USAID Global Conservation Program (GCP)
Mid Term Evaluation Report
Of
Enterprise-Based Biodiversity Conservation – Nepal Project
Implemented by Enterprise Works Worldwide (EWW) and
Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB)
May 2003
Evaluation Conducted by
Prof. William R. Burch, Jr.
Hixon Professor
Natural Resource Management
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University, U.S.A.
Prof. S. P. Singh FNA
Professor and Head
Department of Botany
Kumaon University, Nainital, India
Keshav Raj Kanel, Ph.D.
Resource Economist
G.P.O. 2528, Kathmandu, Nepal
2
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the many members of the Community Forestry Groups who were 
so open and kind to us and who for a brief moment let us into their work, their experiences 
and, in some cases, into their homes. We are indebted to the government officers in our
districts who gave us their time and information, our colleagues in the field NGOs who
partner with ANSAB, and our ANSAB guides, all of whose generous spirit, openness and
goodwill made this a rewarding exploration. We are grateful for the instructive observations 
provided by Dyutiman Choudhary of ICIMOD, Bhishma Subedi and Surya B. Binayee of
ANSAB. Finally, we want to give particular thanks to Ms Ann Koontz who took our
observations, interview information and our narrative efforts and helped to organize them
into a coherent and, we think, useful form and substance. We appreciate the care and time 
investment made in the final production by Judith Burch of Northern Insights. Of course, the 
authors remain responsible for any lapses of thought or good humor in the mss.
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Enterprise Based Biodiversity Conservation Project – Nepal (1999-2004), funded under 
the Global Conservation Program (GCP) and implemented by EnterpriseWorks Worldwide
(EWW, Washington) and Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources
(ANSAB, Kathmandu) conducted an external evaluation in May/June 2003. The goal of the 
project is to conserve globally significant mountain biodiversity of Western Nepal through
community forest management linked to enterprise development. The project uses a threats
based approach. Central to the project is “the concept of community economic incentives for 
biodiversity conservation, derived from the development of profitable community owned
enterprises based upon limited natural resources extraction”. The goal of the evaluation was
to assess progress towards ecological, social and economic sustainability of the project goal
of biodiversity protection.
The evaluation team included Professor William R. Burch, Jr., Yale School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies; Professor S. P. Singh, Head, Department of Botany, Kumaon
University; and Dr. Keshav Raj Kanel, Resource Economist, Kathmandu, Nepal. The team
made field visits to three of the five project districts (Jumla, Dolpa, and Bajhang); sampled
15.5% of the Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) covering 32% of the hectares
included in the project; and observed four of the five major project assisted enterprises. In
addition to the field visits, one-on-one interviews and focus groups with project stakeholders, 
and ocular inspections of forest condition, the team also reviewed the project’s reports and
publications. 
The evaluation team found that the project has identified the major threats to biodiversity in
the target area; the stakeholders have a good understanding of the threats and it was EWW 
and ANSAB that introduced the connection between biodiversity conservation and enterprise
development to the communities. Progress in threats abatement (e.g. decrease in outside
encroachment, restriction on uncontrolled grazing, fire reduction, and managed nontimber
forest products harvesting) is being made by the project, but it is too early in the project cycle 
to measure long-term impact on biodiversity.
The project has made good progress and performance in terms of CFUG formation and areas 
brought under improved management exceed the targets set. It has excelled in seeking
cooperation and developing partnerships and collaborative interactions with numerous
concerned organizations and stakeholders. Emphasis on training, education and awareness
programs is another strong point. In all three districts that the team visited it was
outstandingly clear that there is a high degree of capability and commitment by ANSAB field 
personnel. ANSAB has achieved a notable success in developing and maintaining
partnerships and networking with other NGOs, government agencies, local government units,
FECOFUN, and NTFP traders. In “politically disturbed” areas, ANSAB was often the only
connection between the government and the community.
The community based forest enterprises were strategically selected to give a good chance of
sustainability. The team cannot comment on all aspects of economic sustainability but
production and operational sides seem to have the components that may lead them to
sustainability. The components of market and competition factors which are beyond the
scope of the GCP project are being addressed in other projects not reviewed by the evaluation 
team. There is an auditing system in place in most of the CFUGs and community based forest 
enterprises (CBFEs). All the CFUGs and CBFEs visited have social audit-internal control 
4
system in place. Moreover, the enterprises have formal external audits from registered
auditors. 
With the exception of Dhatelo oil, all products included in the project were commercially
harvested and traded by the communities prior to the project. Before the project’s
intervention, enterprise based NTFPs were collected without any effective control. ANSAB 
and EWW helped the communities to harvest products in a regulated way for enterprise
development and develop forest operational plans that address the full range of threats to
biodiversity. For example, the Lokta enterprise in Bajhang had an inventory prepared for
plant population structure and amount of growing stock. Instructions were given to
harvesters with regard to the stem diameter size for Lokta harvesting based on studies
undertaken elsewhere. CFUGs now maintain harvest records and have enforcement 
mechanisms in place. However, ANSAB needs to focus on appropriate but systematic
research based on valid, replicable and reliable techniques and study designs. 
The evaluation team therefore recommends that the project allocate budget for more rigorous 
research on the biology of the species harvested and its interaction with overall biodiversity;
add dedicated biodiversity field staff (current field staff have split duties and often feel
overwhelmed); improve methods and indicators for measuring impact on biodiversity; and
simplify the biodiversity monitoring data collection to better match the field staff and village
volunteers’ capacity. The team also encourages the project to investigate ecosystem services
to bring greater policy attention, (and potential payments as this market develops), to the vital 
role these ecosystems play in carbon sequestration, soil formation, hydrological regulation,
and climate control. On the socio-economic side, the team observed strong inclusion and
participation of women and other traditionally disadvantaged segments of the communities,
but recommends the project track the flow of economic benefits among subsets of the
community (i.e. beyond gender). 
In the long run unless the general populace buys into the value and need to conserve
biodiversity there are not enough soldiers, environmentalists and nature lovers to fully police
and to ensure the integrity of any of the world’s protected areas. Finding the means of
creating conservation behavior in the human community is the only and last best hope for
sustained protection. Experiments such as this project give us one substantial hope that we
can find the means to make our species truly stewards of their natural world. The evaluation
team’s concern is that though many exciting and positive accomplishments have been
achieved in the first half of the project, the learning is just nearing a critical point which will
require at least another four years to consolidate the success of the many efforts. This
continuity of systematic learning about the biophysical, social organization, equity and
marketing issues needs sustaining if they are going to be fully incorporated in the CFUG
enterprise and biodiversity conservation efforts as well as the larger group of stakeholders
that impact Nepal’s biodiversity. 
5
 Table of Contents 
Executive Summary 3
I. Introduction 6
II. Evaluation Methodology 7
III. Project Targets 7
IV. Enterprise and Program Activities 8
V. Summary Assessment of Overall Project Progress 10
VI. Team Assessment Specifics 11
a. Progress Toward Social Sustainability 11
b. Progress Toward Ecological Sustainability 14
c. Progress Toward Economic Sustainability 17
d. Policy Advancement and Implications 18
VII. Conclusion and Recommendations 19
VIII. Strategies for Conserving Globally Significant 
Biodiversity – Some Thoughts on the Project’s
Contribution to Broader Learning and Strategies 21
IX. Bibliography and References 25
Annexes
Annex 1 Bhajhang Site Report i
Annex 2 Dolpa Site Report vii
Annex 3 Jumla Site Report xii
Annex 4 Evaluation Investigation Questions from 
 EEW/ANSAB Evaluation TOR xix
 Acronyms
ANSAB: Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and 
Bioresources
CBFE Community Based Forest Enterprise
CF: Community Forest/ry
CFUG Community Forest User Group
DFO: District Forest Office/r
DDC: District Development Committee
EWW: Enterprise Works Worldwide
FECOFUN: Federation of Community Forest Users, Nepal
6
GCP: Global Conservation Program
HJSS: Himali Jaributi Sarokar Samuha 
NTFP: Non Timber Forest Product
USAID Global Conservation Program
EWW/ANSAB
Enterprise-Based Biodiversity Conservation
Mid Term Evaluation Report - May 2003
I. Introduction
This mid term evaluation report pertains to the Enterprise Based Biodiversity Conservation
Project (1999-2004), being carried out by EnterpriseWorks Worldwide (EWW, Washington) 
and Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB, Kathmandu) with
the overall goal of conserving globally significant mountain biodiversity of Western Nepal
through community forest management linked to enterprise development. The key objectives
of the project are as following:
i) Expand and institutionalize participatory natural resources management and
conservation practices within the framework of community forestry in Nepal.
ii) Improve knowledge and ability of forest user groups (CFUGs) in the area of
sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity.
iii) Enable CFUGs to make effective commercial use of NTFPs in a sustainable and 
socially equitable manner, and
iv) Generate scientific information required for the sustainable management of the
biological resources.
The evaluation refers to the progress made during the first two to three years of the project 
(1999-2002). It is a large project dealing with five project sites, located in the remotest
districts of Nepal, namely Humla, Jumla, Dolpa, Bajhang and Mugu. All of them have access 
only by air, as roads are difficult to construct in high mountains with immature and fragile 
topography and steep slopes. One to two weeks journey from the last road to these places is 
common. People in these areas are among the poorest in Nepal, underlining the fact that in
developing countries poverty, remoteness and biodiversity richness go together. Agriculture
generally accounts for less than 5% of the geographical area of these districts, and most of it 
is rain-fed. In some districts, rocky surface and snow cover combine to account for about
60% of the area, severely restricting opportunity to bring about development. Alpine and sub￾alpine meadows and forests are generally important land covers as well as centers of
biodiversity. Humla alone has about 1500 species of higher plants. Human populations are
sparse but growing rapidly at the rate of about 2.29% per year. Literacy is about 40%.
Burning of forests/meadows, uncontrolled harvesting of NTFPs, unmanaged grazing (with
high number of unproductive animals) and slash and burn farming are indicated to be the
main proximate threats to biodiversity, but the underlying cause is acute poverty.
Central to the project is “the concept of community economic incentives for biodiversity
conservation, derived from the development of profitable community owned enterprises
based upon limited natural resources extraction”.
7
II. Evaluation Methodology
The goal of the evaluation is to assess progress towards ecological, social and economic
sustainability of the project goal of biodiversity protection. The evaluation was proposed by
Enterprise Works (i.e. in contrast to being required or requested by the USAID). Given the 
security situation in the project area, monitoring and evaluation by persons not directly
implementing the project (i.e. ANSAB and EWW staff) were not possible prior to 2003.
While project activities are on track and target outputs are being accomplished as reported to 
USAID, EnterpriseWorks and ANSAB wanted an independent project evaluation. Given the
stage of the project, it was not expected that evaluators could assess actual impact on
biodiversity or deem an economic activity sustainable, but rather evaluators were expected to 
provide an objective assessment on progress toward biodiversity conservation and
community economic and social development with suggestions and advice on what the
project should modify to make interventions more effective. The specific objectives of the
evaluation are:
· Assess the progress of CFUG formation, operational plan preparation,
organizational development and management capabilities;
· Examine the initiatives taken for biodiversity conservation and monitoring process
being used in the project;
· Assess economic sustainability of CFUGs and Community Based Forest
Enterprises (CBFEs); and
· Analyze the policy outcomes and implications at wider scale with respect to
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
Our approach to assessing the project progress involved both field visits and studying various 
reports and publications (there were about 20 made by ANSAB and EWW). The field visits 
included Jumla, Dolpa and Bajhang. For each site the visiting team had one of the three
members of evaluation team. The evaluation team included: Professor William R. Buch, Jr.,
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Professor S. P. Singh, Head, Department 
of Botany, Kumoon University, and Dr. Keshav Raj Kanel, Resource Economist,
Kathmandu, Nepal. The others included one or two ANSAB staff members from its
Kathmandu office. At each site the ANSAB field staff coordinated our activities, particularly 
meetings and discussion with CFUG members, local NGOs, local partners, government
agencies and public representatives. We also participated in a meeting of District
Development Committee (DDC) at Dolpa coordinated by the Dolpa field staff of ANSAB.
Our approach was first to allow people to express their view points, impressions and
perceptions on their own. This followed by requesting them to address relevant questions that 
occurred to us. The field visits enabled us to have a feel of the terrain and atmosphere where 
work was going on. Analysis of various reports and publications gave an insight into how the 
concept and model of conserving biodiversity by developing community based enterprises
has evolved over the years. We discussed all issues thoroughly, directly or indirectly related 
to the project, with ANSAB staff. Reports on the sites visited: Bajhang by W Burch, Dolpa 
by SP Singh, Jumla by KR Kanel are found in the annexes one to three.
III. Project Targets
The discrete targets set for the first three years included: i) formation and reformation of 40 
8
CFUGs; and ii) bringing about 23,355 ha of forest/meadow under an improved management 
plan that specifically focuses on biological resource conservation and economic development. 
Some of the other areas in which progress was to be made, though discrete targets were
difficult to set, were: iii) to gain appropriate changes at the policy level, and in the
community members’ attitudes and perceptions, iv) to increase the community’s capacity to
handle various issues, v) to build sustaining institutions, vi) to increase the ability of
community members’ bargaining power for NTFPs prices, vii) and increase the marketing
knowledge and techniques.
IV. Enterprises and Programs/Activities
As given in Table 1 the enterprise activities carried out in study areas could be divided into 
three types: collection and marketing of NTFPs (e.g. morel, yarsagumba); collection,
processing and marketing of NTFPs (e.g. Jatamansi oil), and collection, processing and local
use of NTFPs (e.g. oil from dhatelo seeds). Jatamansi (Nardostachys grandiflora) is an herb 
of meadows, lokta (Daphne spp), a shrub growing as undergrowth of oak and other trees, and 
dhatelo (Prinsepia utilis), a shrub growing on degraded sites up to 2-3 m in height. 
During the site visits the evaluation team visited CFUGs directly assisted by the project,
government officials, and other stakeholders that influence forest conservation. The
evaluation team also interacted with CFUGs and stakeholders that are not directly assisted by 
the project, but in some cases received indirect benefits (e.g. dissemination of NTFP market 
information in Jumla that resulted in higher prices for community collectors). In each district
that the project operates, ANSAB is currently working with a subset of the CFUGs. In each
district a range of NTFPs were harvested and traded prior to the project. ANSAB and EWW 
started direct enterprise work with a subset of the products, and with the exception of dhatelo 
oil in Jumla, all project supported enterprise activities are working with NTFPs that were
already being commercially traded and in the case of Karnali Jaributi Processing Pvt. Ltd. in
Jumla, the Jatamansi oil processing facility started prior to the project in 1995. ANSAB also 
undertook “enterprise support and NTFP policy activities” that are intended to provide a
more supportive climate for CFUG NTFP enterprises. The table below summarizes the
project’s direct enterprise activities, a sampling of other “enterprise support and NTFP policy
activities” observed by the evaluation team, and other enterprise activities not in this project
but observed by the evaluation team.
Table 1: Enterprises Undertaken During Project and Other Enterprise Support and Activities
Observed by the Evaluation Team.
Direct Enterprise 
Activities of Project
Selected Enterprise Support and 
NTFP Policy Activities of Project
Other Enterprise Activities, 
Not Part of Project
Jatamansi Oil, 
Processing and 
Marketing (Jumla)*
Testing of domestication potential for 
morels (Jumla)
Dabur (a private sector 
company) nursery and ex-situ 
cultivation of select NTFPs 
(Jumla)
Jatamansi Collection 
and Marketing 
(Dolpa)*
Policy work on Yarsagumba (impacts 
Dolpa and other districts)
Lokta Paper 
(Bajhang)*
9
Dhatelo Oil 
processing, primarily 
consumed locally 
(Jumla)*
Dissemination of NTFP market 
information in Jumla and other 
districts that resulted in higher prices 
for community collectors
Jatamansi Oil, Processing and 
Marketing: Morel mushroom 
collecting and marketing 
(Humla)
*Denotes enterprises visited by the evaluation team
The numerous activities and programs undertaken to achieve enterprise development through 
community forest user groups (CFUGs) and linking to biodiversity conservation are listed in 
Table 2. 
Table 2: Kinds of programs and activities undertaken in the project districts
Programs /Activities Areas /Contents
Biodiversity 
Conservation and 
Enterprise Management
o Site level prioritization of practices
o Site level planning
o District level review and planning
o Site/District level community forestry orientation
o NTFPs policy discussion and interactions
o Biodiversity monitoring
o Threat based biodiversity conservation workshops
o Biodiversity registration
o Enterprise identification and feasibility
o Enterprises operational skills development
o Entrepreneurship development
o NTFPs collection, storage and packaging
Organizing training 
programs
o Legal awareness to forest users groups 
o Organizational management to FECOFUN, HJSS
o NTFPs management training to CFUGs
o Accounts and fund mobilization
o NTFPs nursery establishment
o Gender training 
o Enterprises development 
Undertaking extension 
work 
o Distribution of NTFPs related literature
o Publication and distribution of Lahara bulletin (in Nepali)
o Distribution of Ukali bulletin (in Nepali)
o Arranging video shows
o Arranging visits and study tours of various stakeholders 
o Educational activities on conservation 
o Observe ceremonial day for environment and biodiversity
o Contributing to teacher’s networking for conservation activities 
Community forests’ 
formation, reformation 
and functioning
o Preparation and revision of operational plans
o Resources assessment and detail inventory
o Conflict management skills
o Promoting equity both societal and gender
o Technical support for implementation of CF operational plans
o Inclusion of management provisions for NTFPs in CF operational 
 plan
o Providing support for implementing community based monitoring 
 system, both biological and socio-economic
o Logistics support
Providing assistance in 
marketing 
o Creation of NTFPs based market cell within ANSAB
o Providing NTFPs market information system at ANSAB
o Support trader’s networking
Enterprises 
Development
o Provision of seed money to establish enterprises
o Business plan development
o Promotion of enterprise products
10
Making provisions for 
action research
o NTFPs Nursery
o Cultivation and domestication of NTFPs
o In-situ conservation and biodiversity
o Community forests management
Other key supports o Support to establish district FECOFUN
o Promoted Himalayan Jadibuti Sarokar Samuah (HJSS)
V. Summary Assessment of Overall Project Progress
The project goal is to conserve the globally significant mountain biodiversity of western
Nepal through community forest management linked to enterprise development. The project
uses a threats based approach and assumes that to conserve biodiversity human behavior has 
to change. A variety of project activities (see Table 2 above) have been carried out over the 
past three years that seek to abate the threats and change human behavior with respect to 
forest management. The evaluation team reviewed project documents and visited a sampling
of project sites in three districts, from this review the team observed the following with
respect to threats identified, project activities, and “preliminary” indicators of potential
impact on biodiversity. Greater detail is found in the evaluation field reports for Jumla,
Dolpa, and Bajhang (see annexes). It is noted that the project is still too early in its work to 
make any scientific conclusions on the change of condition of biodiversity. Changes in
patterns of human behavior that impact biodiversity are also based on limited observations
and the team could not draw definitive conclusions on causal effects of project activities and 
outcomes observed. The table below provides the evaluation team’s summary impressions of
the threats-action-impact chain of the project. Project progress on specific parameters
follows.
Table 3: Threats-Action-Impact Impressions of Evaluation Team
Major Threats
Identified
Understanding 
of Threats by 
Stakeholders
Appropriateness of 
Project 
Activities to Address 
Threats
Experience in 
Carrying out 
Activities
Impact on 
Biodiversity
Based on field 
observations 
and discussion 
with 
stakeholders by 
evaluators, 
project has 
identified the 
major threats to 
biodiversity.
Interviews and 
focus groups in 
three districts 
convinced 
evaluators that 
stakeholders 
have good 
understanding 
of threats and 
at varying 
levels are 
taking actions 
to counter 
threats. 
High level of 
appropriateness. E.G: 
Community organizing 
for CFUG tenure; 
introduction of 
biodiversity 
conservation; NTFPs 
and threats approach in 
forest operational 
plans; linkage of 
subsistence, 
commercial and 
resource management 
issues. But, need for 
more scientific research 
on NTFPs and 
additional activities to 
counter select 
subsistence threats.
ANSAB has 
generated respect 
and enthusiasm 
among stakeholders 
for carrying out 
activities. Broad￾based involvement 
in activities by 
CFUGs and 
government; 
counterpart 
contributions from 
communities for 
enterprises.
Anecdotal reports 
and the 
opportunity for 
somewhat limited 
observation of 
forest conditions 
by evaluators did 
indicate that 
positive trends in 
human influence 
upon biodiversity 
were happening, 
(i.e., restricted 
grazing, and more 
controlled NTFP 
harvesting).
Evaluators 
recommend 
project adopt more 
specific 
11
specific 
biodiversity 
impact indicators.
12
VI. Team Assessment Specifics
The team assessed the project by looking at progress in four major areas:
a) Progress towards social sustainability. This looked at progress in formation of forest 
user groups (CFUGs) and preparation of operational plans; the strategies the project 
used (e.g. partnering with local NGOs and partnership and training components); and 
equity issues.
b) Progress towards ecological sustainability. This looked at biodiversity conservation
initiative and monitoring and the threats being addressed in the project.
c) Progress towards economic sustainability. This looked at the economic sustainability
of the CFUGs and CBFEs and economic gains the communities have experienced as 
a result of the project.
d) Policy outcomes and implications.
a. Progress TowardTowards Social Sustainability
The evaluation team visited 7 CFUGs (15.5% of the CFUGs assisted by the project that cover 
32% of the project hectares). ANSAB is currently working with 45 CFUGs in five districts 
that comprise roughly 9% of the CFUGs but 41% of the forests under CFUG management in 
the districts.
Table 4: CFUG and Hectares of Forest in Project Districts
District CFUGs 
visited by 
evaluation
CFUGs in 
Project/Ha of Forest
Total CFUGs in 
District/Ha of Forest*
Bajhang 3CFUGs3FUG
s/2,231 ha
8 CFUGs/2,732 ha 236 CFUGs/6,393 ha
Dolpa 3CFUGs3FUG
s/5,225 ha
5/CFUGs/5,007 ha 61 CFUGs/10,397 ha
Jumla 1CFUG1FUG/
89.5 ha
12CFUGs12FUGs/9,
870 ha
95 CFUGs/17,003 ha
Humla None 11CFUGs11FUGs/5,
333 ha
49 CFUGs/18,499 ha
Mugu None 9CFUGs9FUGs/413 
ha
59 CFUGs/4,750 ha
Total 7CFUGs/7,545
ha
45 CFUGs/23,355 ha 500 C FUGs57,042 ha
*Taken from government records
As for the number of CFUGs formed (and assisted with reformation) and forests area put
under improved management, the targets achieved are more than proposed in the project plan. 
In fact, 75-80% of the total targets set for 5 years period have already been achieved in these 
13
areas by year 3. The actual figures achieved by year 3 are: 45 CFUGs formed compared to 40 
CFUGs planned; 23,355 hectares forest/meadows area brought under improved management
compared to 20,000 hectares planned. To bring community forests (CFs) under the improved 
management, a seven-step program was designed and is being implemented. The program
was quite elaborate and involved the following steps: change in legal status favoring
conservation; local site assessment; actions designed with participation of CFUG members;
human and institutional capacity building; implementation of actions; and biodiversity
monitoring and adaptive management. These were indicators provided by USAID, but the
project adapted these to correspond to the CFUG process in Nepal.
During the visit to three of the five sites we came to know that at least active members of
CFUGs were familiar with these steps and their relevance. The reports provided to us give
details of the progress made in regard to completion of 7-step program in each of CFUGs 
adopter.
In order to promote social sustainability of project activities, EWW and ANSAB have used 
several strategies. First, EWW and ANSAB have given considerable importance to
developing partnerships and collaboration with local NGOs (Table 5), and that have been
quite productive.
Table 5 ANSAB’s Direct Local Partner in Five Project Districts
S.N. District Direct Local Partner
1 Bajhang Social Development Centre (SDC)
2 Dolpa Dolpa Sarbangin Bikash Samaj (DSBS)
3 Humla Humla Conservation and Development Association (HCDA)
4 Jumla Rural Development Group Program (RDGP)
5 Mugu Rural Community Development Centre (RCDC)
Note: ANSAB also collaborates with other governmental and non- governmental 
organizations at national, district and grassroots level.
Second, ANSAB has expanded it’s communication network to involve a new range of
audiences that has worked well in the five remote districts of Nepal. Partnerships,
collaboration and networking, all seem to have significantly contributed to strengthening
participatory management. Needless to say, the government has also been responsive to the
approaches of project managers, much more than in many other developing countries.
Third, during the project period a great variety of orientation training programs and exchange 
visits were undertaken. This helped improve the understanding of not only staff members, but 
also various stakeholders, partners and collaborators. These activities have contributed
significantly to the considerable progress the project has made so far.
Fourth, the project managers have achieved considerable success in the field through their
field staff. From reports and discussion we were able to know that they have been exposed to 
a series of training and awareness programs. The field staffs appear to be familiar with the
processes involved. But they seem to be overwhelmed with the heavy work schedule, and
14
because of that the demand of conservation and enterprise eforts may be difficult to meet. For 
each district there should be a provision of two field staff, one primarily for enterprise
development and marketing, and other for community forestry, biodiversity monitoring and
related activities. The field staffs, however, need more training in the areas of ecology and
biodiversity conservation. Unfortunately, expertise available in these areas is rather weak in
Nepal. 
The performance of the project ought to be evaluated keeping in view the fact that they
worked in areas where insurgency was highest during the project period. They had to manage 
the project activities despite the on-going social restlessness. 
With this background, the evaluation team during each of the three district visits evaluated
factors associated with the formation of CFUGs and the preparation of operational plans. The 
evaluation team then compiled their collective assessment (district specific observations are
found in the field reports – annexes 1 – 3). The guide questions the team used to assess
formation of forest user groups and preparation of operational plans are found in annex 4.
With respect to how thorough the process of CFUG formation has been accomplished by the 
project, the evaluation team found that ANSAB has assisted the local rangers and community
members in making community forest user group formation inclusive of all community
interests. The team found the project was adapting CFUG constitutions to local conditions. 
The Forest Act and regulations provide a general framework for a CFUG constitution.
However, there is a provision for maintaining flexibility keeping in view the local traditions
and incorporating secondary users. In some CFUGs of Dolpa and Bajhang as an example, 
provisions were made to take care of traditional practices of including uses by non-CFUG 
farmers.
The evaluation team looked at how participatory the CFUGs are with respect to
representation of weaker sections of the population and women. In general, progress has been 
made in this direction. For example in CFUG committees in Jumla, the average women
representation is 30%. Also, some CFUGs are composed entirely of women such as Kailash
Kachaharikot Mahila CFUG.
Traditionally women were kept away from decision making processes. During the project
period, however some improvements have taken place, for example in some communities in
Dolpa women organized separate meetings and the decisions taken by them were acceptable 
to men. Representation of women and other disadvantaged people has been ensured in CFUG 
executive committee. In the project CFUGs the listing of members includes both male and
female at household level. Thus, from the policy point of view males are no more the sole
representative of the households. It is hoped that these changes will go a long way in
improving gender equity.
The team talked with community members to assess scope, inclusiveness, and understanding
of the community forest operational plan (OP) and found that in the making of an OP, all the 
CFUGs observed by the team made a complete inventory of all the resources including
NTFPs and biodiversity characteristics of the site. The community members or at least the
management committee members we interviewed seemed to understand the operational plans 
and were enthusiastic about the plans. The process has been made participatory by
considering needs and claims of various stakeholder groups, such as blacksmith, women, and 
socially deprived groups. In Dolpa, as an example, men suggested that there should be an
equal proportion of men and women in all training programs. Several instances of regulation
15
enforcement by committee members were observed such as control of lokta diameter size.
The CFUG committee members have taken several measures clearly indicating their
adaptability, such as setting nurseries at Dolpa and Bajhang. Women have begun to take
interest in CFUG activities. In places like Dolpa, they hold separate meetings and their role in 
decision-making is taken seriously by the men..
In all three districts that we visited it was outstandingly clear that there is a high degree of
capability and commitment by ANSAB field personnel. ANSAB has achieved a notable
success in developing and maintaining partnerships and networking with other NGOs,
government agencies, FECOFUN, DDC, VDC, NTFP traders. In Dolpa, we attended a DDC 
meeting involving various district level stakeholders and coordinated by the ANSAB field
staff. The meeting clearly showed how effective ANSAB has become in performing its
programs with several other organizations. In fact in the disturbed areas often ANSAB was
the only connection between the government and the community groups. The other examples 
include several well attended, highly effective training programs, workshops, conservation
education programs in Nepalgunj, Chainpur, Kailash and other places. It could be seen on the 
ground that these efforts have enhanced the capacity of community groups in protecting
biodiversity and enhancing community economic development. The knowledge, skills and
the systems of record keeping and decision making have greatly contributed to the
community governance skills. The above activities have been supported by ANSAB
publications in local language (Lahara, Samrakshan Shiksha), video shows, and distributing
other relevant materials (Ukali). Market information has been disseminated to the community
groups and that has enhanced the bargaining power of weaker sections of the society, NTFP 
collectors and local traders.
b. Progress Towards Ecological Sustainability
The project uses a threats based approach and after reviewing project documents and
conducting field interviews and observations, the team had the following summary
observations vis-à-vis the threats the project seeks to abate.
Table 6: Progress on Threats Abatement (Threats Project Documents Claim to be 
Addressing)
Threat Team Summary Observations
Destructive Collection of NTFPs 
(due to outsider intrusion, absence of 
local ownership, unscientific 
collection)
Progress on countering threats from outside intrusion; more 
local people have tenure and can restrict outsiders. But, more 
work is needed on inclusion of scientific methods to augment 
community biological monitoring efforts.
Encroachment and slash and burn 
(by locals as well as transhumance 
for cultivating food crops for 
household consumption)
Expansion of CFUG areas is reducing open access areas 
available to transhumance slash and burn farmers. Team was 
told OPs restrict slash and burn, but team could not verify 
compliance during brief visit.
Overgrazing (by outsiders and 
locals)
Restriction on uncontrolled grazing (due to CFUG provisions 
that can restrict outsiders) and improvement in livelihood 
security are likely to lead to decrease in number of sheep and 
goats.
Fire from natural and intentional 
causes (clearing grasses, pasture 
burning etc.)
As community members earned more from NTFPs they 
reduced the destructive burning of alpine meadows containing 
them.
16
Removal of fuel wood and timber 
(for local use)
CFUGs have begun to arrange for forest watchmen to check 
unapproved cutting and impose punishments on culprits. But, 
the number of trees used in house construction in Dolpa is 
high and the project should investigate how and at what cost 
this threat could be mitigated.
Lopping and removal of leaf litter 
(excessive and unsystematic 
collection of fodder and bedding 
material)
CFUGs have begun to arrange for forest watchmen to check 
unapproved cutting and impose punishments on culprits. 
Observations on fodder collection were not made by the 
evaluation team.
ANSAB has assisted CFUGs in identifying threats and mitigation measures by organizing
workshops and meetings at various levels. In the field we observed that there was a clear cut 
attitudinal change and the people were ready to take measures which might contribute to
conservation. For example, in our walkabout with Malika CFUG members they were
universally concerned about grazing and fires in the forest as they saw them as a threat to
their "new" economy. However, they noted the need to move carefully to bring offenders to 
their side. Some fragmented data that is available indicates that the frequency of burning
declined over time because of the ANSAB community forestry program. However, EWW
and ANSAB should develop and adopt methods to identify improvement in practices relating
to conservation and behavioral change brought about by its programs.
The team assessed the biodiversity conservation initiatives and monitoring of the CFUGs and 
found that the concept of seeking union between biodiversity conservation and enterprise
development through CFUGs was introduced for the first time by ANSAB. This approach
gave the villagers clearly perceived incentives and values for protecting biodiversity on
CFUG and nearby forestland.
Before the project’s intervention, enterprise based NTFPs were collected without any
regulations. ANSAB helped the communities to harvest products in a regulated way for
enterprise development. For example, in case of lokta enterprise in Bajhang, an inventory was 
prepared for plant population structure and amount of growing stock. Instructions with
regard to the stem diameter size (3cm and above) for lokta harvesting were given based on
studies undertaken elsewhere. CFUGs now maintain harvest records and have enforcement
mechanisms in place. However, research will be required on the biology of lokta, impact of
harvest on it, the characteristics of the biological community, and the ecosystem to achieve
sustainability and biodiversity conservation in a long term basis. There is a need to allocate
money to undertake research (not simply monitoring). While the project has conducted some 
activities in terms of "research" with community involvement, these efforts require more
rigorous scientific methods. Monitoring can be performed by the communities but to identify
the proper way of doing that researchers are required to help guide and train some members 
of CFUGs in order to ensure validity, reliability and replicability of findings. The enterprise
activities and scientific research activities should go in parallel with information feedback 
and testing of trends and tendencies between these mutually supporting activities. That is, the 
biological research may find opportunities and constraints in the ecosystem that will
influence enterprise, organization, and response to markets. In turn enterprise activities may
suggest new opportunities or market saturation that will influence protection and
management strategies for the biodiversity system. 
The evaluation team found the biological monitoring plan extensive but in need of some
streamlining to make it more feasible. Related to the conservation of biodiversity, it is also
17
important to assess the impact of biomass removal on species composition, regeneration of
important species and the optional point and the critical stage of the life cycle of constituent 
species for sustainable harvest. But these measures cannot be taken without adequate research 
support. There is a need to know the ecology of the species being exploited for NTFPs in
their habitat in order to develop an effective strategy for their conservation, and monitoring
the changes occurring as a consequence of an intervention. Some financial resources need to 
be allocated to research even in enterprise based projects when it pertains to natural
ecosystem. Simply making people more conservation-oriented than before may prove to be
inadequate to conserve biodiversity. History is replete with failures of sustainable harvest of
resources from natural ecosystems. We get the impression from the field areas that resources 
are generally in plenty, and amounts harvested account for only small fractions of the stocks. 
Villagers also suggested that populations of species harvested increased in the following year. 
These anecdotal findings may have meaning, but are difficult to rely upon. Also, human
pressure on meadows and forests may increase steeply as prices of NTFPs increase. Such is 
the case with Yarsagumba and Morels, which are not under CFUG management. In the case 
of former, trampling by several thousands of collectors in meadows and firewood 
consumption for cooking can be very destructive. Again, these activities were well outside
the control of ANSAB and affiliated CFUGs. Indeed these activities provide a strong case 
for the need to extend the ANSAB/CFUG management strategies.
With regard to monitoring bodies within CFUGs and enforcement of harvest regulations
outlined in operational and monitoring plans, enterprise oriented CFUGs management
committees have separate monitoring bodies which have authority to enforce harvest
regulations and sanction rule breakers. For example, in the Malika Handmade Paper CFUG
the committee had created (with ANSAB guidance) a regulatory system for controlling
inappropriate harvesting with schedule of graduated fines and punishments. With regard to
how the project is progressing in implementation of biological monitoring plans with CFUGs, 
the evaluation team found that out of eight enterprise-oriented CFUGs, four had biological
monitoring plans in place; one is almost completed; and three were under preparation.
The following observations of the evaluation team suggest that the people have become more 
conservation-oriented than before and the project are making progress towards ecological
sustainability.
1. As community members earned more from NTFPs like Jatamansi in Dolpa, Humla 
and other areas, they reduced the destructive burning of alpine meadows containing
them.
2. As communities secured tenure on forest resources after the formation of CFUGs,
they began to restrict outsiders from collecting NTFPs from their forests and
meadows, and they instituted more sustainable rotational harvesting strategies. The
legal backing of CFUGs also promoted the idea of restricting grazing of migratory
herds. In case of Yarsagumba (Cordyceps sinensis) (YG), CFUGs earned more money 
than they ever expected. In the future, they hope that they will be able to use a part of 
the money earned for undertaking conservation activities.
3. Restriction on uncontrolled grazing and improvement in livelihood security are likely
to lead to decreases in the number of sheep and goats. A beginning of this trend could 
be seen in some areas.
18
4. The innovation of expelling oil from the seeds of Prinsepia utilis in Jumla has made 
this shrub important and even the individuals growing along road sides, bridle paths
and other degraded sites are being protected. This innovation has enabled people to
get oil (of a better quality than the market oils) from a native species of no known use 
in the past. The unusually high price of YG and general increase in earning from all
other NTFPs have two major consequences. First, people now think that any species 
could be good for developing NTFPs based enterprises. Second, they need to be
protected from destruction. There is a need to continue building upon the emerging
awareness with programs that use these events for their great demonstrative value. 
5. CFUGs have begun to arrange for forest watchmen to check unapproved cutting and 
encroachment, and impose punishments on culprits, and link the timing and amount of
thinning of trees to the timing of people’s need.
6. A fuelwood-efficient technology for hand-made paper enterprise in Bajhang was
identified and provided.
7. Attempts were made to assist micro-hydroelectric plant installation and improvement
at Jumla.
8. One of the outcomes of enterprise orientation is that the community has become
interested in larger forest and meadows areas than before both for having control and 
management. This entails taking more responsibility and capacity building for
management and conservation. Earlier when the communities’ relationship with
forests and meadows was limited to subsistence living, the local communities had
neither interest nor capacity in managing large areas. Needless to say, empowerment
has also played its role in this regard. 
c. Progress Toward Economic Sustainability
The community based forest enterprises were strategically selected to give a good chance 
of sustainability (see Table 1 for list of enterprises). Some elements such as institution
building, appropriate enterprise and technology, are in place which suggest that the
enterprises are likely to be sustainable. The team cannot comment on all aspects of
economic sustainability but production and operational sides seem to have the
components that may lead them to sustainability. There is an auditing system in place in
most of the CFUGs and CBFEs. All the CFUGs and CBFEs visited have social audit￾internal control system in place. Moreover, they have formal external audits from
registered auditors. The components of market and competition factors which are beyond 
the scope the GCP project are being addressed in other projects not reviewed by the
evaluation team.
Training and technical know-how, and marketing linkages and information provided by
ANSAB have played a crucial role in improving the economic sustainability of CFUGs
and CBFEs. The broad-based involvement of community members, community
contributions, the distribution of enterprise revenues and profits and their allocation to
enterprise maintenance and CFUG operations indicates progress toward long-term 
economic sustainability of the CFUGs and the CBFEs.
19
For example, Community members have invested at least 50% in the establishment of the 
enterprises. This investment has given them shares in enterprises. In Bajhang, the lokta
enterprise generated incomes of about Rs. 1.05 million for the local suppliers and the
collectors of lokta and fuelwood, and an additional Rs. 0.45 million for the direct
employees in the enterprise. Rs. 50,000 as dividends that were distributed among the
shareholder CFUG members according to the number of shares held by each member.
 In Jumla, 30% of the operational revenues of the oil milling enterprise go to the
operations and maintenance of the enterprise and 70% to CFUG fund. CFUG has
purchased a wheat crushing mill out of the money deposited thus in the CFUG fund. The 
equity fund provided to the enterprises by ANSAB is being returned.
 Other economic gains observed by the evaluation team include:
i) As the enterprises enter into markets with batches of production, CFUG members 
have started receiving income generated from biodiversity.
ii) Many people now have permanent or seasonal employment from the enterprises.
iii) The CFUG members are charged with the idea that any species of their area can 
yield economic benefits. The use of dhatelo oil has enabled them to substitute the 
market oil. A success of this kind in which the native product is found superior to 
the market product has made profound attitudinal change and belief in use of
technology in NTFPs promotion.
iv) In all three types of enterprises (refer Table 1), the products are fetching more
value than in the past due to various services provided by the project. Since it is 
the poor who are more likely to collect the NTFPs and since ANSAB provides 
strategic market information to them, we can anticipate that the poor NTFP
collectors and workers at the factory are getting more benefits from ANSAB
interventions. Also, the shareholding system balances burdens and benefits in a
way that is understandable to all persons.
At all three sites that we visited people appeared to be in a phase of hope, self assurance 
and are affected by a direct improvement in their livelihoods. In summary, through
community forestry and enterprise development people now have access to the enriched
capitals such as physical, social, financial, natural and human. They are excited about
what they have achieved.
 
The CFUG feeling of ownership over the resources encourages them to have their own
rules to regulate harvesting, distribution of benefits in a mutually agreed manner and they
have more freedom in management of their resources. The CFUG system has provided a 
democratic forum to undertake community development activities as well. They can earn
income by collecting forest products from the community forest and selling these to the
nearby communities and markets. From enterprises, they get dividends and also, income
from employment in the enterprise. The collective fund they utilize in developing
community infrastructure like drinking water, school building and agricultural processing.
The assistance provided by ANSAB has played a pivotal role in all these.
d. Policy Advancement and Implications
ANSAB has been quite successful in approaching government, civil society, forest user
groups and in promoting policy changes through making presentations in meetings,
20
seminars, workshops, interaction with government officials around the policy agenda,
supporting forums and networks, writing reports, policy recommendations, presentations
on the idea and video and television shows that reach large and broad audiences. At the 
country level, knowledge about NTFPs based enterprise has increased due to project
activities. ANSAB staffs have received recognition at various levels for their expertise in
areas of enterprise development, innovative community forestry practices and market
information. ANSAB now finds it easier to get partners and collaborators at regional, 
national and international levels. 
Through networking, coordination, sharing of specific policy implication from the
grassroots, ANSAB was able to influence the government, donors, non-profits and
business organizations to put NTFPs high on their agenda that links poverty reduction and 
conservation, e.g., 10th five year plan of the government of Nepal.
ANSAB is not only recognized for providing input on specific policy improvements (such
as royalty rates and regulations), but also influenced the policy formation process to
involve a wide range of stakeholders including the collectors and stewards of the
resources, e.g., the evolution of Nepal NTFP Network (NNN) to national “Herbs and
NTFP Coordination Committee” headed by the Minister for Forest and Soil Conservation 
and represented by both government and non-governmental organizations.
ANSAB's clearly significant accomplishments and sharing ways have given support to
FECOFUN, DDCs, VDCs, CSIDBs, DFOs and CFUGs in their policy efforts. It has
made policy makers aware that biodiversity conservation is not just an externally imposed 
abstract concept but it has real implications for on ground poverty alleviation, economic
development, and “green” democracy. This is because by protecting natural capital it 
helps to break this cycle of poverty and subsistence agriculture and leads to transforming
economic activities to a higher level. And this has been done in the regions where it
would not be possible to have these activities before the intervention of ANSAB. 
The CBFE, CFUG approach has encouraged women and marginalized groups to express 
themselves and participate in decision making, and benefit sharing. These are the people
now who are empowered through the participation, expressing themselves and through 
training. In a way it is contributing to preparing communities to better handle crisis
management situations in remote, isolated and most vulnerable areas of the country
because the emergent social capital provides reciprocal trust and support among
community members. We noticed that ANSAB has become a rallying point in Dolpa,
Bajhang, Jumla and other areas. It has created awareness among policy makers that the
community forestry, biodiversity conservation and enterprises can go together. 
The NTFPs-based enterprise was incorporated into CFUGs for the first time in Humla,
and since then it has been extended to 45 CFUGs there and in other districts. In this the 
emphasis is on going beyond subsistence living and linking commerce to sustainability
initiatives. This may be regarded as a significant policy advance in Nepal’s forest
resources management, as over-harvesting of NTFPs and subsistence activities associated 
with traditional community forestry often lead to habitat destruction. It is good to know
that the District Forest Offices have adopted the incorporation of NTFPs into CFUG
management plans.
Establishing NTFPs based enterprises within CFUGs is a significant policy advancement.
The enterprise development has enabled CFUGs to have interest in and responsibility of
21
managing much larger areas than before when people were living at subsistence level. It
has given sound incentives for biodiversity protection.
VII. Conclusion and Recommendations
As described above the project has made good progress and performance in terms of CFUG 
formation and areas brought under improved management exceed the targets set. It has
excelled in the seeking cooperation and developing partnerships and collaborative
interactions with numerous concerned organizations and stakeholders. Emphasis on training,
education and awareness programs is another strong point. However, ANSAB needs to focus 
on appropriate but systematic research based on valid, replicable and reliable techniques and 
study designs. Specific recommendations follow. 
1. Secure funding for longer term project support.
The present project is one of the major exercises on developing participatory management of
natural biological resources involving interaction among local communities; NTFPs based
enterprises development, and improvement in the use of resources. The coverage of 45
CFUGs of some of the poorest people living in an extremely inhospitable terrain, and
development of enterprises ranging from collection of Yarsagumba and morel mushrooms to
processing of aromatic oil and paper are quite impressive. This exercise needs to be
continued for another 4-5 years to achieve a critical level from which the ideas would spread 
on their own. EnterpriseWorks Worldwide and ANSAB have gone far deeper in this area
than any other organization. Such projects need to be of a longer duration than five years to 
achieve a lasting union between biodiversity conservation and enterprise development. 
2. Add field staff and provide more biodiversity training.
Field staff seem to be overwhelmed with the heavy work schedule, and because of that the 
demand of conservation and enterprise efforts may be difficult to meet. To improve the
implementation of project activities there is a need for two field staff members for each site 
(at present the number is 1), one primarily for enterprise development and marketing, and
other for community forestry, biodiversity monitoring and related activities. The field staff,
however, needs more training in the areas of ecology and biodiversity conservation. Expertise 
available in these areas is rather weak in Nepal.
3. Simplify biodiversity monitoring data collection.
The biodiversity monitoring data collection formats and guideline have been prepared and
data collection has just started. These activities are well structured and thought out. 
However, they are likely to exceed the capacity of ANSAB staff and village volunteers. The 
proposed system can require a lot of work, and is difficult to manage given the inadequate 
size of the available labor force. Therefore, detailed monitoring could be limited to 2-3 major 
sites (enterprise-oriented CFUGs), and others could have a more simple format to follow. 
4. Conduct research and allocate budget.
The concept of seeking union between biodiversity conservation and NTFPs enterprises was
introduced for the first time by ANSAB in Nepal. ANSAB has helped the communities to
harvest NTFPs in a regulated way for enterprise development. The monitoring in practice
focuses on preparing an inventory of resources, harvesting them following norms based on
studies undertaken elsewhere, and enforcement mechanism. However, research is required on
estimating the harvestable rate, biology of the species being used, timing of harvest, impact
22
of harvest on the species and the vulnerability of the ecosystem to invasive species, its overall
productivity and changes in species composition.
Biology of species may include phenology, reproductive biology and propagation techniques. 
There needs to be researchers for maintaining scientific rigorousness in experiment. Needless
to say, research and enterprise activities should go hand in hand. There is a need to allocate a 
fraction of project money to develop relevant information through research.
5. Improve methods and indicators for measuring impact on biodiversity. 
Some fragmented data that is available indicates that the frequency of burning declined over
time because of the ANSAB community forestry program. However, ANSAB should develop 
and adopt methods to identify improvement in practices relating to conservation and
behavioral change brought about by its programs. Comparison between ANSAB and non￾ANSAB CFUGs may be required to indicate the influence of ANSAB’s strategies.
6. Investigate ecosystem services.
 The sustainable use of NTFPs from the natural ecosystem may not be enough to generate 
money to take people out of the subsistence trap. There is a need to value ecosystem services 
flowing from the forest and meadows, which communities are conserving. The Kyoto￾protocol has included carbon sequestration for developing a payment mechanism. In this
reforestation and afforestation are being encouraged. Though young and growing plantations
are good carbon sequesters, they may take more than a hundred years to accumulate carbon
stock of a mature forest. Therefore, prevention of deforestation should also be included in the 
carbon trade. The enterprise development in the project areas is assisting people to prevent
deforestation, therefore these kinds of activities eventually might be included in carbon trade. 
Furthermore, other vital ecosystem services such as soil formation, hydrological regulation
and local climatic control should be explored for opportunities for valuation of services and
payment for them which could be worked out at various spatial scales, local, regional and 
international. The Himalayan region along with the adjacent Gangetic plains makes one of
the most suitable units for considering economic aspects of goods derived from the
sustainable use of biodiversity, ecosystem services that flow from natural ecosystems and
mechanism of payment to enable people to conserve ecosystems of global significance. In
summary, by combining goods derived from ecosystems and services they generate, the
relationship between conservation and economic growth could be made more positive. 
7. Do additional tracking on economic benefits flow among subsets of the
Community.
The assessment on economic sustainability illustrates that the economic gains made by the
local communities through better forest management, enterprise development and enhanced
bargaining power (through better market information) of NTFP collectors is significant.
However, the distribution of this aggregate gain among subsets of economic and social
groups has yet to be fully assessed. We recommend that ANSAB develop a simple tracking
system of benefit flow (at a dis-aggregated level beyond gender) to different socio-economic 
group members due to ANSAB intervention. This will be useful not only to further assess the 
impact of the project to local people but will also be of wider relevance and importance to 
policy makers in Nepal since Nepal's main policy agenda is to reduce poverty.
VIII. Strategies for Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity – Some Thoughts on 
23
the Project’s Contribution to Broader Learning and Strategies.
Development strategies of the early days in Nepal had a certain heroic engineering fix–spray 
DDT and eliminate malaria, build suspension bridges and trails in the high hills, construct a
road along the terai. There was a certain clarity in the beginning, middle and end of the
project. When the project was done there was a sense that it was done. People were healthier 
and they and their commerce could move about more efficiently.
Contemporary issues of reducing poverty, providing gender equity, rehabilitating ecosystems,
transforming higher educational programs and protecting remaining systems of biodiversity
are more complex and have less clearly defined and understood problem interactions where 
causality, stress points, system resiliency, boundaries and ending points are seldom neat and 
tidy. The most salient factor in sustained success for development interventions in complex
systems is continuity over different time and spatial scales of natural and human domains. In
learning process activities there is the need to find the teachable moment and there is also the 
fact that learning erodes and needs to be replenished and refreshed if it is to ‘take’ with the 
learner. That is donors and NGO’s need a commitment to staying the course to full realization 
of the goals that stimulated the original intervention actions if returns on the original
investment are to be realized and the project actions are to achieve a level of self
sustainability. Many projects that address these more complex issues are on too short a
funding schedule and often abandon the effort before the tipping point has been achieved.
Several years ago the US National Science Foundation realized that the study of complex 
ecosystems could not be approached in the way of other science problems. At that time the 
agency started the Long Term Ecosystem Studies (LTERS) to match the necessary temporal
scale of the scientific problems at hand. Today there are some 25 such LTERS in the US 
looking at a wide range of biomes from bogs to alpine biones, to lakes and watersheds. Two 
of the most recent ones are urban ecosystems–Baltimore and Phoenix are the representative 
sites. Burch is a Co-PI on the Baltimore\Chesapeake LTER and is certain that the temporal 
and spatial scales of such systems do not resolve themselves in the usual three year grant
cycle. LTERS are funded in six year cycles with the expectation of renewal. Some such as 
the Hubbard Brook studies have gone on for over 25 years (BioScience, 2003). 
This background preamble is the context of our evaluation team’s concern that though we
see many exciting and positive accomplishments in the first half of the ANSAB project the
learning is just nearing a critical point which will require at least another four years to
consolidate the success of the many efforts. As noted in the field section reports there is the 
need to get the research efforts and techniques consolidated and fully feeding into the
enterprise efforts. This continuity of systematic learning about the biophysical, social
organization, equity and marketing issues needs sustaining if they are going to be fully
incorporated in the CFUG enterprise efforts. 
Further, there is the need to ensure continuity and the full institutionalizing of the leadership, 
management and governance elements established in the several CFUGs but that are still on
trial for the members, government groups, traders and partner NGO’s and others. There is 
need for continuity in the diffusion of the enterprise approach to other as yet unreached
CFUG’s and the consolidation of that effort. 
Target numbers of 45 CFUG’s have now been recruited yet many only recently joined and
termination of the ANSAB project at the planned time will leave these groups without time to 
consolidate their activities. On each point of observation the time required to create
24
functioning human ecosystems is significant. The need to identify and recruit appropriate
candidate groups, the sheer demand of the isolated and rugged landscape, the need to
carefully build trust amongst all the possible authorities and stakeholders, the adjustment to
the innovative ideas of enterprise and biodiversity protection, book keeping, conflict
management and marketing all require tremendous investments of time. For example the
Malika handmade paper enterprise had its business plan completed in 2000 and made its first 
stock return in 2002. This is a milestone but the learning curve is just now starting to occur 
and the true awareness of the value in conserving biodiversity is just beginning to be
perceived by leaders and is still trickling down to members. The first enterprise workshop of
CFUGs in Bajhang District was held in October, 2001. This is a start, a seed of possibility it 
must grow and be nurtured,given a sufficient trial, tested and trusted. It will be a few years 
before the notions and connections between enterprise and biodiversity conservation are fully
embedded in the actions and thoughts of local people. And it should be noted that these 
ANSAB accomplishments have been made under conditions of armed insurrection which is a 
condition not unlike that found in most other developing country biodiversity hot spots. 
Indeed, even in the hot spots of the United States such as Idaho or New Mexico wilderness 
areas armed threats to protectors of biodiversity are relatively common. 
The leadership of the existing CFUGs is trained but they are still learning the path to
sustained biodiversity protection and management of community development. Further as in
all human organizations there is the need to have institutionalized continuity for leadership as
present leaders can grow tired, retire, move away or die. Nearly all community forestry
efforts throughout the developing and developed world are poorly prepared to sustain
leadership in CFUGs. Few have institutionalized mechanisms for meeting likely future
patterns of change and hardly any have systematic plans for recruiting and preparing the next 
generation of leadership. 
Finally there is the very apparent fact that our knowledge of biodiversity ecosystem resiliency
of economic plant material is at a very primitive stage. The field experiments and nursery
cultivation experiments are just being put in place and started on the path towards systematic 
science approaches that will ensure validity, reliability and legitimacy in the findings. That
is, the very essential botanical base for the goals of sustaining these hot spots of biodiversity
is in start up phases. It is essential to note that this is research that involves the local people 
so that the learning effort and feed back into the enterprise is the one true and only possible 
means for ensuring the survival of the ecosystems that provide the base for the several goals 
and objectives that stimulated this project to be started in the first place.
We believe that strong support for the continuity of effort in the ANSAB project comes from
substantial scientific authority. For example, Peterson, Allen and Holling (1998:16) argue
that “The history of resource exploitation and development reveals that ecological crisis and
surprises often emerge from unexpected cross scale interactions. ...Management of natural
resources often produces high short-term yields and, either purposefully or unintentionally,
creates ecosystems that are less variable and diverse over space and time. Management
channels ecological productivity into a reduced number of ecological functions and
eliminates ecological functions at many scales. This simplification reduced cross-scale 
resilience, leaving systems increasingly vulnerable to biophysical, economic, or social events
that could have been absorbed–disease, weather anomalies, or market fluctuations. ...To
avoid repeating the ecological management disasters of the past, it is necessary that ecologists 
understand how the scale-dependent organization of ecosystems and functional reinforcement
across scales combine to produce ecological resilience.” 
25
As we have tried to indicate in this report, we in the scientific and biodiversity protection
community are only at the start of understanding these interactions. And in the long run
much of the needed learning will come from the target villages such as ANSAB has aided. 
Here it is most clear that a short term approach in project support is likely to cut off a most 
promising strategy for sustaining these few remaining diverse systems in Nepal and the
lessons they can offer to others in the coming decades. The aborting of this research in an
untimely way will be truly a global tragedy.
Many in the conservation community have had high hopes that North American style national
park protection strategies could be exported to other societies that have equally grand and
important ecosystems. Though that desire for a certain line on the landscape which seems
neat and finished and fully protective is understandable it ignores the reality of such
establishment. In the United States large numbers of native peoples were forcibly removed
from their homes in the present protected areas and the ranchers, farmers and politicians in
the Western States generally resisted the establishment of these areas. Industrial and post￾industrial economies reduced the dependence upon primary production activities and freed
land for protected status. Further in North America a relatively long history of stable civic
society gives a general legitimacy and acceptance to the laws regarding property and
government regulation which is often not the case in the developing world. Finally, in the
long run unless the general populace buys into the value and need to conserve biodiversity
there are not enough soldiers, environmentalists and nature lovers to fully police and to
ensure the integrity of any of the world’s protected areas. In short, finding the means to
creating conservation behavior in the human community is the only and last best hope for
sustained protection. Experiments such as ANSAB give us one substantial hope that we can
find the means to make our species truly stewards of their natural world. We hope this
necessary experiment will be sustained.
26
IX. Bibliography and References
A. List of ANSAB Reports and Publications
(May 2003)
STUDY REPORTS
? An Assessment of Community Based Forest Enterprises in Nepal: Case Studies, Lessons and 
Implications. A study report jointly prepared by ANSAB and SNV Nepal, December 2002.
? Inventory of Non-Timber Forest Products at Mimi, Melcham and Darma VDCs Humla, 
Nepal. A study report jointly prepared by ANSAB and SNV Nepal, January 2002.
? Inventory of Non-Timber Forest Products at Mimi, Melcham and Darma VDCs Humla, 
Nepal. A study report jointly prepared by ANSAB and SNV Nepal, January 2002.
? Community Forestry, Non-Timber Forest Products and Enterprises in the Western Nepal 
Uplands. A Study for the Programme Formulation Mission of International Fund for Agriculture 
Development, April 2001.
? Sub-Sector Analysis of High Altitude NTFPs in the Karnali Zone. A study report jointly 
prepared by ANSAB and CECI, July 1999. 
? Monitoring the Effects of Community Based Conservation & Commercial Utilization of 
Natural Products on Biodiversity in Humla, Nepal. A Biological Monitoring Report for the 
BCN Funded Project: Community Based Ecosystem Management for Humla, Nepal through Local 
Enterprise Development. April 1999.
? Socio-Economic and Institutional Impacts of Community Based Ecosystem Management 
Project in Humla, Nepal. A Socio-Economic Monitoring Report for the BCN Funded Project: 
Community Based Ecosystem Management for Humla, Nepal through Local Enterprise 
Development. March 1999.
? Application and Commercialization of Rhizobium Inoculate for Small-Scale Farmers in 
India, Philippines and Sri Lanka. Submitted to IDRC, October 1997.
? Forest Product Market/Enterprise Options Study. Submitted to BSP/ New ERA, August 1997. 
? Quest for alternatives to fossil fuel: Potential fatty oil plants of Nepal, 1994.
? An assessment of community based forest enterprise in Nepal: Case Studies, Lessons and 
Implications. Published by ANSAB and SNV/ Nepal. December 2002
PAPERS PRESENTATION
? Subedi, B. P. 2002. Decentralization and community Forestry in Nepal: Innovations for 
sustainable Community Development. A paper presented in the National Seminar on Human￾Institutions-Natural Resources Interactions, March 27-28, 2002, Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal.
? Subedi, B. P. 2002. Gender and Biodiversity in Nepal: A paper presented in the Ge nder 
Mainstreaming Workshop, organized by Netherlands Development Organization (SNV), September 
30-October 2, 2002 in Godavari Village Resort, Godavari, Nepal
? Subedi, B. P. 2002. Advances in Forestry: Methodology for Participatory Biodiversity 
Monitoring. A paper Presented in the National Seminar on Recent Advances in Plant Science, March 
17-18, 2002, Birgunj, Nepal.
? Subedi, B.P. and Ojha, H. R. 2001. Commercialization Use of Biodiversity & Equity: Are they 
Compatible? A paper presented in the Regional Workshop on Sharing Local and National Experiences 
in Conservation of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants in South Asia, January 21-23, 2001 in Pokhara, 
Nepal.
? Rawal, R. B., Acharya, B. and Subedi, B. P. 2001. Jadibuti Marketing and Policy Issues in Nepal. In 
Workshop Proceedings National Workshop on Non Timber Forest Products: Jadibuti, February 22, 
2001 Kathmandu.
? Subedi, B. P., Ojha, H. R., Nicholson, K. and Binayee S.B. 2001.Review of Community Based 
27
Forestry Enterprises in Nepal: Causes, consequences and Lessons ANSAB & SNV, Nepal. June 
2001.
? Subedi, B. P. 2001. Economic Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation in Nepal: Issues and 
Options. A paper presented in the National Workshop in Applied Ethnobotany on Community-Based 
Approaches to Conservation of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants in Nepal, October 9-12, 2001, Pokhara, 
Nepal.
? Subedi, B. P. 2001. Marketing of Medicinal and Aromatic Plant Products of Nepal in Domestic and 
International Markets. Training at the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Nepal. August 2001.
? Subedi, B. P. 2000. Policy and Regulatory Environment for the Conservation and Utilization of 
Himalayan Medicinal Resources in Nepal. A paper presented at the "Nepal-Japan Joint Symposium 
on Conservation and Utilization of the Himalayan Medicinal Resources" organized by Department of 
Plant Resources (HMG, N) and Society for Conservation and Development of Himalayan Medicinal 
Resources, Japan, November 8-10, 2000 in Kathmandu, Nepal. 
? Ojha, H. R., Subedi, B. P. and Dangal, S. P. 2000. Management of Non-Timber Forest Products: 
Recent Innovations in Resource Assessment and Sustainable Harvesting. A Paper presented for the 
International Seminar on Harvesting of Non- Timber Forest Products, October 2-8, 2000, Izmir, 
Turkey.
? Ojha, H. R., Current Policy issues in NTFP development in Nepal. August 2000.
? Subedi, B. P., Binayee S.B. 2000. Linking Conservation to Business and Local Communities: An 
Approach to Sustainable Management of in situ Biodiversity in Nepal. A paper presented at the 3rd
SEANN Workshop on Community-Based Non-Timber Forest Products Management, April 7-8, 2000, 
Kathmandu, Nepal
? Subedi, B. P. 1999. Non-Timber Forest Products Sub-Sector in Nepal: Opportunities and 
Challenges for Linking the Business with Biodiversity Conservation. A paper prepared for the 
Workshop on Natural Resources Management for Enterprise Development in Himalayas, August 19-
21, 1999, Nainital, India
? Subedi, B. P. and N.K. Bhattarai. 1998. Community Managed Enterprise: Participation of Rural 
People in Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Conservation and Use. Paper presented in the 
International Conference on Medicinal Plants, February 16-20, 1998, Bangalore, India.
? Subedi, B. P. 1998. Participatory Utilization and Conservation of Medicinal and Aromatic 
Plants: A Case from Western Nepal Himalaya. Paper presented in the International Conference on 
Medicinal Plants, February 16-19, 1998, Bangalore, India.
? Subedi, B. P. 1997. Utilization of Non-Timber Forest Products: Issues and Strategies for 
Environmental Conservation and Economic Development. Theme paper presented in the National 
Workshop on "Utilization of NTFPs for Environmental Conservation and Economic Development in 
Nepal,” March 29, 1997, Kathmandu.
? Subedi, B. P. NTFP Sub-Sector in Karnali, Nepal: Opportunities for Leveraged Intervention for 
the Benefits of Local Communities. ANSAB & CBED/CECI, Nepal, November 1998-January 1999.
? Subedi, B. P. Nepalma Banko Sthiti, Niti Tatha Karya Yojana. ANSAB & NEFEJ, Nepal.
SMALL-GRANT RESEARCH REPORTS 
? Inventory and Traditional Utilization of Lichens of Shyangja District, Western Nepal (1997). 
? A Study on Wild Oil - Bearing Plants of Central Nepal: Distribution, Availability, Local Uses and 
Potentiality on Industrial and Commercial Uses (1997).
? Diversity, Ethnobotany and Conservation Strategy of Some Potential Medicinal and Aromatic 
Plants of Taplejung in Tamur Valley (1997). 
? Indigenous Knowledge and Practices for Resource Utilization and Management of Non-Timber 
Forest Products in Baglung District, Nepal (1997).
? Identification, Qualitative Assessment, Trade and Economic Significance of Chiraito (Swertia Sp.) 
of Nepal (1997). 
? Tharu and Razi Communities of Kailali District for Western Development Region: Studies on 
Ethnobotany, Socio-Economy and Management of Forest Resource (1997). 
? Availability and Market Study of NTFPs in Bara District: An Analysis of Policy Consequences 
(1996). 
? Distribution, Availability and Economic Significance of Rattan in Nepal. A Case Study of Surkhet, 
Kailali, Bardiya and Kanchanpur Districts (1996). 
? Distribution, Availability and Uses of NTFPs in Darchula District together with their Impact on 
28
Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Development and Local Economy (1996). 
? Indigenous Knowledge and Practices of NTFP Management, Use and Trade by the Tharu 
Community of Bankey District (1996).
? Non Timber Forest Resources and Their Use around Suklaphanta Wild Reserve, Nepal (1996). 
? Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in Socio-Economy and Resource Sustainability with 
Particular Emphasis on Gender Issue (1996). 
? Socio-Economic Impact and Indigenous Practices on Locally and Commercially Useful Plants in 
Bhaisole Area of Achham District (1996). 
? Study on Non-Timber Forest Products, Their Management and Impacts on Socio Economy with 
Emphasis on Medicinal Herbs and Nigalo (Arundinaria Sp.) of four VDCs (Parche, Sardikhola, 
Machapuchhre and Lwangghalel) of Annapurna Region, Kaski District (1996). 
? Study on Indigenous Knowledge and Practice in Management and Utilization of Non- Timber 
Forest Products in Baitadi District, Nepal (1996).
? Study on Traditional Use and Value Addition on Wild Plant Resources for Domestic Utilization 
and Cottage Industries with Considerations on Resource Sustainability, Biodiversity Conservation 
and Economic Significance in Bhaktapur District, Nepal (1996). 
? Study on Useful Wild Plants of Tehrathum District with Emphasis of Ethnobotany, Traditional 
Management Practices, Commercial Use and Socio-Economic Impacts upon the Local 
Communities (1996). 
? Study on Taxus Wallichiana Dominated Forests in Mustang District: Quantitative and Qualitative 
Assessment of Taxus Leaves and other Non-Timber Forest Products together with Their 
Management and Use (1996). 
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES REPORTS 
? Report on NTFP Management and Marketing Training, focused on NGOs staff members, FUGs 
personal, Taplejung, 7-11 September 2001.
? NTFP Based Enterprise Options For Forest User Groups In Bungadovan And Khunkhani VDCs, 
Baglung, A SynthesisOf Field Trip Observations And Future Plan For NTFP Enterprise 
Development. ANSAB, Jan 2000.
? Enterprise Development Plan of Malika Hand-Made Paper Pvt. Ltd., Kailash, Bajhang 2056 
(1999). 
? Status of Community Forests in Nepal. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (1997). 
? Resource Survey with Development of Management Plan in Suspa Community Forest and Field 
Training Program. Sunrise Foundation Kathmandu.(1997)
? The Status of Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) in Daman Area. Institute of Forestry, Hetauda 
(1997). 
? Field Report on Activities Carried Out at Karnali Jadibuti Prashodhan Pvt. Ltd., Talichaur- Dan 
Sanghu, Jumla (1996).
? Report on Training on Identification, Sustainable Harvesting and Cultivation Technology of 
Middle and High Altitude Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (MAP) for Field Staff of Line Agencies 
and NGOs in Gorkha District organized by Center for Community Development and Research 
(CCODER) (1996). 
? Report on Training on Sustainable Collection, Harvesting, Drying and Storage of Low Altitude 
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (Map) for Field Staff of Line Agencies and NGOs in Gorkha 
District organized by Gorkha Ayurved Company P. Ltd. (Gac) (1996). 
? Study on Availability, Use and Economic Significance of Neem and Mahuwa Tree Products to 
Evaluate Their Household, Commercial and Industrial Utilization In Banke District, Nepal. Neem 
Society (1996). 
? Survey on Resource Availability of WinterGreen (Gaultheria Fragrantissima) Leaves, Sunpati 
(Rhododendron Anthopogon) Leaves and Feasibility Study of the Proposed Enterprise (Jiri 
Jadibuty Udhyog Pvt. Ltd.) in Jiri VDC, Dolakha. Jiri Jadibuty Udhyog Pvt. Ltd. (1996). 
? Survey of Economic Plants and Field Based Training Program in Lwange Bhatkule and Lekhdanda 
Community Forests, Dang District, Nepal. HWEPC, Ghorahi, Dang. 
? Various Aspects of NTFP in Tipling andm its Adjoining Area of Upper Dhading, Central Nepal. 
Himalayan Health Care Nepal (1996). 
29
Manuals, Training Material, and directories 
? Enterprise Development for Natural Products (Prakritik Paidaawaar ma Adharit Udhyam Vikaas: 
Field Karyakarta ko Laagi Shrot Pustika, in Nepali), 2002 (Draft)
? Training Material for Conservation Education (Samrakshan Shikshya, in Nepali), 2002. (Draft)
? Nepal NTFP Entrepreneurs' Directory, 2002 (Draft) 
? Community-Based Tree and Forest Product Enterprises: Market analysis and development. A field 
manual jointly prepared by ANSAB, FAO, RECOFTC and SNV Nepal 2001.
? Enterprise Development for Natural Products, September 2000.
? Training Material for Conservation Education (Samrakshan Shikshya, in Nepali), 1997
? Nepal NTFP Entrepreneurs' Directory, January 1997. 
Journals and Newsletters 
o Himalayan Bioresources (Since 1999)
o Lahara I, II III, IV (Since Shrawan 2059)
Extension Materials
o ATIS, JADIBUTI PRASAAR SHRIKHALA , JUNE 2002, - PUSTIKA 1
o LOKTA, JADIBUTI PRASAAR SHRINKHALA, JUNE 2002- PUSTIKA 2
o JATAMASI, JADIBUTI PRASAAR SHRINKHALA, JUNE 2002- PUSTIKA 3
 Community Forestry, NTFP Enterprises and Nepal Social Ecology
Appanah, S., Kleine, M. Auditing of Sustainable Forest Management: A practical guide for developing local 
auditing systems based on ITTO’s Criteria and Indicators. FORSPA, Bangkok, No. 26/2001.
Appanah, Simmathiri. Forest Management Certification and the Design of Local Auditing Systems: Proceedings 
of a Regional Workshop for Indochina, December 4-6, 2001, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. FORSPA, Bangkok, No. 
29/2002.
Asean Biodiversity, vol. 1, No. 4, October – December 2001, ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity 
Conservation. 
Baker, Mark, Kusel J. Community Forestry in the United States; Learning from the Past, Crafting the Future. 
Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2001.
Bass, Stephen, Dubois, O., Costa, P.M., Pinard, M., Tipper, R., Wilson, C. Rural Livelihoods and Carbon 
Mangement. Department for International Development, project R7374, 2000.
Bayham, Chris, ed. Proceedings from the March 200 Ecosystem Workforce Forum: Developing Local 
Industries that Provide Quality Jobs In Ecosystem Management. Ecosystem Workforce Program, 2000.
Burch, W.R. Challenges and Possible Futures for the Forestry Profession in a Global, Post Industrial Social 
Economy – Lessons from Britain. Scottish Forestry, 56(3) Autumn 2002. jmc publishing ltd.,UK.
Chamberlain, James L., Bush, R.J., Hammet, A.L., Araman, P.A. Managing for Nontimber Products, Journal of 
Forestry, Jan/Feb. 2002:8-14, 2002.
30
Chaudhary, Ram P., Subedi, B.P., Vetaas, O.R., Aase, T. H. Vegetation and Society : Their Interaction in the 
Himalayas. Tribhuvan University, Nepal, 2002.
Chhetri, Ram B., Gurung, O.P., eds. Anthropology and Sociology of Nepal: Cultures, Societies, Ecology and 
Development. Sociological and Anthropological Society of Nepal (SASON), 1999.
Dixit, Kanak Mani, Ramachandaran, S., eds. State of Nepal. Himal Books, Lalitpur, Nepal, 2002.
Ford Foundation. Forestry for Sustainable Rural Development: A review of Ford Foundation-supported 
community forestry programs in Asia. Ford Foundation, 1998.
Hammett, A.L., McCrary, J.K., Bauer, G.P. Forest Products in Nicaragua, Forest Products Journal, 49(6):12-
20, 1999.
Gray, Gerald J., Enzer, M.J., Kusel, J., eds. Understanding Community-Based Forest Ecosystem Management.
Haworth Press, Inc., New York, 2001.
Ingles, Andrew W., Musch, A., Qwist-Hoffmann, H., preparers. The Participatory process for Supporting 
Collaborative Management of Natural Resources: An Overview. Food and Agriculturual Orgnaization of the 
United Nations, Rome, 1999.
Ives, Jack D., Messerli, B. The Himalayan Dilemma: Reconciling development and conservation. Routledge, 
New York, 1989.
Kanel, Keshav R., Karmacharya, M.B. Karna, B.K., eds. Human-Institutional Natural Resources Interactions: 
Understanding the Interface Between Social and Natural Resource Systems. Nepal Forest Resources and 
Institutions, Kathmandu, Nepal and Workshop in Political Analysis, Indiana University, USA, 2003.
Kusel, Jonathan, Adler, E. eds. Forest Communities, Community Forests: a collection of case studies of 
community forestry 2001 for the Seventh American Forest Congress Communities Committee. Forest 
Community Research. 2001.
Kusel, Jonathan, ed. Assessment of the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative, Forest Community Research. 
2002.
Lee, Norman, Clive, G. eds. Environmental Assessment in Developing and Transitional Countires. John Wiley 
& Sons, Ltd., New York, 2000.
MacKinnon, John, Rees, C., Uriarte, M. Guidebook of Biodiversity Principles for Developers and Planners. 
ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation.
Nepal South Asia Centre (NESAC). Nepal Human Development Report. ESAC, Kathmandu, 1998.
O’Riordan, Tim, Stoll-Kleeman, Suzanne, eds. Biodiversity,Sustainability and Human Communities: 
Protecting beyond the Protected. University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002.
Panday, Ram Kumar. Altitude Geography: Effects of Altitude on the Geography of Nepal. Center for Altitude 
Geography, Lalitpur, Nepal, 1987.
Peterson, Gary, Craig R. Allen and C.S. Holling. Ecological Resilience, Biodiversity, and Scale. Ecosystems 
1:16-18. 1998. 
.
Poffenberger, Mark, ed. Communities and Forest Management in Canada and the United States: A Regional 
Profile of the Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management. Forests, People and Policies, 
Berkeley CA, 1998.
Poffenberger, Mark, ed. Communities and Management In South Asia: A regional profile of the Working Group 
on Community Involvement in Forest Management. © The World Conservation Union (IUCN), 2000.
Ramsay, W.J.H. Deforestation and erosion in the Nepalese Himalaya – is the link myth or reality? Forest 
Hydrology and Watershed Management, no. 167:239-250, 1987.
31
Rechlin, M.A., Hammett, A.L., Burch, W.R., Song, Y. Sharing the Wealth: A Comparative Study of the 
Distribution of Benefits from Community Forestry Management in Southern China and Nepal. Journal of 
Sustainable Forestry, 15(2) 2002.Haworth Press, Inc., New York, 2002.
Salafsky, Nick, Cordes, B.,Parks, J., Hochman, C. Evaluating Linkages Between Business, the Environment, and 
Local Communities: Final Analytical Results from the Biodiversity Conservation Network. World Wildlife 
Fund, Inc., Washington, D.C.,1999.
Salim, Emil, Ullsten, O. Our Forests, Our Future. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Shrestha, D. B., Singh, C.B., Ethnic Groups of Nepal and Their Ways of Living, revised. Madhab Lal Maharjan, 
Himalyan Booksellers, Kathamandu, Nepal, 1987.
Shrestha, Krishan Bahadur. Guidelines for Community Forestry Development Program, revised 2002. Ministry 
of Forests and Soil Conservation, Community Forestry Division, Nepal 1996.
Simpson, Struan, Bugna, S. Biodiversity, Conservation and the Community: A literature Review and Inputs 
from the NIPAP Experience. Essentials of Protected Area Management in the Phillipines, Vol. 1, National 
Integrated Protected Areas Programme, Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Quezon City, Philippines, 2001.
Slee, Bill, Clark, G.M., Snowdon, P. The Scope for Community Participation in Forest Management – Summary 
Report, March 1996. The Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, Scotland,1996.
Sowerwine, Jennifer, Shivakoti, G.,Pradhan, U., Shukla, A., Ostrom, E., eds. From Farmers’ Fields to Data 
Fields and Back: A Synthesis of Partipatory Information Systems for Irrigation and Other Resources. 
Internation Irrigation Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1994.
U.S. Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER) – Special Section. BioScience, 53/1: 17-98, Jan 2003.
Victor, Michael, Lang, C., Bornemeier, J., eds.Community Forestry At A Crossroads: Reflections and Future 
Directions in the Development of Community Forestry. Regional Community Forestry Training Center Report, 
No. 16, 1997.
Wyckoff-Baird, Kaus, A., Christen, C.A., Keck, M. . Shifing the Power: Decentralization and Biodiversity 
Conservation. BSP Analysis and Adaptive Management Program 1996.
.
Youngs, Robert L., Hammett, A.L. Diversity, Productivity, Profitability and the Tao of Underutilized Species. 
Forest Products Journal, 51(1):29-35, 1999.
i
i
Annex 1. Bajhang Site Report
Bajhang Field Observations
24-31 May, 2003
USAID Global Conservation Program
EWW/ANSAB
Enterprise-Based Biodiversity Conservation
Mid Term Evaluation
General Background
Bajhang is more vertical than level. In the Seti Lowland there are a few wide flood plains. In 
this area around 1300 meters elevation there are trees along pathways and around houses with 
a few clumps of woodlands and several pine plantations on the nearby steep east facing hills. 
The rest of the landscape is steep terraced paddy and the true natural forests of mixed conifer 
(Pinus, Abies and Taxus) and broad leaf (Quercus, Betula) have been pushed to the 3300 or 
3500 meter elevation. These remaining natural forests are well stocked and seem healthy. 
The DFO, Gyanendra K. Mishra, believes that the percent of the District that is forested
(27%) is very low and that most of this is poorly stocked.
The area of the District is 3,422 sq. km. In 2001 its population was 167, 026 with 28,588 
households with an average number of persons being 5.84. There is a pattern for the male 
members of the households to annually migrate to India during the slack season. This regular 
flux of a substantial proportion of the male population most likely places constraints upon 
maintenance of resources and domestic property and strains the domestic division of labor.
Hence micro enterprises that could be carried out in the winter months likely would have a
wide range of economic and social benefits. Of course, the wives may look forward to such 
holidays from their spouses?
The District’s estimated area in primary food crops has been going up from, 10, 150 ha in
paddy in 1997 to 11, 526 in 2001; wheat from 14,670 to 17,064 and maize from 8130 to 10, 
538. One suspects that these increases come from the conversion of forest land to crop land. 
Other obvious challenges to forest lands and the landscape ecology come from the extensive 
some modest amounts of shifting cultivation and firewood collecting in most inappropriate
settings. The impact of all of these activities were highly visible during our visit in the
Chainpur area and on the trek to Kailash 
and Malika. Though at the small scale
any of these activities might be
compatible with retention of the
valuable biodiversity resources. 
However, incrementally and at ever
increasing scale the rate of change will
likely surpass the threshold of recovery
and resilience for many of the
ecosystems upon which the people’
renewed hope depends.
Clearly the cycle of poverty and resource conversion and degradation is not likely to be
resolved by simply more of the same subsistence level of existence. This is particularly so as 
Sustainable Firewood Collection is an 
essential NTFP for many CFUG forests
ii
ii
the men who journey to India for short term work return with a vision of higher levels of
material existence in the world outside of their mountain villages. Hence the constrained base 
of survival is compounded by rising expectations. So in many ways the micro enterprise–
community forestry strategy being explored by ANSAB may be the last best hope for Nepal
to retain some level of its rich biodiversity that potentially is a super market of sustainable
high value NTFPs and a way out of total dependence upon subsistence agricultural activities. 
Of particular interest are the lessons for many other developing regions and newly emergent 
community forest activities in the industrial and post-industrial countries.
Methods
Our team was composed of Bhishma P. Subedi, Executive Director of ANSAB, Surya B.
Binayee, ANSAB Programs\Administrative Manager, Dyutiman Choudhary, Associate
Expert–Enterprise Development, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
(ICIMOD) and William R. Burch, Jnr. Hixon Professor of Natural Resource Management,
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Our travels together became a moving
seminar on the equity and biodiversity issues that brought us together and on the matters of
sustainability and motivation (incentives) that confront the peoples of this region and
ultimately those of the entire world.
We had interviews with the following persons and groups: Chief District Officer, Trilok P.
Shrestha; District Forest Officer, Gyanendra K. Mishra; Chair of the FECOFUN-Bajhang and 
the Shree Binayak Pimi Danda CFUG, Gagan B. Singh; Ex-Chair of the District
Development Committee and Vice Chair of HJSS-National, Man P. Khatri; Chair of the
Social Development Center, Surat B. Singh; ANSAB Community Forestry Facilitator in
Bajhang, Chandika Amagai. Many of the members of the Malika Handmade Paper
Company; all nine of the women members of the Kailash Kachaharikot Mahila CFUG and
the Chair and Vice Chair of the Hemantawada CFUG. Also, CARE of Nepal persons, and 
professionals in the District Development committee and the Social Development Center, the
local partner NGO of ANSAB in the district, some of whom traveled up in the hills with us. 
These were rich and complex exchanges and only a fraction of our learning can appear in this 
report. However, the suggestions and guidelines will clearly reflect the wisdom of our
respondents.
We were able to systematically observe a number of activities and to see the social and
biological impact of these activities. We had interviews with key informants, informal chats
and the chance to compare observations amongst the team members. We examined records 
and looked at the working blocks that were established for the working circle efforts. We had 
the substantial documentation of the efforts by ANSAB and its highly professional
monitoring efforts. Clearly our work was inductive rather than deductive in approach and
there is no pretense that we followed a systematic sampling scheme. Still there was a range 
of opportunity and a chance to triangulate formal interviews, observations, key informant
responses and informal discussions to gain some clarity and objectivity in our understanding.
Findings
In our travel to the villages we had the opportunity to observe the biosocial landscape and the 
general patterns and processes evident in the human ecology. We had a fairly substantial
walkabout in the forest of the Malika group. We observed the manufacturing operations from 
collection to processing to end product. We could see the interaction and interest of the
iii
iii
members of the working groups. We could feel the changes that were happening. For
example in my several years of travel to rural Nepal villages I have experienced the fact that 
village women were almost an unseen presence and of those few willing to participate they
remained very shy. Yet, here we were in an even more remote village and each of the women 
stood and introduced themselves and talked about their project. In the discussion with we
outsiders they were confident, engaged and rather surprised at themselves and their boldness. 
And when one of the husbands began to berate the women, they did not shrink but rather 
simply ignored him. That is a major accomplishment. 
Further, it was evident that community forestry is and will continue to increase as the
dominant system of forest management in this region. The conditions for travel by foot are 
demanding and very far. No matter how many rules and regulations may come down from
Kathmandu regarding forest and wildlife management there will never be even a tiny
possibility of having a sufficient number of rangers or forest guards to control human
behavior that diminishes natural ecosystems for private gain. The only mechanism for
possible control is the normative influence of local people upon the behavior of their fellow
villagers. And we were given sufficient indicators that the local CFUG members saw that
responsibility and were working within the traditional value context to secure reductions in
grazing, wiser collection of fuelwood and generally more socially responsible actions in
regard to the common natural capital. It is also clear that without the promise of the
incentives suggested by ANSAB technical and field people the local people’s enthusiasm for
managing the behavior of their neighbors and themselves would be much less.
There is a complex organizational infrastructure to recruit and to sustain these community
efforts. The DFO may not have sufficient persons to extend its full legal power reach over 
the behavior of others, however theirs’ is a power of resistance and delay and permitting. 
This is the check by the national government upon the innovation and enthusiasm of the
NGO’s. Yet, it is a symbiotic yin and yang effort. The NGO’s can run after their own
passions and government agencies can mire in their own despair. The two groups need the 
check and stimulus of one another to ensure better decisions. It seemed that in the Bajhang
case the good will and intelligence of the ‘partnering’ parties was the critical factor. An
arrogant NGO officer can ensure failure of the best and most innovative ideas and a frustrated 
government official in a career slump can violate the public trust assigned to the position. In
Bajhang, the personalities of the various players seemed to have found the right rhythm and
were better serving the biosocial ecology. However, one had the sense that a shift in the 
present DFO who strongly accepted the community forestry idea by one who saw it as a
threat would greatly impede the advances clearly being made by the ANSAB, Social
Development Center, CARE and others. At present this organizational infrastructure is
working well to alter national policies, to support passing management to local groups and
generally working to see that community efforts work for the common good of people and
nature.
This organizational infrastructure works to support training, technical skills, equity and
gender improvement efforts in a coordinated fashion. An interesting side issue emerged in
our discussions of the role of memorial trees and sacred forests. This is interesting to me as I 
have a former student who I had visited prior to coming to Nepal who has the first ever such 
position with the US Forest Service which is to coordinate and encourage memorial tree,
woodland and forest activities. This was a result of the 9\11 events in New York City but the 
need is universal and illustrates that humans have larger motives than pure greed. And the
search for appropriate bereavement activities could be a most valuable non-timber forest 
iv
iv
service. The point here is that there are many forms of incentives that encourage wise and 
sustained use of natural ecologies. 
ANSAB seems to keep clear focus on its central goal of sustained biodiversity and
community development with its means being the exploration and the deployment of an array
of incentive structures. An indicator of this entrepreneurial search for incentives are in–
natural products and ecosystem services as income opportunities which gives a hard edge to 
the usual moral pleading approach regarding conservation–there is a reinforcement between
what is right and what is gainful. Other incentives come from 1. balancing the limited
existence of a subsistence economy with an emergent set of manufacturing opportunities that 
fit the isolated locale and the traditions of the local people as in the Lokta conversion to
handmade paper; 2. from ensuring there is equity in burdens and benefits through a
community form of share holding system that by-passes the ‘tragedy of the commons’
problem; 3. the empowerment of women to bring in the other half of the labor force and
systematize the unique folk knowledge of women; 4. the use of participatory techniques to
give legitimacy to decisions; 5. marketing strategies to give producers opportunities but, also
as a playback that their work is worthwhile; 6. training and ‘show me’ exchanges with other 
CFUGs; 7. video and television attention to the activities of the CFUG serves to disseminate 
pride and new ideas.
Snapshots of Community Forest User Groups
The Malika Handmade Paper Pvt. Ltd. was started in 2000 and grew out of the Shree Binayak 
Pimi Danda Community Forest User Group. It had 25ha of forest land before the enterprise 
was established and now has 912ha. There are 235 households in the group. Feasibility
completed in 1999, revision of CFUG constitution and management plan completed in late
1999. The enterprise and business plan were completed in 2000. Members of the CFUG
contributed their labor, the CFUG invested for the construction of the factory. Various
management committees were created with the help of ANSAB technical persons. None of
this complex organizational structure was forced upon the community. Rather as problems
and questions emerged the ANSAB technical people helped with suggestions and ideas. So 
there is the governing body of 235 households, who elect a management committee of 15
persons (12 men and 3 women). These persons guide the work of the enterprise management 
committee (7), resource management committee (15) and enterprise audit committee (3). The 
enterprise management committee appoints an executive committee of 5 who develop
company policies, systems, and
strategies and oversee a manager
who manages company business
operations with two technicians, 1
watchman and 6 workers. The point 
of these details is that any well
functioning enterprise must have a
certain order or bureaucratic structure 
if the benefits and operation are to
persist. This structure was a natural
evolution with help and guidance
available from ANSAB.
In contrast is the Kailash
Kachaharikot Mahila (women)
Community Forest User Group. It
Handmade Paper Drying
v
v
has a total of 165 households. All of the households are represented by women. The CFUG 
committee is nine women. While subordinate to them are three sub--committees–advisory 
(five men); audit (five men) and forest management (five men). They manage an area of 35 
ha and are considering some other possible holdings. Their interests are in timber and
firewood management. They are considering fodder management and the development of
milk products as well. The organizational structure is not elaborate but it provides a
structured base from which new entrepreneurial opportunities may be explored. It is the
launching platform.
The Chadihit Latomanda CFUG and the Hemantawada CFUG are more traditional
community groups. Chadihit represents one ward while Hemantawada has 1-9 wards in the 
area and 1293.53ha of forest land. The Chair, Hari L. Joshi, reported there were 595 primary 
user households and 300 secondary households. Primary users are traditional users near the 
forest land and who work on it. Secondary users have another forest in a different place. The 
interest of these two CFUGs is to develop rules and directives to ensure a more sustained use 
of traditional products. They have 9 block management units with some NTFPs, shrubs and 
Lokta as well as wood products. There are two women on the 15 member community
governing group. They are interested in exploring the micro enterprise route and have a
certain concern about controlling the overgrazing in the forest lands–through higher bred and 
valued stock and stall feeding. So this group represents one in the early recruitment stages
giving most attention to regulating and ensuring equity of access to the resource.
Some Lessons Learned
1. Those outsiders and donors who wish to encourage community approaches to sustained
ecosystem management need to be patient and to have a willingness for the long term rather 
than the quick fix solution. There is a ‘teachable’ moment when the issues and awareness
come clear to the community folk and they request advise from outsiders. If that moment is 
forced too early and too much imposed from top down or outside of the village it will not
take as it has not been a natural emergence from the experience of the community group that 
must build its own perceptions and awareness of how to act. There are cycles, stages and 
gaps in the learning process and that is very much what the enterprise, community based
effort is for all the parties–an exercise in learning together and as individuals.
2. The micro-enterprise approach is one that must be conceived as a linked ecosystem–
partners to partners, humans to nature, markets to marketing, governance to equity, rights to 
responsibilities, equity and participation to risk and structure. The biophysical organizational 
structure must be matched with a human organizational structure that can sustain the two
systems and can adapt to changing learning opportunities. Responsibilities and rights are two 
sides of the development coin. Some persons will be more entrepreneurial and others more 
curious about the horticultural possibilities. No one person is likely to fit all the roles
necessary to fulfill the task. The handmade paper company has given a good indication that a 
jack of all trades is less valuable than a manager who is efficient, effective and equitable in
management with a responsible division of labor in the workforce.
3. Once a program is operating there is an impulse to want to know. That is the curiosity of 
research emerges. In the Malika group they have laid out some plots to see some of the 
conditions that most encourage Lokta growth and to test thresholds of exploitation. 
However, the need is to help them follow a realistic approach that is scientifically legitimate. 
At the present they have more good hopes but need to develop controls, exclosures, careful
and consistent measures. The real test is whether the donors are truly interested in sharing
vi
vi
the costs of protecting hot spots of biodiversity so that they stay the course and make the
necessary investment in this research endeavor that fully involves the members of the CFUG
in doing their own research. ANSAB has an important, indeed, crucial role to play in this
effort. However, research and development is seldom a free gift. Further, we have no real 
knowledge as to cultivation opportunities in the wild, nor what are the limits to use of the
many plant materials that have potential or existing economic value. This knowledge can be 
aided by local people but ultimately will need considerable skilled scientific guidance.
4. In doing the walkabout in the Malika group’s forest there 
was a great curiosity and excitement about possible uses of
certain plants, their names, their habitat requirements and so
forth. This readiness to learn was temporarily aided by the 
presence of Choudhary who is a good taxonomist and has the 
innate ability to talk science to local people in a way that
shares rather than talks down to them. His ability makes the 
questing a truly shared one and it was evident in the response 
of the local folk. He and I felt the real need to draw upon this 
interest and to have a local groups create their own “barefoot 
botanists” The idea was to develop a simple herbarium
approach that gatherers and others could contribute to and share and help each other learn
about the ecology of specific plants. There is much folk knowledge awaiting the translation
into the scientific terms and thereby can gain legitimacy and continuity for future generations. 
There were several people on the walkabout who 
already were there at that turning point. The
critical need will be to help people see that it is the ecosystem and not just the plant of most 
excitement and economic value. To pull apart the system to get at the ‘gold’ will be to kill
the very source of wealth.
Daphne whose bark serves as pulp for paper.
vii
vii
Annex 2. Dolpa Site Report
DOLPA EXPERIENCES
USAID Global Conservation Program
EWW/ANSAB
Enterprise-Based Biodiversity Conservation
Mid Term Evaluation
Background and Specific Context
Dolpa is a mountainous region largely
consisting of bareslops, snow and meadows.
The climate is so arid (precipitation reported
as 50cm or less annually) that most of south￾facing slopes remain permanently treeless.
Rocks and snow account for almost 60% of
the land, alpine meadows about 30% and 
forest 8%. Located in the north-west part of
Nepal, this is the largest district (978.89
square km) with the very sparse population
(36,000), and little urbanization. Altitude
ranges from 1,525m to 7,754m. Silver fir,
blue pine, kharsu oak, deodar, walnut, and
Taxus are the main tree species. The
important NTFPs, largely from meadows are
Yarsagumba (Cordiceps sinensis), Morels
(Morchella spp, locally called Guchi), Jatamansi (Nardostachys gradiflora), Sugandhwal
(Veleriana jatamansi), Kutki (Picrorhiza spp), and Atis (Aconitum spp). Dolpa is different 
from much of the remaining country in having predominantly alpine meadow, forest being
only a small component of natural vegetation. The total agricultural area is 8,376ha, only
10% of which is irrigated. Dolpa remains unconnected with road because of the difficult
terrain, and accessibility is only by plane. This severely restricts infrastructural development. 
Almost all houses are constructed out of the local resources, mostly timber and stones. Since 
there is no arrangement for sawing, timber consumption for house construction is very high.
On an average, 3 to 5 new houses are constructed annually in each village, each requiring
more than 100 young trees. The population consists of both Hindus and Buddhists and people 
are physically tough and hardworking. Familiarity with the medicinal and aromatic plants
growing in meadows and their trade are is the part of their tradition and a source of cash.
These marginal people are amongst the poorest in the country. In recent years access through 
air flights has led to some tourist activities which has some impact on the economy. Air
service has also enabled Dolpa to have good connection with Nepalgunj, a major township of 
the Terai (moist plains) belt. 
Dolpa has been one of the strongholds of the Maoist movement for last 4-5 years. The
process of empowering people through forest user groups has just started and control over
natural resources by people is one of the current issues. The alpine meadows are main source 
of medicinal and aromatic plants and centers of sheep and cattle grazing. Migratory grazing,
Collecting Yarsagumba
viii
viii
once a part of tradition, is getting weakened with the development of forest user groups and 
their control over the resources. 
Steps Taken for Evaluation
Before undertaking the trip to Dolpa, the members developed familiarity with the project
through detailed discussion with most of the members of ANSAB at its Kathmandu office
and by going through the concerned reports and publications. The team which undertook a 
trip to Dolpa (from 17th to 21st May) for evaluation consisted of following: Dr. S.P. Singh (a 
member of the evaluation committee), Surya Binayee (ANSAB), Tika R. Pantha (ANSAB),
and Francisco Tolentino (NTFP enterprise advisor from one of the ANSAB’s partner 
organizations). However, at Dolpa our focus was on discussion with local partners of
ANSAB such as Sarbangin Bikas Samaj, HJSS-Dolpa, FUGs representatives, government
officials such as District Forest Officer, District Development Committee (DDC) members, 
representatives of related NGOs, and government line departments, and ANSAB field staff in
Dolpa (See Annex 1 for important individuals with whom we interacted). We took advantage 
of attending the district level stakeholders program sharing and coordination meeting
coordinated by ANSAB field staff, Mr. Nawa R. Pantha. We collected information about land 
use, medicinal and aromatic plants, FUG formation, and others from concerned stakeholders. 
Visiting the area and making observation was very important for the understanding of
constraints in which people work, processes involved in development activities, and likely
future trends. This is one of the few areas on the earth where geo-ecological features
dominate, and humans make only an insignificant component of the landscape.
Formation of User Groups and Operational Plan
ANSAB has been in Dolpa for only the last two years, yet it has contributed directly to the 
formation and restructuring of 7 CFUGs. Though the basic structure of CFUGs Constitution
was the same for all CFUGs, provisions were made to have flexibility to take care of
specialities of individual FUGs. For examples, certain CFUGs also included secondary users 
as their members in addition to primary users. Secondary users belonged to far off places, but 
had some traditional linkage to the given resource area. This kind of adjustment was required 
to take care of traditional uses. The response of people to CFUGs formation and people’s
empowerment was so positive that ANSAB has already established a consortium of three
CFUGs at Majhaphal. The consortium has enabled the people to be more effective in
managing resources, creation of marketing, bargaining capacity of collectors and local
traders, and generating support for policy change at the regional scale. 
The CFUG formation was highly participatory taking care of weaker and marginalized
people. While making the constitution of CFUGs, an attempt was made to identify all interest 
groups including weaker sections and to give them adequate representation. The interest
groups were also related to professional attributes such as blacksmiths and traditional
collectors of certain NTFPs. 
ANSAB has taken a keen interest in the issues of gender equity. Though the society is still
male-dominated, the women participation in decision making is being gradually accepted.
Sometimes, women have separate meetings and men value the decisions taken there in. In
fact, the men appeared quite progressive with respect to women involvement in planning of
natural resources. Some CFUG representatives suggested that while providing training
proportion of men and women should be equal. 
ix
ix
Compared to most of the areas in Nepal, the amount of vegetation available per person is still 
high in Dolpa. An estimate based on 6 CFUGs that ANSAB has undertaken indicates that 
about 17 ha of forest-meadows are available per household which is far greater than the
national average. Given a relatively high amount of plant-based resource availability and
acute poverty, conservation of forest and meadows is not an attractive issue. ANSAB took 
initiatives, however, to see that conservation remains an important component while making
plans for resource utilization. For example, ANSAB provided training in silvicultural
practices, and emphasize a need for linking the timing of thinning of trees with that of
people’s need. The introduction of rotational use of forest-meadow and the arrangement for 
forest watchmen to keep certain forest areas away from any disturbance to ensure ecosystem
services such as retention of water and stream maintenance, and creation of regeneration plots 
were some of the major initiatives incorporated into the operation plans. 
The people enthusiastically acknowledged the contribution of ANSAB in terms of providing
their services in the areas of people’s empowerment, institutional and capacity building,
promoting cooperation, information generation, resource planning and implementation. A
two-year period is too short to evaluate the impact of operational plans, but the fact that
people have a lot of enthusiasm in the planning part, clearly indicates the usefulness of this
exercise. 
Biodiversity Conservation Initiatives and Monitoring
The idea of seeking union between conservation of biodiversity and its sustainable use for
enterprise development was introduced to the area for the first time by ANSAB. The exercise 
of biodiversity monitoring has just been initiated and people have begun to guess and
estimate the amount of resources available around their villages and how much of that is
being harvested. We did not expect them to know more than this in two years time. People 
have become aware of the fact that harvest of natural resources cannot continue for long
without regulation and without allowing the natural systems to recover subsequent to harvest. 
The active workers of CFUGs appear to be familiar with the damage that might be caused by 
uncontrolled burning. Earlier they used to burn grassland for getting succulent growth of
some species but now there is restriction on it because they have begun to understand that 
burning damages jatamansi and other medicinal and aromatic plants. 
Economic Sustainability
CFUGs have generated money by imposing membership fee, entry fee for collection, royalty
including from their own members and have initiated using the money raised from activities
such as raising nursery of medicinal plants, employing forest watchmen, undertaking training
program with the help of ANSAB and other institutions. They use money also for record
keeping and maintaining a register of biodiversity use and accounting and auditing of money. 
ANSAB has played a role in generating legal support with the help of various government
agencies, access to information, marketing, and technological know how. To the local people 
shortage of these facilities in their remote area is the biggest limiting factor for making any
progress, and ANSAB has filled this gap. It will take a longer period in this remote area than 
other areas to develop self sufficiency, especially in the areas of marketing, technological 
inputs and training. The price of NTFPs due to the increased bargaining capacity has raised 
the collectors hope. The group looked confident and assured.
x
x
Policy Outcome and Implications
Formation of FUG and concomitant hand over of government forest (including meadows) to 
the people is one of the major policy changes in the history of Nepal forestry level. The
District forest department has already set a high target for transfer of forests and meadows to 
local people. ANSAB has been very successful in seeking cooperation from the state forest
department and establishing partnership with the local NGOs to achieve its objectives. In this 
respect, the attitude of forest department has also been positive, far more than of its
counterpart in India. The process of handing over forest land to communities has become
rapid since the intervention of ANSAB and it has led to the inclusion of NTFPs as a major 
money generating activities at the people’s level. People have now confidence in their ability
to develop enterprises based on NTFPs. During our stay, many active workers came with
several ideas and possibilities of establishing enterprises based on one or other aromatic and 
medicinal plants. It has potential to lead to major social change. 
The internal training program of ANSAB for its staff seems to be quite effective. Nawa R.
Pantha, the field staff in Dolpa, has been very successful in dealing with the social constraints 
and stresses, despite the ongoing insurgency.
Issues Which May Warrant More Actions
· Concept and importance of biological monitoring need more explaining
· Discussing the link between conservation and enterprise development at the FUG
level is probably too early or pre-mature at this point but this has to be introduced 
gradually. 
· While the operation plan was developed in a participatory manner and efforts
were done to explain it to members, there maybe a need to share it in the
community through a village-level training program. 
· Grazing is a major issue and this needs to be looked into in more detail to develop 
Oil.
An NFTP
Product
xi
xi
appropriate policies.
· Women’s participation in the project has been active but this may require more
efforts to sustain. 
· ANSAB has been quite successful in developing a partnership with local NGOs. 
There is a need to strengthen this kind of partnership to have a more effective role. 
Concluding Remarks
The achievements of ANSAB are extraordinary given the several constraints of the region,
both physical and social. It is possible that in part the high level of its success was due to their 
experiences with NTFPs based enterprises development in other similar areas. At present, the 
people of Dolpa seem to be charged with the idea of NTFPs based enterprises and are
confident about their ability to generate money through cooperation and institution building.
The hopes have been aroused largely because of ANSAB intervention. However, the
Yarsagumba collection and the amount of money one can generate through it has
disproportionately magnified the possibilities of economic growth through NTFPs. While we
were there some 20,000 collectors had already gathered for collecting Yarsagumba which at 
present fetches NC 20,000 to 100,000 per collector. There was a concern that people did not 
know what to do with the money generated through this miniature ‘gold rush’. Fortunately,
this is not a round the year activity, and ANSAB should continue to follow its course
unaffected by Yarsagumba collection and its consequences. It has already established itself in 
Dolpa and has made a remarkable beginning.
List of Important Persons with whom we had long and separate discussions
1. Mr. Nava Raj Panta, Field Staff, ANSAB
2. Mr. Om Bahadur Budha, Chairman, Dolpa Sarbangin Bikas Samaj
3. Mr. Chandra Bahadur Rokaya, Member, FECOFUN-Dolpa 
4. Mr. Hansha B. Shahi, Chairman, FECOFUN-Dolpa
5. Mr. Kanna Bahadur Karki, Chairman, Meli CFUG, Majhaphal 
6. Mr. Chanda Bahadur Budha, Member, Meli CFUG, Majhaphal
7. Mr. Laxmi Chandra Karki, Chairman, Lolaghat CFUG, Majhaphal
8. Mr. Rajendra Rokaya, Member, Lolaghat CFUG, Majhaphal
9. Mr. Harichandra Rokaya, Member, Lolaghat CFUG, Majhaphal
10. Mr. Khum Bahadur Karki, Member, Lolaghat CFUG, Ex Chairman, Majhaphal 
11. Mr. Nar Bahadur Budha, Member, Himali Jadibuti Sarokar Samug-Dolpa and 
Pokepani FUG, Ex Vice-Chairman, Majhaphal
12. Mr. Karan Prasad Neupane, Member Manma CFUG Committee
13. Mr. Yogendra Shahi, Chairman, Himali Jadibuti Sarokar Samug-Dolpa
14. Mr. Shiva Sharma, District Forest Officer, District Forest Office-Dolpa
xii
Annex 3. Jumla Site Report
USAID Global Conservation Program 
EWW/ANSAB
 Enterprise-Based Biodiversity Conservation
Jumla (12-19 May, 2003)
General Background
Jumla is one of the districts of the Karnali zone. It is accessible only through air plane. The 
total area of the district is a quarter of a million hectares, out of which about 10 percent is 
under agriculture. About 23 percent of the land area is under rocks and snow. The remaining
two third of the area is under forests and meadows. So far, 17,003 hectares of forests have 
been handed over to 95 CFUGs. Five more forests are in the process of being handed over. 
ANSAB has assisted the local communities and District Forest Office to prepare and update 
12 operational plans covering 9,870 hectares. ANSAB is working in six out of thirty Village 
Development Committees, based on the abundance of NTFPs in the forests and meadows.
The population of Jumla is about 70,000 organized into 12,147 households. This indicates
that about two thirds of the households have become members of CFUGs, but they are
managing about ten percent of forests and meadows since major parts of the forests and
meadows are further away from settlements. Jumla ranks 69th across 75 districts in terms of
human development index in Nepal (NESAC, 1998).
It was roughly found that about Rs. 70 millions worth of NTFPs is annually transacted at
collectors’ level. Jatamansi is the dominant NTFP species traded in Jumla as it generates
more than 50% of the total value. Yarsagumba and Guchi chyau (Morel) are the two other 
important NTFP species followed by silajeet, sugandhawal, atish and others. ANSAB’s
community based enterprise approach and dissemination of NTFPs market information have
played a crucial role to retain that big amount at collector’s level. In recognizing NTFPs
substantial role in income generation, Jumla District Development Committee (DDC) has
also placed NTFPs as one of the most important programs and resources in its
recentlydeveloped periodic plan.
Except Yarsagumba, other NTFPs are ultimately exported to India. Yarsagumba is highly
valuable (about Rs. 100 thousands per kilogram at Nepal-Tibet border) but is illegally
,
Yarsagumba ready to be sold
xiii
exported mainly to Tibet because traders consider its royalty rate to be too high (Rs.20
thousands per kilogram). Moreover, the forest regulations stipulate that only the processed
yarsagumba can be exported. However, the term “processing” in this regard is not clear at 
all.
Highlights of the Field Visit
The field visit was undertaken from May 12 to 19, 2003. This report describes the past and 
ongoing efforts made by ANSAB in Jumla district. It consists of five sections. The first three 
sections deal with the direct activity pursued by ANSAB, and the fourth section describes
some of the characteristics of a CFUG and its forests without intervention by ANSAB. The 
last section suggests some recommendation.
Meeting with Rural Development Group Program (RDGP)/ANSAB Field Staff
A meeting was organized on May 13, the first day of Jumla visit, with the Rural Development 
Group Program (RDGP) and ANSAB field staff. Present at the meeting were Dr. Keshav
Kanel (Forest Economist), Mr. Mohan Dhungel (RD-Mid-Western Region), Mahendra
Chaudhary (DFO-Jumla), Indu Bikal Sapkota (ANSAB), Mr. Sushil Gyawali (ANSAB),
RDGP personnel and ANSAB field staff. The objective of this meeting was to be aware of
on-going project related activities in the district. The following points were noted from the
meeting:
· Most of the project activities are on track, and are implemented with effective
participation of relevant stakeholders and beneficiaries.
· Initiation has already begun to carry out detailed inventory and resources
assessment for enterprise oriented community forest management. Detailed forest
inventory of two community forests has been completed, and inventory
assessment is going on in the remaining nineteen community forests.
· A number of trainings and workshops were carried out in relation to community
forestry, NTFPs management and enterprises development with the involvement 
of appropriate resource persons at district and CFUG level. However, enterprise
related training and workshops were suffered, to some extent, with the
unavailability of appropriate resource persons at local level. This implies that
ANSAB Headquarters should provide the relevant resource persons in the field.
· Biological monitoring of enterprise oriented community forests is being initiated
at CFUG level. Relevant data has already been collected from one CFUG
complying with the designed formats and methods. Data collection for the
remaining ten CFUGs is going on in the field. The format is too detailed and
needs simplification.
· Regular posting of NTFP market information at strategic locations both at the
district and CFUGs level has substantially improved the bargaining capacity of
local collectors and traders. This has also helped in improving the wellbeing of
local people.
xiv
Dhatelo Oil Enterprise at Urthu
On the (14th) afternoon of the second day, the team visited Dhatelo oil enterprise at Urthu, 
and also interacted with the community members operating the enterprise.
· The enterprise was initiated in the fiscal year1999/2000 by a group of 18 households 
of a community comprising of 78 households. The group of 18 members encountered 
difficulties running the enterprise. Thus, the operational approach was later modified
to include all the community members with the initiation of and support from
ANSAB in the fiscal year 2001/2002. Since then, the Urthu CFUG comprising of
these 78 households runs it.
· The community has recently developed a business plan of operating the enterprise in
collaboration with and technical support from ANSAB.
· According to the Urthu CFUG members, the enterprise has provided benefits not only
to them, but also to other significant number of adjoining households of the adjoining
villages.
· According to their last year record, the enterprise expelled about 1440 liters of dhatelo
seeds to produce 324 liters of oil.
· The management charges Rs. 25 per liter of oil expelled, out of which 30% is taken 
by enterprise management and the remaining 70% is deposited in CFUG fund. The
CFUG fund is used to commission various community development activities like
drinking water, school and so on. They also recently purchased a crushing mill from
the fund.
· Since dhatelo used to be considered as a weed before the enterprise, it has now
become a very popular species among the people in those areas. It gets high priority
among local people in conservation; no matter whether it is on farm, marginal land or 
in the forests. Since the species is commonly found in the degraded sites and marginal
areas, conservation of this species acts as a buffer in minimizing further degradation
of core areas of both farm and forest land. This has demonstrated that enterprise
linked biodiversity conservation approach is viable and sustainable in terms of socio￾economic and ecological perspectives.
· The community forest has an area of 362 hectare. ANSAB recently helped in
undertaking a detailed inventory of the forest. The dhatelo was also reported to be 
found profusely in the community forest. The CFUG has a 17-member executive
committee and the CFUG also has 5 members monitoring sub committee. This sub￾committee is supposed to supervise and monitor the overall forest management and 
enterprise operation activities and also to impose penalties to the offenders. According
to the sub-committee members, they have successfully minimized forest
encroachment. They have also helped to increase compliance of management rules by
CFUG members.
· Moreover, ANSAB in coordination with RDGP has been launching an adult literacy
program entitled “conservation education” at Urthu. According to the CFUG
members, it has already raised conservation awareness among rural women and poor. 
A resource person is locally hired to carry out this program. So far, about 25 men and 
women are involved in this program.
xv
Morel Experiment
On the third day (15th of May 2003), the team visited a morel experiment carried out by 
an innovative farmer Mr. Ram Krishna Budathapa in collaboration with RDGP/ANSAB.
This is a local initiative, and a preliminary test of domestication potentiality of morel.
· Although this is not a scientific mode of experimentation, it may produce
some tentative results in coming years, which will eventually be rigorously
tested further.
· Basically, two practices are being tested regarding morel cultivation: ex-situ
type and in-situ type.
· 3 plots were established in each type.
· The team felt that such type of action
research on NTFPs cultivation should 
be carried out for other species as well 
in a more scientific fashion.
Karnali Jaributi Processing Pvt. Ltd.
The team also visited the above processing unit owned by Mr. Mani Shankar Devkota. It was 
established in 1995. Because of scarcity of operating capital, it has not been running for 2 
years. 
· Jatamansi is processed to produce essential oil.
· ANSAB assisted in obtaining Rs. 5 lakh as seed money from Humla Oil Pvt. 
Ltd to establish the processing (distillation) plant. The seed money was paid 
back in terms of oil after one year of operation.
· According to the owner, the plant can process 400 quintal of jatamansi a year. 
However, the plant processed a maximum of 200 quintal of jatamansi in a 
year. He is now thinking of running it again from September 2003.
· According to him, availability of raw materials is not a problem. The problem
lies in selling the product in the market. Because of price fluctuation of the oil
in the past, he had to wait up to 2 years to sell his oil. ANSAB has a role to 
play in assisting him to find out the market.
· He also raised the issues of multiple taxation on trading of oil and its by￾product mark. The District Development Committee (DDC) taxes Rs. 500
per liter of oil sold. Similarly, a variety of other unofficial taxes have to be 
paid en route before the product is exported to India.
· The transportation cost is a significant component of the total marketing cost.
For example, the airfare from Jumla to Nepalgunj is Rs. 15 per liter of oil,
which is very high.
Morel mushrooms are a
valuable forest product.
xvi
Interaction with District Level Stakeholders
On the last day of the program, an interaction meeting was arranged with each of the major 
stakeholders at the district such as traders of NTFPs, FECOFUN, DDC, ADB, Cottage and 
Small Industries Development Committee (CSIDC), DFO, DSCO and ADO personnel. The 
key points identified in relation to community forest management, NTFPs marketing and
enterprise development during the interaction and discussion are given below.
· Most of the stakeholders appreciated RDGP/ANSAB working in Jumla with
innovative approach of resources management. They said that they are associated
with GCP activities in different ways and they are taking advantage of the services 
provided by ANSAB and RDGP staff.
· Agriculture Development Bank (ADB) has also annually allocated about Rs. 5
million to offer loans to NTFPs collectors and traders at subsidized interest rate.
The dissemination of NTFPs market information helps ADB to determine the size 
of loan on NTFPs trade and its “pay-back period”.
· Networking among traders has begun and it is helping the traders to voice against 
constraints and challenges related to NTFPs trade policy. For example, there is a 
strong and consistent voice and suggestion to have the royalty collection system
be based on market factors. Similarly, they are collectively asking to remove
multiple taxation in NTFPs trade.
· As there is no provision of registration of a community-based forest enterprise at 
district level (CSIDC), a CFUG intending to operate or currently operating an
enterprise lacks legal recognition. The lack of this provision discourages
community mobilization of natural resources and their value addition. The
provision of registration of community based forest enterprise at district level will
substantially help in the development and expansion of such enterprises at the
local level. This will help in generating income, providing employment
opportunities and conserving biodiversity.
· The majority of stakeholders expressed that the ANSAB’s approach of local
partnership has promoted local capacity building, long-term sustainability, local
level coordination, and smooth implementation of project activities particularly in
the recent security sensitive situation in the project area.
Interaction with Chimara Community Forest User Group members
On the second day (May 14, 2003), the team interacted with Chimara community on the way 
to Dhatelo Enterprise located in Urthu. The salient features of the interaction are the
following:
· The forest with an area of 113.46 hectare was handed over to the Chimara community 
in the fiscal year 1998/99. The CFUG consists of 225 households. A committee of 15 
members of which eight are women represents the group. Among them, 7 members
are from the occupational caste. It indicates that poor and disadvantaged group
members have a significant representation in the decision making process of
community forest management. However, the importance of their voice in the
decision making process is not known.
· The group has established good institutional practices in managing community forests
as verified from their records and minutes. They are managing and mobilizing CFUG
xvii
funds in various community development activities like drinking water, schools and
so on.
· They have accorded high priority to the management of various NTFPs in the
community forest. Although the operational plan does not include the details of
NTFP management, the CFUG has its own NTFP nursery for plantation in both
private and community forests. They have collected and sold NTFPs mainly from this 
community forest. This has helped them to supplement their income. They seem
very interested to scale up and cultivate cash generating NTFPs in their community
forest and on their farm. However, they need technical support in carrying out these 
activities. 
Recommendation
The assessment on economic sustainability illustrates that the economic gains made by the
local communities through better forest management, enterprise development and enhanced
bargaining power (through better market information) of NTFP collectors is significant.
However, the distribution of this aggregate gain among subsets of economic and social
groups has yet to be assessed. We recommend that ANSAB develop a simple tracking system 
of benefit flow (at a dis-aggregated level) to different socio-economic group members due to 
ANSAB intervention. This will be useful not only to further assess the impact of the project 
to local people but will also be of wider relevance and importance to policy makers in Nepal 
since Nepal's main policy agenda is to reduce poverty.
Individuals met and interacted with:
1. Mr. Mahendra Chaudhary, District Forest Officer, Jumla
2. Mr. Dev Prasad Chaulagai, Agriculture Development Officer, Jumla
3. Mr. Damodar Upadhaya, Manager-Agriculture Development Bank, Jumla
4. Mr. Bisoo Prem Dhakal, Chief, Cottage and Small Industries Development 
Committee, Jumla
5. Mr. Hari Prasad Kafle, NTFPs Trader, Jumla
6. Mr. Padam Bahadur Rokaya, NTFPs Trader, Jumla
7. Mr. Dan Bahadur Pasai, NTFPs Trader, Jumla
8. Mr. Nirbu Lama, NTFPs Trader, Jumla
9. Mr. Gorakha Bahadur Pachhai, NTFPs Trader, Jumla
10. Mrs. Kamal Kumari dangi, NTFPs Trader, Jumla
11. Mr. Mani Shankar Devkota, Owner- Karnali Jaributi Processing Pvt.Ltd. 
Jumla
12. Mr. Ram Krishna Budthapa, Innovative Farmer, Jumla
13. Community Forest User Group members, Urthu
14. Community Forest User Group members, Chimara
15. FECOFUN-district branch Jumla
16. Mr. Mohan Dhungel, Regional Director, Surkhet (met at Jumla)
17. Chief District Officer, Jumla
xviii
18. Local Development Officer, DDC Jumla
19. Planning Officer, DDC Jumla
20. District Development Advisor, DDC (LGSTP) Jumla
21. Rural Development Group Program (all staff members), Jumla
xix
Annex 4. Evaluation Investigation Questions from Evaluation TOR
Indicative Checklist for Each Objective 
Questions which could be raised or parameters that can be considered in the evaluation are 
indicated within parentheses. The evaluators may find them of some use. 
Formation of Forest User Groups and Preparation of Operational Plans 
· How thorough is the process of CFUG formation (see standard steps and 
processes for FUG formation.)
· Completeness and relevance of CFUG constitution; scope for flexibility within it 
to take care of variation across CFUGs. (In other words, how adaptive these 
constitutions are.)
· How participatory a CFUG is with respect to representation of weaker sections 
and women? (Are they adequately represented in various CFUG committees? Do 
they really participate in decision making?)
· Completeness of community forest operational plan (OP) developed and its 
relevance to community (How clearly the OPs are defined? To what extent 
ecological, social and economic components are considered and integrated? What 
measures are taken to make OP relevant to community? This may include 
questions related to identification of interest groups, their needs, concerns and 
capacity.) 
· Understanding of the community about OP and their participation in its 
development (Do the community members participate in various stages of OP 
preparation? If yes, who are the main participants? How many users understand 
the provisions included in OP?)
· Inclusion of marginalized people’s interests and concerns in OP (The entire 
community of the project area belongs to marginalized category, here the term 
refers to women, “dalits”, and other socially deprived people.) 
· Utility of the CFUG process as perceived by communities (Could be investigated 
by raising general questions relating to empowerment, cooperation, information 
generation and other perceived benefits.)
· Community’s capability and performance in implementing OP provisions and 
regulations (Could be measured in terms of improvement in capacity and 
participation, regulation enforcement mechanism for ensuring sustainable use of 
resources.)
· Need felt by community to adjust and adapt OP (May indicate the interest and 
ability of community in management and could be informal as well.)
· Trust being cultivated between government and FUGs through the project 
(Indicators could be the change in role of DoF staff as reflected in their programs 
and inputs such as providing seedlings, information, training, …)
· Initiation in collaboration between CFUGs and District Forest Office as well as 
other related stakeholders including FECOFUN, District Cottage and Small 
Industry Development Board, other projects, DDC, VDC. (Collaboration between 
the partners is still in the beginning stage; it could be indicated by meetings or 
workshops organized by DoF and efforts to promote participation of CFUGs.) 
xx
· Contribution to more effective forest and community governance (Could be 
assessed by raising questions relating to progress in institution building, decision 
making process, democratic practices.)
· Changes in the participation of marginalized section in decision making and 
benefits sharing (For example, whether the people of weaker sections are 
represented at organizational level and are able to contribute in decision making)
Biodiversity conservation initiative and monitoring
· Was the concept of conservation of biodiversity and its sustainable use for an 
enterprise development introduced for the first time through the present 
intervention?
· What are the actual strategies and steps, activities, tools used to explain 
monitoring? (How are people made capable of understanding and implementing 
monitoring?)
· Is there a monitoring body within a CFUG responsible for enforcing harvest 
regulation?
· In how many of the enterprise-oriented CFUGs biological monitoring is taken up? 
(Biological monitoring could be introduced only to enterprise-oriented CFUGs.) 
· Recognition, inclusion and application of biological monitoring by CFUGs. (Full 
biological monitoring package was targeted to only enterprise-oriented CFUGs.)
· At what stage of the CFUG process was training in biological monitoring initiated 
– at the time of OP preparation or a later stage?
· To what extent is biological monitoring integrated in the overall project plan – Do 
the CFUGs and those directly involved in enterprise management understand that 
the main goal of the enterprise is conservation of biodiversity?
· Do communities understand the need and utility of biological monitoring to 
achieve sustainable use of resources?
· Do community members actively participate in biological monitoring activities? 
(Do they have systems and practices of recording, maintaining and using 
biological monitoring data? The indicators may include maintaining biodiversity 
records, discussing biodiversity related issues in meetings, taking actions, 
recording the presence and loss of species, if any, are able to use information in 
forest management; records of major disturbances such as fire, encroachment, 
over harvesting.)
· Steps taken to identify and address threats to biodiversity and impact on resource 
base (Do people recognize that frequent burning, over-harvesting, and consequent 
damage to regeneration of species are detrimental to the resource base? If yes, 
have they taken any steps in this direction?)
Economic Sustainability of FUGs and CBFEs
· Have CFUG members made any investments and, if yes, in what form, where, and 
how much?
· What are the perceived benefits at community level of FUG and CBFE activities 
in terms of: institutional development and empowerment; access to and control 
over resources; and income.
· How the above benefits vary in relation to gender and socially deprived groups.
· Document the range of revenue streams and costs/investments made by FUG 
21
members and group
· Present condition of CBFEs and projected long-term prospects (Performance 
could be measured in terms of economic viability, market potential, sustainable 
resource base, technology, social acceptability …)
· Is there any auditing system in place?
· What outside linkages/factors are key to CBFE success? (Such as legal support, 
access to technology and its improvement, access to information, market …) 
· Changes in livelihood security of marginal sections of the communities (Could be 
measured in terms of employment, migration, income assurance …)
Policy Outcomes and Implications
· Are there any efforts to influence the policy making process, policy provisions 
and implementation? (Could include making presentations in meetings, seminars, 
workshops, interaction with government officials around the policy agenda, 
supporting forums and networks, writing reports, policy recommendations, 
presenting and advocating the idea …)
· What role the project has played in promoting NTFPs and common property 
resources as a base for providing livelihood security on a sustainable basis? 
(Could be indicated by the recognition of NTFPs through the organization in 
sustainable community development.)
· What are the potential policy implications of the project? (Could be assessed by 
analyzing the efforts of expanding the roles and rights of FUGs and integrating it 
with enterprise development and biodiversity conservation.)
· Long term implications of project with respect of sustainable use of biodiversity 
and conservation. (Do concerned stakeholders including government begin to 
realize that biodiversity conservation and enterprise development can go together? 
Has the government taken some initiatives to extend this idea as a potent strategy 
of conservation?)
· What are policy outcomes at various levels?