll 34
.6%
, DAG
33.
5% h
hs
Labo
ur a
nd se
rvic
es –
ov
eral
l 69.
6%, D
AG
70.5
% h
hs
Inco
me
gene
ratin
g ac
tiviti
es –
ove
rall
2.2%
, D
AG 2
.2%
hhs
Re
mitt
ance
s – o
vera
ll 24
.4%
, DAG
25%
Inco
me
gene
ratin
g ac
tiviti
es –
ove
rall
6.6%
, D
AG 8
.8%
(o
ther
thre
e so
urce
s re
mai
ning
sign
ifica
nt)
Not
Ass
essa
ble
G3
Hou
seho
lds i
n cl
imat
e vu
lner
able
ar
eas w
ith a
ctiv
ities
that
redu
ce
thei
r vul
nera
bilit
y
54,7
50 h
hs in
23
distr
icts
(201
3)56
0,00
0 hh
220,
000
addi
tiona
l hh
s with
at l
east
20%
from
wom
en
head
ed h
hs
239,
617
(MSF
P M
IS, 2
016)
Achi
eved
2M
ORE
DET
AIL
ED R
ESU
LTS
OF
MSF
P A
GA
INST
TH
E LO
GFR
AM
E IN
DIC
ATO
RS, 2
012
- 201
6
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 7 )
Purp
ose:
N
epal
’s fo
rest
ry se
ctor
con
trib
utin
g to
incl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic g
row
th, p
over
ty re
duct
ion
and
tack
ling
clim
ate
chan
ge
Lo
g fr
ame
indi
cato
rB
asel
ine
Targ
ets
(201
2-20
21)
Mile
ston
e20
12-2
016
Ach
ieve
men
ts (
Jan
2012
-Jul
y 20
16)
Stat
us
P1Fo
rest
sect
or c
ontr
ibut
ion
to G
DP
9% (M
oFSC
200
8)10
.4%
2.2%
(G
DP
Stud
y, 20
16)
Poor
pro
gres
s vs 1
0 ye
ar ta
rget
, but
GD
P re
sults
que
stion
able
P2C
ontr
ibut
ion
of fo
rest-
base
d in
com
e ge
nera
ting
activ
ities
to h
ouse
hold
in
com
e
3% -
2008
(MSF
P C
luste
r I a
nd IV
)
1.64
% in
23
distr
icts
(201
3)
6% -
3.11
%
N
ot A
sses
sabl
e
P3D
efor
esta
tion
rate
per
yea
r
1.7%
Nat
iona
l (20
10)
0.54
% in
23
Dist
ricts
(201
3)
0.8%
0.3%
The
defo
resta
tion
rate
in th
e Te
rai i
s 0.4
4% p
er a
nnum
(2
001-
2010
, FR
A 1 );
Chu
re is
0.1
8% p
er a
nnum
(199
5-20
10: s
ourc
e C
huria
Fo
rest
of N
epal
, Fo
rest
Reso
urce
As
sess
men
t, 20
14)
Not
Ass
essa
ble
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 8 )
OU
TC
OM
ES
Out
com
e 1:
G
oN a
nd n
on-s
tate
act
ors
join
tly
and
effec
tive
ly im
plem
enti
ng in
clus
ive
fore
st se
ctor
stra
tegi
es, p
olic
ies a
nd p
lans
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s(2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
2012
-201
6A
chie
vem
ents
(Ja
n 20
12 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
O1.
1N
umbe
r of n
ew o
r up
date
d in
clus
ive
natio
nal
strat
egie
s, po
licie
s and
pl
ans a
gree
d by
mul
ti-sta
keho
lder
mec
hani
sm
Zero
5015
12 see
belo
w *
Subs
tant
ially
Ach
ieve
d
O1.
2Re
pres
enta
tion
of
gove
rnm
ent,
civi
l soc
iety
or
gani
zatio
ns a
nd th
e pr
ivat
e se
ctor
at n
atio
nal-
leve
l mul
ti-sta
keho
lder
m
eetin
gs
Zero
Prev
ious
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
GoN
80%
C
ivil
Soci
ety
20
%
Priv
ate
Sect
or 0
%
2 m
eetin
gs p
a G
oN
33%
C
S
33%
PS
: 33
%
2 m
eetin
gs p
a G
oN
50%
C
S 33
%
PS
17%
2 m
eetin
gs p
a G
oN
47%
(6
age
ncie
s)C
ivil
soci
ety
26%
(4
org
aniza
tions
)Pr
ivat
e se
ctor
: 7%
(1 o
rgan
izatio
n)
3 D
onor
s
2
0%
Achi
eved
Repr
esen
tatio
n pa
rtia
lly a
chie
ved
O1.
3Fo
rest
sect
or g
over
nanc
e ra
ting
Gov
erna
nce
chec
klist
14
% G
reen
(ful
l) 37
% Y
ello
w (p
artia
lly)
49 %
Red
(not
fulfi
lled)
Min
imum
of
one
traffi
c lig
ht
impr
ovem
ent
acro
ss a
ll ca
tego
ries
Min
imum
of
one
traffi
c lig
ht
impr
ovem
ent
in a
t lea
st tw
o ca
tego
ries
13%
Gre
en
51%
Yel
low
36
% R
ed
(MSF
P O
utco
me
Synt
hesis
Rep
ort,
2015
)
Part
ially
ach
ieve
d:sig
nific
ant i
ncre
ase
in y
ello
w,sig
nific
ant d
ecre
ase
in re
d tr
affic
light
s
* D
etai
ls o
f O1.
1 ac
hiev
emen
ts: M
aste
r Pla
n Re
view
Nat
iona
l For
est P
olic
y, 20
71; N
atio
nal F
ores
t Str
ateg
y 20
72; R
evise
d G
ESI s
trat
egy
for f
ores
try,
2013
(dra
ft); R
EDD
+ st
rate
gy
(dra
ft) p
repa
red:
CF
inve
ntor
y gu
idel
ine
revi
sion;
For
est F
ire S
trat
egy;
Sus
tain
able
fore
st m
anag
emen
t str
ateg
y; P
ublic
land
mgt
. Dire
ctiv
e ( d
raft)
; MoF
SC H
R st
rate
gy re
view
; Bi
odiv
ersit
y St
rate
gy a
nd A
ctio
n Pl
an; N
atio
nal C
onse
rvat
ion
Stra
tegy
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 9 )
Out
com
e 2:
P
riva
te se
ctor
(far
mer
s, e
ntre
pren
eurs
, and
fina
ncia
l ins
titu
tion
s) in
crea
se in
vest
men
t and
jobs
in th
e fo
rest
ry se
ctor
)
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s(2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
2012
-201
6A
chie
vem
ents
(Ja
n 20
12 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
O2.
1Vo
lum
e of
new
inve
stmen
t in
the
fore
stry
sect
or b
y ba
nks,
priv
ate
com
pani
es a
nd c
oope
rativ
es
NPR
146
mill
ion
in 2
3 di
stric
ts (2
013)
400%
of
base
line
200%
of b
asel
ine
NPR
385
mill
ion
es
timat
ed in
23
distr
icts
(MSF
P O
utco
me
Synt
hesis
Rep
ort,
2015
)
Achi
eved
O2.
2N
umbe
r of d
ecen
t jo
bs c
reat
ed fo
r po
or a
nd d
isadv
anta
ged
peop
le.
17,0
50 jo
bs a
nnua
l in
23
distr
icts
(201
3)80
,000
jobs
32,0
00 a
dditi
onal
jobs
At
leas
t 60%
acc
esse
d by
D
AG,
70%
acc
esse
d by
‘poo
r’,
33%
acc
esse
d by
wom
en
23,8
17 jo
bs
73%
DAG
27%
Wom
en
(MSF
P M
IS, 2
016)
Addi
tiona
l job
s su
bsta
ntia
lly a
chie
ved
Repr
esen
tatio
n su
bsta
ntia
lly a
chie
ved
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 10 )
Out
com
e 3:
R
ural
com
mun
itie
s –
espe
cial
ly p
oor,
disa
dvan
tage
d an
d cl
imat
e vu
lner
able
peo
ple
and
hous
ehol
ds -
ben
efit
from
loca
l for
est
man
agem
ent
and
othe
r in
vest
men
ts
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s(2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
2012
-201
6A
chie
vem
ents
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
O3.
1Ar
ea o
f for
est m
anag
ed b
y lo
cal
fore
st us
er g
roup
s70
0,00
0 ha
in 3
5 M
SFP
distr
icts
(575
,000
ha
in 1
8 ex
istin
g LF
P/N
SCFP
dist
ricts)
Targ
et =
800
,000
ha
in 3
5 di
stric
ts
(600
,000
in 1
8 di
stric
ts)
Addi
tiona
l 40
,000
ha
in 2
3 M
SFP
distr
icts
Addi
tiona
l 61,
983
ha
hand
ed o
ver t
o ne
w L
FGs
In to
tal 7
29,0
36 h
a of
fo
rest
area
bei
ng m
anag
ed
by L
FGs
(MSF
P M
IS, 2
016)
Achi
eved
O3.
2Pe
rcen
tage
of l
ocal
use
r gro
up
fore
st pr
oduc
ts an
d ex
pend
iture
di
rect
ly a
ccru
ing
to p
oor,
disa
dvan
tage
d an
d cl
imat
e vu
lner
able
hou
seho
lds a
nd p
eopl
e
33.6
% o
f for
est p
rodu
cts
in 2
3 di
stric
ts (2
013)
29%
fund
exp
endi
ture
in
23 d
istric
ts (2
013
40%
of p
rodu
cts
35%
of e
xpen
ditu
re
36
% fo
rest
prod
ucts
&
30%
fun
d ex
pend
iture
(F
ield
surv
ey, 2
015)
Fo
rest
prod
uct t
o 42
%
poor
, 51%
DAG
, an
d 14
% C
V h
hs
Fore
st ex
pend
iture
to
36%
poo
r, 35
% D
AG,
and
20%
CV
hhs
(O
utco
me
Synt
hesis
Re
port
, 201
5)
10 y
ear t
arge
t su
bsta
ntia
lly
achi
eved
O3.
3Pr
opor
tion
of lo
cal u
ser g
roup
s fo
llow
ing
natio
nal g
uide
lines
for
i) pr
opor
tiona
te a
nd in
clus
ive
repr
esen
tatio
n on
exe
cutiv
e co
mm
ittee
ii) e
quita
ble
bene
fit sh
arin
g
61%
follo
win
g (i)
and
43
% o
f gro
up fo
llow
ing
(ii) i
n 23
dist
ricts
(201
3
100%
of g
roup
s fo
llow
ing
(i) a
nd (i
i)70
% o
f gro
ups
follo
win
g (i)
an
d
50%
of g
roup
s fo
llow
ing
(ii)
46%
of g
roup
s fol
low
ing
(i) a
nd
47%
of g
roup
s fol
low
ing
(ii)
(MSF
P M
IS, 2
016)
Part
ially
ac
hiev
ed
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 11 )
Out
com
e 4:
Fo
rest
and
tree
s sus
tain
ably
man
aged
and
mon
itor
ed b
y go
vern
men
t, co
mm
unit
ies a
nd p
riva
te se
ctor
and
clim
ate
resi
lient
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s (2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
20
12-2
016
Ach
ieve
men
ts
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
O4.
1Ar
ea o
f for
est o
utsid
e pr
otec
ted
area
s with
a c
urre
nt a
ppro
ved
man
agem
ent p
lan
that
is b
eing
im
plem
ente
d by
(i)
gov
ernm
ent
(ii) c
omm
uniti
es
(iii)
priv
ate
sect
or.
Com
mun
ities
1.3
m h
a (6
1 di
stric
ts); G
over
nmen
t 0h
a (6
1 di
stric
ts); P
rivat
e 0h
a (6
1 di
stric
ts)
Com
mun
ities
1.6
m
ha
(61
distr
icts)
; G
oN 6
00,0
00
ha (6
1 di
stric
ts);
Priv
ate
2,00
0 ha
(61
distr
icts)
28
3,44
7 ha
in 3
,721
LFG
s w
ith n
ew o
r rev
ised
OPs
in
43 M
SFP
distr
icts.
A
tota
l of 1
0,83
4 LF
Gs
cove
ring
729,
036
ha a
ll su
ppor
ted
by M
SFP
+ G
oN to
a g
reat
er o
r les
ser
exte
nt
(MSF
P M
IS, 2
016)
10 y
ear t
arge
t pa
rtia
lly
achi
eved
O4.
2Ar
ea o
f for
est b
eing
man
aged
fo
r pay
men
ts fo
r env
ironm
enta
l se
rvic
es (P
ES) b
y (i)
gov
ernm
ent,
(ii) c
omm
uniti
es a
nd (i
ii) p
rivat
e se
ctor
(i) 0
ha
(ii) 0
ha
(iii)
0 ha
(i) 1
00%
of
com
mun
ity
man
aged
fore
st (ii
) 50%
of
gove
rnm
ent
man
aged
fore
st (ii
i) 50
% o
f pr
ivat
e m
anag
ed
fore
st
(i) 2
,000
ha
(ii) 1
0,00
0 ha
(ii
i) 20
0 ha
(i) 0
ha
(ii
) 8,4
79 h
a
(iii)
0 ha
(M
SFP
Out
com
e Sy
nthe
sis R
epor
t, 20
15)
73 L
FGs i
nvol
ved
in 6
PE
S m
echa
nism
s (~5
,548
ha
) (M
SFP
MIS
, 201
6)
Part
ially
ac
hiev
ed
O4.
3Ar
ea o
f deg
rade
d fo
rest
with
im
prov
ing
fore
st co
nditi
on
unde
r i) g
over
nmen
t man
aged
ii)
com
mun
ity m
anag
ed
(i) 6
48,9
01 h
a (ii
) 205
,171
ha
in 2
3 di
stric
ts (2
013
base
d on
20
10 d
ata)
Dou
ble
the
base
line
figur
es in
bot
h ca
tego
ries
i)
12,9
48 h
a of
CBF
M
unde
r sci
entifi
c m
anag
emen
t (G
oN)
ii)
283
,447
ha
of C
F m
anag
emen
t with
new
or
revi
sed
OPs
iii)
8,81
0 ha
of d
egra
ded
fore
st re
plan
ted
Part
ially
ac
hiev
ed b
ut
not a
sses
sabl
e ov
er 4
yea
rs
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 12 )
OU
TP
UT
S
Out
put 1
.1:
M
ulti-
stak
ehol
der N
atio
nal F
ores
t Ent
ity es
tabl
ishm
ent i
s fac
ilita
ted
and
func
tiona
l in
line w
ith th
e GO
N a
ppro
ach
pape
r (20
10) a
ppro
ved
by N
PC
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s (2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
20
12-2
016
Ach
ieve
men
ts
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
1.1.
1En
tity
with
repr
esen
tatio
n fro
m
gove
rnm
ent,
NG
Os,
civi
l soc
iety
an
d th
e pr
ivat
e se
ctor
app
rove
d by
G
oN
No
entit
y
Entit
y le
gally
es
tabl
ished
and
op
erat
ing
Not
app
rove
dN
ot
Achi
eved
1.1.
2N
umbe
r of m
eetin
gs p
er y
ear
of e
ntity
stee
ring
com
mitt
ee o
r bo
ard
with
repr
esen
tatio
n fro
m
gove
rnm
ent,
NG
Os,
civi
l soc
iety
an
d th
e pr
ivat
e se
ctor
No
mee
tings
Bian
nual
mee
tings
Bian
nual
mee
tings
Not
Ac
hiev
ed
1.1.
3Ap
prov
ed a
nnua
l wor
k pl
an a
nd
budg
et fo
r ent
ityN
o w
orkp
lan
or b
udge
tAn
nual
wor
kpla
n an
d bu
dget
(fro
m
rang
e of
sour
ces
incl
udin
g G
oN) i
n pl
ace
Annu
al w
orkp
lan
and
budg
et in
pl
ace
N
ot
Achi
eved
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 13 )
Out
put 1
.2:
Nat
iona
l For
est S
ecto
r St
rate
gy a
nd o
ther
rel
evan
t for
est s
ecto
r po
licie
s, p
lans
and
gui
delin
es p
repa
rati
on a
nd/o
r re
visi
on p
roce
sses
init
iate
d by
GO
N th
roug
h m
ulti
-sta
keho
lder
app
roac
h ar
e fa
cilit
ated
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s (2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
20
12-2
016
Ach
ieve
men
ts
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
1.2.
1N
atio
nal f
ores
t sec
tor s
trat
egy
deve
lope
d (in
corp
orat
ing
GSI
stra
tegy
, RED
D+
NAP
A an
d LA
PAs)
bas
ed o
n th
e re
com
men
datio
n of
NFS
CF
and
appr
oved
by
GoN
No
curr
ent
strat
egy
Upd
ated
stra
tegy
ap
prov
edSt
rate
gy a
ppro
ved
Stra
tegy
app
rove
dAc
hiev
ed
1.2.
2N
umbe
r of n
ew o
r upd
ated
pol
ices
, pla
ns
and
guid
elin
es) d
evel
oped
thro
ugh
mul
ti-sta
keho
lder
pro
cess
and
app
rove
d by
G
oN
Zero
20 in
tota
l (2
per
yea
r)8
in to
tal
(2 p
er y
ear)
9 Fore
st po
licy (
appr
oved
)FS
S (a
ppro
ved)
GES
I Stra
tegy
(rev
ised)
RED
D +
stra
tegy
pre
pare
dPu
blic
Land
Man
agem
ent
dire
ctive
(dra
ft)4
x M
SFP
annu
al p
lans
Achi
eved
1.2.
3G
ende
r equ
ality
and
Soc
ial I
nclu
sion
(GSI
) str
ateg
y im
plem
enta
tion
actio
n pl
an d
evel
oped
No
actio
n pl
anIm
plem
enta
tion
revi
ewed
and
revi
sed
actio
n pl
an a
ppro
ved
Actio
n pl
an
appr
oved
and
im
plem
enta
tion
start
ed
GES
I str
ateg
y re
vise
d
and
regi
onal
leve
l act
ion
plan
dev
elop
ed a
nd
impl
emen
tatio
n sta
rted
at
regi
onal
leve
l
Part
ially
ac
hiev
ed
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 14 )
Out
put 1
.3:
Gov
ernm
ent
and
non-
stat
e ac
tors
in m
ulti
-sta
keho
lder
s st
ruct
ures
hav
e op
tim
ized
cap
acit
y fo
r fo
rest
ry s
ecto
r go
vern
ance
and
impl
emen
tati
on a
t di
ffere
nt
leve
ls
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s (2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
20
12-2
016
Ach
ieve
men
ts
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
1.3.
1N
umbe
r of i
nclu
sive
mul
ti-sta
keho
lder
bod
ies w
ith
own
plan
s, bu
dget
s, an
d m
ulti-
stake
hold
er st
eerin
g co
mm
ittee
s
7 D
FSPs
(in
18
distr
icts)
756
VFC
Cs (
in 1
8 di
stric
ts)
DFS
Ps in
all
61 d
istric
ts;
AFEC
/VFC
Cs f
orm
ed a
nd
func
tiona
l in
all
VD
Cs i
n 61
dist
ricts
DFS
Ps in
23
distr
icts
prep
ared
;
AFEC
/VFC
Cs
form
ed in
all
VD
Cs i
n 23
di
stric
ts
DFS
Ps p
repa
red
in a
ll 23
dist
ricts
55
9 ne
w A
FEC
s for
med
(490
VD
Cs i
n 23
cor
e di
stric
ts) 8
46 v
illag
e le
vel m
echa
nism
s ref
orm
ed
and
stren
gthe
ned
in 4
3 di
stric
ts (M
SFP
MIS
, 201
6)
Achi
eved
Achi
eved
1.3.
2N
umbe
r of l
ocal
fore
stry
grou
ps re
ceiv
ing
tech
nica
l an
d go
vern
ance
supp
ort
from
trai
ned
and
accr
edite
d re
sour
ce p
erso
ns fr
om (i
) go
vern
men
t and
(ii)
non-
state
org
aniza
tions
50%
of g
roup
s with
su
ppor
t in
18 d
istric
ts;
10%
of g
roup
s in
non-
LFP/
NSC
FP d
istric
ts
100%
of g
roup
s with
su
ppor
t in
all 3
5 di
stric
tsi)
66%
ii) 3
3%
i) 10
0% :
10,8
34 L
FGs h
ave
rece
ived
te
chni
cal a
nd g
over
nanc
e su
ppor
t fro
m tr
aine
d an
d ac
cred
ited
reso
urce
pe
rson
s fro
m G
oN in
23
distr
icts
ii) 4
4% :
4,75
4 LF
Gs r
ecei
ved
supp
ort
from
non
-sta
te o
rgan
izatio
ns in
24
distr
icts
(MSF
P M
IS, 2
016)
Achi
eved
1.3.
3N
umbe
r of l
ocal
fore
stry
grou
ps re
ceiv
ing
finan
cial
su
ppor
t fro
m n
on-
prog
ram
me
sour
ces
33%
with
supp
ort
from
MSF
P/LF
P/
NSC
FP,
4.2%
from
loca
l go
vern
men
t bod
ies,
21.4
% fr
om o
ther
s -
in 2
3 di
stric
ts (2
013)
20%
supp
ort f
rom
MSF
P;
50%
supp
ort f
rom
out
side
– in
35
distr
icts.
16
% w
ith su
ppor
t fro
m
MSF
P/LF
P/ N
SCFP
, 10
% fr
om lo
cal
gove
rnm
ent b
odie
s, 40
% fr
om o
ther
s - in
23
distr
icts
20%
with
supp
ort
from
MSF
P/LF
P/
NSC
FP
8% fr
om lo
cal
gove
rnm
ent b
odie
s
35 %
from
oth
ers
- in
23 d
istric
ts (2
013)
53%
from
GoN
(DFO
, DAD
O, D
LO,
DiS
CO
)
46%
from
non
-sta
te a
ctor
s (IN
GO
s/N
GO
s)
(MSF
P O
utco
me
Synt
hesis
Rep
ort,
2015
)
Achi
eved
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 15 )
Out
put 2
.1:
Pot
entia
l and
con
stra
ints
of p
riva
te se
ctor
inve
stm
ent j
oint
ly id
entifi
ed b
y th
e pr
ivat
e se
ctor
and
oth
er st
akeh
olde
rs
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s (2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
20
12-2
016
Ach
ieve
men
ts(J
an 2
012
-Jul
y 20
16)
Stat
us
2.1.
1N
umbe
r of j
oint
inve
stm
ent
stud
ies a
nd p
lans
com
plet
ed a
nd
appr
oved
by
mul
ti-st
akeh
olde
r st
eerin
g co
mm
ittee
Zero
20 st
udie
s and
pla
ns
cove
ring
all 6
1 di
stric
ts
8 st
udie
s and
pla
ns6
stud
ies/
plan
:-
1 na
tiona
l stu
dy o
n va
lue
chai
n
– co
mpl
eted
and
app
rove
d
5 in
vest
men
t pla
ns -
com
plet
ed
and
appr
oved
(M
SFP
Out
com
e Sy
nthe
sis
Rep
ort,
2015
)
Subs
tant
ially
ac
hiev
ed
2.1.
2N
umbe
r of s
peci
fic a
nd
actio
nabl
e co
nstra
ints
and
op
portu
nitie
s ide
ntifi
ed a
nd
diss
emin
ated
rela
ting
to (i
) pr
oduc
ts (i
i) pr
oduc
ers a
nd (i
ii)
finan
ce
Zero
20 c
onst
rain
ts
and
oppo
rtuni
ties
supp
orte
d by
stud
ies
8 co
nstra
ints
and
op
portu
nitie
s sup
porte
d by
stud
ies
Con
stra
ints
and
opp
ortu
nitie
s to
pr
ivat
e se
ctor
iden
tified
on
45
prod
ucts
(M
SFP
MIS
, 201
6)
Ach
ieve
d
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 16 )
Out
put 2
.2:
Las
ting
bus
ines
s par
tner
ship
s est
ablis
hed
betw
een
priv
ate
sect
or, l
ocal
fore
stry
gro
ups,
and
farm
ers f
or fo
rest
-bas
ed e
nter
pris
es
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s(2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
2012
-201
6A
chie
vem
ents
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
2.2.
164
6 fo
restr
y gr
oups
(in
18 d
istric
ts)3,
500
grou
ps in
61
distr
icts
invo
lved
in
ent
erpr
ises (
or
at le
ast o
ne p
er
VD
C);
15,0
00
farm
ers i
nvol
ved
in
ente
rpris
es
1,40
0 fo
restr
y gr
oups
, and
6,
000
farm
ers
in 4
3 di
stric
ts
592
ente
rpris
es
supp
orte
d (3
44 n
ew +
248
exi
sting
) (M
SFP
MIS
201
6)
10 L
FGs a
nd 8
farm
ers
in 7
dist
ricts
(MSF
P O
utco
me
Synt
hesis
Rep
ort,
2015
)
Poor
Pro
gres
s
(poo
r ind
icato
r 1 )
2.2.
2Pr
opor
tion
of re
giste
red
fore
st-ba
sed
part
ners
hip
ente
rpris
es th
at
are
(i) m
ore
than
5 y
ears
old
, (ii)
1-
5 ye
ars o
ld, a
nd (i
ii) le
ss th
an 1
ye
ar o
ld
(i) 0
%; (
ii) 2
0% (i
ii)
80%
of e
nter
prise
s in
61
distr
icts
(i) 5
0%; (
ii) 3
0% (i
ii)
20%
in 6
1 di
stric
ts(i)
0%
(ii
) 60%
(ii
i) 40
%
ii) 4
8 %
(1-5
yea
rs)
iii) 5
2 %
(< 1
yea
r)
(MSF
P O
utco
me
Synt
hesis
Rep
ort,
2015
)
Subs
tant
ially
ac
hiev
ed
2.2.
3N
umbe
r of p
erso
n da
ys o
f em
ploy
men
t gen
erat
ed b
y fo
rest
base
d en
terp
rises
6 jo
bs p
er e
nter
prise
, 1.
7 jo
bs p
er L
FGin
23
distr
icts
(201
3)
Each
loca
l for
estr
y gr
oup
prov
idin
g 5
FTE
jobs
10 jo
bs p
er
ente
rpris
e 2.
5 jo
bs p
er
LFG
29 jo
bs p
er e
nter
prise
(1
7,24
3 jo
bs)
1.5
mill
ion
pers
on
days
of e
mpl
oym
ent
crea
ted
from
fore
st ba
sed
ente
rpris
es
(MSF
P M
IS, 2
016)
Achi
eved
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 17 )
Out
put 3
.1:
Loc
al fo
rest
ry g
roup
s man
agin
g an
d ac
cess
ing
mor
e an
d be
tter
fore
st re
sour
ces
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s(2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
2012
-201
6A
chie
vem
ents
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
3.1.
1Av
erag
e bi
omas
s/vo
lum
e of
woo
d an
d no
n-w
ood
prod
ucts
per h
ecta
re
of fo
rest
man
aged
by
loca
l for
estr
y gr
oups
Stem
Bio
mas
s in
23 d
istric
ts (2
013)
: C
omm
unity
fore
st 69
.76
tonn
es/h
a, L
ease
hold
fore
st 7.
79 to
nnes
/ha,
pub
lic la
nd
man
agem
ent 0
.96
tonn
es/h
a,
colla
bora
tive
fore
st 13
2.72
to
nnes
/ha
13%
incr
ease
on
biom
ass/
vol
ume
per h
a ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
Not
Ass
essa
ble
3.1.
2Pe
rcen
tage
of l
ocal
dem
and
for
fore
st pr
oduc
ts su
pplie
d fro
m fo
rests
m
anag
ed b
y lo
cal f
ores
try
grou
ps
On
the
aggr
egat
e te
rm,
79.7
% o
f the
loca
l dem
and
is m
et b
y LF
Gs i
n 23
dist
ricts
(201
3)
100%
of l
ocal
de
man
d m
et in
23
distr
icts
St
udy
team
not
abl
e to
ass
ess t
he
aggr
egat
e pr
ogre
ss a
s pro
duct
s in
clud
e a
no. o
f pro
duct
s (fir
ewoo
d,
timbe
r, fo
dder
, lea
f litt
er a
nd
NT
FPs)
. Bas
ed o
n di
scus
sions
/co
nsul
tatio
ns, t
here
seem
ed to
be
som
e pr
ogre
ss (M
SFP
Out
com
e Sy
nthe
sis R
epor
t, 20
15)
Not
Ass
essa
ble
3.1.
3N
umbe
r of l
ocal
fore
stry
grou
ps
trai
ned
and
impl
emen
ting
activ
e fo
rest
man
agem
ent p
ract
ices
10%
of l
ocal
fore
stry
grou
p
in 2
3 di
stric
ts (2
013)
100%
of a
ll lo
cal
fore
stry
grou
ps in
23
dist
ricts
50%
of a
ll gr
oups
in
43
distr
icts
20%
of L
FGs
in 2
3 di
stric
ts
10%
of a
ll fo
restr
y gr
oups
in 4
3 di
stric
ts
29%
of L
FGs t
rain
ed (M
SFP
Out
com
e Sy
nthe
sis R
epor
t, 20
15);
and
34%
of L
FGs (
MSF
P-M
IS
2016
, tho
se w
ith n
ew o
r rev
ised
OPs
) im
plem
ente
d ac
tive
fore
st m
anag
emen
t pr
actic
es
Achi
eved
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 18 )
Out
put 3
.2:
Loc
al fo
rest
ry g
roup
s and
mul
ti-s
take
hold
er st
ruct
ures
pra
ctic
e go
od g
over
nanc
e
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s(2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
2012
-201
6A
chie
vem
ents
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
3.2.
1Pr
opor
tion
of (i
) loc
al fo
restr
y gr
oups
and
(ii)
loca
l mul
ti-sta
keho
lder
bod
ies h
oldi
ng p
ublic
he
arin
gs a
nd a
udits
at l
east
once
pe
r yea
r
(i) 6
5% o
f loc
al fo
restr
y gr
oup
cond
uct p
ublic
au
dit i
n 23
dist
ricts
(201
3)
100%
of a
ll LF
Gs &
mul
ti-sta
keho
lder
bo
dies
in 2
3 di
stric
ts
(i) 7
5% o
f loc
al
fore
stry
grou
ps (i
i) 10
% o
f loc
al m
ulti
stake
hold
er b
odie
s in
23
distr
icts
(i) 9
6% o
f LFG
s und
erta
ke
publ
ic h
earin
g; 9
4%
unde
rtak
e pu
blic
aud
iting
(ii)
no d
ata
(MSF
P O
utco
me
Synt
hesis
Re
port
, 201
5 fro
m a
sam
ple
field
surv
ey)
42%
of L
FGs c
arry
out
pu
blic
aud
its (M
SFP-
MIS
20
16)
Part
ially
ac
hiev
ed
3.2.
2Pe
rcen
tage
repr
esen
tatio
n of
poo
r an
d di
sadv
anta
ged
peop
le o
n lo
cal
fore
stry
grou
p co
mm
ittee
s and
de
cisio
n m
akin
g pr
oces
ses
In 2
3 di
stric
ts as
of 2
013:
Re
pres
enta
tion:
37
% w
omen
, 48
.6%
‘poo
r’;
72%
disc
rimin
ated
gro
up.
At le
ast a
s re
quire
d by
nat
iona
l gu
idel
ines
40%
wom
en
40%
DAG
50
% ‘p
oor’
80%
disc
rimin
ated
gr
oup
43 %
wom
en
48 %
DAG
(M
SFP
MIS
, 201
6)
50 %
wom
en
42 %
poo
r 41
% D
AG
(MSF
P O
utco
me
Synt
hesis
Re
port
, 201
5)
Achi
eved
3.2.
3Pr
opor
tion
of re
vise
d O
Ps a
nd
cons
titut
ions
that
mak
e an
d im
plem
ent s
peci
fic p
rovi
sion
for
poor
and
disa
dvan
tage
d pe
ople
All r
evise
d pl
ans a
nd
cons
titut
ions
with
thes
e pr
ovisi
ons (
in 1
8 di
stric
ts)
all L
FG p
lans
&
cons
titut
ions
in
35 d
istric
ts af
ter
thei
r rev
ision
all r
evise
d pl
ans a
nd
cons
titut
ions
with
th
ese
prov
ision
s (in
M
SFP
distr
icts)
100%
revi
sed
OPs
and
co
nstit
utio
ns w
ith sp
ecifi
c pr
ovisi
ons f
or p
oor a
nd
DAG
s (M
SFP
Out
com
e Sy
nthe
sis
Repo
rt, 2
015)
Achi
eved
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 19 )
Out
put 3
.3:
Poor
, dis
adva
ntag
ed a
nd c
limat
e vu
lner
able
hou
seho
lds r
ecei
ve ta
rget
ed g
oods
and
serv
ices
(inc
ludi
ng fi
nanc
e) fr
om lo
cal f
ores
try
grou
ps a
nd
mul
ti-s
take
hold
er st
ruct
ures
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s(2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
2012
-201
6A
chie
vem
ents
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
3.3.
1N
umbe
r of p
oor,
disa
dvan
tage
d,
and
clim
ate
vuln
erab
le h
ouse
hold
s re
ceiv
ing
finan
cial
and
in-k
ind
supp
ort
from
loca
l for
estr
y gr
oups
or
mul
ti-sta
keho
lder
stru
ctur
es
Ove
rall
27%
of h
hs
rece
ivin
g di
rect
fina
ncia
l or
in-k
ind
supp
ort i
n 23
di
stric
ts (2
013)
– w
omen
he
aded
hhs
29.
9%, D
AG
hhs 2
6.8%
, clim
ate
vuln
erab
le h
hs 1
9.2%
all i
dent
ified
poo
r, di
sadv
anta
ged
or
clim
ate
vuln
erab
le
hhs r
ecei
ving
at l
east
one
type
of s
uppo
rt
from
thei
r loc
al
fore
stry
grou
p in
35
distr
icts
30%
ove
rall
35%
wom
en
head
ed h
hs
40%
DAG
25%
clim
ate
vuln
erab
le h
hs
addi
tiona
l 79,
468
poor
an
d D
AG h
hs re
ceiv
ed
livel
ihoo
d su
ppor
t 70
% w
omen
10
0% p
oor
83%
DAG
(M
SFP
MIS
, 201
6)
From
sam
ple
of 2
,126
hhs
in
47
LFG
s:
25%
poo
r hhs
rece
ivin
g su
ppor
t, 14
% D
AG h
hs,
7% w
omen
-hea
ded
hhs,
10%
clim
ate
vuln
erab
le
hhs
(MSF
P O
utco
me
Synt
hesis
Rep
ort,
2015
)
Part
ially
ac
hiev
ed
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 20 )
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s(2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
2012
-201
6A
chie
vem
ents
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
3.3.
2N
umbe
r of p
oor,
disa
dvan
tage
d, c
limat
e vu
lner
able
peo
ple
and
hous
ehol
ds re
ceiv
ing
acce
ss to
clim
ate
resil
ient
ad
apta
tion
tech
nolo
gy/
prac
tices
23
distr
icts
(201
3) -
over
all 3
.7%
w
omen
hea
ded
hh 3
.5%
D
AG h
h 4
%
‘poo
r’ hh
3.4
%
Clim
ate
vuln
erab
le h
hs
= 5.
6%
all i
dent
ified
poo
r, di
sadv
anta
ged
or
clim
ate
vuln
erab
le
hous
ehol
ds re
ceiv
ing
at le
ast o
ne ty
pe o
f ad
apta
tion
supp
ort o
r te
chno
logy
from
thei
r lo
cal f
ores
try
grou
p in
35
dist
ricts
over
all =
5%
w
omen
hea
ded
hh
= 5%
D
AG h
h =
5%
‘poo
r’ hh
= 5
%
Clim
ate
vuln
erab
le
hhs =
10%
(Tar
get =
220
,000
hh
s rec
eivi
ng C
CA
supp
ort –
see
Goa
l)
239,
617
hous
ehol
ds re
ceiv
ed
clim
ate
adap
tatio
n se
rvic
es
(MSF
P M
IS, 2
016)
2,
037
hhs i
n 47
LFG
s: 22
% fo
r poo
r hhs
22
% fo
r DAG
hhs
16
% fo
r wom
en h
eade
d hh
s 14
.5 %
clim
ate
vul.
hhs
(MSF
P O
utco
me
Synt
hesis
Re
port
, 201
5)
Subs
tant
ially
ac
hiev
ed
3.3.
3Re
leva
nce
and
effec
tiven
ess o
f sup
port
pr
ovid
ed to
poo
r, di
sadv
anta
ged
and
clim
ate
vuln
erab
le
hous
ehol
ds
In
crea
sed
leve
l of
rele
vanc
e co
mpa
red
to p
revi
ous y
ears
– 2
3 di
stric
ts
incr
ease
d le
vel
of re
leva
nce
and
effec
tiven
ess e
ach
year
ove
r pre
viou
s ye
ars
Rele
vanc
e
Cas
h
(Hig
h-56
.4)
In-k
ind
(Hig
h-52
.9)
Cap
acity
bui
ldin
g (H
igh-
50%
) Te
chno
logy
(Hig
h-43
.2%
) Eff
ectiv
enes
s C
ash
(H
igh
50.9
%)
In-k
ind
(Hig
h 37
.3%
) C
apac
ity b
uild
ing
(Hig
h 31
.9%
) Te
chno
logy
(Hig
h-33
.3%
) (M
SFP
Out
com
e Sy
nthe
sis
Repo
rt, 2
015)
Ach
ieve
d
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 21 )
Out
put 3
.4:
Loc
al fo
rest
ry g
roup
s im
plem
ent p
lans
and
con
stit
utio
ns th
at re
flect
sust
aina
bilit
y an
d im
prov
e cl
imat
e re
silie
nce
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s(2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
2012
-201
6A
chie
vem
ents
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
3.4.
1N
umbe
r of c
omm
unity
ada
ptat
ion
plan
s (C
APs)
pre
pare
d by
loca
l fo
restr
y gr
oups
and
end
orse
d by
re
leva
nt lo
cal b
odie
s
1,50
0 p
lans
in 1
8 di
stric
ts3,
000
plan
s in
23
distr
icts
all V
DC
and
loca
l fo
restr
y gr
oups
with
ad
apta
tion
plan
s – in
23
dist
ricts
2,12
7 C
APs p
repa
red
at
CF
leve
l (45
% o
f tot
al
no. o
f CFs
supp
orte
d by
M
SFP)
402
LAPA
s pre
pare
d at
V
DC
leve
l (63
% o
f tar
get
VD
Cs i
n 29
dist
ricts
in
whi
ch L
APA
prog
ram
me
oper
ated
) (M
SFP
MIS
, 201
6)
Part
ially
ac
hiev
ed
3.4.
2Pr
opor
tion
of C
APs m
ore
than
75
% im
plem
ente
d.26
% o
f CAP
s in
18
distr
icts
all C
APs
impl
emen
ted
in 3
5 di
stric
ts (m
ore
than
75
%)
50%
of C
APs i
n 23
di
stric
ts67
% o
f MSF
P-su
ppor
ted
CAP
s in
29 d
istric
ts be
ing
impl
emen
ted
(MSF
P M
IS, 2
016)
Achi
eved
3.4.
3N
umbe
r of l
ocal
fore
stry
grou
ps
with
the
know
ledg
e an
d sk
ills
to c
arry
out
gen
der e
qual
ity a
nd
soci
al in
clus
ion
sens
itive
ada
ptat
ion
plan
ning
and
mon
itorin
g
1,50
0 in
18
distr
icts
100%
of l
ocal
fo
restr
y gr
oups
in
35 d
istric
ts
2,80
0 in
23
distr
icts
From
sam
ple
of 4
7 LF
Gs:
Hig
h =
6% (3
LFG
s)
Med
ium
45%
(21)
Lo
w 2
1% (1
0)
No
know
ledg
e 28
% (1
3)
(MSF
P O
utco
me
Synt
hesis
Rep
ort,
2015
)
Part
ially
ac
hiev
ed
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 22 )
Out
put 4
.1:
For
ests
and
eco
syst
em p
rodu
cts a
nd se
rvic
es re
stor
ed, m
anag
ed a
nd e
nhan
ced
scie
ntifi
cally
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s(2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
2012
-201
6A
chie
vem
ents
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
4.1.
1N
umbe
r of n
ew tr
ees
esta
blish
ed a
nd m
anag
ed
on F
UG
are
as, g
over
nmen
t m
anag
ed la
nd, a
nd p
rivat
e la
nd.
Area
of f
ores
ts m
anag
ed
unde
r the
scie
ntifi
c pr
escr
iptio
n
1.3
mill
ion
ha to
tal f
ores
t are
a.
20 m
illio
n ne
w
trees
22.9
mill
ion
new
tree
s (M
SFP
MIS
, 201
6)
12,9
48 h
a of
CBF
M
unde
r sci
entifi
c fo
rest
man
agem
ent
Achi
eved
4.1.
2Av
erag
e qu
antit
y pe
r he
ctar
e of
tim
ber,
fuel
w
ood,
NT
FPs,
and
fodd
er
susta
inab
ly m
anag
ed
and
extr
acte
d fro
m
fore
sts u
nder
(i) l
ocal
gr
oup
man
agem
ent,
(ii)
priv
ate
man
agem
ent,
(iii)
gove
rnm
ent m
anag
emen
t
Actu
al q
uant
ity b
ased
on
year
one
re
cord
s (in
3 c
ateg
orie
s) a
nd in
35
distr
icts
Stem
Bio
mas
s in
23 d
istric
ts (2
013)
: C
omm
unity
fore
st 69
.76
tonn
es/
ha, L
ease
hold
fore
st
7.79
t/ha
pu
blic
land
man
agem
ent 0
.96
t/ha
colla
bora
tive
fore
st
132.
72 t/
ha
Nat
iona
l for
est
10
3.11
t/ha
13%
incr
ease
in
harv
est p
er h
a
N
ot
asse
ssab
le
4.1.
3Ar
eas o
f NT
FPs
esta
blish
ed u
nder
i)
com
mun
ity m
anag
ed
ii) g
over
nmen
t man
aged
iii
) priv
ate
fore
sts
Zero
In 3
5 di
stric
ts,
10%
of
com
mun
ity fo
rest
area
und
er N
TFP
m
anag
emen
t pl
us 1
,000
ha
of g
over
nmen
t m
anag
ed fo
rests
be
ing
man
aged
fo
r NT
FP
prod
uctio
n
In 2
3 di
stric
ts,
2% o
f CF
area
s un
der N
TFP
m
anag
emen
t, pl
us 2
00 h
a of
go
vern
men
t m
anag
ed fo
rest
unde
r NT
FP
prod
uctio
n
50 h
a un
der N
TFP
in 6
LF
Gs i
n 3
distr
icts
(MSF
P O
utco
me
Synt
hesis
Rep
ort,
2015
)
Poor
pr
ogre
ss
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 23 )
Out
put 4
.2:
C
limat
e ch
ange
and
fore
stry
mon
itor
ing
capa
city
, kno
wle
dge
and
info
rmat
ion
man
agem
ent d
evel
oped
and
app
lied)
Log
fram
e in
dica
tor
Bas
elin
e Ta
rget
s(2
012-
2021
)M
ilest
ones
2012
-201
6A
chie
vem
ents
(Jan
201
2 -J
uly
2016
)St
atus
4.2.
1N
umbe
r of c
ompl
eted
stud
ies
and
mic
ro-p
roje
cts s
uppo
rted
by
the
know
ledg
e in
nova
tion
fund
Zero
At le
ast 1
0 pe
r yea
r (1
00 in
tota
l)40
28 st
udie
s/m
icro
-pro
ject
su
ppor
ted
by in
nova
tion
fund
(MSF
P in
nova
tion
data
base
).
2 pr
ogra
mm
es su
ppor
ted
in
sam
ple
distr
icts
Part
ially
ac
hiev
ed
4.2.
2N
umbe
r of r
epor
ts, p
olic
ies,
plan
s or
pro
visio
ns in
form
ed b
y stu
dies
an
d da
taba
se su
ppor
ted
by M
SFP
Zero
Min
imum
of 5
pol
icy
prov
ision
s per
yea
r (5
0 in
tota
l) in
form
ed
by M
SFP
supp
orte
d stu
dies
and
dat
a
2012
pol
icie
s, str
ateg
ies,
revi
ews s
uppo
rted
by
MSF
P da
ta &
stud
ies
CFM
IS fo
r 23
distr
icts
is un
der p
repa
ratio
n.
MSF
P su
ppor
ted
DoF
and
FE
CO
FUN
for t
his
MSF
P al
so p
repa
red
data
base
s on
LFG
, AFE
Cs,
LIP,
LAPA
/CAP
A
Subs
tant
ially
ac
hiev
ed
4.2.
3N
umbe
r of f
ores
t sec
tor
orga
niza
tions
/uni
ts w
ith
GES
I sen
sitiv
e (d
isagg
rega
ted)
m
onito
ring
syste
m e
stabl
ished
Zero
ass
umed
all M
SFP
part
ner
orga
niza
tions
in
the
fore
st se
ctor
12Al
l 15
mai
n pa
rtne
rs re
port
di
sagg
rega
ted
GES
I dat
a (M
SFP-
MIS
201
6)
Achi
eved
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 24 )
3A
CHIE
VEM
ENTS
AG
AIN
ST T
HE
KEY
OPE
RAT
ION
AL
OU
TPU
TS IN
TH
E M
SFP
CLU
STER
S
3.1
Achi
evem
ents
agai
nst t
he K
ey O
pera
tiona
l Out
puts
in C
lust
er 1:
Dh
anku
ta, B
hojp
ur, S
ankh
uwas
abha
, Ter
hath
um an
d M
oran
g Di
stric
ts
#K
ey O
utpu
tsU
nit
NG
O-I
As
GoN
-DFO
Inno
vati
on F
und/
Mic
ro P
roje
cts
Tota
l
1Va
lue
chai
n of
fore
st pr
oduc
ts ex
plor
edpr
oduc
t17
-17
2N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises s
treng
then
eden
terp
rise
396
453
No.
of e
nter
prise
s esta
blish
eden
terp
rise
694
734
No.
of j
obs c
reat
ed -
ente
rpris
epe
ople
1,34
140
41,
745
5N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- SF
Mpe
ople
118
118
6N
o. o
f for
estr
y gr
oups
form
edLF
G54
547
Area
of f
ores
t han
ded
over
ha4,
559
4,55
98
No.
of h
hs c
over
edhh
s6,
193
6,19
39
No.
of O
pera
tiona
l Pla
ns re
vise
dO
P31
131
110
No.
of O
pera
tiona
l Pla
ns p
repa
red
OP
5454
11N
o. o
f LFG
s in
tens
ivel
y su
ppor
ted
with
soc
ial m
obili
zatio
n, li
velih
ood
and
fore
st m
anag
emen
t act
iviti
esLF
G21
6-
216
12N
o. o
f AFE
Cs f
orm
edAF
EC66
-66
13N
o. o
f AFE
Cs r
efor
med
/stre
ngth
ened
AFEC
7713
90
14N
o. o
f hh
s su
ppor
ted
with
liv
elih
ood
impr
ovem
ent
activ
ities
/qui
ck
impa
ct a
ctiv
ities
hhs
9,38
93,
209
12,5
98
15N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s pre
pare
dpl
an22
64
230
16N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s im
plem
ente
dpl
an38
722
409
17N
o. o
f hhs
rece
ived
ada
ptat
ion
serv
ices
to re
duce
thei
r vul
nera
bilit
yhh
s15
,922
1,15
917
,081
18N
o. o
f see
dlin
gs p
lant
edse
edlin
gs11
7,18
72,
829,
710
2,94
6,89
719
Affor
este
d/Re
fore
statio
n ar
eaha
5293
298
4
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 25 )
3.2
Achi
evem
ents
agai
nst t
he ke
y ope
ratio
nal o
utpu
ts in
MSF
P Cl
uste
r 2:
Ra
mec
hhap
, Okh
aldh
unga
,Kho
tang
, Sin
dhul
i, Dha
nush
a, Sa
rlahi
and
Moh
atta
ri Di
stric
ts
#K
ey O
utpu
tsU
nit
NG
O-
IAs
GoN
-DFO
Inno
vati
on F
und
/M
icro
Pro
ject
sTo
tal
1Va
lue
chai
n of
fore
st pr
oduc
ts ex
plor
edPr
oduc
t8
-8
2N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises s
treng
then
edEn
terp
rise
1310
124
3N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises e
stabl
ished
Ente
rpris
e25
328
4N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- en
terp
rise
Peop
le1,
336
704
557
2,59
75
No.
of j
obs c
reat
ed -
SFM
Peop
le52
526
No.
of f
ores
try
grou
ps fo
rmed
LFG
7878
7Ar
ea o
f for
est h
ande
d ov
erha
6,53
46,
534
8N
o. o
f hhs
cov
ered
hhs
8,13
78,
137
9N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
revi
sed
OP
315
315
10N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
pre
pare
dO
P78
78
11N
o. o
f LFG
s in
tens
ivel
y su
ppor
ted
with
soc
ial m
obili
zatio
n, li
velih
ood
and
fore
st m
anag
emen
t act
iviti
esLF
G83
5-
835
12N
o. o
f AFE
Cs f
orm
edAF
EC5
-5
13N
o. o
f AFE
Cs r
efor
med
/stre
ngth
ened
AFEC
187
519
2
14N
o. o
f hh
s su
ppor
ted
with
liv
elih
ood
impr
ovem
ent
activ
ities
/qui
ck
impa
ct a
ctiv
ities
hhs
10,9
443,
030
5914
,033
15N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s pre
pare
dPl
an80
06
806
16N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s im
plem
ente
dPl
an15
614
170
17N
o. o
f hhs
rece
ived
ada
ptat
ion
serv
ices
to re
duce
thei
r vul
nera
bilit
yhh
s32
,583
951
33,5
3418
No.
of s
eedl
ings
pla
nted
Seed
lings
893,
747
3,27
6,36
111
6,42
64,
286,
534
19Aff
ores
ted/
Refo
resta
tion
area
ha12
694
742
1,11
5
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 26 )
3.3
Achi
evem
ents
agai
nst t
he ke
y ope
ratio
nal o
utpu
ts in
MSF
P Cl
uste
r 3:
Na
walp
aras
i, Rup
ande
hi,K
apilv
astu
, Pal
pa, C
hitw
an, B
ara,
Mak
wanp
ur an
d Ra
utah
at D
istric
ts
#K
ey O
utpu
tsU
nit
NG
O I
A-
Cor
eN
GO
IA
Th
emat
ic
ENP
RED
GoN
-D
FO
Inno
vati
on
Fund
and
ot
her
Mic
ro
Proj
ects
Tota
l
1Va
lue
chai
n of
fore
st pr
oduc
ts ex
plor
edPr
oduc
t8
-8
2N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises s
treng
then
edEn
terp
rise
127
193
No.
of e
nter
prise
s esta
blish
edEn
terp
rise
363
394
No.
of j
obs c
reat
ed -
ente
rpris
ePe
ople
1,96
575
52,
720
5N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- SF
MPe
ople
115
2,94
43,
059
6N
o. o
f for
estr
y gr
oups
form
edLF
G16
494
258
7Ar
ea o
f for
est h
ande
d ov
erha
596
9,52
410
,120
8N
o. o
f hhs
cov
ered
hhs
8,77
516
,110
24,8
859
No.
of O
pera
tiona
l Pla
ns re
vise
dO
P26
09
269
10N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
pre
pare
dO
P16
494
258
11N
o. o
f LF
Gs
inte
nsiv
ely
supp
orte
d w
ith s
ocia
l m
obili
zatio
n,
livel
ihoo
d an
d fo
rest
man
agem
ent a
ctiv
ities
LFG
573
-57
3
12N
o. o
f AFE
Cs f
orm
edAF
EC24
25-
4913
No.
of A
FEC
s ref
orm
ed/s
treng
then
edAF
EC11
325
414
2
14N
o. o
f hh
s su
ppor
ted
with
liv
elih
ood
impr
ovem
ent
activ
ities
/qu
ick
impa
ct a
ctiv
ities
hhs
14,0
422,
693
16,7
35
15N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s pre
pare
dPl
an96
353
134
16N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s im
plem
ente
dPl
an12
018
314
1
17N
o. of
hhs
rece
ived
adap
tatio
n se
rvic
es to
redu
ce th
eir v
ulne
rabi
lity
hhs
42,3
434,
334
1,44
848
,125
18N
o. o
f see
dlin
gs p
lant
edSe
edlin
gs2,
435,
467
5,06
9,00
136
,240
7,54
0,70
8
19Aff
ores
ted/
Refo
resta
tion
area
ha1,
002
2,03
469
3,10
5
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 27 )
3.4
Achi
evem
ents
agai
nst t
he K
ey O
pera
tiona
l Out
puts
in M
SFP
Clus
ter 4
:
Ba
glun
g, Pa
rbat
, Mya
gdi, M
usta
ng, K
aski
and
Lam
jung
Dist
ricts
#K
ey O
utpu
tsU
nit
NG
O
IA-C
ore
NG
O I
A-
Them
atic
EN
PR
EDG
oN-D
FO
Inno
vati
on
Fund
and
ot
her
Mic
ro
Proj
ects
Tota
l
1Va
lue
chai
n of
fore
st pr
oduc
ts ex
plor
edPr
oduc
t12
--
12
2N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises s
treng
then
edEn
terp
rise
38-
3068
3N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises e
stabl
ished
Ente
rpris
e11
2-
611
8
4N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- en
terp
rise
Peop
le2,
991
-51
235
43,
857
5N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- SF
MPe
ople
-81
81
6N
o. o
f for
estr
y gr
oups
form
edLF
G-
6565
7Ar
ea o
f for
est h
ande
d ov
erha
-6,
068
6,06
8
8N
o. o
f hhs
cov
ered
hhs
-6,
948
6,94
8
9N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
revi
sed
OP
-32
932
9
10N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
pre
pare
dO
P-
6565
11N
o. o
f LF
Gs
inte
nsiv
ely
supp
orte
d w
ith s
ocia
l m
obili
zatio
n,
livel
ihoo
d an
d fo
rest
man
agem
ent a
ctiv
ities
LFG
504
--
504
12N
o. o
f AFE
Cs f
orm
edAF
EC75
61-
136
13N
o. o
f AFE
Cs r
efor
med
/stre
ngth
ened
AFEC
6534
310
2
14N
o. o
f hhs
supp
orte
d w
ith li
velih
ood
impr
ovem
ent a
ctiv
ities
/qui
ck
impa
ct a
ctiv
ities
hhs
9,30
4-
1,94
527
211
,521
15N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s pre
pare
dPl
an34
970
442
3
16N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s im
plem
ente
dPl
an34
939
1940
7
17N
o. o
f hhs
rece
ived
adap
tatio
n se
rvic
es to
redu
ce th
eir v
ulne
rabi
lity
hhs
32,1
197,
967
1,29
041
,376
18N
o. o
f see
dlin
gs p
lant
edSe
edlin
gs21
6,46
4-
1,39
1,16
925
001,
610,
133
19Aff
ores
ted/
Refo
resta
tion
area
ha24
6-
530
1078
6
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 28 )
3.5
Achi
evem
ents
agai
nst t
he K
ey O
pera
tiona
l Out
puts
in M
SFP
Clus
ter 5
: Dan
g, Sa
lyan
, Ruk
um, R
olpa
, Pyu
than
, Ar
ghak
hanc
hi, a
nd G
ulm
i Dist
ricts
#K
ey O
utpu
tsU
nit
NG
O IA
-C
ore
NG
O IA
-Th
emat
ic
ENPR
EDG
oN D
FO
Inno
vatio
n Fu
nd a
nd
othe
r Mic
ro
Proj
ects
Tota
l
1Va
lue
chai
n of
fore
st pr
oduc
ts ex
plor
edPr
oduc
t-
--
2N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises s
treng
then
edEn
terp
rise
19-
2847
3N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises e
stabl
ished
Ente
rpris
e49
-6
55
4N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- en
terp
rise
Peop
le2,
223
-65
22,
875
5N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- SF
MPe
ople
2,96
5-
136
3,10
1
6N
o. o
f for
estr
y gr
oups
form
edLF
G-
138
138
7Ar
ea o
f for
est h
ande
d ov
erha
-11
,511
11,5
11
8N
o. o
f hhs
cov
ered
hhs
-14
,299
14,2
99
9N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
revi
sed
OP
-74
574
5
10N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
pre
pare
dO
P-
138
138
11N
o. o
f LFG
s int
ensiv
ely
supp
orte
d w
ith so
cial
mob
iliza
tion,
live
lihoo
d an
d fo
rest
man
agem
ent a
ctiv
ities
LFG
1,35
8-
-1,
358
12N
o. o
f AFE
Cs f
orm
edAF
EC21
257
-26
9
13N
o. o
f AFE
Cs r
efor
med
/stre
ngth
ened
AFEC
216
392
257
14N
o. o
f hh
s su
ppor
ted
with
liv
elih
ood
impr
ovem
ent
activ
ities
/qui
ck
impa
ct a
ctiv
ities
hhs
13,0
70-
1,73
114
,801
15N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s pre
pare
dPl
an51
676
1160
3
16N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s im
plem
ente
dPl
an62
436
3469
4
17N
o. o
f hhs
rece
ived
ada
ptat
ion
serv
ices
to re
duce
thei
r vul
nera
bilit
yhh
s74
,233
9,30
664
684
,185
18N
o. o
f see
dlin
gs p
lant
edSe
edlin
gs25
9,55
0-
2,82
7,25
73,
086,
807
19Aff
ores
ted/
Refo
resta
tion
area
ha19
1-
1,30
81,
499
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 29 )
3.6
Achi
evem
ents
agai
nst t
he ke
y ope
ratio
nal o
utpu
ts in
MSF
P Cl
uste
r 6:
Ba
jhan
g, A
chha
m, K
alik
ot, D
aile
kh, J
ajar
kot,
Surk
het,
Jum
la, B
ajur
a, D
oti, a
nd K
aila
li Dist
ricts
#K
ey O
utpu
tsU
nit
NG
O
IA-C
ore
NG
O IA
-Th
emat
ic
Forw
ard
NG
O
IA-
Them
atic
Su
ndar
GoN
DFO
Inno
vatio
n Fu
nd
and
othe
r Mic
ro
Proj
ects
Tota
l
1Va
lue
chai
n of
fore
st pr
oduc
ts ex
plor
edPr
oduc
t-
--
2N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises s
treng
then
edEn
terp
rise
107
523
453
No.
of e
nter
prise
s esta
blish
edEn
terp
rise
109
75
314
No.
of j
obs c
reat
ed -
ente
rpris
ePe
ople
1,86
530
472
355
73,
449
5N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- SF
MPe
ople
-16
316
36
No.
of f
ores
try
grou
ps fo
rmed
LFG
214
214
7Ar
ea o
f for
est h
ande
d ov
erha
23,1
9023
,190
8N
o. o
f hhs
cov
ered
hhs
22,7
6522
,765
9N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
revi
sed
OP
335
335
10N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
pre
pare
dO
P21
421
4
11N
o.
of
LFG
s in
tens
ivel
y su
ppor
ted
with
so
cial
m
obili
zatio
n,
livel
ihoo
d an
d fo
rest
man
agem
ent
activ
ities
LFG
539
-53
9
12N
o. o
f AFE
Cs f
orm
edAF
EC12
22-
3413
No.
of A
FEC
s ref
orm
ed/s
treng
then
edAF
EC61
263
14N
o. o
f hhs
sup
port
ed w
ith li
velih
ood
impr
ovem
ent
activ
ities
/qui
ck im
pact
act
iviti
eshh
s7,
474
1,56
69,
040
15N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s pre
pare
dPl
an33
01
233
316
No.
of A
dapt
atio
n Pl
ans i
mpl
emen
ted
Plan
122
1713
9
17N
o. o
f hh
s re
ceiv
ed a
dapt
atio
n se
rvic
es t
o re
duce
th
eir v
ulne
rabi
lity
hhs
14,5
7674
015
,316
18N
o. o
f see
dlin
gs p
lant
edSe
edlin
gs1,
005,
047
11,2
752,
026,
632
5190
3,04
8,14
419
Affor
este
d/Re
fore
statio
n ar
eaha
251
1392
710
0.7
1,29
1
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 30 )
3.7
Sum
mar
y of C
lust
er A
chie
vem
ents
agai
nst t
he K
ey O
pera
tiona
l Out
puts
by I
mpl
emen
ting
Partn
er
3.7.
1 Ach
ieve
men
ts ag
ains
t the
key o
pera
tiona
l out
puts
from
GoN
Impl
emen
ted
Prog
ram
mes
by C
lust
er#
Key
Out
puts
Uni
tC
lust
er-1
Clu
st. 2
Clu
st. 3
Clu
st. 4
Clu
st. 5
Clu
st. 6
Add
itio
nal
Dis
tric
tTo
tal
1Va
lue
chai
n of
fore
st pr
oduc
ts ex
plor
edPr
oduc
t0
00
00
00
-
2N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises s
treng
then
edEn
terp
rise
610
730
2823
010
4
3N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises e
stabl
ished
Ente
rpris
e4
33
66
50
27
4N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- en
terp
rise
Peop
le40
470
475
551
265
255
70
3,58
4
5N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- SF
MPe
ople
118
5229
4481
136
163
03,
494
6N
o. o
f for
estr
y gr
oups
form
edLF
G54
7894
6513
821
40
643
7Ar
ea o
f for
est h
ande
d ov
erha
4,55
9.3
6,53
4.3
9,52
4.02
6,06
8.3
11,5
11.3
23,1
900
61,3
87
8N
o. o
f hhs
cov
ered
hhs
6,19
38,
137
16,1
106,
948
14,2
9922
,765
074
,452
9N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
revi
sed
OP
311
315
260
329
745
335
472
2,76
7
10N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
pre
pare
dO
P54
7894
6513
821
40
643
11N
o. o
f LF
Gs
inte
nsiv
ely
supp
orte
d w
ith s
ocia
l m
obili
zatio
n, l
ivel
ihoo
d an
d fo
rest
man
agem
ent
activ
ities
LFG
00
00
00
00-
12N
o. o
f AFE
Cs f
orm
edAF
EC0
00
00
00
0
13N
o. o
f AFE
Cs r
efor
med
/stre
ngth
ened
AFEC
135
43
22
029
14N
o. o
f hhs
supp
orte
d w
ith li
velih
ood
impr
ovem
ent
activ
ities
/qui
ck im
pact
act
iviti
eshh
s3,
209
3,03
02,
693
1,94
51,
731
1,56
60
14,1
74
15N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s pre
pare
dPl
an4
63
411
10
29
16N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s im
plem
ente
dPl
an22
143
1934
170
109
17N
o. o
f hh
s re
ceiv
ed a
dapt
atio
n se
rvic
es t
o re
duce
th
eir v
ulne
rabi
lity
hhs
1,15
995
11,
448
1,29
064
674
00
6,23
4
18N
o. o
f see
dlin
gs p
lant
edSe
edlin
gs2,
829,
710
3,27
6,36
15,
069,
001
1,39
1,16
92,8
27,2
572,
026,
632
017
,420
,130
19Aff
ores
ted/
Refo
resta
tion
area
ha93
294
72,
034
530.
391,
308.
2592
6.54
06,
678
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 31 )
3.7.
2 A
chie
vem
ents
agai
nst t
he ke
y ope
ratio
nal o
utpu
ts b
y NGO
Impl
emen
ting
Partn
ers b
y Clu
ster
#K
ey O
utpu
tsU
nit
RRN
EC
ARD
S RI
MS
LIBI
RD
Rupa
ntar
an7
LIPO
SSu
ndar
N
epal
Forw
ard
Nep
alEN
PRED
Tota
l
1Va
lue
chai
n of
for
est
prod
ucts
expl
ored
Prod
uct
178
812
00
00
045
2N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises s
treng
then
edEn
terpr
ise39
1312
3819
105
70
143
3N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises e
stabl
ished
Enter
prise
6925
3611
249
107
90
317
4N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- en
terp
rise
Peop
le1,
341
1,33
61,
965
2,99
12,
223
1,86
572
330
40
12,7
485
No.
of j
obs c
reat
ed -
SFM
Peop
le0
011
50
2965
00
00
3,08
06
No.
of f
ores
try
grou
ps fo
rmed
LFG
00
164
00
00
00
164
7Ar
ea o
f for
est h
ande
d ov
erha
00
596.
110
00
00
059
68
No.
of h
hs c
over
edhh
s0
087
750
00
00
08,
775
9N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
revi
sed
OP
00
00
00
00
0-
10N
o.
of
Ope
ratio
nal
Plan
s pr
epar
edO
P0
016
40
00
00
016
4
11
No.
of
LF
Gs
inte
nsiv
ely
supp
orte
d w
ith
soci
al
mob
iliza
tion,
liv
elih
ood
and
fore
st m
anag
emen
t act
iviti
es
LFG
216
835
573
504
1358
539
00
04,
025
12N
o. o
f AFE
Cs f
orm
edAF
EC66
524
7521
212
022
143
559
13N
o.
of
AFEC
s re
form
ed/
stren
gthe
ned
AFEC
7718
711
365
216
610
098
817
14N
o.
of
hhs
supp
orte
d w
ith
livel
ihoo
d im
prov
emen
t ac
tiviti
es/q
uick
impa
ct ac
tiviti
eshh
s9,
389
10,9
4414
,042
9,30
413
,070
7,47
40
00
64,2
23
15N
o.
of
Adap
tatio
n Pl
ans
prep
ared
Plan
226
800
9634
951
633
00
018
12,
498
16N
o.
of
Adap
tatio
n Pl
ans
impl
emen
ted
Plan
387
156
120
349
624
122
00
931,
851
17N
o. o
f hh
s re
ceiv
ed a
dapt
atio
n se
rvic
es
to
redu
ce
thei
r vu
lner
abili
tyhh
s15
,922
32,5
8342
,343
32,1
1974
,233
14,5
760
021
,607
233,
383
18N
o. o
f see
dlin
gs p
lant
edSe
edlin
gs11
7,18
789
3,74
72,
435,
467
216,
464
259,
550
1,00
5,04
70
11,2
750
4,93
8,73
719
Affor
este
d/Re
fore
statio
n ar
eaha
51.7
212
610
0224
619
0.6
251
013
01,
880
Not
e: P
leas
e se
e Ab
brev
iatio
ns fo
r ful
l nam
es o
f MSF
P’s m
ain
part
ners
.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 32 )
3.7.
3 A
chie
vem
ents
agai
nst t
he K
ey O
pera
tiona
l Out
puts
from
the I
nnov
atio
n Fu
nd an
d M
icro-
Proj
ects
#K
ey O
utpu
tsU
nit
Clu
ster
1C
lust
er2
Clu
ster
3C
lust
er4
Clu
ster
5C
lust
er6
Addi
tiona
l D
istric
tsTo
tal
1Va
lue
chai
n of
fore
st pr
oduc
ts ex
plor
edPr
oduc
t0
00
00
00
-
2N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises s
treng
then
edEn
terpr
ise0
10
00
00
1
3N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises e
stabl
ished
Enter
prise
00
00
00
0-
4N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- en
terp
rise
Peop
le0
557
035
40
00
911
5N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- SF
MPe
ople
00
00
00
0-
6N
o. o
f for
estr
y gr
oups
form
edLF
G0
00
00
00
-
7Ar
ea o
f for
est h
ande
d ov
erha
00
00
00
0-
8N
o. o
f hhs
cov
ered
hhs
00
00
00
0-
9N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
revi
sed
OP
00
90
00
138
147
10N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
pre
pare
dO
P0
00
00
00
-
11N
o. o
f LFG
s in
tens
ivel
y su
ppor
ted
with
so
cial
mob
iliza
tion,
live
lihoo
d an
d fo
rest
man
agem
ent a
ctiv
ities
LFG
00
00
00
0-
12N
o. o
f AFE
Cs f
orm
edAF
EC0
00
00
00
-13
No.
of A
FEC
s ref
orm
ed/s
treng
then
edAF
EC0
00
00
00
-
14N
o. o
f hh
s su
ppor
ted
with
liv
elih
ood
impr
ovem
ent
activ
ities
/qui
ck
impa
ct
activ
ities
hhs
059
027
20
074
01,
071
15N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s pre
pare
dPl
an0
00
00
20
2
16N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s im
plem
ente
dPl
an0
00
00
00
-
17N
o. o
f hhs
rece
ived
adap
tatio
n se
rvic
es to
re
duce
thei
r vul
nera
bilit
yhh
s0
00
00
00
-
18N
o. o
f see
dlin
gs p
lant
edSe
edlin
gs0
116,
426
36,2
402,
500
05,
190
454,
300
614,
656
19Aff
ores
ted/
Refo
resta
tion
area
ha0
4269
100
100.
730
252
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 33 )
3.7.
4 A
chie
vem
ents
agai
nst t
he K
ey O
pera
tiona
l Out
puts
in A
dditi
onal
Dist
ricts
#K
ey O
utpu
tsU
nit
DFO
sIn
nova
tion
Fund
and
M
icro
Pro
ject
sTo
tal
1Va
lue
chai
n of
fore
st pr
oduc
ts ex
plor
edPr
oduc
t-
2N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises s
treng
then
edEn
terp
rise
-
3N
o. o
f ent
erpr
ises e
stabl
ished
Ente
rpris
e-
4N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- en
terp
rise
Peop
le-
5N
o. o
f job
s cre
ated
- SF
MPe
ople
-
6N
o. o
f for
estr
y gr
oups
form
edLF
G-
7Ar
ea o
f for
est h
ande
d ov
erha
-
8N
o. o
f hhs
cov
ered
hhs
-
9N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
revi
sed
OP
472
138
610
10N
o. o
f Ope
ratio
nal P
lans
pre
pare
dO
P-
11N
o. o
f LF
Gs
inte
nsiv
ely
supp
orte
d w
ith s
ocia
l mob
iliza
tion,
live
lihoo
d an
d fo
rest
man
agem
ent a
ctiv
ities
LFG
-
12N
o. o
f AFE
Cs f
orm
edAF
EC-
13N
o. o
f AFE
Cs r
efor
med
/stre
ngth
ened
AFEC
-
14N
o. o
f hh
s su
ppor
ted
with
live
lihoo
d im
prov
emen
t ac
tiviti
es/q
uick
im
pact
ac
tiviti
eshh
s74
074
0
15N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s pre
pare
dPl
an-
16N
o. o
f Ada
ptat
ion
Plan
s im
plem
ente
dPl
an-
17N
o. o
f hhs
rece
ived
ada
ptat
ion
serv
ices
to re
duce
thei
r vul
nera
bilit
yhh
s-
18N
o. o
f see
dlin
gs p
lant
edSe
edlin
gs45
4,30
045
4,30
0
19Aff
ores
ted/
Refo
resta
tion
area
ha30
30
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 34 )
4SU
MM
ARY
OF
DAT
AB
ASE
S
4.1
Data
base
Sum
mar
y: th
e Agr
icultu
re, F
ores
try, E
nviro
nmen
tal C
omm
ittee
(AFE
C)Th
is da
taba
se su
mm
arize
s the
supp
ort p
rovi
ded
by M
SFP
to th
e vi
llage
leve
l mul
ti-sta
keho
lder
supp
ort m
echa
nism
at t
he V
DC
leve
l, th
e AF
ECs.
#D
istr
ict
New
ly F
orm
edEx
isti
ngTo
tal
Stre
ngth
ened
Not
Str
engt
hene
dTo
tal
Rem
arks
East
ern
Clu
ster
1D
hank
uta
180
1818
018
2
Tera
thum
1611
2727
027
3
Sank
huw
asab
ha14
014
140
14
4Bo
jpur
180
1818
018
Sub
Tota
l66
1177
770
77
Cen
ter
East
ern
Clu
ster
5R
amec
hhap
048
4848
048
16 A
FEC
from
cen
ter e
aste
rn c
luste
r has
be
en m
erge
d in
to m
unic
ipal
ity so
dat
a fo
r it
is no
t ava
ilabl
e. A
lso d
ata
for 5
VFC
C
form
ed a
t the
beg
inni
ng o
f the
pro
gram
me
is no
t ava
ilabl
e.
6O
khal
dung
a0
5252
520
527
Kho
tang
071
7171
071
Sub
Tota
l0
171
171
171
017
1W
este
rn T
erai
8Ru
pand
ehi
728
3535
035
9
Kap
ilbas
tu11
3142
4242
10
Naw
alpa
rasi
630
3636
36
11Pa
lpa
2525
25
Su
b To
tal
4989
113
138
013
8
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 35 )
Wes
tern
Clu
ster
#D
istr
ict
New
ly F
orm
edEx
isti
ngTo
tal
Stre
ngth
ened
Not
Str
engt
hene
dTo
tal
Rem
arks
12Ba
glun
g29
2929
29
13Pa
rbat
2929
2929
14
Mya
gdi
1717
710
17
15K
aski
2525
148
22
16La
mju
ng25
2515
1025
17
Mus
tang
11
115
712
Sub
Tota
l13
60
136
9935
134
0M
id W
este
rn C
lust
er18
Rolp
a51
51
51
51
19Sa
lyan
41
4141
41
20
Pyut
han
42
4242
42
21
Dan
g35
439
39
39
22Ru
kum
43
4343
43
23
Gul
mi
32
3224
832
24
Arga
khan
chi
25
2515
1126
Sub
Tota
l26
94
273
255
1927
4
Mid
/Far
Wes
tern
Clu
ster
25D
aile
kh
2020
200
20
26Ac
cham
20
2020
20
27
Bajh
ang
12
12
1212
28
Kal
ikot
11
1111
11
29
Jaja
rkot
10
1010
10
30
Dot
i7
7
7
7
31Ba
jura
15
15
1515
Su
b To
tal
3461
9561
3495
G
rand
Tot
al55
433
686
580
188
889
0
Not
e: D
ata
of 5
VFC
C fo
rmed
by
ECAR
DS
is no
t ava
ilabl
e; d
ata
for1
6 AF
EC fo
rmed
by
ECAR
DS
and
subs
eque
ntly
mer
ged
into
mun
icip
aliti
es, i
s also
not
ava
ilabl
e. D
ata
for 2
9 AF
ECs s
treng
then
ed b
y D
FOs a
re n
ot a
vaila
ble.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 36 )
4.2
Data
base
Sum
mar
y: th
e Clim
ate A
dapt
atio
n Pl
an D
atab
ase (
LAPA
and
CAPA
)
This
data
base
sum
mar
izes t
he su
ppor
t pro
vide
d by
MSF
P to
the
Com
mun
ity A
dapt
ion
Plan
s of A
ctio
n (C
APAs
) thr
ough
the
loca
l for
estr
y gr
oups
.
The L
APA
#D
istr
ict
No.
of
LAPA
En
dors
ed
No.
of L
APA
Im
plem
ente
d
No.
of
LAPA
not
Im
plem
ente
d
Tota
l LA
PA
Supp
orte
d
Num
ber
of h
ouse
hold
ben
efitt
ed b
y LA
PA im
plem
enta
tion
MSF
P
Supp
ort
NR
s.D
AGN
on D
AGTo
tal
Poor
Dis
crim
inat
edW
omen
he
aded
East
ern
Clu
ster
1D
hank
uta
06
06
315
178
493
328
138
276
242,
050
2Te
rath
um0
70
743
928
572
446
047
624
524
5,60
0
3Sa
nkhu
was
abha
610
010
1,07
856
01,
638
1,20
71,
375
638
162,
819
4Bo
jpur
917
017
606
847
1,45
371
61,
019
616
492,
105
Su
b To
tal
1540
040
2,43
81,
870
4,30
82,
711
3,00
81,
775
1,14
2,57
4
Cen
ter
East
ern
Clu
ster
5R
amec
hhap
1818
018
481
1,20
61,
687
537
816
722,
249,
864
6O
khal
dung
a20
200
201,
464
1,85
13,
315
1,58
11,
939
331
3,17
3,02
0
7K
hota
ng20
167
2362
999
31,
622
754
1,20
574
71,
640,
000
Su
b To
tal
5854
761
2,57
44,
050
6,62
42,
872
3,96
01,
150
7,06
2,88
4
Wes
tern
Ter
ai
8Ru
pand
ehi
021
021
3,91
410
,913
14,8
277,
725
11,2
754,
548
4,27
9,08
8
9K
apilb
astu
017
017
2,17
02,
990
5,16
03,
905
1,49
930
92,
513,
939
10N
awal
para
si23
230
237,
442
3,70
811
,150
7,77
13,
568
4,68
25,
556,
203
11Pa
lpa
2513
1225
1,39
72,
480
3,87
71,
397
3,29
866
00
Su
b To
tal
4874
1286
14,9
2320
,091
35,0
1420
,798
19,6
4010
,199
12,3
49,2
30
Not
e.
Acco
rdin
g to
the
PCR
, 369
LAP
A ha
ve b
een
impl
emen
ted
– ho
wev
er th
e da
taba
se o
nly
cont
ains
dat
a fo
r 344
impl
emen
ted
LAPA
.
Ther
efor
e, d
ata
for 2
5 im
plem
ente
d LA
PA a
re m
issin
g.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 37 )
#D
istr
ict
No.
of L
APA
En
dors
edN
o. o
f LA
PA
Impl
emen
ted
No.
of
LAPA
not
im
plem
ente
d
Tota
l LA
PA
supp
orte
d
Num
ber
of h
ouse
hold
s ben
efitt
ed b
y LA
PA im
plem
enta
tion
MSF
P S
uppo
rt
NR
s.D
AGN
on
DAG
Tota
lPo
orD
iscr
imin
ated
Wom
en
head
edW
este
rn C
lust
er
12Ba
glun
g14
140
143,
169
2,46
55,
634
4,00
04,
359
2,53
878
,640
,00
13Pa
rbat
1212
012
2,13
02,
233
4,36
32,
958
2,82
61,
499
7,09
0,00
014
Mya
gdi
1919
019
2,80
42,
026
4,83
03,
352
3,56
987
811
,380
,000
15K
aski
2517
825
2,92
52,
156
5,11
12,
118
3,13
292
90
16La
mju
ng25
916
251,
080
787
1,86
71,
181
1,47
81
3,26
6,91
217
Mus
tang
115
1116
493
282
775
260
578
193
0
Sub
Tota
l10
676
3511
112
,601
9,94
922
,580
13,8
6915
,942
6,03
829
,600
,912
Mid
-Wes
tern
Clu
ster
18Ro
lpa
1313
013
606
197
803
602
671
336
4,23
1,55
3
19Sa
lyan
910
010
481
1,09
31,
574
1,11
563
914
64,
265,
704
20Py
utha
n3
73
101,
326
1,36
02,
686
1,54
22,
090
739
3,55
0,71
6
21D
ang
99
09
1,20
673
51,
941
1,42
271
396
84,
362,
834
22Ru
kum
911
011
1,95
21,
549
3,50
12,
569
2,33
688
14,
485,
648
23G
ulm
i32
1418
322,
323
1,89
64,
219
1,63
32,
619
930
0
24Ar
gakh
anch
i25
1312
251,
968
2,32
84,
296
1,44
62,
220
683
0
Su
b To
tal
100
7733
110
9,86
29,
158
19,0
2010
,329
11,2
884,
683
20,8
96,4
55
Mid
/Far
Wes
tern
Clu
ster
25D
aile
kh2
20
216
087
247
160
160
379
9,30
2
26Ac
cham
65
16
433
379
812
680
234
521,
850,
000
27Ba
jhan
g6
60
613
243
555
132
190
3,49
4,96
4
28K
alik
ot6
60
618
247
866
063
582
61,
842,
075
29Ja
jark
ot4
40
416
578
242
139
165
51,
600,
000
Su
b To
tal
2423
124
1,07
21,
065
2,51
61,
746
660
669,
586,
341
35
134
488
432
43,4
7046
,183
90,0
6252
,325
54,4
9823
,911
80,6
38,3
96
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 38 )
The C
APA
#D
istr
ict
No.
of
CA
PA
appr
oved
/in
built
in
OP
No.
of C
APA
Im
plem
ente
d
No.
of
CA
PA n
ot
impl
emen
ted
Tota
l C
APA
su
ppor
ted
Num
ber
of h
ouse
hold
Ben
efitt
ed b
y C
APA
impl
emen
tati
on
MSF
P
Supp
ort
NR
s.D
AGN
on D
AGTo
tal
Poor
Dis
crim
inat
edW
omen
he
aded
East
ern
Clu
ster
1D
hank
uta
4692
092
7,30
45,
063
12,3
677,
767
6,27
24,
973
4,86
8,66
02
Tera
thum
4089
1810
71,
857
810
2,66
71,
775
2,01
31,
569
2,54
3,64
03
Sank
huw
asab
ha39
5816
741,
315
890
2,20
51,
358
1,56
790
41,
777,
633
4Bo
jpur
012
61
128
3,42
92,
851
6,28
02,
941
2,97
33,
352
2,67
6,38
6
Sub
Tota
l12
536
535
401
13,9
059,
614
23,5
1913
,841
12,8
2510
,798
1186
6319
Cen
ter
East
ern
Clu
ster
5R
amec
hhap
278
2925
328
235
485
31,
208
448
589
104
06
Okh
aldu
nga
221
3518
622
11,
307
1,28
42,
591
1,49
71,
864
911
07
Kho
tang
106
3720
824
550
51,
113
1,40
669
899
451
40
Su
b To
tal
605
101
647
748
2,16
63,
250
5,20
52,
643
3,44
71,
529
0W
este
rn T
erai
8Ru
pand
ehi
017
017
1,38
32,
617
3,90
01,
392
2,61
41,
364
09
Kap
ilbas
tu2
170
171,
741
1,39
83,
139
2,37
61,
277
368
010
Naw
alpa
rasi
2425
025
3,14
81,
019
4,16
73,
204
1,67
31,
665
011
Palp
a0
55
1023
821
945
728
131
130
2500
00
Sub
Tota
l26
645
696,
510
5,25
311
,663
7,25
35,
875
3,42
725
0,00
0
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 39 )
#D
istr
ict
No.
of C
APA
ap
prov
ed/
inbu
ilt in
O
P
No.
of C
APA
Im
plem
ente
d
No.
of
CA
PA n
ot
impl
emen
ted
Tota
l CA
PA
supp
orte
d
Num
ber
of h
ouse
hold
Ben
efitt
ed b
y C
APA
impl
emen
tati
onM
SFP
Su
ppor
t N
Rs.
DAG
Non
D
AGTo
tal
Poor
Dis
crim
inat
edW
omen
he
aded
Wes
tern
Clu
ster
12Ba
glun
g13
313
30
133
3,98
03,
734
7,85
05,
737
3,38
81,
136
013
Parb
at10
010
00
100
1,70
72,
136
3,84
32,
907
2,29
341
40
14M
yagd
i71
710
712,
473
3,12
45,
597
3,54
33,
027
462
015
Kas
ki0
37
1042
3779
3755
215
0,00
016
Lam
jung
04
812
6429
9369
848
200,
000
17M
usta
ng0
01
10
00
00
00
Su
b To
tal
304
311
1632
78,
266
9,06
017
,462
12,2
938,
847
2,02
235
0,00
0M
id W
este
rn C
lust
er
18Ro
lpa
3013
00
130
2,46
51,
790
4,30
93,
020
3,18
578
86,
303,
610
19Sa
lyan
2690
090
1,33
72,
091
3,42
82,
192
1,66
055
34,
509,
600
20Py
utha
n94
140
014
03,
285
2,32
65,
611
3,83
84,
524
781
6,80
7,12
121
Dan
g12
412
50
125
5,29
54,
104
9,30
76,
005
6,98
61,
410
5,90
2,13
422
Ruku
m46
890
891,
796
1,78
43,
569
2,63
91,
768
720
4,72
9,83
023
Gul
mi
08
715
264
411
675
391
562
2140
0,00
024
Arga
khan
chi
02
68
6650
116
8484
1110
0,00
0
Sub
Tota
l32
058
413
597
14,5
0812
,556
27,0
1518
,169
18,7
694,
284
28,7
52,2
95
Mid
/Far
Wes
tern
Clu
ster
25D
aile
kh8
80
822
094
314
220
220
120
26Ac
cham
193
1619
155
5020
515
656
50
27Ba
jhan
g20
200
200
01,
444
00
05,
271,
580
28K
alik
ot4
40
410
378
181
181
110
00
29Ja
jark
ot1
40
420
148
168
108
204
0
Sub
Tota
l52
3916
5549
837
023
1266
540
621
5,27
1,58
0
G
rand
Tot
al1,
432
1,46
473
22,
197
45,8
5340
,103
87,1
7654
,864
50,1
6922
,081
46,4
90,1
94
Not
e.
Acco
rdin
g to
the
PCR
, 1,5
91 C
APA
have
bee
n im
plem
ente
d. Th
e da
taba
se c
onta
ins r
ecor
ds o
f onl
y 1,
465
impl
emen
ted
CAP
A; t
here
fore
, the
re
is a
data
gap
of 1
26 im
plem
ente
d C
APA,
the
reco
rds f
or w
hich
wer
e no
t rec
eive
d fro
m th
e im
plem
entin
g pa
rtne
rs.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 40 )
4.3
Data
base
Sum
mar
y: th
e Loc
al Fo
rest
ry G
roup
Dat
abas
e (LF
G)
This
data
base
sum
mar
izes t
he su
ppor
t pro
vide
d by
MSF
P to
the
loca
l for
estr
y gr
oups
in th
e di
ffere
nt o
pera
tiona
l dist
ricts.
#D
istr
ict
Num
ber
of L
ocal
For
estr
y G
roup
s (LF
G)
supp
orte
d b
y M
SFP
Tota
l
Leve
l of M
SFP
Sup
port
Com
mun
ity
Fore
stPu
blic
Lan
d
Man
agem
ent
Leas
ehol
d
Fore
stry
Col
labo
rati
ve
Fore
st
Man
agem
ent
Rel
igio
us
Fore
stIn
tens
ive
Non
in
tens
ive
Tota
l
East
ern
Clu
ster
1D
hank
uta
9494
5242
942
Tera
thum
138
138
4395
138
3Sa
nkhu
was
abha
137
137
4592
137
4Bo
jpur
196
219
876
122
198
Sub
Tota
l56
5-
2-
-56
721
635
156
7
Cen
ter
East
ern
Clu
ster
5R
amec
hhap
182
194
376
376
-37
66
Okh
aldu
nga
127
5618
318
3-
183
7K
hota
ng16
910
727
627
6-
276
Sub
Tota
l47
8-
357
--
835
835
-83
5
Wes
tern
Ter
ai
8Ru
pand
ehi
7711
519
216
230
192
9K
apilb
astu
8811
72
120
817
830
208
10N
awal
para
si12
812
258
130
919
811
130
911
Palp
a35
3535
-35
Sub
Tota
l29
335
458
22
744
573
171
744
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 41 )
#D
istr
ict
Num
ber
of L
ocal
For
estr
y G
roup
s (LF
G)
supp
orte
d b
y M
SFP
Tota
l
Leve
l of M
SFP
Sup
port
Com
mun
ity
Fore
stPu
blic
Lan
d
Man
agem
ent
Leas
ehol
d
Fore
stry
Col
labo
rati
ve
Fore
st
Man
agem
ent
Rel
igio
us
Fore
stIn
tens
ive
Non
in
tens
ive
Tota
l
Wes
tern
Clu
ster
12Ba
glun
g25
425
419
856
254
13Pa
rbat
217
217
152
6521
714
Mya
gdi
173
173
154
1917
3
Sub
Tota
l64
4-
--
-64
450
414
064
4
Mid
Wes
tern
Clu
ster
15Ro
lpa
283
2731
031
0-
310
16Sa
lyan
252
8233
433
31
334
17Py
utha
n14
849
197
197
-19
718
Dan
g23
123
123
1-
231
19Ru
kum
238
4928
728
7-
287
Su
b To
tal
1,15
2-
207
--
1,35
91,
358
11,
359
Mid
/Far
Wes
tern
Clu
ster
20D
aile
kh13
623
159
108
5115
921
Acch
am15
91
160
146
1416
022
Bajh
ang
118
1413
213
11
132
23K
alik
ot64
973
73-
7324
Jaja
rkot
783
8181
-81
Su
b To
tal
555
-50
--
605
539
6660
5
G
rand
Tot
al3,
687
354
674
22
4,75
44,
025
729
4,75
4
Not
e: Th
e co
ncer
ned
part
ner d
id n
ot p
rovi
de d
etai
led
info
rmat
ion
for 7
LFG
s in
Naw
alpa
rasi
Dist
rict -
thes
e ha
ve b
een
defin
ed, r
ight
ly o
r wro
ngly,
as
Publ
ic L
and
Man
agem
ent G
roup
s (PL
MG
s)
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 42 )
4.4 Database Summary: the Livelihood Improvement Plan (LIP)
# District Households Supported
MSFP Support NRs. Implementing Agencies
1 Dhankuta 1200 18,000,000
RRN2 Terathum 991 14,865,0003 Sankhuwasabha 1195 17,925,0004 Bojpur 1673 25,095,000 Sub Total 5,059 75,885,0005 Ramechhap 3351 33,976,040
ECARDS6 Okhaldunga 3501 37,172,5607 Khotang 4530 41,833,609 Sub Total 11,382 112,982,2098 Rupandehi 2,470 22,781,000
RIMS9 Kapilbastu 2,111 22,358,00010 Nawalparasi 1862 18,443,500 Sub Total 6,443 63,582,50011 Baglung 3404 31519656
LIBIRD12 Parbat 3985 2969900013 Myagdi 2915 28611500 Sub Total 10,304 89,830,15614 Rolpa 2124 21,317,500 Rupantaran15 Salyan 2,181 21,395,00016 Pyuthan 2212 19,381,67017 Dang 2,540 22,463,38918 Rukum 2,356 22,981,320
Sub Total 11,413 107,538,87919 Dailekh 501 7469000 Everest Club and SAEWCC20 Accham 747 11,205,000 RUDEC and MDO21 Bajhang 314 4700000 SDC22 Kalikot 210 3,150,000 SADDA23 Jajarkot 410 6150000 HRDC
Sub Total 2,182 32,674,000 DFOs 14,174
Innovation Fund/Micro Projects 1,071
IDS 5,292 Grand Total 67,320 482,492,744
Note. Data from the IAs in their programme completion reports records a total of 79,468 hhs having received support for livelihood improvement activities through MSFP. This differs from the total above by 12,148 hhs, due to a major gap in the databases received from three of MSFP’s Partners.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 43 )
5 GOOD PRACTICES OF THE MSFP
5.1 The Multi Stakeholder Approach Key stakeholders were provided capacity building in order to ensure that they participated more meaningfully, confidently and equally in all the processes of policy deliberation as well as programme planning, implementation and monitoring. These key stakeholders included GoN staff members, civil society members, communities and private sector representatives. Full and equal participation of all categories of stakeholder is a key to formulation of any policy and to create and maintain ownership by all. This eventually enhances effective implementation of the policy.
The multi-stakeholder approach has been extended to sub-national and local levels, and has strengthened gradually during the 4 years of MSFP implementation – see Reference 1 on policy and governance.
Key to the establishment of this approach at the local and community level has been the support provided by the Programme to the establishment of the Agriculture Forestry and Environment Committees (AFECs) at the Village Development Committee (VDC), and capacity enhancement to the AFEC members, who are residents of the local community. In MSFP’s 43 districts since project inception, a total of 559 new AFECs at local level have been formed and supported, while 846 existing but somewhat dormant AFECs have been provided support in capacity building, planning, budgeting, monitoring and implementation. The AFECs are found to be effective in coordination and monitoring of the programme activities and improving governance at the local level.
Despite being a time consuming approach, the MoFSC has now adopted and institutionalized the multi-stakeholder approach in policy and planning procedures at all levels, due to its effectiveness in increasing stakeholder ownership. The multi-stakeholder mechanism at district level, the District Forest Sector Coordination Committee (DFSCC), is now functional in 32 MSFP districts, following MSFP support and facilitation. The Multi Stakeholder Steering Committee (MSSC) and the DFSCC are good examples of improving governance through collaboration between key stakeholders both at the policy level as well as in implementation, monitoring and evaluation at field level.
As a result of the MSFP efforts to institutionalize the multi stakeholder approach in forest management, the collaboration between the government and private sector has noticeably improved. For example, the Forest Enterprise Division (FED), established within the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI), and the MoFSC are engaged together in the forestry sector policy development process - see Reference 2 on the Private Sector. The MoFSC has recently amended the Forest Regulations (1995, 5th Amendment in 2015) – which is considered as a policy breakthrough in relation to private sector involvement. The amended regulations have created a more enabling environment for private foresters to harvest, transport and sell their forest products. Similarly, the GoN has revised the distance from forests rule for enterprise establishment in 2014, creating a more favourable environment for the establishment of forest based enterprises in rural areas.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 44 )
5.2 The Value Chain ApproachMSFP has found the value chain approach to be valuable in terms of establishment of new links between the GoN forestry authorities, the private sector and the local producer groups. The MSFP working paper Forest-based Value Chains in Nepal (see Reference 3) provides considerable detail on the potential of various forest products for both national and international markets.
Some of Nepal’s forest-based products are well-known on international markets – for example, cardamom, which has increased in popularity over the past decade due to the good price. In this case, the international market demand already has a strong pull effect on the cardamom value chain. The roots of the value chain, however, are in the local understanding of the qualities of the product, and in the skills of the farmers. However, there are issues in the cultivation efforts - for example, finding a solution to dealing with plant diseases, which is another opportunity for joint or public effort.
Additionally, success of value chain upgrading depends on the knowledge of needs and end-uses, among other factors. For example, the various end-use values require different types of knowledge and skills: construction (technical and physical), nutrition and fodder (chemical and nutritional), medicine (chemical, pharmaceutical), fibre (physical and weaving properties), and energy (physical, energy values, health).
The value chain approach and the value chain development fund are also promising developments in relation to enterprise promotion. The establishment of a Value Chain Development Fund in three districts of MSFP lot IV namely Baglung, Parbat and Myagdi, in collaboration with a local bank and the District Chamber of Commerce and Industries (DCCI), was a solid programme initiative by Li-Bird to enhance private sector engagement in forestry. Likewise, successful efforts to export 2,750 kg of Dhatelo oil (Prinsepia utilis), an almost neglected but abundant species from the high mountains, to Europe and Japan under the leadership of the private sector is another breakthrough, enhancing international trade of a non-timber forest product. MSFP was able to create 23,817 jobs (70% accessed by the disadvantaged) through forest-based enterprises and sustainable forest management against a planned target of 32,000 for the initial phase. Much could have been done to increase the number of jobs but political uncertainties and unrest, and subsequent blockades, delayed enterprise establishment and strengthening activities.
The value chain approach can make a significant contribution to the success of international marketing of Nepal’s forest products, for example: cardamom, rosin, paper, herbs, bael, chirato, satuwa, rudraksha, allo, amriso, lokta, chiuri, khair, khote salla, uttis, and bamboo, which have been successfully introduced to India and/or China. Where MSFP made little progress was on the value chains of timber products, which has huge potential in Nepal, both nationally and internationally, as the supply is far less than the demand, and the pricing is extremely skewed due to inappropriate local pricing systems, and the enduring and underlying belief that the forests should be conserved, not managed commercially. Value chains for different timber products should be a major element in future MoFSC sector-wide development programmes.
5.3 The Targeting Approach MSFP has taken a systematic targeting approach to reach disadvantaged and poor households, based on the single wellbeing ranking of the Local Governance and Community Development Programme
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 45 )
(LGCDP) where available; in other cases, the local forestry groups (LFGs) own wellbeing ranking was used. Livelihood improvement plans were prepared on the basis of the targeting approach, and financial, technical and social mobilization support was provided through the LFGs. Due to the targeting approach, the MSFP LIP interventions have been very effective in reaching the poor, women and disadvantaged people and households – see Reference 4.
One of the key achievements of the targeting approach through the MSFP livelihood programme includes reaching of 79,468 disadvantaged, poor and women-headed households who have been directly benefitted by finance, skill training and technical support. Results are visible in: a) the decreased interest rate applied by LFGs from 30% to 6% - this is a direct contribution of MSFP through enforcement of MSFPs How to Note procedural guideline on LIP, as well as the social mobilization support from the implementing agencies and their local partners; and b) in household income which has already increased in some cases by more than 5 times of the amount of the livelihood support.
Many LFGs have now institutionalized livelihood improvement activities for the poor and disadvantaged through institutionalization of revolving fund mechanisms, supported by both MSFP funds and internal ‘matching’ funds from the LFG itself. For example, additional resource mobilization from the LFGs has provided livelihood improvement support to poor and disadvantaged group hhs in a range from 5% to 35% (across all 6 MSFP clusters) of annual LFG income – this is very positive in terms of the sustainability of the programme.
In addition, MSFP has mainstreamed best GESI principles in all 4 outcomes, and through all of its activities. In the 4 year period, MSFP has provided the opportunity to 319,085 poor, disadvantaged and women-headed hhs to gain direct access to programme finances for both livelihood support and climate change adaptation related activities; 66% of hhs were disadvantaged, 80% hhs poor, and 45% women-led hhs. Through a financial flow analysis, the direct access of target groups to programme funds was 31% for the disadvantaged and 35% for women beneficiaries over the 4 years - see Reference 8 for further details.
5.4 Building Climate Resilient Communities through Preparation and Implementation of Adaptation Plans
MSFP has prepared its own manual for vulnerability assessment, but preparation and implementation of the CAPA (community based) and LAPA (VDC based) at local level has largely followed the GoN guidelines for local adaptation documented in the "Framework for Local Adaptation Plan of Action" (LAPA), the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) 2010, and the Climate Change Policy of 2011. The Framework has clearly mentioned a 7 step planning process for local adaptation, and MSFP has taken this as a guiding document.
In the 4 year period of MSFP, vulnerability to climatic events of 239,617 hhs has been reduced through 1,960 implemented local and community adaptation plans of action, LAPAs and CAPAs – more details are documented in Reference 5.
On 12th May 2016, Mustang, one of the MSFP’s thematic programme districts, was formally declared as a first LAPA district of Nepal – the first district in which there was a LAPA for all the VDCs in a single district. More than 500 community people and stakeholders took part in a rally
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 46 )
organized before the formal declaration, during which the MP Mr Romi Gauchan Thakali said, “this has been an impressive initiation of awareness creation on climate change adaptation –we need more programmes like this and they should start from today”. This declaration of a LAPA district in Mustang is a successful example of a small budget achieving a successful outcome because of the multi stakeholder approach – and inclusion of ACAP through its Hariyo Ban programme, the VDC, civil society and other NGOs working on climate change.
5.5 Collaborative Forest Management (CBFM)CBFM in the Nepalese context is an approach promoting sustainable forest management in collaboration with the local people from near and far to achieve multiple benefits, maintaining ecological balance, generating economic returns and improving livelihoods from the government managed forests – further details are provided in References 6 and 7.
The CBFM Directive in 2003 defined collaborative forest as a sustainable forest management system for attaining livelihood and economic development and other benefits through a forest management plan jointly approved by both the GoN and the stakeholders. The CBFM practice involves close co-ordination between the central government (MoFSC) through its district officials, local government (the VDCs and the DDC) and the close and distant users.
Tilaurakot Collaborative Forest, Kapipvastu district is an good example of an SFM initiative as it has resulted in improved forest management, coordination between stakeholders, forest production, biodiversity, employment opportunities, access to forestry products, and an improved local economy. The initiative has also balanced the interests and needs of all the stakeholders, through the establishment of platforms for consultation and negotiation at community, group, village and district level. This multi-stakeholder approach for CBFM has been successful in efficient planning and effective implementation, and in creating trust and transparency, especially in the handling of funds and the forest resources.
This is a practice that needs further support in future forestry programmes to remove the mindset of forest conservation as a blanket approach across Nepal, and to promote the management of some selected forest areas for business, enterprise and employment opportunities, as well as for enhancing the contribution of the forestry sector to the national GDP.
5.6 Consultative and Action Learning ApproachesMSFP has followed an action learning approach while implementing policy and governance related interventions. Key stakeholders from village, district and central levels have been engaged in the policy processes, have learnt from ongoing practices, and fed those learnings directly into the policy. These learnings from the field enable policy to be more realistic, which in turn means they will be more likely to be implemented – see Reference 1 for further details.
The process through which the policies were developed followed participatory and consultative approaches - though this is a time consuming process, it is essential for better outcomes and impacts from the implementation. Policies may be drafted initially by an expert and an experienced support team on the basis of previous experiences and reflections, but such drafts should be taken through the consultation process at all levels with the relevant constituencies for their inputs to ensure further improvement and down to earth realism.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 47 )
5.7 Social MobilizationMany of the implementing agencies have highlighted the importance of the social mobilization approach as a central part of the delivery mechanism for many of the planned activities – this was especially the case with the LFG, LIP and LAPA/CAPA sub-programmes. In the LFGs, social mobilization played a significant role in the improved governance and leadership skills within the community, the LFGs and the VDCs/AFECs. The role of the IAs social mobilizers was also important in the LIP and LAPA/CAPA activities, especially in relation to the targeting approach, the mainstreaming of GPSE principles, and in the establishments of funding mechanisms at the local level during programme implementation.
It is essential however, that the social mobilizers and field facilitators are well coached, trained, supervised and managed, as an unmotivated, muddled, and uncommitted social mobilizer is worse than no social mobilizer, and rather than no result, can even have a negative impact.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 48 )
6.1 General Overall Lessonsa. The multi-stakeholder approach is effective for increasing ownership but is time
consuming to implement. The establishment of a multi stakeholder platform was found to be an effective tool for stimulating dialogue and collective learning, prioritizing the interventions, and sharing roles between and amongst stakeholders of similar interests and common goals. This platform also resulted in decision making for collaborative action and innovations for mutual growth and prosperity. The multi stakeholder approach has been especially effective in the MSFP’s private sector component as it has helped the entrepreneurs to develop linkages, reach the market, and access inputs and related services from service providers and enablers;
b. the programme focused more on targets rather than quality delivery; it would have been easier and more effective if MSFP had been started at a smaller scale, with gradual up-scaling – this would have helped to build confidence of the frontline workers, improve technical support, encouraged more focused monitoring, and would have embedded a workable multi-stakeholder approach more effectively;
c. clear targets and approaches with sufficient timeframe are needed for visible results. The effective time frame for the IAs to meet the target was less than 4 years, including the cost extension of 18 months; this was clearly not long enough to reach targets or to ensure impacts.
6.2 Lessons from the Private Sector Promotion Programme
a) A blanket approach, followed by MSFP initially, with common market-based solutions to address the constraints of all the diverse and unique subsectors was soon found to be impractical; a flagship product approach is needed. At one stage, MSFP and its IAs were focusing on 38 different sub-sectors, and as a consequence efforts were diluted - identifying and prioritizing the subsector for each area or district is very important in order to focus efforts and generate impacts. The road map and flagship product approach were developed in 2015, and proved to be encouraging in focusing efforts to a few products in each cluster; MSFP experiences suggest that the prioritization of the subsectors, and the sound design and implementation of activities in a value chain approach is both very necessary and workable;
b) project duration, particularly for the thematic programmes, has proved to be too short to successfully establish new rural enterprises, which requires much training, investment, and a change in entrepreneurial mind-set, all of which take time; the timeframe for MSFP and its IA partners to meet the target of 32,000 additional jobs in the initial phase was only 3½ years - this was clearly not long enough to ensure impacts or even design long term interventions;
6 A SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNT FROM MSFP
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 49 )
c) the value chain approach and the value chain development fund (VCDF) appear to be promising for enterprise promotion;
d) encouraging financial institutions to invest in the forestry sector was a challenge, as they need secured collateral to safeguard their investment. The results of the innovation like the VCDF are yet to be visible but this may well be a good example of one avenue for ensuring entrepreneurs have access to finance;
e) MSFP placed much focus on promoting and establishing private NFTP enterprises, and ignored timber based enterprises. Given more time, much could have been done to create an enabling environment for attracting private investment in the timber trade, which may in the medium to long term have an impact on import substitution. Veneer is a timber-based product on which little work was done by MSFP, but which has great potential both in the internal and export markets;
f) there is a chronic shortage of service providers for providing quality seed, laboratory services, certification companies, for example, which presents problems to the private sector entrepreneurs - it is important that private service providers in this field are developed with accreditation of the government.
Reference 2 and 3 provide further details on the value chain approach and MSFP’s private sector programme.
6.3 Lessons from the Livelihood Improvement Programme
a) Support through the livelihood improvement plan has been a means of economic and social empowerment, and worked as a safety net for women, the poor and the disadvantaged;
b) due to the targeting approach, these LIP interventions have been very effective in reaching the poor, women and DAGs;
c) the programmes designed and implemented by local institutions, such as the LFGs, are more effective in improving the livelihoods of beneficiaries than programmes designed from the centre, due to an increase in the level of ownership, responsibility and appropriateness;
d) offering multiple and customized livelihood options, and matching these with the specific needs and interests of the households and individuals, increase the commitment and likelihood of success and impact;
e) monitoring of the benefits and impacts from livelihood improvement programmes at the household level is a big task and needs a substantial budget and a very considerable time investment and data expertise – this was not foreseen or envisaged at the design phase of the programme;
f) in the area of skill development and technology support, the NGO implementation partners input was not very effective – this may have been due to lack of assigned staff, thin spread of the programme over a wide area, and the lack of process orientation. Skill development and technology support for all beneficiaries - whether it be for goat rearing, polytunnels cultivation, mushroom production or carpentry - should be an integral part of livelihood improvement support – and this requires a significant budget;
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 50 )
g) where different institutions provide different levels of support to the recipient households, misunderstandings and conflicts can occur – proper guidance must be provided to the implementing agencies, and local government needs to ensure that levels of support are realistic, fair and uniform;
h) as pro-poor initiatives on public land still lacks legal charter due to the absence of clear, comprehensive and secure tenure rights, there is an urgent need that public land and community forest land allocation and use are institutionalized within the Forest Act and Regulations for the poor, who need legal rights to both use of the areas, and the products deriving from these areas;
i) multi-stakeholder engagement (eg. by the DFSCC, the VDCs and AFECs, and the DFOs), in the livelihood improvement programme has increased the awareness of, and accountability towards the poor, women and the disadvantaged.
Reference 4 provides further details on MSFP’s livelihood improvement programme.
6.4 Lessons from the Climate Change Adaptation Programme
a) The LAPA/CAPA programme needs to be harmonized and linked with the policies and programmes of the Ministry of Population and Environment (MoPE);
b) forest groups, with support from the AFECs, are the most effective local institution to implement the LAPA/CAPAs - added effectiveness derives from integrating climate adaption plans into the LFGs operational plans;
c) undertaking the CAPAs through the LFGs is beneficial as it ensures bottom-up planning, and some of the groups have considerable funds - a few local communities have established the climate change adaptation emergency response fund to prepare the community for supporting vulnerable households from climate induced disasters; the idea is that such funds would be utilized to provide some support for immediate relief to the victims. The establishment of such a fund should be extended to other communities with sufficient resources;
d) despite contributing to achieving the objectives of both LAPA and NAPA, the CAPAs are yet to be recognized by the adaptation policy instruments. In fact, as the CAPAs are broadly owned by the LFGs which have their own resources, are more ground realistic, and are owned by local communities, there is greater potential that they will be implemented utilizing their own resources with minimal external assistance. Hence, recognizing CAPAs as a separate adaptation plan at the community level, or at least as a part of the larger scale LAPA, would expedite socio-ecological resilience in a shorter time period;
e) the LAPA/CAPA programme has largely been driven by the skills and knowledge of the IA facilitators for the climate change adaptation programme; these facilitators vary in their competency. Exposure and capacity building of the local climate experts and facilitators, both GoN and civil society, on climate change as well as the adaptation planning process would contribute to the development of more realistic, authentic and practical adaptation plans, and improved prioritizing of climate change threats and adaptation options;
f) the MSFP and IA experience during the implementation of this programme has been that integrating proven scientific theory and local knowledge, during both planning and implementation of adaptation activities, has proven most effective – it increases local
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 51 )
ownership, and has been demonstrated to be more cost effective, as local ideas and technology are rarely expensive;
g) successful implementation of adaptation plans requires holistic, participatory, and multi-stakeholder approaches and multi-sectorial support, thus mechanisms to ensure proper co-ordination, co-operation, and coherence are of great importance, as are periodic joint monitoring and evaluation efforts and the closing public audits.
Reference 5 provides further details on MSFP’s climate change adaptation programme.
6.5 Lessons from the Forest Management Initiatives
a) With the help of a number of DFOs, it has been demonstrated that scientific forest management has significant potential to contribute to the local economy, and is a good option to improve both the quality and productivity of diminishing over-mature forests. Field experiences have also demonstrated that SFM provides much opportunity for local employment, small enterprise establishment, and provision of fuelwood, poles and timber for the group members;
b) the MSFP-SFM intervention experience further emphasizes the need for mutual collaboration between government bodies, local communities, and other relevant stakeholders for effective implementation – further support for the multi-stakeholder approach;
c) a common understanding and collaborative milieu among stakeholders is important for effective implementation and increased ownership to ensure the sustainability of SFM;
d) LFGs are now in the position to lead the SFM process but only if technical facilitation is ensured by the DFOs and other proficient stakeholders;
e) clear provisions are needed in policy and guidelines to expand SFM to different ecological zones, forest types, and with different management modalities – current policies and guidelines need amending to encourage this expansion, rather than imposing a blanket approach across the country;
f) considering the economic potential of SFM, both political and bureaucratic commitment is crucial at all levels to achieve the anticipated results from SFM – at the grass roots VDC and AFEC level, through the district level, to the policy level at the Ministry;
g) before scaling-out of SFM can really take hold, many OPs, the main document providing legal authority to local communities to manage the forests, are in need of revision; currently there is a significant backlog, and the Ministry needs to put emphasis on the revision process to encourage the expansion of SFM practices;
h) as the establishment of SFM in an LFG requires much capital, it is necessary to establish a loan mechanism that can be used specifically by LFGs for initiating SFM;
i) there are inadequate human resources, within both public and private sectors, that have the necessary updated technical knowledge, and this is a challenge to scaling out of SFM. The Ministry must ensure that a significant proportion of future funding for SFM supports capacity building of both GoN staff, the private sector, and selected LFG members so that there is the essential human resource to support expansion. Training LFG members in the fine arts of scientific forest management may be a challenge, but LFG members would be very effective trainers of other groups.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 52 )
References 6 and 7 provide further details on MSFP’s sustainable and scientific forestry management programmes.
6.6 Lessons from Mainstreaming GESI Values and Approaches
a) The forestry sector specific GESI Policy provisions have created an enabling environment for the GoN and non-state actors to take GESI perspectives and issues into account in the sector’s activities. However, there remains a strong need to strengthen institutional capacity and human resources in the sector to implement the policy. Moreover, it is essential that the MoFSC allocates regular annual budgets to implement the GESI policies, and to develop and implement GESI-responsive human resource strategies, and programme implementation procedures;
b) the GESI unit at the Ministry headed by a Joint Secretary, explicitly needs to be strengthened with dedicated GESI technical experts, as well as full time GESI Focal Persons in all 5 Departments; monitoring and evaluation would be an important focus for these units;
c) gender analysis, gender audit, gender budgeting approaches and tools need to be institutionalized in the GoN and non-governmental forestry institutions in order to capacitate them for meaningful GESI integration, and to capitalize on the sector’s strengths demonstrated at the community forest user level – only in this way, will gender equality and social inclusion outcomes be seen at the national level;
d) GESI transformational change and empowerment of women and other discriminated social groups require joint leadership and strong commitment of both the Government and the development partners in the sector. MSFP staff recognized a gap in the inadequate provision for gender equality and social inclusion perspectives and activities in the programme document itself. Similarly, a lack of GESI specific objectives and key result targets to monitor achievements at the outcome and impact level of the results chain, was a key reason for missed opportunities in moving towards GESI transformational change;
e) for promotion of GESI values and implementation in the field, it is necessary to utilize all development partners with similar goals in sharing resources and workplans, to enhance efficiency and avoid duplication. Many different district level organizations are involved in GESI promotion but coordination and collaboration could be much improved. MoFALD, MoWCSW, other programmes and projects, civil society groups and NGOs need to meet several times a year at district level to ensure plans are synchronized, and resources shared. Similar harmonization should also take place at the VDC level through the appropriate committee;
f) workforce diversity and positive discrimination policies of the GoN need to be implemented and monitored to foster women’s advancement, opportunities, leadership skills and meaningful participation in the forestry sector. Women should be considered as a specific and important target group in the GoN and donors policy approaches, and especially in terms of interventions in the forestry sector. Labelling women as a disadvantaged group ignores gender specific interests, needs and constraints, and reinforces existing gender inequalities;
g) as pointed out in the MTR of the MSFP, transformational change is a long term process. The MSFP has laid down a strong foundation for this process at multiple levels from
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 53 )
policy to practice, and from implementing agencies to the beneficiary level. Capitalization of these good practices on GESI integration processes and methodologies by donors and GoN agencies in future forestry and climate change related policies, programmes and projects would make a solid contribution to the process of change in the sector.
Reference 8 provides further details on MSFP’s GPSE mainstreaming programme.
6.7 Lessons of a Financial NatureFinancial lessons learnt from the 4 years of MSFP include the following:
a) Large budget but small work force: the budget of NPR 4.45 billion increased to NPR 6.82 billion with exchange rate gain - considering bureaucratic procedures, the high fiduciary risks in Nepal and the high number of national and local partners, and the poor transparency in some sectors, the project should have begun on a smaller scale. Moreover, until the last 6 months of the programme, the finance team deputed to manage, monitor and review over 300 Programme contracts consisted of a finance team of 3 technical staff, far too small for efficient and watchful management.
b) Involvement of a finance expert on the procurement committee: with a very large budget of NPR 4.45 billion, it is inconceivable that decisions made on large contracts and procurements were taken without a finance expert on the procurement committee. Moreover, the contracts for some of the innovation fund projects were awarded without any financial proposal, a serious lapse of normal financial protocol.
c) Uniformity, a rule book and use of software for database management: MSFP used the operational manual of the Swiss Embassy as the basis for programme operations. However, this had some gaps in it in relation to MSFP programme operation. An operational manual, in both English and Nepali, in line with the JFA and the SDC operational manual applicable for the SSU, the PCO, the implementing partners (national and local, government and private), and the beneficiaries was essential but was never prepared. Moreover, preparation of uniform contract formats, and other applicable sheets, from the start would have created clarity among the implementing partners, the SSU and the PCO. In addition, instead of forwarding data on paper and excel sheets, having an integrated electronic database for linking both technical and financial data would have assisted enormously in monitoring progress. This could have been accessed and updated by all the main IAs, and would have led to improved accuracy and reliability of the data.
d) More audits and financial reviews than trainings and monitoring: over the period of MSFP implementation, there were more audits and financial reviews than there were trainings and monitoring. Regular financial training was essential throughout the 4 years, but especially in the first 2 years, and this needed to be followed by regular monitoring - this would have undoubtedly reduced the amounts of disallowable expenses, so prevalent in the final year of the project, the damaging degree of friction between the SSU, the donors and the implementing and contracted partners, and the fiduciary risk in general.
e) Contributions from the Innovation Fund partners: as was required by both the Operational Framework for the IF projects, and as mentioned in the contract agreements, the IF partners were obliged to provide a contribution of the costs of the projects that they were contracted to undertake. However, no system of verification was developed by the SSU for ensuring that: a) funds were genuinely contributed, and b) on what these contributions were spent. As a result,
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 54 )
figures were presented by the IF partners, but no documentation or proof of expenditure was ever presented or requested, thus none of this expenditure could be verified, which was a major weakness. If such stipulations are made in future operational frameworks or agreements, there must be some system put in place to both substantiate and then verify the reported expenditures.
f) Extreme work pressure and chance of fiduciary and reputational risks because of very limited time for closing such a large programme. The JFA expired on 15 July 2016, as did all the contracts with the implementing partners – this created extreme work pressure amongst all concerned during settling of the accounts and making final payments. The problems ranged from inaccurate data, human resource limitations as key SSU and IA personnel left both central and cluster and district offices, thus creating further tension between the IAs, the SSU and the donors. As there was little monitoring undertaken post-final settlements, this created further fiduciary and reputational risks. It was a major challenge closing down such a large programme in such a short period of time.
6.8 The Main Difficulties and Challenges
The main difficulties and challenges faced during programme implementation and in reaching the outcomes are listed below.
Outcome 1: institutional reform of the forest sector was always going to be a challenge, and the foreseen switch toward enhanced multi-stakeholder ownership through the National Forest Entity (NFE) could not be achieved, thus removing the possibility of a legal basis to the multi stakeholder approach before the federalization of Nepal, which is likely to take some years yet before establishment.
Outcome 2: engaging the private sector more effectively in involvement and management of the forestry sector was a challenge, as was encouraging acceptance by some elements in the MoFSC for the enhanced involvement of the entrepreneurs, investors and value-adding processors. Much was achieved in a short period of time, but procedural hurdles in registering and operating enterprises, and transporting the products for trade remain - and these discourage private investors.
Outcome 3: after less than 4 effective years, it is still not clear whether an adequate income effect and poverty reduction impact can evolve from small investments per household through the livelihood improvement programme. There was no doubt, however, that the livelihood improvement programme was very popular both at LFG and VDC level, as well as with the DFOs. In addition, a better grasp of the success of efforts towards reduced climate change vulnerability is needed - this includes the collation of evidence of actual measures that would reduce vulnerability or improve resiliency of the most needy people and communities – something that will take much longer than 3 years.
Outcome 4: the governance of SFM, including benefit sharing, has not adequately addressed demand and supply gaps, especially the distant users since they still have limited access to forest resources. LFGs are highly dependent on DFO authorities to plan and implement SFM; this could risk the re-centralization of the decision-making process for LFGs.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P ( 55 )
Implementation ChallengesThe SSU of MSFP, which was understaffed both technically and financially for such a large programme, encountered the following main challenges:
Ømanaging over 300 contracts, with at times, more than 60 implementing partners, spread across 42 districts;
Øas a result of the large number of contracts, technical staff of the SSU, who were meant to be responsible for technical backstopping and field support and monitoring, had to invest much time on contract preparation and management, for which in some cases they were not adequately competent;
Øwith so many partners and contracts, the high fiduciary risk – with such a small finance team to oversee all the agreements;
Øfrequent transfers of government staff; Øcapacity of some of the IAs and LIPOs, and research and special study partners; Øthe responsible financial absorption capacity of the IAs and LIPOs was under scrutiny
throughout the programme; Øchallenges were experienced for some outcomes and outputs in relation to the measurement
and definition of impacts and indicators; Øownership and sustainability of some of the programme initiatives is in question due to the
absence of elected bodies at local level; Øimplementation through both the DFOs and the NGO implementing agencies in the same
districts led to coordination difficulties – this situation could have been much improved by regular formal meetings, for trust building, planning, budgeting, and joint monitoring and evaluation;
Ødiscontinuity of the MSFP programme put many initiated activities which were at launching point at risk in the last year of the Programme – these included the forest-based enterprise development, mobilization of funds for livelihood improvement, and implementation of LAPAs and CAPAs.
In the final 18 months of the Programme, the devastating earthquakes of 25th April and 12th May 2015, and the India-Nepal border blockades during September 2015 to February 2016, hampered delivery in the programme districts to variable extents. However, many of the issues could have been clarified, and the targets met in a 10 year programme. Unfortunately, in many cases, less than 4 years of effective implementation is not long enough to properly and quantitatively assess the real effect of many of the MSFP innovations and activities, and the main implementation phase, despite some support from the MoFSC, will not now occur at a scale anywhere near that envisioned during the design phase.
Nevertheless, a considerable wealth of experience has evolved from MSFP. This booklet has attempted to review the results, the good practices and the lessons learnt so that future GoN initiatives and other donor-supported projects can benefit from the Programme’s experiences.
R E S U LT S , G O O D P R A C T I C E S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N T F R O M M S F P( 56 )
ReferencesThe following references were prepared and published in the last 6 months of MSFP, and summarize the main achievements and learnings of the different fields in which MSFP activities focused.
1. Reflections on the Policy and Governance Component of MSFP (2012-2016)
2. Reflections on the Private Sector Component of MSFP (2012 – 2016)
3. Forest-based Value Chains in Nepal - an MSFP working paper
4. The Livelihood Improvement Programme of MSFP – Achievements, Learnings and the Way Forward
5. Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Communities to Climate Change – MSFP Experiences and Lessons Learnt
6. Sustainable Forest Management in Nepal – an MSFP working paper
7. Scientific Forest Management Initiatives in Nepal – MSFP Experiences and Lessons Learnt
8. Gender, Poverty and Social Equity Mainstreaming in MSFP - Achievements, Learnings and the Way Forward
Key MSFP documents, including the above, can be found in electronic format on the MSFP website: www.msfp.org.np. This website will be available to December 2017, after which it will be housed within the MoFSC website http://www.mfsc.gov.np/.
Prepared by the Multi Stakeholder Forestry Programme (2012 – 2016)Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation,Singa Durbar, Kathmandu, NepalWebsite: www.msfp.org.np
