Empowerment of Communities
through Democratic Natural Resource Management
Danish Forestry Extension Program Agreement Application
November 2015
1. Introduction 5
1.1 The Danish organization’s experience and capacity 5
1.2 Development of program concept 6
1.3 Joint Program Preparation Workshop 6
2. Regional, national and sector context 8
2.1 Regional context 8
2.2 The program’s geographic focus 8
2.3 Sector Context – Natural Resources 12
2.4 Sector Context – Education on NRM 14
3. Program Objectives 15
3.1 Development objective 16
3.2 Immediate objectives and indicators 16
4. Overall strategy for the program 17
4.1 Component 1 – Partners’ capacity development 20
4.2 Component 2 –Associations for access to and management of NR 21
4.3 Component 3 – Education on Natural Resource Management 23
5. Methodological approaches and activity areas 24
5.1 Overall program approach and activity areas 24
5.2 Organizational Development 26
5.3 Advocacy 27
5.4 Synergy effects of the program 27
Synergy between Component 2 and 3 28
5.5 Monitoring and evaluation 29
5.6. Other Key Approaches 30
6. Cross-cutting concerns 31
6.1 Relevant cross-cutting concerns 31
7. Target group and partners 32
7.1 Target group 32
7.2 Partners 33
8. Information work in Denmark 37
9. Outputs and Indicators 38
10. Budget 38
11. Management and organizational set-up 39
11.1 Organizational structure and division of responsibilities in the Danish organization 39
11.2 Organization and division of responsibilities in the actual program 40
11.3 Administrative procedures and financial administration 41
12. Assumptions and risks 42
12.1 Assumptions 42
12.2 Risks 43
Abbreviations
ama Associação do meio ambiente – amigos de terra
CBNRM Community based natural resource management
CBO Community Based Organization
CFUG Community Forest User Groups
CFMG Collaborative Forest Management Group
CGCRN Committee for Community Management of Natural Resources
COGEP Participatory Natural Resource Management Council
CSO Civil Society Organization
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
CSS Civil Society Strategy
CISU Civilsamfund i udvikling (Civil Society in Development)
Danida Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark
DARD Provincial Office and District Services
DoE Department of Education
DPCAA Provincial Department for Environmental Activities
DSCWM Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management
DFE Danish Forestry Extension
DFO District Forest Office
FECOFUN Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal
FOCADE Nature Resources Management Group (Mozambique)
FU Farmers Union
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HDI Human Development Index
IEE Interactive Environmental Education
EI Extractive Industries
JIWAN Jalaidh Integrated Watershed and Natural Resource Management Program
LDC Least Developed Country
LFA Logical Framework Approach
LSC Life School Centre
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MICOA Ministry of Coordination of Environmental Affairs
MoFSC Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation
MSC Most Significant Change
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NRM Natural Resource Management
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products
NVCARD North Vietnam College of Agriculture and Rural Development
SUYUK Samaj Utthan Yuwa Kendra
ToC Theory of Change
ToR Terms of Reference
ToT Training of Trainers
TPFDA Terai Private Forest Development Association
UAFA District Forest Grower’s Association (Mozambique)
UNESCO United Nationals Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
VNFU Vietnam Farmers Union
WCN Wildlife Conservation Nepal
1. Introduction
The protection of and responsible use of natural resources is inextricably linked to the idea of basic human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone “has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family”. A right to an adequate standard of living is dependent on the availability of essential natural resources – soil, potable water, forests and plants, and clean air. Without access to adequate natural resources, the fundamental goals of the Human Rights Declaration cannot be met. This right to an adequate standard of living is DFE’s overarching program character, with focus on the following substantive rights: 1) right to land and natural resources 2) right to quality education on NRM.
In order to achieve these rights, DFE works with its strong civil society partners to organize communities into independent and effective forest and natural resource user associations that represent their members. The associations advocate for the members’ rights to land and natural resources and they support those members with effective extension services for responsible management of NRM and livelihood improvement. Secondly, DFE works with its partners on strengthening formal education on NRM in lower and higher education. In lower education, DFE and partners work on interactive environmental education (IEE) in schools by providing training to teachers and students and by advocating for the inclusion of IEE into the official education system. In higher education, we work with universities to develop and offer courses in NRM to train extension officers and to establish advisory and extension services. We also advocate for the inclusion of NRM university courses in national curricula in order to scale up our efforts.
1.1 The Danish organization’s experience and capacity
Skovdyrkerne/Danish Forestry Extension (DFE) is a Danish organization that is owned and governed by small-scale forest owners/farmers in Denmark. Since 1904, DFE has delivered forestry extension, provided practice related education and advocated for the interests of its members based on participatory principles. DFE consists of seven local units, the Local Forest Growers Associations, each lead by a board of directors, who are democratically elected by the members. The seven local units are in turn represented by the Secretariat, which is elected by the general assembly.
DFE became involved internationally in the 90s. The international engagement was prompted by the fall of the Soviet Union and the therewith associated denationalization of services. DFE was invited to the Baltic States to assist with the establishment of community based forest owners associations. The foundation of the forest owners associations in Latvia and Lithuania was to a very large degree facilitated by DFE. Eastern Europe, including Poland, Romania, Belarus, Estonia, and Russia, was a core geographic region for DFE in the 90s.
To begin with, the international engagement was just a part of the common secretariat. Along with an increased level of activity, a desire for providing this area of interventions its own organizational platform emerged. The reasons were manifold, e.g. professionalization through increased focus, increased ownership within the local associations and improved opportunity to spread the knowledge about DFE´s international effort within responsible natural resource management.
As a result, DFE Ltd. was established in 1999. Prior to the foundation, relevant funding agencies – among others Danida – were consulted to ensure their consent to that DFE continuously could maintain its legitimacy as a non-for-profit organization under the chosen organizational constellation.
In relation to its parent organization, DFE´s international branch is characterized by:
· Legally independent with its own VAT / registration number
· Its own director
· Its own Board of Directors which work free of charge
· A significant volunteer contribution from staff and board members from the parent organization
· DFE acts de facto as a non-for-profit organization
· Financial management is fully separated from the parent-organization in terms of accounting, 3rd party audits, banking arrangements etc.
· DFE offers ful transparence regarding remuneration of staff
· A board decision not to pay bonus / dividend to its parent-organization. Possible profit will only be used for consolidation
· A board decision only to allow a profit-margin up till max. 5-7% during a consolidation phase, and considerably lower when the solvency ratio appears well balanced for an organization like this
· When taking advantage of the competences of staff in the parent organization, compensation is paid on a near cost basis
· The main financial contribution comes from NGO funding, complemented by teaching, consultancy etc.
· The international branch can freely tap into more than 100 years knowledge base from its parent organization.
· Engagement in charity work where collections goes uncut to recipient countries
· Unpaid institutional support to various NGO´s. For further details on DFEs organizational set ups please refer to Annex 8.
Since then, our engagement has spread throughout the world and today spans over 25 countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia. For the past decade, DFE has established solid civil society partnerships in Mozambique, Nepal, and Vietnam through DANIDA and CISU funded projects. Our international work has been focused on supporting responsible forest and natural resource management through:
· Founding and strengthening forest and natural resource user associations through the establishment of self-reliant and sustainable extension services for improved natural resource management andimproved livelihoods.
· Engaging the associations inadvocacy work for members’ rights, hereunder, land rights, and their interests in order to contribute to more equitable access to natural resources.
· Promoting education on NRM in lower and higher education. We raise students’ awareness about environmental issues and provide practical courses in NRM for schoolchildren and university students, so that they are better equipped to become successful advocates and natural resource managers of the future.
In connection to the program agreement application, DFE was involved in an external organizational capacity assessment. The review concluded that DFE and its partners have adequate professional, administrative, and organizational capacity and structures to implement a program in line with the guidelines and requirements of CISU/DANIDA. Specifically, the assessment concluded that:
· DFE has a practical approach to application of rights in real activities, which is considered a crucial aspect of dealing with rights.
· The DFE approach includes promoting development of a private sector approach to service support of NR rights holders in order for them to secure livelihoods from natural resources, which is in line with the newest editions of the CS strategy, which acknowledges the importance of private sector partnerships and supports the promotion of an inclusive green growth.
· DFE’s approach to partnership has been continuous and it has built strong partnership with south partners who are pursuing objectives in line with the core areas of the DFE Strategy.
· DFE has a well-developed management support capacity and qualified professional staff.
· Strong technical support capacity within forestry/NRM and solid experience working with approaches adapted to a development context in the south.
· There is a strong linkage in DFE between capacity in the organization in Denmark and the capacity utilized in its development work.
· Financial management is in line with requirements and with tested systems for accounting, budget planning and control, reporting and auditing.
· DFE has a strong popular foundation through the thematic match between the work of Skovdyrkerne in Denmark and the work of DFE abroad, underscoring the importance of DFE as a CS organization working in line with the CS strategy (Annex H).
1.2 Development of program concept
The program builds on over two decades of international development experience and several years of cooperation with the proposed partners established through the implementation of individual projects. These projects provide the basis on which to consolidate the work and continue it under a joint and strategic program framework that will allow partners to pursue the same objectives in a more streamlined way.
The key learning from the past years of work is that organizing individual community members into groups and associations that have democratic governing structures, are a key way to improve rural people’s social and economic condition. The more challenging work that is also the most successful is to move beyond groups and to actual associations that have a board and a democratic governing structure that is accountable to its members and that is economically sustainable. The learning is also that there are extreme differences in context and what can be achieved as far as institutional and economic independency. Throughout the years, we also have recognized the need to cooperate and increased our ability to work with authorities.
The interventions on the community level with association building can be used in advocacy towards the government and has also helped us build positive relationships with duty bearers and this has resulted in influencing government institutions and policies. For example our work with land rights in Mozambique is feeding into advocacy work to hold duty bearers accountable to implement the laws and ensure that communities benefit from the investments in extractive industries in the project areas. We also have learned how to navigate the political context in communist Vietnam in order to establish independent civil society organizations.
In the work of education for NRM, we have learned that working with scaling up our model of interactive environmental education by working directly with MoE has proved a very good strategy to institutionalize our successful methods through official teacher trainings that will reach teachers across the whole of Nepal and improve quality of education for students. The angle of working with children, who are more open to learning has also proven successful in influencing behavior of their parents and adults in their community, through our child to home to community model of teaching about natural resources and the environment.
Annex 0 gives a summary of main achievements with the partners and Annex 1-4 give further detailed data cases of results including more detailed quantitative information. These results provide the foundation for the achievement of our program objectives on a bigger scale and in synergy will all partners in the future. We also have strengthened our partnerships with partners and have a very strong and trusting working relation with each of them. The methods that have been used so far individually will be developed and adapted to the programmatic goal of knowledge sharing and learning among partners especially within the field of association building and environmental education. A short summary of the partnerships and work can be found here with further details on our cooperation in Annex 7:
Partner / Period / The most important examples of resultsWildlife Conservation Nepal (Nepal) / 2008 – until now / Scaling up our model of interactive environmental education by working directly with MoE to institutionalize official teacher trainings to reach teachers across the whole of Nepal and improve quality of education for students. In total app. 35.000 schools.
As part of a climate adaptation / mitigation strategy 5 community forest user group are through women coops linked to a local business setup to produce organic essential oils for the international market. The communities manage 5 nurseries where they produce seedlings for the restoration of natural forest. (work started only in 2013).
Samaj Uttah Yuwan Kendra /Life School Center / 2005 – until now / LSC doing high-level advocacy on national and district level for better watershed management, resulted in formation of council that includes all relevant district line agencies and national representatives. Center is rooted in local groups that are engaging in income generating activities that are environmentally sustainable. Establishment of a collaborative forest management group (one of few in Nepal).
Associação do meio ambiente (Ama) / 2006 – up until now / Development of two Local Curricula on EE for two districts. Developed interactive methods for teaching on NR that reached over 6724 students. (work started only in 2012)
Ama was the first ever NGO in Cabo Delgado Province to obtain a land rights certificate for a local community. In all, 3 communities obtained land rights certificates affecting 19,481 people. In all, 31 NRM committees (+ 1 umbrella district level association) and 14 forest user groups are active (+ 1 umbrella district level association) – this has resulted in better livelihoods among the organized groups, better NRM, as well as awareness about rights related to land, forest extraction activities and mining. The program goal is that the evidence being complied of the work on the ground can also be presented in national fora to raise awareness about how the different laws are actually working and implemented in practice.
Hoa Binh and Ha Tinh Provinical Farmers Union and NVCARD / 2010 – up until now / Established 2 associations comprised of 120 farmer groups that are practicing farm forestry for income generation. Goal is for them to become socially and economically independent associations.
Farm forestry curriculum developed and taught that will be taught in 5 universities.
Our partners have through our work together gained various skills and capacity to implement projects in relations to forest and natural resource management, supporting association building, and environmental education. They have several years of experience working directly with target groups and the government and other stakeholders. This is reflected in the Memorandums of Understandings signed with various government agencies and ministries. For example the Life School Center in Nepal is a focal point for coordinating watershed management activities in the Terai among civil society and government line agencies. Wildlife Conservation Nepal is working on developing teacher trainings in environmental education in coordination with the Ministry of Education that will be taught at the national training center for teachers.