Participatory Planning for Landscape Approach to Biodiversity Conservation

Ek Raj Sigdel
November, 2009

I have been involved in participatory planning process of Western Terai Landscape Complex Project (WTLCP) for four years. I have learned that the process, though it is very challenging in the present Nepalese context, when all the government institutions are not functioning properly is essential for landscape level biodiversity conservation. The participatory planning process helps developing common understanding amongst wider stakeholders. However, it takes relatively longer time framework to produce desired results compared to top down approach. To show early impact, it is essential to adopt course-filter-strategy while formulating activities and attaching budgets. Attention should be given for implementing package program in relatively higher conservation valued areas and general awareness program in other sites. I am confident that once the results are produced, then it gets higher chance for sustainability.

Landscape approach to biodiversity conservation considers local people as an integral part of an ecosystem. It gives emphasis on community based biodiversity conservation. It demands community initiatives to integrate biodiversity criteria in various inter woven land use system, that includes agriculture land, forest, grassland, wetland and watershed areas. To initiate the integration process, community should have higher level of conservation awareness. To enhance conservation awareness, it is essential to diversity livelihood opportunities of local communities. Contribution should be made on strengthening over all livelihood frameworks such as social capital development, institutional development, natural resources management, financial capital generation and human resources development. Linking livelihood with conservation is prerequisite to develop community stewardship towards biodiversity conservation. In this front forging partnership of various actors is necessary. Formation and strengthening of a stakeholder network at Village and District level is utmost important. Participatory planning process that brings all actors in a common platform could also act as a viable tool for supporting integrated conservation and development activities.

Participatory planning process can be viewed differently in the context of landscape approach to biodiversity conservation. It is widely acknowledged that participatory planning is one of the best methods for developing local community ownership towards conserving biodiversity resources. It supports holistic development approach. As landscape approach to conservation seeks biodiversity friendly activities in various matrices of land use systems and different jurisdictional framework, development and strengthening of network of concerned agencies is paramount. This helps to develop a common understanding of stakeholders on the goal of conserving biodiversity resources following landscape approach.

Realizing the fact that integrated development is essential to fulfill the community development to biodiversity conservation, WTLCP has adopted participatory planning approach from its inception phase. Every year the planning process starts from July and ends in December. The planning process begins with in-house reviewing of past activities and implementation experiences including relevancy, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability. Then, the planning process goes to settlement level, where forest / buffer zone user group prepare a list of activities to be implemented in the following year. Then the project supports two-day planning workshop in each working Village Development Committee (VDC). The VDC level workshop attends by village based stakeholders including VDC secretary, political parties, community based organizations, and field based line agencies and civil societies. Considering monitoring is an integral part of planning process, this year the project mobilized VDC level monitoring committees to observe WTLCP implemented field activities just before VDC level planning workshops. The monitoring feedback was also taken into account while promulgating activities for 2010. Each workshop comprises of more than 40 participants. After completing the VDC level planning, the plan comes to District Level Stakeholders Workshop. Then, the community plan finally gets endorsed from District Forest Coordination Committee, a mini parliament at district level. Finally, the plan goes to Project Executive Board (PEB) via Landscape Coordination Committee (LCC) and Project Coordination Committee (PCC) for final approval.

It’s a rigorous process. As it demands wider stakeholders' participation all project staff members are to be mobilized very tactfully to make the planning process as participatory as possible in the given time framework. The field level planning process alone needs at least one month. As the planning process demands contribution in terms of time and knowledge from each and every participant, it helps generating their ownership over the project activities. Further, as VDC and DDC are directly involved in the planning process, they suggest the local communities to bring their development agenda through VDC and DDC councils which ultimately become a matching development programs for the project supported conservation activities. Because of the joint planning exercises, some sort of informal linkage establishes between line agencies and local community based organizations too.

With this relationship, some community based organizations in the project sites have already enjoyed a few development benefits from the concerned line agencies in 2009. Birendra Adarsha community forest user group of Kanchanpur got improved grasses seed from District Livestock Service Office (DLSO). Similarly, Kailali DLSO supported pig farming to 50 households of Gyan Jyoti Community Forest in Kailali. Shankarpur Community Forest Coordination Committee of Kanchanpur accessed four water engines and a tractor from Kanchanpur District Agriculture Office. Likewise, Amargokul Community Forest User Group (CFUG), Kanchanpur accessed various infrastructure development activities like gravel, bridge maintenance, and school renovation from VDC and DDC budgets.

There are some drawbacks which we need to be cautious while undergoing participatory planning process. It is known fact that every participant of the planning process seeks inclusion of his/her voices in terms of activities for his/her area of interest – sectoral or geographical. Therefore, matching stakeholders' interest without compromising the project goal is really a very difficult task of the planning process. Otherwise, their grievance can be burst out any time during project implementation stage. Likewise, sometimes unmanageable numbers of activities are to be handled as stakeholders ranging from field to central level want to reflect their voice in the annual work plan.

On the whole, we should not expect encouraging result from the participatory planning process in a short run, but as it creates an enabling environment for establishing linkage of local communities with the development partners there remains higher chance of getting support from them even after completion of the project period. Investing resources following course-filter approach would be a best option for landscape level planning. Formulation and implementation of package programs focusing strategic location and general conservation awareness program in less conservation values area would be a viable strategy to create win-win situation of local communities and biodiversity resources. In the mean time project should be prepared for coordinating various developmental partners to fulfill community demands of developmental activities.

In a nut shell, participatory planning process could not be a panacea for addressing the need of landscape approach to biodiversity conservation. However, there is no alternative approach too to address the issues of biodiversity resources and livelihood improvement of local communities.

HOW FAR WE CAN GO FOR CLOSE MONITORING?

November 21, 2009
"Today was one of the happiest moments in my professional life when I knew that the project benefit realised by poorest of the poor sections of a society in Baisebichuwa, Kanchanpur and I also got disappointment today when I knew that the project money was not fully spent for the benefit of the target communities"

Two years back, Western Terai Landscape Complex Project (WTLCP) extended partial financial support for boring engine to 25 dalit households of Santitole settlement of Baisebichuwa, Kanchanpur. The support was provided in a cost sharing basis between local people and the project itself in 2:3 proportions. But, the community committed fund could not be generated in time. It resulted in incomplete work. Consequently, they were not able to irrigate their agricultural land in 2008.

The local community came up with a proposal that if project extends additional support of only Rs. 15,000 then they could manage the rest of engine establishment process, including construction of a shed by themselves which could costs a total of Rs. 30,000. Accordingly WTLCP extended the required support through a local NGO called Dalit Right Forum in April 2009. With this boring machine, this year alone some nine hectare land of 100 household, of which 90% were Dalit family got timely irrigation facility. The water user group provided the irrigation facilities to other neighbouring families in rent too. According to the local communities, rice productivity increased by six folds this year compared to previous times. Until 2008, firewood was one of the major sources of income to about 90% households. However this year only about 65% people relied on firewood for incremental income. In addition, many of the households have planted tree species in home yards. It made me happy.

I got disappointment when I knew that actually 53% of the total project contributed money was spent for fixing the boring engine. Still the engine shed was not constructed completely. Moreover, I came to know that the unspent money was being tried to be pocketed by the chair person of the NGO itself. When the Chairperson had come with an activity completion report with local communities' signature, I released the final instalment a few months back. Further, at the outset of the activity implementation stage, I had attended a village meeting and informed them about terms and conditions of the agreement. It made me basis for releasing the final instalment even without field verification.

Today I along with the NGO Chairperson and a WTLCP Community Motivator reached to the village to monitor performance of the boring engine. The local communities applauded the economic benefit of the engine. Also, they shared their happiness over the easiness brought in their life by the irrigation. In the mean time, a villager raised an issue of incomplete work and unavailability of all the agreed money. When, I made clear that no money should go to the pocket of any person involved in this activity, then the NGO chairperson admitted that he still had unspent Rs. 7,000. Then he vowed to provide the left out money to the local communities for completing the engine shed soon. Also, with this money the community promised to complete the entire work within November, 2009. If we were not there today it seemed that the NGO Chairperson could have misused the poor and dalit community targeted money.

From this case it can be learned that even a small activity should be monitored closely so as to ensure the wise use of project money. It associates with project image too.