By Dr. Hemant R Ojha
In this note, I outline an alternative framework for the Nepal’s Forest Sector Strategy (FFS), based on the review of the recent draft that is available for comments.
The FSS draft offers a good basis to discuss visions, priorities, program areas and strategies. My review of the draft indicates that it is unclear and problematic in various aspects, including the basic policy structure. Below I propose an alternative framework and suggest revisions of various important elements of the FFS (summarized in the diagram below the text).
Vision
The vision statement which reads as “Potentials of forest ecosystems, biodiversity and watersheds fully optimized for people’s prosperity” is incomplete and even misplaced, as it fails to recognize the need to achieve a balance between society and natural systems. It is also unclear about the future generation when it aims to ‘optimize’ benefits to ‘people’ instead of society or human beings. An alternative vision statement should include ‘sustainable forest landscapes and prosperous society’. Using ‘society’ instead of ‘people’ indicates longer-term orientation in the vision. Moreover, keeping forest landscapes and human prosperity as parallel components in the vision helps ensure a more holistic view of the desired change.
Strategic objectives and outcomes
The FSS draft outlines eight strategic pillars and five outcomes, although the links between these two sets of strategy elements is not clear. There is a good list of specific indicators for each outcome and milestones for each strategic pillar, but it is not clear from the document how the specific targets are calculated. For instance, in indicator stipulates that the amount of commercially harvested timber will be increased from 1 million m3 to 12million m3, but no analysis is given how this is target is set. One can find such analysis in the previous Master Plan For the Forestry Sector (1989), although the current FSS entails a less intensive exercise, and is applicable for the period of only 10 years.
The eight strategic pillars individually look relevant and good, but they are not linked to a clear theory of change. They are listed as bullet points and not portrayed in a coherent strategic framework, making it difficult to visualize how the pillars help achieve the vision.
Theory of change and strategic framework
The suggested framework of change is particularly problematic. The structure of the FSS strategy is poorly conceptualized as there is no clear explanation of the links among the vision, strategic goals, and suggested interventions. “The theory of Change” mentions “if we do this, we will achieve that” kinds of statements. They are not clearly linked to eight ‘strategic pillars’ nor to the five ‘outcomes’. The statement in the theory of change only stipulates some wishful thinking, not linked to concrete analysis and to other core elements suggested in the strategy.
Alternative framework:
Although it requires careful analysis and significant research to identify specific indicators, I suggest that a more robust framework for the FSS could consist of the following elements (please see the diagram below for the suggested linkages among these elements):
- Vision – It should contain a desired state of balance between the society and nature as (suggested above and in the diagram below).
- Four Strategic Objectives – covering aspects of income, food security, biodiversity conservation, and resilience to climate risks.
- Core programs – five core programs should be at the heart of the new FSS, covering forest landscape management, farm-forest interface and food security, business capacity development, climate resilience, and gender and social inclusion in forest governance.
- Enabling programs – To catalyze the core programs, we need three enabling programs covering stakeholders capacity building, innovation development, and regulatory reform.
- Supportive programs – to contribute to enabling programs and core programs, we also need to launch three supportive programs that generates new research and information, undertakes monitoring and evaluation and ensures responsive and transparent development cooperation among forestry stakeholders.
- Guiding principles: In order to design and implement 11 programs across the above three categories, the government and other stakeholders should use the suggested 9 guiding principles – as listed in the diagram below.
Recommendation
I strongly recommend that the FSS be revised fully by formulating a clear framework of change that connects well-defined vision with strategic objectives, which are then clearly lined tothree sets of programs (core, enabling and supportive programs), in accordance with a set of clearly defined guiding principles.
“Views expressed here are personal and not associated with any affiliated organisations”.
