Interim evaluation

The core learning partnership and the users of the evaluation

The Office of Evaluation of IFAD conducted an Interim Evaluation of the Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project in Nepal, as requested by the Regional Division of IFAD for Asia and the Pacific. An evaluation mission visited Nepal between March 10 and April 5, 2003. In Kathmandu the mission organised two stakeholders' meetings on March 12 and April 4, 2003, respectively before and after the field visits. A draft evaluation report was distributed in mid-June 2003 and a final evaluation workshop was organised in Kathmandu on September 30, 2003 to prepare the Agreement at Completion Point (ACP). The ACP illustrates the stakeholders' understanding of the evaluation, findings and recommendations, their proposal to implement them and their commitment to act upon them.

The participants in the above meetings and in the final workshop included representatives of: (i) the project implementation agencies, (ii) donor and multilateral agencies with experience in the forestry sector, (iii) non-governmental organisations and research institutions with relevant experience. Out of a larger audience, a smaller core learning partnership, expected to be involved with the implementation of the evaluation's recommendations, was identified. It comprised: (i) the Department of Forests (Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation), (ii) the Department of Livestock Services (Ministry of Agriculture and the Cooperatives), (iii) the Asia and Pacific Division of IFAD and (iv) UNOPS. OE was not a party to the ACP but participated in the final evaluation workshop to ensure a full understanding of the evaluation's findings and recommendations.

The main evaluation findings

 

The main findings of the Interim Evaluation Mission are set out in its report of June 2003. The usefulness of the concept of leasehold forestry in combating poverty in the mid-hills regions of Nepal is recognised by the Evaluation, although important changes in project design need to be introduced in any future intervention. Government policy has been progressively more supportive of LF, and leasehold programmes have been accorded top priority status. In most areas, leasehold forestry initiatives do co-exist side-by-side with Community Forest programmes without friction, but tensions still exist between donor agencies supporting the two approaches.

The project has been successful in terms of environmental restoration of heavily degraded forest lands. It has also contributed to improve access to forest products and livestock ownership among the leasehold groups, mainly through the improved supply of forage. The availability of fuel has significantly improved for many communities, and the labour involved in animal grazing and fuel collection reduced. Numbers of buffalo, on the other hand, have remained static. Imported fodder trees have been largely unsuccessful on LF sites, but have often prospered in private land.

The Dutch-funded Technical Assistance component of the HLFFDP was implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). The project appears to have leaned very heavily on the activities of the TA component, the abrupt cessation of which in mid-2001 led to the near-demise of the project at that time. An effective project management structure able to operate independently of TA was not put in place.

The main shortcomings of the HLFFDP original design can be grouped in the following areas:

(a) Institutional Issues, Management, Policy Dialogue and Supervision.

• Gaps exist in the norms regarding the transfer and inheritance of leasehold rights and need to be addressed by the relevant legislative authorities;
• The technical assistance component was instrumental in the preparation of studies to support project implementation but not strategically directed at creating a strong project management structure;
• M&E functions were also heavily dependent on the TA component and surveys did not systematically focus on key impact domains;
• Friction has existed in the past between proponents of community forestry and leasehold approaches and, for this reason, it is important that IFAD pays adequate attention to policy dialogue in the future.

(b) Building and Strengthening Grassroots Institutions

• The project design did not recognise the importance of strengthening grassroots institutions such as inter-groups and cooperatives. The latter de facto emerged during the implementation phase in some areas but initially were not very focused;
• The "household by household" targeting approach proposed in the original design was costly and caused intra-hamlet and intra-village conflicts;
• During the initial implementation phase there was little emphasis on women's participation in leasehold groups.

(c) Improving the Technological Packages for Forage and Livestock

• The original project design heavily relied on the provision of subsidised high-yield exotic grass varieties and did not emphasise the natural regrowth of vegetation and local traditional knowledge, which would have reduced costs and improved the flexibility of the technological packages;
• Poor households' investment in local goats was found a viable option in all leasehold sites while investment in buffaloes was riskier and often not profitable due to higher feed requirements and marketing difficulties.

(d) Microfinance Issues

• The provision of subsidised credit through the Small Farmers Development Project scheme proved unsustainable with very high voluntary and non-voluntary default rates;
• The original credit component did not adequately emphasise savings services;
• For remoter areas, community-based financial service provision is needed to reduce transaction and information costs.

(e) Infrastructure and Schools

• Small infrastructure grants were effective in reducing intra-village conflicts but options were often limited;
• Many HLFFDP activities were scattered and, at the village level, the project lacked a focal point. Where available, local schools may serve this function.

The main recommendations are derived from these findings, substantiated in the main report, and designed to address these problems.

Recommendations agreed upon by all partners

Institutional issues, management, policy dialogue and supervision

Ensuring security of tenure for leaseholders. The outstanding anomalies concerning the transfer and inheritance of the entitlement to lease forest land, the recognition of individual leaseholders and the legal status of leasehold groups must be addressed. The definition of the legal status of leasehold groups under existing laws requires clarification. The process of granting leasehold certificates needs to be accelerated: granting of leasehold certificates by District Forest Offices, when approved by Parliament, will address this concern. All these issues should be reflected in future policies and amendments of forestry laws.

Follow-up by Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MFSC) and the competent legislative authorities.

Building a strong and effective project management structure is a priority. Any future TA component should aim at this objective and be given very specific goals to be achieved in a precisely defined time period. International consultants may need to be hired for short periods and for specific purposes; other consultancies should be of short duration and should wherever possible be directed at district-level initiatives. A semi-permanent centralised unit is not the requirement of TA and is by definition unsustainable. The strengthening of the project management unit should be a component of the future project.

Follow-up by IFAD, MFSC.

Strengthen Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) functions at the project and district level. At the project level, a mix of smaller-size surveys and case studies / participatory analyses, with photographic documentation, should be conducted in 2-3 cycles over the project life. For surveys, it will be important to focus on key impact indicators, to be identified through multi-stakeholder consultations, and to keep questionnaires short. Equally important will be to train inter-groups and cooperatives to conduct self-evaluation workshops, to be used as an input for M&E at district level. The recently launched IFAD M&E Guide can be adopted as a useful reference for M&E planning.

Follow-up by IFAD, MFSC, the Department of Livestock Services (DLS) and other implementing agencies.

Strengthen IFAD's Policy Dialogue with Other Donor Agencies and Support Supervision. This is a fundamental element in the process of replication and upscale of innovations such as leasehold forestry. First, IFAD and HMG/N should consider organising a roundtable meeting with other donor agencies before the end of the year 2003, to initiate a process aiming at reducing tension and improving collaboration between proponents of LF and CF approaches. Secondly, in its future interventions, IFAD should include an interagency dialogue "component" to improve the awareness of its activities and results among other development agencies active in Nepal. In particular, IFAD should consider the appointment of a local facilitator, in charge of maintaining dialogue with all the partners concerned, including the donor community. The same facilitator would also act as focal point to support supervision missions, by building up the required archive of documents, making the necessary contacts and organising small-scale surveys and rural appraisals prior to the arrival of the supervision missions.

Follow-up by IFAD.

Building and strengthening grassroots institutions

Provide training for project field staff, group promoters and livestock promoters. This is in response to the need for group and livestock promoters and project field staff to improve community mobilisation, facilitation and gender sensitisation skills. NGOs should be selected as training providers, while government field staff may complement with ad hoc technical training modules. The coverage by individual group promoters should be restricted to a maximum of 25-30 groups. Initially, group promoters may be remunerated with loan or TA funds but the eventual aim should be their employment and remuneration by cooperatives.

Follow-up by IFAD, MFSC, DLS and other implementing agencies.

Identification of potential leasehold household clusters to be conducted simultaneously with the selection of appropriate leasehold sites. Poor household clusters and hamlets should be identified in consultation with the concerned communities, according to a mutually agreed wealth-ranking system, with government staff and NGOs acting as facilitators. Relevant experience in wealth-ranking and community mapping from other programs should be taken into consideration. The focus on clusters and hamlets will contribute to reduced project unit costs, lay the grounds for the federations of groups into intergroups and leasehold cooperatives and help reduce conflicts. It is not appropriate first to identify suitable sites and then to look for individual households to join the groups and manage the land.

Follow-up by IFAD (project design), MFSC, DLS and other implementing agencies.

All leasehold groups should be progressively evolved into inter-groups, and the creation of cooperatives should be actively encouraged through training and support. Cooperatives require training in leadership, management, book-keeping, savings and credit activities. NGO services should be used to facilitate the creation and to strengthen inter-groups and cooperatives. Training by NGOs should be complemented with technical modules provided by government field staff. The ultimate goal should be the federation of groups at national level through an apex organisation.

Follow-up by MFSC, DLS and other implementing agencies.

The participation of women and disadvantaged groups requires more active promotion. This can be achieved through the provision of appropriate sensitisation training to all project staff as well as to members of communities where LF is introduced. The transfer of the lease from men to women should be encouraged in cases where the male LHG members are inactive.

Follow-up by MFSC, DLS and other implementing agencies.

Improving technological packages for forage and livestock

The appropriateness of low-cost technological options and local species and practices on management of the tree canopy and understorey forage cultivation should be further investigated. The introduction of exotic tree and grass species should not necessarily be halted, but research in this respect should be undertaken in concert with the farmers and build upon their traditional knowledge of local species. The key requirement is to establish a lively communication between the farmers and the project field staff to identify and promote site-specific packages and appropriate silvi-forage models.

Follow-up by DLS.

Review the effectiveness of livestock promotion packages (buffaloes and goats). The improvement of genetic traits for buffaloes and the development of forage sources must proceed in parallel. The goat distribution programme has been successful but it is recommended that two or three rather than five doe per household be distributed.

Follow-up by DLS.

Training programmes should focus on practical techniques and information. Farmers' training on plant nurseries and livestock care appears to have been based on classroom-type sessions with much unnecessary theory. Most training programmes of this kind are best carried out in situ with very small groups, with an emphasis on practical skills. The training of livestock promoters should be emphasised.

Follow-up by DLS.

Income generating activities other than livestock rearing and the sale of forage and forage seeds should not be over-emphasised in the early stages of the project. The demand for training should precede its provision, and the preferences of group members should be respected.

Follow-up by field staff of MFSC and DLS.

Successful technological options based on local knowledge to be disseminated through study tours and fairs. Simple technological packages to be studied and developed through contracted action research on an ad hoc basis, with possible involvement of university students.

Follow-up by field staff of MFSC and DLS.

Microfinance issues

Avoid subsidised and user-unfriendly credit programs. Subsidised credit schemes have proved unsustainable and have often failed to reach the poor. The first goal of a microfinance component should be to support the creation of sustainable village organisations (such as inter-groups and cooperatives) that mobilise savings. If providing credit, they should be allowed to apply interest rates sufficient to cover operating and financial costs, loan loss provision and a margin of profit.

Follow-up by IFAD.

Future projects should emphasise the collection of savings among members in groups, inter-groups and cooperatives with possible linkages to external MFIs (when applicable). Existing savings schemes, based on rotating savings associations should be encouraged and further developed into inter-groups and cooperatives. For very small loans, credit can be provided for activities that do not generate income directly (ceremony, emergency purposes), provided that a strong repayment discipline is enforced. Where financially sound SFCLs (Small Farmers Cooperatives) exist, leasehold members may be encouraged to join. Where there are no suitable SFCLs, strategies for forming inter-groups and multipurpose cooperatives are required. Given the slow pace of growth of LF cooperative funds, the project design may envisage supporting them with seed capital. This should be conditional on sound financial practice and high repayment rates. Suitable cooperatives could be linked to financially healthy banks.

Follow-up by IFAD, MFSC.

Infrastructure; schools

Funds granted for community development require clearer objectives. The principle of small infrastructure grants for the whole community is sound, particularly in view of its potential for the lessening of conflict between leasehold members and the wider community. The practice of allocating such grants to inter-groups provides an incentive for the aggregation of groups. Development grants might be offered as matching funds for expenditures to be undertaken out of inter-group or cooperative savings, encouraging inter-groups to increase the scope of their activities.

Follow-up by IFAD, MFSC, DLS and other implementing agencies.

Public schools should be chosen to serve as the focal point for project activities. One of the weaknesses of the HLFFDP is the scattered and unfocused nature of its activities. Particularly if a second phase of the project were to be based on cluster targeting, the use (and expansion) of schools (where available) for meetings of groups, inter-groups and cooperatives, as well as for adult literacy sessions and other training programmes, would help to give the project a recognisable identity. A modest extension to the local school, with appropriate improvements and refurbishments in its immediate vicinity, would seem a more desirable option than the building of separate buildings for forestry initiatives.

Follow-up by IFAD, MFSC, DLS and other implementing agencies.