new kkiiilllooorrr · 2019. 2. 18. · kkiiilllooorrr kilombero and lower rufiji wetlands ecosystem...
TRANSCRIPT
KKKIIILLLOOORRRWWWEEEMMMPPP
KILOMBERO AND LOWER RUFIJI WETLANDS ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL REPORT
REVIEW OF CURRENT FOREST INVENTORY AND FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING METHODOLOGIES FOR NATURAL FORESTS IN TANZANIA
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
National Forestry & Beekeeping Programme II, MNRT
TANZANIA FEBRUARY 2015
THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism
DOCUMENT DATA
Project Kilombero and Lower Rufiji Wetlands Ecosystem Management Project
Project ID TAN1102711
Document Review of current forest inventory and forest management planning methodologies for natural forests in Tanzania
Addendum to the task: “A Feasibility Study for a Management Model of Participatory Forest Management”
Authors Dr. Axel Weinreich; Metodi Panev; Gilbert Wathum - UNIQUE Forestry and Land Use GmbH
Document owner KILORWEMP Project Implementation Unit Ph: + 255 222866375 Email: [email protected] Physical address: c/o MNRT, Mpingo House, Nyerere Road Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Postal address: c/o BTC PO Box 9372 Dar es Salaam
Document version Final
Document date February 2015
Document status Public
Disclaimer This document was produced with the financial assistance of
the European Union and Belgian Aid through the KILORWEMP Project;
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland through the National Forestry and Beekeeping Programme II
The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of any of the supporting organizations.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 3 of 50
Content
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... 5
1 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 6
2 Objectives of the current study ......................................................................................................... 7
3 Method ............................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Approach .................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Scope of the review .................................................................................................................... 7
4 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 8
4.1 Legal framework for forest inventory and management planning ............................................ 8
4.2 Requirements for the structure of a future standard FMP method for community-
managed forests ................................................................................................................................ 9
4.2.1 Definition of target functionalities of a standard methodology .................................... 10
4.2.2 Transparency and participatory approach ..................................................................... 11
4.2.3 Cost efficiency ................................................................................................................ 11
4.3 Assessment criteria .................................................................................................................. 11
4.4 Ranking of methodologies ........................................................................................................ 14
4.5 Identified methodologies ......................................................................................................... 15
4.6 Evaluation of the methodologies ............................................................................................. 18
4.6.1 MNRT methodology ....................................................................................................... 18
4.6.2 MCDI methodology ........................................................................................................ 22
4.6.3 NAFORMA methodology ................................................................................................ 25
4.6.4 TFS methodology ........................................................................................................... 28
4.6.5 UNIQUE methodology .................................................................................................... 31
4.6.6 A brief note on SULEDO ................................................................................................. 35
4.7 Summary of evaluation of methodologies ............................................................................... 35
4.7.1 Summary of ranking ....................................................................................................... 35
4.7.2 Main pros and cons of each methodology ..................................................................... 38
5 Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................................. 40
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 40
5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 41
5.2.1 Components of standardized methods .......................................................................... 41
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 4 of 50
5.2.2 Ensuing work steps......................................................................................................... 43
Annex .................................................................................................................................................... 45
Annex 1: List of methodologies developers/owners/process............................................................... 46
Annex 2: Documents reviewed/consulted ............................................................................................ 48
List of Tables
Table 1: Ranking system ......................................................................................................................... 14
Table 2: List of forest inventory and FMP planning methodologies sources in Tanzania ...................... 16
Table 3: MNRT methodology evaluation ............................................................................................... 19
Table 4: MCDI methodology evaluation................................................................................................. 22
Table 5: NAFORMA methodology evaluation ........................................................................................ 26
Table 6: TFS methodology evaluation .................................................................................................... 29
Table 7: UNIQUE methodology evaluation ............................................................................................ 32
Table 8: Summary of methodology ranking ........................................................................................... 37
Table 9: Summary of evaluation of methodologies ............................................................................... 38
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 5 of 50
Abbreviations
BTC Belgian Technical Cooperation
CBFM Community Based Forest Management
CBH Circumference at Breast Height
CFR Central Forest Reserve
DBH Diameter at Breast Height
DFO District Forest Officer
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FBD Forestry and Beekeeping Division
FMP Forest Management Plan
FMU Forest Management Unit
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
GIS Geographic Information System
JFM Joint Forest Management
KILORWEMP Kilombero and Lower Rufiji Wetlands Ecosystem Management Project
KVTC Kilombero Valley Teak Company
LMDH Legal Minimum Diameter for Harvesting
MCDI Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative
MNRT Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism
NAFORMA National Forestry Resources Monitoring and Assessment
NFBKP II National Forest and Beekeeping Program II
NFP National Forest Programme
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product
PFM Participatory Forest Management
PFR Private Forest Reserve
PFRA Participatory Forest Resource Assessment and Management Planning
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
SFM Sustainable Forest Management
SFMP Sustainable Forest Management Plan
TAFORI Tanzania Forestry Research Institute
TFS Tanzania Forest Services
VLFR Village Land forest reserve
VNRC Village National Resources Committee
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 6 of 50
1 Background
In July 2014, UNIQUE forestry and land use GmbH was awarded the contract for the project “A
feasibility study for a management model of participatory forest management” by the
BTC/MNRT KILORWEMP project, the Kilombero Valley Teak Company, and the National Forest
and Beekeeping Program II. The objective of that assignment was to assess the feasibility of a
joint forest management scheme on KVTC private land – from technical, environmental,
economic and managerial points of view, including timber selling and pricing models. The field
work consisted of three major components, namely:
1. Forestry stock assessment and sustainable forest management plan (SFMP)
2. Market study
3. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA)
The methodology implemented for the forest resource assessment and SFMP, including
stratification of the area using satellite imagery, was designed for the specific forest in
question. Similarly, the models used to calculate the existing stock and future increment were
specific to the area and based on specific studies related to the KVTC area. The stock
assessment method also reflected the need for a comprehensive monitoring of the
development of the forest, i.e., changes in volume, species composition, diameter distribution
etc., over time, and the potential of currently unknown/lesser known species becoming
marketable in the future. Therefore, data was collected for all tree species encountered in the
sample plots.
During the presentation of the final results of the study in a workshop on 17th October, 2014,
the inventory methodology applied by UNIQUE was presented and discussed. In the same
workshop, other experiences in the country with regard to inventory and FMP were briefly
presented and discussed. It became evident that there are no standardized procedures for
inventories and FMPs in Tanzania. The focus is often on a few marketable species only. This is
true for many Tanzanian inventories of Miombo forests conducted by TFS or other parties. The
annual harvesting plans commonly applied, which are based only on inventory data focusing
on marketable species and minimum allowable diameter, might cause substantial over-
harvesting of sustainable annual yields of targeted species. This might deteriorate species
composition and the economic sustainable harvesting potential in the long run.
As a result of discussions between the Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC), UNIQUE and the
National Forestry and Beekeeping Programme II, it was suggested to look into different
inventory and Forest Management Plan (FMP) methodologies in the country, and evaluate
them, e.g., their precision, cost implications and implications for Sustainable Forest
Management (SFM). Since the National Forest and Beekeeping Program II (NFBKP II) intends to
conduct more inventories and advises the MNRT on recommended procedures, it was
suggested that UNIQUE review different methodologies currently being applied within the
current contract with BTC (as an addendum), and develop recommendations on appropriate
methodologies.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 7 of 50
2 Objectives of the current study
The objective of this study was to evaluate current inventory methodologies being applied in
Tanzania and provide recommendations as an initial step in the process of developing a
standardized inventory methodology. The focus was placed on methodologies which would be
applicable for inventories and forest management planning at a forest enterprise scale. The
forest enterprise scale is particularly relevant, as this is where actual planning and
management activities are undertaken. A forest enterprise could be a particular community-
managed forest, a private forest or government-managed forest, or a forest managed jointly
by government and communities. Building on the baseline information from this review, the
long-term objective will be to develop standardized methods for forest inventory and forest
management planning, which are applicable at the forest enterprise scale.
3 Method
3.1 Approach
The work was carried out through a desk study and consultations with key institutions/people
known (or expected) to be involved in designing or using inventory and/or FMP
methodologies. It involved the following:
1. Review of the legal framework for forest inventory and management planning as a part of
the basis for evaluating methods and derivation of requirements for a standardized
method.
2. Identifying the demands of the structure of future standard FMP method for forests under
PFM.
3. Identification of current inventory methodologies and forest management planning
methodologies for natural forests in Tanzania;
4. Evaluation of the existing methodologies based on a set of criteria;
5. Proposal for an improved FMP methodology.
3.2 Scope of the review
Prior to commencement of the assignment, BTC provided UNIQUE with the following
information, which was agreed to form the basis of the review:
Technical documents related to forest inventory and forest management planning
methodologies for Tanzania.
Contact information of key experts and institutions known (or expected) to be involved in
designing or using the methodologies.
Where only contacts were provided, UNIQUE contacted the named experts/institutions and
where possible obtained any relevant documents from them. The list provided is presented in
Annex 1; and the list of documents reviewed/consulted is presented in Annex 2.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 8 of 50
4 Results
4.1 Legal framework for forest inventory and management planning
The legal basis for all forest inventory and management planning in Tanzania today stems from
the National Forest Policy, 1998, and two policy instruments developed to implement the
policy, namely: the Forest Act, 20021, and the National Forest Programme2. The Forest Policy
and Forest Act require that forest management plans be prepared and used for all forest types
and ownership regimes, e.g., government, community/village, private forests,
joint/community based forest management. The main source of information for the
management plans is identified in the Forest Policy to be forest inventories/resource
assessments. Although the method of forest inventories is not explicitly defined in the Forest
Act, it is in practice integral to the management planning process since proper management
planning can only be achieved with the availability of sufficient, good quality information
about the forest resources, which is obtained through inventories. In the National Forest
Programme, one of the priority tasks is to conduct forest inventories and develop
management plans together with relevant stakeholders in priority plantations and natural
forest areas – though the priority forest areas are not explicitly defined in the NFP.
Although the regulatory framework demands implementation of both inventory and
management planning, it does not define the following aspects:
Procedures for choosing or adopting any particular inventory or FMP methodology
Sampling accuracy, e.g., sampling intensity or allowable margin of error
Minimum attributes/parameters to be sampled/measured, e.g., all trees or merchantable
tree species
This means that each methodology could adopt its own procedural and technical prescriptions.
To facilitate the implementation of inventory and management planning under PFM schemes
under the above-mentioned forest regulations, three key guidelines have been prepared by
the FBD of MNRT:
1. Guidelines for Participatory Forest Resource Assessment and Management Planning
(PFRA)
2. Community Based Forest Management Guidelines
3. Joint Forest Management Guidelines
Another two guidelines have been prepared by the TFS: (Reviewed) Guidelines for Preparation
of Management Plans for Natural Forests in Tanzania, and Guidelines for Sustainable
Harvesting and Forest Products Business in Tanzania. These guidelines are part of the
regulatory framework, i.e., they are considered as regulatory guidelines. The PFRA guidelines
describe a methodology for forest inventory, while the others deal with aspects of FMP and
harvesting planning to varying degrees.
1 http://www.mnrt.go.tz/resources/view/forest-act-2002
2 http://www.mnrt.go.tz/resources/view/national-forest-programme-in-tanzania-2001-2010
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 9 of 50
4.2 Requirements for the structure of a future standard FMP method
for community-managed forests
Any current inventory and FMP should be assessed in light of what current regulations aim to
address concerning forest inventory and management planning:
1. Under current regulations, Tanzania places a lot of emphasis on participatory forest
management. The target is community management of natural forests including increasing
the level of community participation – a shift away from forest-policing, which alienated
rural communities and was predominant in the 1990s and earlier times. Therefore, the
entire processes of inventory and management planning should be undertaken in a
participatory way.
2. A forest management plan (FMP) including sustainable harvesting level (where applicable)
is required for the management of all forest types, and ownership regimes (government,
communities, private individual, or in collaborative/joint arrangement). Hence, forest
management follows a management cycle – based on an approved forest management
plan – which lasts 5 years3. The FMP needs inventory to provide the information about the
forest resource, and estimate sustainable yield and a harvest plan (in case there is
sufficient forest resource to permit harvesting). Participatory forest resource assessment
(PFRA) methods should be used to gather information that is included in the FMP. The
FMP has to be revised for a new management cycle and for continuity. This, therefore,
requires monitoring to record changes – an inventory of changes – which can then be used
to update the FMP.
3. The emphasis is also on sustainable forest management, e.g., all forest resources – not
only marketable timber/wood should be considered. The contradiction, however, is the
regulatory use of the Legal Minimum Diameter for Harvesting (LMDH), which targets a few
marketable tree species, without prescriptions of silvicultural treatments such as thinning
to provide growing space for potential crop trees (trees that would potentially be
harvested in the future). Without considering all species (currently or potentially
marketable in the future) and actively managing the forest stock, for example through
thinning, there is no base for sustainable forest management since only valuable trees are
gradually removed, and not enabled to effectively regenerate.
Therefore, the key requirements for the structure of a future standard FMP methodology are:
Coverage of a complete set of functionalities as defined in section 4.2.1, e.g., the FMP
methodology needs to include a forest inventory and harvesting planning (where
harvesting is possible), and aspects such as monitoring in the management cycle.
Furthermore, the inventory should cover all essential resources identified, for example,
through a PRA.
Transparency and participatory approach: the process is clear and easy to understand,
thus allowing for real participation of all relevant stakeholders in the process – particularly
rural communities.
Cost-efficiency: the FMP methodology should achieve reliable results at a realistic cost.
3 A forest management plan has to be approved by relevant government institutions, i.e., District
Council/Village Council and is valid for a period of five years. It has to be revised and approved for continuity.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 10 of 50
4.2.1 Definition of target functionalities of a standard methodology
These are key elements essential in making a forest inventory and management planning
methodology comprehensive/complete:
Integration of inventory, FMP and harvesting plan: this is important as these three
aspects are linked; information for the FMP comes from a forest inventory. Where
harvesting is feasible, a harvesting plan is necessary to ensure sustainability, and is also
developed using information from the forest inventory. The link between these three
aspects is described, for example, in the three guidelines from MNRT – PFRA, CBFM, and
JFM guidelines.
Clarification of management objectives: these are defined based on the forest conditions
and management goals of the forest owner/management rights holders (village, forest
enterprise, government, etc.). According to the regulatory guidelines, different
management objectives can be defined for different parts of a forest depending on the
forest conditions and interests and requirements of local communities or forest
enterprises.
Mapping/stratification: important for determining external and internal boundaries to
support management and forest resource assessments. Strata can be defined or mapped
according to forest types, level of stocking, or any other distinctive criteria.
Inventory: a description of the sampling/statistical approach and procedures for
measuring and recording relevant parameters as well as descriptions of attributes to be
sampled and target entities to be described by the sampled data.
Data analysis and storage: covers how to process data into useful information and
means/mechanisms for storage of both data and analyses. For example, in the PFRA
manual calculation and summary graphs (histograms) are used for analysis. As the
implementation of the FMP needs to be monitored and the inventory and FMP will be
repeated in a 5-years cycle, the proper storage of data and a recording method for
implemented measures is essential.
Stand description: description of sub-divisions of the forest into homogenous units for
practical management purposes according to forest types, forest structure or stocking
level. This sub-division is referred to as Forest Management Unit (FMU) in the PFRA, JFM,
and CBFM guidelines. Different management objectives and procedures may then be
prescribed for different FMUs.
Harvesting plan: defines the methods and/or rules to derive and implement a sustainable
yield or harvest level to ensure sustainable use of the forest resource. The PFRA guidelines
for example estimate the number of trees of a particular diameter class that can be
harvested by comparing it with the number in that diameter class, which is expected to be
found in ‘ideal Miombo’4. The surplus is then considered as the sustainable harvest.
Reporting: involves documenting information gathered through inventory, monitoring or
during the participatory planning process. Reporting is done in the FMP or in specifically
designed formats, for example, the Quarterly Forest Management Monitoring Report
template of the CBFM guidelines.
4 See PFRA guidelines, 2004, page 39.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 11 of 50
Monitoring: defines the process and methods to record the implementation of planned
measures, the re-measurement of parameters which describe forest conditions, and the
use of such data including institutional responsibilities. Together with data storage,
monitoring provides historical information that is relevant for tracking changes over time.
4.2.2 Transparency and participatory approach
Local communities are not as technically adept as forestry experts who normally undertake
forest inventory and management planning. As local communities’ involvement in forest
management increases, the need also arises for more transparency and simplicity in inventory
and management planning methods. This means the process becomes more participatory,
involves more stakeholders, and is customer-oriented to make it easier to understand and
accept results. If this is not the case, lack of trust and management conflicts may arise. A
transparent, participatory approach does not necessarily mean that the inventory and FMP
methods should not be technically rigorous or simplified to a level matching the abilities of the
local communities. Some concepts and skills can only be obtained through formal forest
training. Therefore, professional advice and support, for example from DFOs, is needed for the
proper application of methods.
4.2.3 Cost efficiency
The inventory and FMP processes should not be too costly in terms of stakeholders’ time and
money. Cost is a major concern for local communities who are involved in the inventory and
FMP process, as the benefits of the process are unknown at the beginning. Therefore, the
inventory and planning processes need to be cost-effective, i.e., they should achieve reliable
results at a reasonable cost. The principle is to match steps and activities to the needs; for
example, to only collect information which is needed for the FMP during the forest inventory.
For example, if a reconnaissance shows that harvesting is not possible due to the degraded
status of the forest then a full forest inventory as described in the PFRA guidelines should not
be undertaken at this time.
4.3 Assessment criteria
Based on the legal framework and demands for the future standard FMP method, four sets of
criteria for assessing the identified forest inventory and management planning methodologies
(section 4.5) were defined, namely:
1. Link to the regulatory framework and sustainability – in relation to the legal framework
described in section 4.1.Error! Reference source not found.
2. Completeness of the methodology – in comparison to the set of a target functionalities of
a standard FMP methodology (see section 4.2.1)
3. Applicability of the methodology
4. Cost implication and efficiency
These criteria are detailed in the subsequent sections.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 12 of 50
4.3.1.1 Link to regulatory framework and sustainability
The objective is to establish whether a methodology relates to the national forestry regulatory
frameworks. It is expected that if a methodology does so, its adoption and implementation is
enhanced and can easily be promoted, and it can be sustained through government-led
institutional structures and related national forestry development programs. For example, it
would be easier to promote the nation-wide adoption of a methodology published by a
forestry institution such as MNRT – backed by forest regulations such as the Forest Act, 2002,
rather than one published by a forestry project in a particular location, which is unrelated to a
government program. Hence, in this assessment, it was established whether or not a
methodology is directly based on or aims to fulfil or relate to the Tanzanian national forestry
regulatory frameworks.
4.3.1.2 Completeness of parameters describing the methodology
This criterion has several considerations. One of them is that the planning scale where the
methodology is applicable shall be feasible for a typical village forest enterprise scale (500 ≤
20,000 ha). Therefore, the scale is neither a provincial nor a national scale, which would lead
to different methodological approaches. Furthermore, to be comprehensive, the methodology
should cover these three important aspects in an integrated manner:
Forest inventory
Management planning
Harvesting plan
This is because, in practice, the three aspects are closely linked. Furthermore, forest inventory
raw data needs to be processed into a format which becomes useful information for decision-
making, whether for management planning or other management-related purposes.
Therefore, a methodology which does not include data processing procedures misses an
important step. Other important aspects for completeness of a methodology include
descriptions of the forest resources it is concerned with, and monitoring and reporting
procedures and mechanisms. Monitoring is important for detecting changes and revising the
management plan, while reporting ensures that information is passed on from one form or
source to another for decision-making; for example, information from a given inventory and
monitoring should be reported in a management plan. UNIQUE, therefore, defined the
following as key questions in assessing the completeness of a methodology:
Scale of application: is the scale of the forest at which the methodology is applicable
defined, e.g., forest enterprise scale (500 ≤ 20,000 ha)?
System completeness: does the methodology integrate forest inventory, management
planning, and harvesting plan?
FMP process: is this clearly described, for example,
– Definition of stand/management units?
– Clarification of management objectives?
– Management activities?
Forest resources: which forest resources and uses are covered, e.g., timber, NTFPs,
grazing, carbon, etc.?
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 13 of 50
Forest inventory process: are the forest inventory processes/procedures clearly described,
e.g.,
– Stratification?
– Sampling/statistical approach?
– Attributes/parameters to measure?
– Field data collection, recording and entry?
– Precision (error)?
– Are procedures for processing/analysis of collected data described?
Data management: are procedures for data management, including storage, described?
Harvesting plan:
– Is a harvesting plan defined (if harvesting is applicable)
– Are methods, tools, and/or models for deriving the sustainable yield described?
Monitoring: is a monitoring process considered or defined so that the process is
repeatable and permanent?
4.3.1.3 Applicability of the methodology
The key aspect of applicability is the ease of using the methodology, which depends on its
simplicity, and other aspects that make it more user-friendly such as templates, illustrations,
analysis and reporting tools. In light of the massive drive to promote PFM in Tanzania,
applicable methodologies are those that local communities can easily apply with a reduced
need for external support. Therefore, in assessing the methodology applicability, the following
key questions were defined:
Transparency and simplicity: is the methodology written in a clear and simplified manner
– making simple what would otherwise be difficult scientific methods – so that local
communities can easily understand it?
Target group: are the intended users and skills required defined?
Support structures and tools: are standard processes, tools (databases, GIS), and
supporting templates, data sheets, forms, etc., provided with the aim of making the
application of the methodology effective and easy?
Proven application: is there evidence that the methodology has been used and where/in
which projects, for example?
4.3.1.4 Cost implications and efficiency
Undertaking forest inventory and management planning processes will certainly involve
resource expenditures. Forest inventory is considered the most technically demanding among
all the processes involved in preparing or updating a forest management plan. Therefore, the
inventory and planning processes should be cost-effective, i.e., they should achieve accurate
and reliable results at a reasonable cost. Cost effectiveness can be achieved in many ways, for
example, by using materials and methods that are locally adaptable and available without
necessarily compromising data quality or reliability. In addition, methods that require low
technical capacities should be chosen in favor of those that require high technical capacities,
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 14 of 50
and are likely to involve hiring of external experts. An example to get cost-effective inventories
is to omit some parameters during the field data collection process where one can use existing
data or other parameters collected in the field to derive such omitted parameters. For
example, altitude and aspect of a sample plot can be derived from Digital Elevation Models
(DEM). Therefore, for the cost criterion, the following key questions were defined:
Technical ease: is the methodology easy to understand so that it could be applied by
people who do not have formal technical forestry knowledge, e.g., members of rural
villages (perhaps with minimum technical guidance where necessary)?
Focus and flexibility: does it focus on essential steps, procedures, and information, i.e., is
it well-focused? For example, does the forest inventory methodology focus on measuring
parameters that are used in the final calculations and assessments5?
Source of materials and support: where are the required materials and external support
to be obtained (locally/externally)?
4.4 Ranking of methodologies
A point and weight system, presented in Table 1 below, was used to score and rank each
methodology.
Table 1: Ranking system
Point Definition Comparison to a score out of 100%
0 Does not at all meet the individual condition describing the criteria, e.g., if an inventory methodology does not at all mention stratification – it is given a score of 0.
0%
1 Meets the condition to a small extent, e.g., it mentions stratification but does not describe it or refer to any relevant reference document.
25%
2 Fairly meets the condition, e.g., describes stratification to some extent or refers to a relevant reference document that describes stratification
50%
3 Meets the condition quite well, e.g., describes stratification to great extent but not fully or in a fully understandable manner.
75%
4 Meets the condition very well/fully, e.g., fully describes stratification in a fully understandable manner.
100%
Weight
1 Criterion has a low weight/relative importance in the evaluation
2 Criterion has high weight /relative importance in the evaluation
A weight of 1 was assigned to the criteria “link to legal framework” and “applicability of the
methodology”, and 2 to the other two criteria – denoting that the criteria “completeness of
the methodology” and “cost implications and efficiency” have a higher relative importance in
5 A methodology can be too narrowly focused, for example, if it considers a few marketable tree species;
or unfocussed, for example, if it collects or requires too much information which ends up not being used anywhere.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 15 of 50
the evaluation of the methodologies. This is based on the consideration that it is easier to
meet the latter two criteria than the former ones. The final score for each methodology was
then computed as the sum of scores of points under a criterion (e.g., link to regulatory
framework), divided by the total potential scores if all conditions were fully met, multiplied by
the weight of the criteria (e.g., 1). For conditions with multiple sub-questions an average score
was computed.
4.5 Identified methodologies
In order to be considered a methodology for forest inventory of management planning, there
should be a description of procedures and/or methods for undertaking the same. This was the
definition used to identify what qualified as a methodology. The actual technical document
could be labelled as a procedure, guide, guideline, manual, process, method, etc.
Five inventory and management planning methodologies were identified, and named
according to the institutions/projects from which they originated, namely:
1. MNRT methodology (for inventory and management planning)
2. MCDI methodology (for inventory and management planning)
3. NAFORMA methodology (for forest inventory)
4. TFS methodology (for management planning)
5. UNIQUE methodology (for inventory and management planning)
Other institutions and projects merely used or referred to the five methodologies – they had
not developed their own methodologies. As shown in Table 2, some methodologies cover only
one aspect, for example, only forest inventory or only management planning, while others
treat both aspects.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 16 of 50
Table 2: List of forest inventory and FMP planning methodologies sources in Tanzania
Developer/Owner (Institution/Project)
Own inventory/FMP methodology and naming
Aspects covered
Related technical guidelines and tools Example pilot projects applied in
1. MNRT, Forestry and Beekeeping Division
MNRT methodology Inventory + FMP
Participatory Forest Resource Assessment and Management Planning Guidelines, 2004 (draft); Joint Forest Management Guidelines, 2007; Community Based Forest Management Guidelines, 2007.
Mfundia LVFR, Korogwe District; Namitonga VLFR, Ngunichile VLFR and Namatunu VLFR, Nachingwea District; UTUMI Village Based Forest and Woodland Management Project, Lindi & Kilwa Districts.
2. Mpingo Conservation & Development Initiative (MCDI)
MCDI methodology Inventory + FMP
Group Guidelines on Forest Assessment and Sustainable Harvesting; Forest Monitoring Procedures Manual. Village Forest Management Plan Template; Harvesting Plan Template;
Mpingo Conservation Project, Group Certificate Scheme
3. NAFORMA NAFORMA methodology Inventory NAFORMA Field Manual for Biophysical Survey. NAFORMA Database; Manual for Forest Assessment Tool and Forest Simulator, and Forest Simulator v0 98 – based on FAO Open Foris.
NAFORMA 2009-2013, MNRT
4. NAFORMA Sub-Project Pilot
None.
Use NAFORMA multisource GIS maps, and MNRT methodology for forest inventory (PFRA)
n/a NAFORMA Support to Local Level Forest Management and Planning Report; Manual for Forest Assessment Tool and Forest Simulator, and Forest Simulator v0 98 – based on FAO Open Foris
Nachingwea District Ngunichile VLFR
5. SULEDO Community Based Forest Management Project
None.
Use Permanent Sample Plots Monitoring by TAFORI, and MNRT methodology
n/a Monitoring of Permanent Sample Plots (PSPs) established in SULEDO forests in Kiteto district.
SULEDO Community Based Forest Management Project
6. Tanzania Forest Conservation Group - (TFCG)/MJUMITA
None.
Use MNRT methodology
n/a See MNRT n/a
7. Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA)
None.
Use MNRT and NAFORMA methodologies
n/a See MNRT and NAFORMA n/a
8. Tanzania Forest Services (TFS)
TFS methodology. For FMP only. Referred to NAFORMA and MNRT methodologies for forest inventory.
FMP Reviewed Guidelines for Preparation of Management Plans for Natural Forests in Tanzania, 2013 (draft); Management Plan and Harvesting Plan for Mtanza
Rufiji District Mtanza Msona VLFR
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 17 of 50
Table 2: List of forest inventory and FMP planning methodologies sources in Tanzania
Developer/Owner (Institution/Project)
Own inventory/FMP methodology and naming
Aspects covered
Related technical guidelines and tools Example pilot projects applied in
Msona VLFR.
9. UNIQUE forestry and land use
UNIQUE methodology Inventory + FMP
Forest Management Planning and Inventory Guideline, 2014.
KVTC - feasibility study for a management model of participatory forest management project
10. Tanzania Forestry Research Institute (TAFORI)
None.
Use NAFORMA methodology
n/a See NAFORMA n/a
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 18 of 50
4.6 Evaluation of the methodologies
Each of the methodologies is first described and then the results of its evaluation, including the
scoring, are presented in a subsequent table.
4.6.1 MNRT methodology
This methodology comprises three guidelines: PFRA, CBFM and JFM guidelines – all prepared
by the Forest and Beekeeping Division of MNRT. They are regulatory guidelines which are
meant to be used for the implementation of PFM. The PFRA guidelines (Guidelines for
Participatory Forest Resource Assessment and Management Planning) consist of a forest
resource assessment and management planning methodology. It is aimed to be used by those
who work with forest-adjacent communities, supporting the design and implementation of
Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) and Joint Forest Management (JFM), for
example, staff of relevant District Forestry Office, District Planning, FBD staff, NGOs, etc. It
focuses on the steps involved in the assessment of forest resources, and the use of resulting
information for management planning. Local communities are not expected to implement the
PFRA on their own, but rather with the guidance of expert staff. The role of government
stakeholders in forest inventory is expected to be even greater in the case of JFM, which
should involve national and local authority forestry reserves. Management planning is
considered as a final step in the PFRA, and is only briefly described.
The Joint Forest Management Guidelines are meant to be used for Joint Forest Management
(JFM) – a management scheme where communities collaborate with central or local
government in the management of gazetted forest reserves. It covers all JFM processes, which
are defined as:
Stage One: Initiation (Getting started)
Stage Two: Assessment and management planning
Stage Three: Formalizing and legalizing
Stage Four: Implementing
Stage Five: Revising
Stage Six: Expanding to new areas
Hence, forest inventory and management planning features as Stage Two of the JFM process.
The methodology presents only a summary of forest inventory processes – referring to the
PFRA for detailed guidance on participatory forest inventory. It addresses management
planning from a JFM perspective, including an outline (format) for a village forest management
plan and other formats, e.g., JFM bylaws and JFM agreement.
The Community Based Forest Management Guidelines are meant for community-based forest
management, i.e., forests which are found on village land and are, therefore, owned or
managed by the Village Council on behalf of the Village Assembly. CBFM leads to the
establishment of Village Land Forest Reserves (VLFR), Community Forest Reserves (CFR) or
Private Forest Reserves (PFR). The methodology focusses on the description of steps involved
in establishing VLFR. A management plan is one of the requirements of the CBFM process.
Hence, the guidelines provide an outline (format) for a VLFR management plan and for bylaws.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 19 of 50
The forest inventory process is not dealt with in detail, but reference is made to the PFRA for
guidance on the subject.
Table 3: MNRT methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
Link to regulatory framework and sustainability
1 (Weight)
1
Legal basis: Is the methodology based on/fulfilling national forest regulatory framework?
It is a set of regulatory guidelines, supporting PFM implementation in fulfilment of the Forest Policy, Forest Act and NFP; therefore, has strong legal basis and potential for nation-wide dissemination/application and sustainability via government institutional structures and programs.
4.0
Completeness of the methodology
2 (Weight)
1 Scale of application: Is the scale of forest where the method is applicable defined?
Scale of application is government forest reserve, village land forest reserves (VLFR), community forest reserves (CFR) and private forest reserves (PFR), i.e., a forest enterprise scale.
4.0
2 System completeness: Integration of forest inventory, FMP, and harvesting plan?
Covers inventory and estimation of sustainable harvest levels in PFRA guidelines, and management plan in JFM and CBFM guidelines. A full harvesting plan or guide is, however, not detailed.
2.0
3 FMP process: 3.7 (average)*
a. Clarification of management objectives?
Objectives are defined on the basis of forest conditions and utilization potential, e.g., protection of the forest, sustainable production, etc.
4.0
b. Management activities? Suggested management activities are listed as part of forest assessment (in the Forest Assessment Form) and as part of Plan of Action in the FMP. Management activities include: protection, rehabilitation, harvesting, etc.
4.0
c. Definition of management units? FMU is defined as follows: if forest area is about 50 ha or larger it should be divided into FMUs. The criteria for division into FMUs include: vegetation type, degradation level, area, etc. How to do it is, however, not described. Different management objectives can then be prescribed for different FMUs.
3.0
4 Forest resources: Which forest resources are covered e.g.
1.8 (average)*
a. Timber? Only the most valuable/preferred timber species according to community ranking are considered; so, lesser-known species/trees of potential uses currently not in mainstream market are not considered. This may put pressure on few known species, with potential negative impact on the overall sustainability of the forest resource.
2.0
b. NTFPs? All NTFPs are considered, products include: medicinal plants, mushrooms, grass, honey, water, etc. Simple methods to assess quantities demanded is defined, but supply quantification is not described.
3.0
c. Grazing? Part of the forest (e.g., FMU) can be used for grazing. Grazing intensity is assessed as high/medium/low but at what level grazing is allowed is not defined.
2.0
d. Carbon? Not considered. So contribution of climate mitigation by VLFR, 0.0
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 20 of 50
Table 3: MNRT methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
CFR, and PFR is not explicitly taken into accounted at present.
5 Forest inventory process: Are the forest inventory processes/procedures clearly described e.g.
1.7 (average)*
a. Stratification? Strata are not defined. It is merely suggested to divide the forest area into FMUs, and assess them separately. Without stratification, estimates, e.g., of basal area in criteria 7 a. below are likely to be less precise.
0.0
b. Sampling/statistical approach? Described as systematic allocation of sample plots on systematic transects. Location of transects is done in subjective manner, so sampling likely to be biased.
2.0
c. Attributes/parameters to measure/assess?
Sufficient number of attributes/parameters are captured: species, DBH, basal area, forest type, crown cover class, encroachment, fire, grazing, soil erosion, regeneration, etc.
4.0
d. Field data collection, recording and entry?
Field forms for recording and summarizing data collected in the field are provided, but there is no specifically-designed data entry tool. It is likely to be difficult to manage the data.
2.0
e. Precision (error)? Precision/error margin to be achieved is not defined, hence, low level of reliability of results/estimates. Only a sampling intensity of 0.8% for an area ≥ 200 ha and 3% for an area ≤ 10 ha is recommended, but the precision level this will achieve is undefined.
0.0
f. Are procedures for processing/analysis of collected data described?
Process involves manual calculations using calculating machine and presentation using data recording/analysis forms for some attributes such as tree numbers in a particular DBH class. How other collected data e.g. dominant species, forest age are analyzed is not clearly described.
2.0
6 Data management: Are procedures for data management including storage described?
No procedures/mechanisms for forest inventory and management planning data management and storage described. General record-keeping related to management, e.g., expenditures, fines, etc., described.
1.0
7 Harvesting plan: 2.0 (average)*
a. Is a harvesting plan defined (if harvesting is applicable)?
A full harvesting plan is not detailed. A harvesting rule is, however, defined as follows: if more than 50% of the FMU have a basal area >5m
2/ha or more than 10% of the FMU have
a basal area >10m2/ha, then harvesting is possible.
1.0
b. Are methods, tools, models for deriving sustainable yield described?
The method is to compare with number of trees per ha in different DBH classes in what is defined as ideal size/DBH distribution in miombo woodland with basal area of 10; for example, there should be on average 5 trees for 35-39 DBH class in ideal miombo. If a forest has more than 5, the surplus is what can be harvested over the time period specified in the FMU. The concept of ideal miombo is quite subjective and lacks rigor.
3.0
8 Monitoring: Is a monitoring process considered/defined so that the process is repeatable and permanent?
Performance monitoring is undertaken and documented for example in Quarterly Forest Management Monitoring Report, e.g., number of meetings, permits issued, revenues, etc. Forest monitoring in particular is not described/or linked with the
1.0
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 21 of 50
Table 3: MNRT methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
previous inventory (PFRA) undertaken for FMP preparation.
Applicability of the methodology 1 (Weight)
1 Transparency and simplicity: Is the methodology written in a clear and simplified manner – making simple what would otherwise be difficult scientific methods so that local communities can easily understand it?
The content is simplified to a great extent and the methodology is written as a set of guiding steps/processes. Local communities can understand it on their own but with the help of experts, e.g., DFOs. Hence, they are expected to work with expert stakeholders in the process of applying the methodology.
2.0
2 Target group: are the intended users, and skills required defined?
Users are defined as staff of district forest and planning departments, FBD, NGOs, projects, private sector organizations, VNRC, etc. Skills required are not explicitly defined but training and experience is stipulated as necessary for communities to use the methods.
3.0
3 Support structures and tools: Are standard processes, tools (databases, GIS), and supporting templates, data sheets, forms, etc. provided with the aim of making the application of the methodology effective and easy?
Supporting templates, e.g., FMP, forest bylaws, and data recording and summary forms are provided. No standard tools for analysis/data storage, e.g., databases provided.
2.0
4 Proven application: Is there evidence that the methodology has been used and where/in which projects, for example?
It has been applied in many places in PFM contexts, e.g., in Nachingwea District Namitonga VLFR, Nachingwea District Namatunu VLFR, NAFORMA Sub-Project Pilot, and SULEDO CBFM Project. However, users have found some challenges with its use, e.g., it is imposes a large workload on communities without clear understanding of future benefits or it is not followed well – indicating difficulties in its application.
2.0
Cost implication and efficiency 2 (Weight)
1 Technical ease: Is the methodology easy to understand so that it could be applied by people who do not have formal technical forestry knowledge e.g. members of rural villages (perhaps with minimum technical guidance where necessary)?
Although simplified to some extent, the methodology cannot be applied by people without formal education, e.g., local communities (VNRC) alone. It will require minimum training and guidance throughout the process by external people e.g. DFOs.
2.0
2 Focus and flexibility: Does it focus on essential steps, procedures, and information i.e. it is well-focused? For example, does the forest inventory methodology focus on measuring parameters that are used in final calculations/assessments?
All parameters covered could be essential to obtain a complete set of information for management planning and understanding of the forest resources. However, it is not clear how some parameters which are recorded in forest inventory, e.g., forest age and crown cover are analyzed or eventually used – indicating a potential mismatch between data collected and data used.
2.0
3 Source of materials/support: where are the materials needed and external support required to be obtained (locally/externally?
All materials used expected to be found locally; the technical inventory tools, for example, from within the district. Most of the work would be undertaken by local communities with guidance from local (district) technical staff, so costs are low.
4.0
*average of sub-questions (e.g. 3.7 under FMP process condition is the average of 3a, 3b, and 3c)
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 22 of 50
4.6.2 MCDI methodology
The MCDI methodology covers the forest inventory, FMP, and harvesting plan. It was
developed by Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI) – a forest conservation
and development NGO operating in rural Tanzania6; it is aimed at PFM. The inventory
methodology (contained in the document: Group Guidelines on Forest Assessment and
Sustainable Harvesting) is meant for carrying out a participatory forest inventory in
community-managed forests, as well as for management planning. The ultimate goal of the
inventory is the determination of a sustainable harvest level (allowable cut) for commercial
timber species, which is then included in a FMP. Hence, the methodology is intended to be less
comprehensive than a PFRA. It recommends assessing only a few (about 5-6) high value
marketable timber species, and excludes any other assessments (e.g., NTFPs). Guidance on the
FMP and harvesting plan is provided through outlines of two respective templates:
Village Forest Management Plan Template
Harvesting Plan Template
Hence, for the complete MCDI methodology, the inventory guidelines and the aforementioned
two templates should be used in combination.
Table 4: MCDI methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
Link to regulatory framework and sustainability
1 Weight)
1
Legal basis: Is the methodology based on/fulfilling national forest regulatory framework?
MDCI methodology is designed for and applied within PFM context. It relates to national forest regulations/guidelines, i.e., Forest Policy and Forest Act. The inventory methodology, however, differs from the regulatory guidelines on inventory (PFRA), i.e., it is narrow in terms of parameters assessed than PFRA.
3.0
Completeness of the methodology
2 (Weight)
1 Scale of application: Is the scale of forest where the method is applicable defined?
Scale of application is community-managed forest such as VLFR; hence, it is a forest enterprise scale.
4.0
2 System completeness: Integration of forest inventory, FMP, and harvesting plan?
Covers all three aspects (inventory, FMP and harvesting planning): inventory and harvest planning in the Group Guidelines on Forest Assessment and Sustainable Harvesting and Harvesting Plan Template, and FMP in the Village Forest Management Plan Template.
4.0
3 FMP process: 3.0 (average)*
a. Clarification of management objectives?
Management objectives are stated in the FMP e.g., protection of forests against degradation; continuous supply of NTFPs, etc. Their basis is not stated.
3.0
b. Management activities? Prescribed as activities to maintain and protect the forest, e.g., patrolling, planting seedlings, boundary and fireline clearance, etc.
4.0
6 http://www.mpingoconservation.org/home/
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 23 of 50
Table 4: MCDI methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
c. Definition of management units? It is stipulated to divide the forest into homogenous FMUs, but how to do it or the range of size (how big an FMU may be) is not clearly defined.
2.0
4 Forest resources: Which forest resources are covered e.g.
1.0 (average)*
a. Timber? Only high value commercial timber species are considered – maximum of about 6-8 species recommended; lesser-known species/trees of potential uses currently not in mainstream market are not considered. This may put pressure on few known species, with potential negative impact on the overall sustainability of the forest resource.
2.0
b. NTFPs? NTFPs e.g. fruits, ropes, and mushrooms are considered in management planning, but no approach to even roughly assess quantities demanded or supply is defined, hence, it is unclear how NTFPs as a resource are dealt with.
2.0
c. Grazing? Grazing is merely mentioned as non-permitted forest use, although regulatory guidelines (JFM/CBFM) consider it as a forest resource use/service that is allowed but in a regulated manner.
0.0
d. Carbon? Not explicitly considered and the focus on a few marketable species means tree biomass cannot be fully derived from estimates of standing volume either, so evaluation of carbon storage in community-managed forests is not explicitly taken into accounted at present.
0.0
5 Forest inventory process: Are the forest inventory processes/procedures clearly described e.g.
2.8 (average)*
a. Stratification? Stratification is implicitly defined under what is called Homogeneity check, e.g., if a FMU is half evergreen and half deciduous miombo forest types, it should be divided into two FMUs, and then each assessed separately.
2.0
b. Sampling/statistical approach? The approach is systematic transects with a random starting point. Number of transects are not pre-determined but the aim is to record 50+ trees per species of most interest, and 20+ trees per species of lesser interest to achieve the precision level described in criteria 5 e below.
4.0
c. Attributes/parameters to measure/assess?
Species and Circumference at Breast Height - CBH (instead of DBH) are the only tree parameters recorded. Trees smaller than half the legal minimum diameter for harvesting are excluded. How other essential forest attributes, e.g., regeneration are assessed is not also defined.
2.0
d. Field data collection, recording and entry?
Field forms for recording and summarizing data collected in the field are provided, but there is no specifically-designed data entry tool. It is likely to be difficult to manage the data.
2.0
e. Precision (error)? The precision level is defined as 75% lower confidence limit for estimate of standing stock.
4.0
f. Are procedures for processing/analysis of collected data described?
Procedures are comprehensive, involves manual calculations using calculating machine and a reference (look-up) table for sustainable harvest quotas. Manual process is, however, time
3.0
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 24 of 50
Table 4: MCDI methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
consuming and prone to errors that cannot be easily detected/traced.
6 Data management: Are procedures for data management including storage described?
Procedures for managing and storing forest inventory and management planning related data are not explicitly described. Only general record keeping related to management, e.g., permits/revenues, expenditures, patrol, transgression/fines, etc., are described.
0.0
7 Harvesting plan: 4.0 (average)*
a. Is a harvesting plan defined (if harvesting is applicable)?
A harvesting plan is described and illustrated in a Harvesting Plan Template.
4.0
b. Are methods, tools, models for deriving sustainable yield described?
The method is a manual calculation of number of trees within the LMDH. For example, if there are 20 individuals of Dalbergia melanoxylon (which has an LMDH of 24 cm), this is divided over the area and year to derive annual yields. A reference (look-up table) table is specifically designed to facilitate the process.
4.0
8 Monitoring: Is a monitoring process considered/defined so that the process is repeatable and permanent?
Monitoring is defined in the Forest Monitoring Procedures Manual and several monitoring approach/indicators are defined, e.g., encounter frequency of indicator species for biodiversity, total number and sizes of trees on permanent transects for forest health. But there is no clear link with forest inventory previously conducted for preparing FMP and harvesting plan.
2.0
Applicability of the methodology 1 (Weight)
1 Transparency and simplicity: Is the methodology written in a clear and simplified manner – making simple what would otherwise be difficult scientific methods so that local communities can easily understand it?
The process is simplified to some extent and the methodology is written as set of a set of guiding steps/processes. But the scientific background contained therein is too technical, so local communities are expected to work with expert stakeholders, e.g., facilitators/forest manager, DFOs, etc. in the process of applying the methodology.
2.0
2 Target group: are the intended users, and skills required defined?
Intended users are facilitators/community forest managers, and community members, e.g., VNRC. Skills required are not explicitly defined but training and experience is indicated as necessary for communities to develop the skills necessary to use the methods independently.
3.0
3 Support structures and tools: Are standard processes, tools (databases, GIS), and supporting templates, data sheets, forms, etc. provided with the aim of making the application of the methodology effective and easy?
Supporting templates, e.g., FMP, harvesting plans, reference (look-up) table for estimating sustainable harvest quotas, and data recording and summary forms are provided.
4.0
4 Proven application: Is there evidence that the methodology has been used and where/in which projects, for example?
Methodology has been applied successfully, but primarily within the Mpingo Conservation Project. It has remained largely within and not spread outside MCP.
2.0
Cost implication and efficiency 2 (Weight)
1 Technical ease: Is the methodology easy to understand so that it could be applied by
The methodology cannot be applied without formal forestry background. Local communities (VNRC) need specific training to understand/use it. As stated in the inventory methodology,
3.0
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 25 of 50
Table 4: MCDI methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
people who do not have formal technical forestry knowledge e.g. members of rural villages (perhaps with minimum technical guidance where necessary)?
it will require training, practice and guidance from experts before the community develops skills to work with the methods on their own with no/minimum external assistance.
2 Focus and flexibility: Does it focus on essential steps, procedures, and information i.e. it is well-focused? For example, does the forest inventory methodology focus on measuring parameters that are used in final calculations/assessments?
The focus of forest inventory is only on 6-8 high value trees species. It is also not stated how other essential attributes e.g. level of regeneration are assessed for management purposes, or the extent of other resources, e.g., NTFPs or their demand are established. Hence, the methodology is has quite a narrow focus.
2.0
3 Source of materials/support: where are the materials needed and external support required to be obtained (locally/externally?
All materials used are expected to be found locally, and the technical inventory tools, for example, from within the district. Most of the work can be undertaken by local communities with guidance from community facilitator/forest manager or local (district) technical staff, so costs are reduced.
4.0
*average of sub-questions (e.g. 3.0 under FMP process condition is the average of 3a, 3b, and 3c)
4.6.3 NAFORMA methodology
The NAFORMA methodology for national forest inventory was included because it was
commonly referred to by several of the institutions/people contacted as the standard national
inventory methodology. It is, however, not designed for use at a forest enterprise scale. The
NAFORMA methodology was developed by the NAFORMA project of MNRT supported by FAO
and the Government of Finland7. The methodology includes manuals, questionnaires, field
forms and species lists for conducting forest resource assessments, and is described in the
NAFORMA Field Manual for Biophysical Surveys. It is a set of fieldwork instructions for
measuring and recording of biophysical parameters such as tree species, diameter, height, etc.
Data entry and analysis is undertaken through a specifically developed NAFORMA database –
which is based on the Open Foris initiative of FAO8.
The NAFORMA Sub-Project Pilot attempted to use NAFORMA data/maps (e.g., vegetation type
map, timber volume map, timber biomass map, basal area map and mean tree height map) for
local level planning in Nachingwea District, but concluded that they do not provide spatially
detailed information about growing stock and species for village and sub-village level forest
management plans. Thus, local level forest mapping and field assessments had to be
undertaken to get detailed data for planning. They therefore switched to the PFRA methods
for the inventory.
The NAFORMA methodology is comprehensive, but as it was designed for national forest
inventories, and not for local level planning such as a VLFR, it would require adapting if it is to
be used. It does not cover management planning processes or the harvesting plan – instead, it
7 http://www.fao.org/forestry/17847/en/tza/
8 http://www.fao.org/forestry/fma/openforis/en/
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 26 of 50
concentrates only on the job of collecting and analyzing forest resources data at a
large/national scale.
Table 5: NAFORMA methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
Link to regulatory framework and sustainability
1 (Weight)
1 Legal basis: Is the methodology based on/fulfilling national forest regulatory framework?
The NAFORMA methodology is part of NFP, therefore, it has a direct link to forest regulatory frameworks. 4.0
Completeness of the methodology
2 (Weight)
1 Scale of application: Is the scale of forest where the method is applicable defined?
Scale of application is country-wide (i.e. national forest inventory), therefore, cannot be directly applied at the forest enterprise scale. In an attempt to use NAFORMA methodology in Nachingwea district, its scale was found to be too rough, hence, local-level assessment was resorted to.
1.0
2 System completeness: Integration of forest inventory, FMP, and harvesting plan?
Covers inventory only. 0.0
3 FMP process: 0.0 (average)*
a. Clarification of management objectives?
Does not cover this FMP aspect. 0.0
b. Management activities? Does not cover this FMP aspect. 0.0
c. Definition of management units? Does not cover this FMP aspect. 0.0
4 Forest resources: Which forest resources are covered e.g.
3.3 (average)*
a. Timber? All trees are inventoried starting from DBH ≥ 1 cm. Hence, classification into timber species can be done with the data. It is not done directly as part of the field assessment.
4.0
b. NTFPs? NTFPs (called Non-Wood Forest Products – NWFPs - in the NAFORMA methodology) are recorded at the plot level. Examples include rattan, medicine, fodder, mushrooms, etc.
4.0
c. Grazing? Grazing is documented as part of abiotic disturbance/impacts, although regulatory guidelines (JFM/CBFM) consider it as a forest resource use/service that is allowed but in a regulated manner.
1.0
d. Carbon? Carbon assessment including in soils is considered as NAFORMA is meant to be a basis for estimating carbon pool and carbon pool change estimates for REDD+ and international reporting requirements. Changes are to be assessed using PSPs measurements.
4.0
5 Forest inventory process: Are the forest inventory processes/procedures clearly described e.g.
3.7 (average)*
a. Stratification? Strata are pre-defined. Vegetation types based on satellite image analysis are used as the basis for stratification, e.g.,
4.0
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 27 of 50
Table 5: NAFORMA methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
forest, woodland, bushland, etc.
b. Sampling/statistical approach? Stratified systematic cluster sampling, i.e., systematic allocation of circular cluster sample plots; clusters comprise 6-10 plots depending on the estimated difficulty to access the plots, with the number of plots being always the same within one stratum.
4.0
c. Attributes/parameters to measure/assess?
Numerous attributes/parameters are captured: species, DBH, vegetation/forest type, slope, plot locations, canopy cover, regeneration, etc.
4.0
d. Field data collection, recording and entry?
Forms for recording and summarizing field data are provided. A dedicated database – NAFORMA database is designed specifically for data entry, thus easing data management.
4.0
e. Precision (error)? A precision level is not pre-defined. A relative standard error expressed as % of coefficient of variation for mean and total growing stock volume of forest land was estimated at 0.85% and 1.2 % respectively for the entire country. However, it is not clear whether this is the target precision for the methodology.
2.0
f. Are procedures for processing/analysis of collected data described?
Data entry, processing/analysis are undertaken in a specially-designed database – NAFORMA Database. The database is based on the FAO Open Foris initiative.
4.0
6 Data management: Are procedures for data management including storage described?
Data management (including quality control) and storage take place through the use of the NAFORMA Database. The databased is, however, not fully described as part of the inventory methodology.
2.0
7 Harvesting plan: 0.0 (average)*
a. Is a harvesting plan defined (if harvesting is applicable)?
Does not cover this FMP aspect. 0.0
b. Are methods, tools, models for deriving sustainable yield described?
Does not cover this FMP aspect. 0.0
8 Monitoring: Is a monitoring process considered/defined so that the process is repeatable and permanent?
Monitoring aspects are considered as some sample plots are specifically marked as permanent plots – so that they can be revisited. A monitoring plan/process is not described as part of the inventory methodology.
2.0
Applicability of the methodology 1 (Weight)
1 Transparency and simplicity: Is the methodology written in a clear and simplified manner – making simple what would otherwise be difficult scientific methods so that local communities can easily understand it?
The methodology is vastly technical and cannot be understood by local communities. It requires well-trained technical teams. Local communities can, of course, be included, e.g., to measure DBH, identify species in local languages, etc.
1.0
2 Target group: are the intended users, and skills required defined?
Target users and skills required are not explicitly defined; however, as it targets large scale inventory, it could be directly used by government/projects conducting large-scale inventories.
2.0
3 Support structures and tools: Are standard processes, tools (databases, GIS), and supporting
Templates/forms for data recording are provided. A dedicated NAFORMA Database is also provided to support data entry and analysis.
4.0
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 28 of 50
Table 5: NAFORMA methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
templates, data sheets, forms, etc. provided with the aim of making the application of the methodology effective and easy?
4 Proven application: Is there evidence that the methodology has been used and where/in which projects, for example?
Has been used for the NAFORMA 2009-2013 so far. Attempts to use its results/maps e.g. in Nachingwea district revealed that, for accurate results, it cannot be directly applied at the local level. It can support local level process e.g. by providing a base map such as vegetation type map, timber volume map, etc.
2.0
Cost implication and efficiency 2 (Weight)
1 Technical ease: Is the methodology easy to understand so that it could be applied by people who do not have formal technical forestry knowledge e.g. members of rural villages (perhaps with minimum technical guidance where necessary)?
It is highly technical and cannot be applied by people without professional forestry knowledge, e.g., local communities (VNRC) alone. On top of professional forestry knowledge, users need to receive intensive training and guidance.
0.0
2 Focus and flexibility: Does it focus on essential steps, procedures, and information i.e. it is well-focused? For example, does the forest inventory methodology focus on measuring parameters that are used in final calculations/assessments?
At the national level and to meet several data needs, e.g., government planning, international reporting, REDD+, etc., the step, procedures, and information gathered are essential e.g. soil analysis. At the local (e.g. LVFR) planning scale, the entire process/information is too elaborate. Hence, several aspects may be excluded at a VLFR level for example.
1.0
3 Source of materials/support: where are the materials needed and external support required to be obtained (locally/externally?
The methodology requires a great deal of resources, and external support, e.g., in the use of remote sensing, NAFORMA databases, etc. For example, according to the NAFORMA Trust Fund Agreement Document of 2009, the entire cost of NAFORMA (including administration, tools, inventory, etc.) was estimated at USD 5.9 million, with 86.6% external finance. A huge technical support from FAO and external consultants was also required.
0.0
*average of sub-questions (e.g. 0.0 under FMP process condition is the average of 3a, 3b and 3c)
4.6.4 TFS methodology
This methodology (described in the technical guidelines: Reviewed Guidelines for Preparation
of Management Plans for Natural Forests in Tanzania), was published by TFS. It can be used
both as a guide and template for FMP preparation. It is concerned primarily with the
preparation of management plans for natural forests, whether under a collaborative forest
management arrangement or not. It elaborates the contents of a management plan, listing and
describing the following as the five key parts: (i) General description, (ii) Review of existing
management plan, (iii) Management directives, (iv) Management prescriptions, (v) Finances,
budget, monitoring and revision.
The methodology is an extensive document, aimed to be used by skilled private and
government forest managers (e.g., DFOs), and not directly by local communities. It provides
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 29 of 50
model formats for JFM agreements and bylaws. Forest inventory and harvesting plans are not
described in detail in this methodology, but it makes reference to PFRA and 'conventional
forest inventory' as a means of gathering information needed for preparing a forest
management plan. For the harvesting plan, it refers to directives prescribed in the “Guidelines
for Sustainable Harvesting and Forest Products Business in Tanzania” issued by TFS.
Table 6: TFS methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
Link to regulatory framework and sustainability
1 (Weight)
1
Legal basis: Is the methodology based on/fulfilling national forest regulatory framework?
It is a regulatory guidelines, designed to support the implementation of the Forest Policy and Forest Act, both of which demand that FMP be prepared and used for all forest types and management regimes.
4.0
Completeness of the methodology
2 (Weight)
1 Scale of application: Is the scale of forest where the method is applicable defined?
The methodology is applicable to a government forest reserve or any natural forest under a local authority, private organization or entity. Hence, it is a forest enterprise scale.
2.0
2 System completeness: Integration of forest inventory, FMP, and harvesting plan?
Covers the FMP process only. 0.0
3 FMP process: 3.3 (average)*
a. Clarification of management objectives?
Management objectives are to be defined depending on whether the forest classification, i.e., protection or production, although what an objective for protection or production would look like is not exemplified.
4.0
b. Management activities? Management activities are defined for the purpose of maintaining, developing and utilizing the forest, e.g., boundary demarcation, fire prevention/control, patrolling, planting and natural regeneration, etc.
4.0
c. Definition of management units? Forest management units are described as parcel of forest or land defined by watershed, ownership or administrative boundaries for purposes of locating and implementing management prescriptions. It is stipulated to divide a forest into FMUs, but how to do it or the range of size (how big an FMU may be) is not clearly defined.
2.0
4 Forest resources: Which forest resources are covered e.g.
2.0 (average)*
a. Timber? Timber species are considered for sustainable exploitation in production zone of the forest.
2.0
b. NTFPs? NTFPs, e.g., water, energy, medicines, eco and cultural tourism are mentioned; however, it is unclear how NTFPs as a resource are dealt with, i.e., supply/demand estimated or the sustainable harvesting is ensured.
2.0
c. Grazing? Not considered – whether as resource use with negative impact or how to manage it, though regulatory guidelines (JFM/CBFM) consider it as a forest resource use/service that is allowed but in a regulated manner.
0.0
d. Carbon? Carbon is considered in light of international processes such as 4.0
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 30 of 50
Table 6: TFS methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
REDD+. Measures to enhance carbon stock, e.g., planting, site rehabilitation, and natural regeneration through effective protection are defined.
5 Forest inventory process: Are the forest inventory processes/procedures clearly described e.g.
1.7 (average)*
a. Stratification? Does not provide details on inventory aspects. Refers to PFRA and conventional inventory methods.
1.0
b. Sampling/statistical approach? Does not provide details on inventory aspects. Refers to PFRA and conventional inventory methods.
1.0
c. Attributes/parameters to measure/assess?
Does not provide details on inventory aspects. Refers to PFRA and conventional inventory methods.
1.0
d. Field data collection, recording and entry?
Does not provide details on inventory aspects. Refers to PFRA and conventional inventory methods.
1.0
e. Precision (error)? Does not provide details on inventory aspects. Refers to PFRA and conventional inventory methods. PFRA does not describe precision
0.0
f. Are procedures for processing/analysis of collected data described?
Does not provide details on inventory aspects. Refers to PFRA and conventional inventory methods.
1.0
6 Data management: Are procedures for data management including storage described?
No procedures/mechanisms for forest inventory and management planning data management and storage described.
0.0
7 Harvesting plan: 0.5 (average)*
a. Is a harvesting plan defined (if harvesting is applicable)?
A full harvesting plan is not detailed. However, it is stated that such a plan should indicate the amount of merchantable volume to be harvested by diameter classes and tree species, and it should follow the Guidelines for Sustainable Harvesting and Forest Products Business in Tanzania.
1.0
b. Are methods, tools, models for deriving sustainable yield described?
No method for estimating sustainable harvesting levels defined/described.
0.0
8 Monitoring: Is a monitoring process considered/defined so that the process is repeatable and permanent?
Monitoring is stipulated as a requirement (e.g., done on quarterly basis after carrying out the specific activities so as to verify their quantity and quality). How to implement forest monitoring in particular is not defined. For management type of monitoring, METT (Threat Reduction Assessment and Management Effectiveness Assessment) forms and a Matrix for Monitoring and Evaluation are to be used.
1.0
Applicability of the methodology 1 (Weight)
1 Transparency and simplicity: Is the methodology written in a clear and simplified manner – making simple what would otherwise be difficult scientific methods so that local communities can easily understand it?
The methodology has been prepared as a set of directives. Professional forest managers can understand it, but it is still generally too technical for local communities to understand/use it, so experts should be in charge and guiding the process.
2.0
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 31 of 50
Table 6: TFS methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
2 Target group: are the intended users, and skills required defined?
Users are defined as forest managers in public or private forestry. The expected skills are undefined or need for training to properly use is not considered.
2.0
3 Support structures and tools: Are standard processes, tools (databases, GIS), and supporting templates, data sheets, forms, etc. provided with the aim of making the application of the methodology effective and easy?
Supporting templates, e.g., FMP, JFM Agreement, bylaws, and data recording and summary forms are provided. No standard tools for analysis/data storage, e.g., databases proposed.
2.0
4 Proven application: Is there evidence that the methodology has been used and where/in which projects, for example?
It is has been used to guide local FMP planning process e.g. Mtanza Msona FMP, but not in a precisely proper way, indicating some difficulty in its application.
2.0
Cost implication and efficiency 2 (Weight)
1 Technical ease: Is the methodology easy to understand so that it could be applied by people who do not have formal technical forestry knowledge e.g. members of rural villages (perhaps with minimum technical guidance where necessary)?
The methodology cannot be applied by people without some formal forestry education/knowledge, e.g., local communities (VNRC) alone. It will require minimum training, and for rural communities to be guided throughout the process by external people e.g. DFOs.
1.0
2 Focus and flexibility: Does it focus on essential steps, procedures, and information i.e. it is well-focused? For example, does the forest inventory methodology focus on measuring parameters that are used in final calculations/assessments?
The methodology covers many aspects for FMP, but in some cases it requires aspects that are not applicable or whose processes are not clearly defined, e.g., Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system for carbon stock in order to be eligible for carbon credit/trading. Its information requirement is also too elaborate for a VLFR for example.
1.0
3 Source of materials/support: where are the materials needed and external support required to be obtained (locally/externally??
The depth of information/process involved means even forest managers who can work with the methodology to some extent on their own would need external support for correct use of the methodology, for example, support in setting up an MRV system for carbon stocks. So it is likely to demand significant external material and technical support
1.0
*average of sub-questions (e.g. 3.3 under FMP process condition is the average of 3a, 3b, and 3c)
4.6.5 UNIQUE methodology
This methodology was developed by UNIQUE forestry and land use9 for management planning
and forest inventory in Miombo forest ecosystems in the project “A feasibility study for a
management model of participatory forest management”. The project involved the
collaboration of BTC/MNRT KILORWEMP, the Kilombero Valley Teak Company, and the
National Forest and Beekeeping Program II. The methodology, which is described in a technical
document “Forest management planning and inventory guideline”, covers the three aspects of
forest inventory, FMP, and harvesting plan, but is specific to the project site conditions. The
9 http://www.unique-forst.de/
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 32 of 50
main objective of the project was to assess the feasibility of JFM on private land from a
commercial viability and local community engagement point of view. Therefore, the inventory
methodology aimed to collect data necessary for determining forest conditions such as
stocking levels, stand structure, and regeneration, and for quantifying marketable forest
product volumes. The management planning process is based on the national guidelines on
JFM, i.e., the Joint Forest Management Guidelines, 2007. Both the inventory and management
planning steps require professional forestry knowledge, which was intended to be provided by
KVTC as a professional partner and forest owner, able to guide and support the villages. For
the inventory, local communities can take part but must be trained by foresters/experts, such
as DFOs, while for the forest management planning process, local communities can play a
greater role – with support from trained local forestry officials.
Table 7: UNIQUE methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
Link to regulatory framework and sustainability
1 (Weight)
1
Legal basis: Is the methodology based on/fulfilling national forest regulatory framework?
The methodology is designed for and applied within PFM context. It relates to national forest regulations/guidelines, i.e., Forest Policy and Forest Act. Its inventory methodology is, however, rather technical and less participatory than a PFRA should be.
3.0
Completeness of the methodology
2 (Weight)
1 Scale of application: Is the scale of forest where the method is applicable defined?
Scale of application is a forest land, where JFM is to be applied; hence, it is a forest enterprise scale.
4.0
2 System completeness: Integration of forest inventory, FMP, and harvesting plan?
Covers all three aspects of inventory, FMP, and harvesting plan.
4.0
3 FMP process: 4.0 (average)*
a. Clarification of management objectives?
Objectives are based on the overall purpose of sustainably managing the forest in compliance with FSC principles and regulatory frameworks, e.g., prevent uncontrolled use of the forest and encroachment, restore the forest, and ensure effective, sustainable utilization, restore the forest conditions, etc.
4.0
b. Management activities? These are prescribed according to the state and management goals, e.g., patrolling, enrichment planting, marking of stands, silvicultural treatments such as thinning, etc.
4.0
c. Definition of management units? FMU is defined in a GIS system based on vegetation type analyzed from remote sensing, and following natural features e.g. streams. Within the FMU, the forest type is homogenous, and, therefore, can be treated as a forest stand where a particular silvicultural/management objectives can be undertaken. 100 FMUs are defined for an area of about 8,440 ha.
4.0
4 Forest resources: Which forest resources are covered e.g.
1.5 (average)*
a. Timber? Important timber species are identified from PRA with rural 4.0
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 33 of 50
Table 7: UNIQUE methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
communities and market research. Lesser-known species/trees with potential uses not in mainstream market are considered in a separate market study and timber species characterization.
b. NTFPs? NTFPs include: fruits, herbs, medicinal plants, mushrooms, grass for thatching, and weaving material. PRA is used to assess which NTFPs are used but no approach to roughly assess quantities demanded or supply is defined, hence, it is unclear how NTFPs as a resource are dealt with.
2.0
c. Grazing? Grazing is merely mentioned as non-permitted forest use, although regulatory guidelines (JFM/CBFM) consider it as a forest resource use/service that is allowed but in a regulated manner.
0.0
d. Carbon? Carbon assessment is not explicitly considered, and only tree biomass could be derived from tree volume figures calculated from inventory.
0.0
5 Forest inventory process: Are the forest inventory processes/procedures clearly described e.g.
3.8 (average)*
a. Stratification? Strata defined as three vegetation types: evergreen forest, dense miombo and open miombo based on satellite image analysis.
4.0
b. Sampling/statistical approach? A random stratified sampling design is used where circular clustered sample plots are located on the intersection of a basic grid overlaid on the forest strata. Each cluster comprises 6 plots.
4.0
c. Attributes/parameters to measure/assess?
Essential attributes/parameters for harvesting planning and FMP are captured: species, DBH, height, bole length, social class, quality class, crown cover, regeneration, etc.
4.0
d. Field data collection, recording and entry?
Forms for recording and summarizing field data are provided. An Excel-based inventory database tool for data entry and analysis is also provided.
3.0
e. Precision (error)? A 90% confidence level for mean estimate of growing stock is stipulated/aimed to be achieved. The sample size required to achieve this precision is determined based on existing forest inventory data.
4.0
f. Are procedures for processing/analysis of collected data described?
Sample plot data are analyzed using a generic Excel-based inventory database linked to GIS for the presentation of spatial attributes (plots, trees, FMUs). Calculations steps are done using automated functionalities.
4.0
6 Data management: Are procedures for data management including storage described?
Data is stored in the Excel-based inventory database, however, procedures for the data management are not clearly described in the methodology.
2.0
7 Harvesting plan: 3.5 (average)*
a. Is a harvesting plan defined (if harvesting is applicable)?
A harvesting plan is described for the list of marketable species based on several yield indicators and increment. The harvesting plan is derived based on those tree species identified as “marketable” during a market study
4.0
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 34 of 50
Table 7: UNIQUE methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
b. Are methods, tools, models for deriving sustainable yield described?
Yield is derived based on annual increment values from previous research and several yield indicators, which are incorporated as part of Excel-based inventory database. Sustainable yield is calculated for each species. Annual yield estimated in the specific project is 2.2 m
3/ha/year. But the
technical basis of estimating sustainable harvest is location- specific (KVTC project site), therefore, not likely to be wholly applicable in other places.
3.0
8 Monitoring: Is a monitoring process considered/defined so that the process is repeatable and permanent?
The inventory plots are established as permanent sample plots, and therefore, can be used for forest monitoring. A full monitoring plan/process is not described as part of the inventory methodology.
2.0
Applicability of the methodology 2 (Weight)
1 Transparency and simplicity: Is the methodology written in a clear and simplified manner – making simple what would otherwise be difficult scientific methods so that local communities can easily understand it?
The content is simplified to some extent and the methodology is written as a set of instructions and steps. Professionals or expert forest managers can understand it, but it is still generally too technical for local communities to understand/use it, so experts should be in charge and guiding the process.
2.0
2 Target group: are the intended users, and skills required defined?
Intended users are naturally JFM project stakeholders, e.g., private forest managers and District forest staff supporting local communities to implement PFM. Skills required are not explicitly defined but training and experience is indicated as necessary for communities to develop the skills necessary to use the methods independently.
3.0
3 Support structures and tools: Are standard processes, tools (databases, GIS), and supporting templates, data sheets, forms, etc. provided with the aim of making the application of the methodology effective and easy?
Supporting templates, e.g., FMP concept, data recording forms, and an Excel-based inventory database for analysis are provided.
4.0
4 Proven application: Is there evidence that the methodology has been used and where/in which projects, for example?
The methodology has been applied successfully in the KVTC project: a feasibility study for a management model of participatory forest management, but with considerably requirement for technical knowledge, its spread is dependent to be slow.
2.0
Cost implication and efficiency 2 (Weight)
1 Technical ease: Is the methodology easy to understand so that it could be applied by people who do not have formal technical forestry knowledge e.g. members of rural villages (perhaps with minimum technical guidance where necessary)?
The methodology requires professional forestry skills, so local communities (e.g. VNRC) cannot use it on their own. It requires minimum training and guidance throughout the process, e.g., skilled private forest managers and district forestry staff.
2.0
2 Focus and flexibility: Does it focus on essential steps, procedures, and information i.e. it is well-focused? For example, does the forest inventory methodology focus on measuring parameters
All parameters covered are largely essential for a complete set of information for management planning and forest resources assessment. However, its exclusion of simple methods to assess, other forest products i.e. NTFPs, means it is not possible to apply it where NTFPs and timber harvesting is the priority.
2.0
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 35 of 50
Table 7: UNIQUE methodology evaluation
N° Criteria/key questions Evaluation conclusion Score
that are used in final calculations/assessments?
3 Source of materials/support: where are the materials needed and external support required to be obtained (locally/externally?
The methodology can be applied by DFOs guiding communities but other aspects, e.g., use of remote sensing used in stratification requires external support.
2.0
*average of sub-questions (e.g. 4.0 under FMP process condition is the average of 3a, 3b, and 3c)
4.6.6 A brief note on SULEDO
The SULEDO Community Based Forest Management Project conducts what they call 'pre-
harvest inventory' on specific harvesting sites or management units as part of preparations for
harvest operations. This is not a full forest inventory that can be used either for management
planning or for the overall harvesting planning on the enterprise level. The process is briefly
described in a short set of guidelines consisting of:
Delimitation of the site including demarcation of protected/buffer areas (if possible,
elaborated on a simple map)
Identification and marking of harvestable trees per hectare (based on pre-selected species
and minimum diameter)
Identification of sawmilling sites (including log landing area and skid tracks)
A report indicates that forest monitoring was conducted in SULEDO in 2007 by TAFORI. The
procedure included measuring 14 clusters of five plots each, established in 1997 by the then
Forest Division and assisted by ORGUT consulting. However, the sampling method used is not
clearly described10. For management planning and inventory they refer to the MNRT
methodologies (PFRA, CBFM and JFM guidelines).
4.7 Summary of evaluation of methodologies
4.7.1 Summary of ranking
The score of each methodology presented in the summary table below is the sum of points
relative to the total potential points. Each condition of the criteria (e.g., FMP process) has a
maximum score of 4 if it is fully met. Therefore, if all the conditions of the completeness of the
methodology criteria are fully met, the total maximum score would be 32 out of 32. These
values are obtained from the respective methodology tables in the preceding section. The final
score shows the relative appropriateness of the methodology in meeting a particular criterion
as a suitable inventory or management planning methodology. In the above example, it would
be 32/32 * 2, where 2 is the weight of the completeness of methodology criteria.
The higher the point scores or final score, the closer the methodology is to meeting all the
identified evaluation criteria for being a suitable inventory or management planning
10
Isango, J. A. 2007. Monitoring of Permanent Sample Plots (PSPs) established in SULEDO Miombo forests in Kiteto Districts.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 36 of 50
methodology. If a methodology met all the conditions of the defined criteria, its total final
score would be 6. Therefore the total final score for each methodology in the table below
should be interpreted as a final score out of a maximum of 6.
The ranking presented in the table below indicates that NAFORMA and TFS are less suitable for
direct use in a community-managed forest enterprise (they have low scores). The other
methodologies with a higher score are more appropriate for community-managed forest
enterprises. For a full understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of all methodologies,
refer to their detailed evaluation in section 4.6, and their main pros and cons in section 4.7.2.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 37 of 50
Table 8: Summary of methodology ranking
Criteria Weight Point scores Final score
MNRT MCDI NAFORMA TFS UNIQUE MNRT MCDI NAFORMA TFS UNIQUE
Link to regulatory framework
1 4 3 4 4 3 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8
Completeness of the methodology
2 17 21 12 11 25 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.7 1.6
Applicability of the methodology
1 9 11 7 8 11 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7
Cost implication and efficiency
2 8 9 2 3 6 1.3 1.5 0.3 0.5 1.0
Total Points/Score 6 38 44 25 26 45 4.0 4.2 2.5 2.7 4.0
Maximum Points/Score 6 64 64 64 64 64 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 38 of 50
4.7.2 Main pros and cons of each methodology
The pros and cons drawn from the detailed evaluation tables in section 4.6 are presented in Table 9.
Table 9: Summary of evaluation of methodologies
Methodology Pros Cons
MNRT methodology
Is a government process, so has great potential for wide application and sustainability via government programs and institutions.
Is simplified, thus, relatively easy for rural communities to understand.
The need for external resources is reduced by relying largely on local expertise, i.e., local communities and districts, which reduces the cost.
Provides supporting materials, e.g., FMP outline, JFMA, bylaws, and data sheets/forms to ease the use of the methodology.
Some parameters and information gathered in the inventory are not used in management planning; hence, the effort of data collection does not match data needs.
The method of establishing sustainable yield lacks rigor and is therefore less reliable.
Long-term and short-term management and storage of inventory and/or management planning data is not clearly addressed.
Likely to produce low level of precision/reliability of values estimated from forest inventory.
Does not fully describe harvesting planning, hence, incomplete in this regard.
MCDI methodology
Is simplified, thus, relatively easy for rural communities to understand.
The need for external resources is reduced by heavy reliance on local expertise, i.e., local communities, community forest manager, and forest official, which reduces the cost.
Fully links the three processes of forest inventory, harvesting plan and FMP.
Can produce precise/reliable estimates of standing volume if properly executed.
Provides supporting materials and tools, e.g., manuals, questionnaires, field forms and species lists to ease the use of the methodology.
Has a very narrow focus, i.e., concentrates only on very few high value tree species, with little attention to other resources, e.g., NTFPs.
Long-term and short-term management and storage of inventory and/or management planning data is not clearly addressed.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 39 of 50
NAFORMA methodology
Is a government process, so has great potential for wide application and sustainability through government programs and institutions.
Addresses data management and storage explicitly through the use of NAFORMA Database, based on the FAO Open Foris initiative.
Provides supporting materials, e.g., manuals, questionnaires, field forms and species lists to ease the use of the methodology.
For FMP purposes, the parameters and information gathered in the inventory are too elaborate and are not be necessary for FMP purpose per se, hence, the effort of data collection does not match FMP data needs.
Is vastly technical, and requires a lot of expertise/materials, which can only be obtained from outside the local communities and/or districts.
Is strictly an inventory method, with little direct applicability at local level planning, unless adapted considerably.
TFS methodology Is a government process, so has great potential for wide application and sustainability via government programs and institutions.
Provides supporting materials, e.g., FMP template, model formats of village bylaws, and JFMA to ease the use of the tool.
Is too elaborate in terms of information needed and content of FMP for community-managed forest, and does not indicate/describe how some of the information may be obtained, e.g., MRV system for carbon stocks.
Is technical, and requires a lot of expertise to use and gather the information needed for its content, hence, technically too demanding and difficult to use for FMP in community-managed forests.
Does not address both long-term and short-term management and storage of inventory and/or management planning data, although it stipulates the need for long-term monitoring.
UNIQUE methodology
Integrates the three components of forest inventory, harvesting plan and FMP.
The inventory method is designed to produce precise/reliable estimates.
Provides supporting materials/tools, e.g., Excel-based inventory database, FMP concept/outline, and field forms to ease the use of the methodology.
Is quite technical, requiring professional forestry expertise, hence, needs external support for community-managed forests.
The increment data used for estimating the sustainable harvest is location specific (KVTC project site), therefore, may not produce reliable results in other regions.
Long-term management and storage of inventory and/or management planning data is not clearly addressed (in the short-term, data are stored in the Excel-based inventory database).
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 40 of 50
5 Conclusions and recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
A wide range of inventory and management planning methodologies can be found in Tanzania.
They can be distinguished into two categories.
The first category comprises methodologies, which have been developed (or published) by
government institutions such as MNRT or TFS. They form the basis of, or are often referred to
in the design of the other methodologies. Examples are the MNRT and TFS methods for forest
inventory and management planning. They are elaborated with a focus on fulfilling national
regulations. The MNRT methods, which are intended to promote PFM are relatively simple,
which means that they can be used to support community participation in forest management
(PFM), i.e., PFRA methods; while those aimed at national and international forestry processes,
such as NAFORMA, are very elaborate. The PFM-related methodology, although simpler to
understand and apply, does not generate reliable data because it does not address principle
statistical considerations such as stratification and sample precision/error. The NAFORMA
methodology on the other hand is statistically more rigorous and could result in detailed and
precise/reliable information if applied at its intended scale. However, it is too elaborate and
complicated to be applied in community-managed forests. Its initial scale (national) is also too
coarse for direct application in local level-planning – as demonstrated in an attempt to use
NAFORMA results in Nachingwea District. Its general feature is that it demands collecting a lot
of information, some of which is not actually required for local level planning, hence, if applied
to individual forest enterprises, the data collection effort and use thereof is mismatched.
The second category of methodologies comprises those that are developed in specific projects,
for example, MCDI and UNIQUE. This category is statistically more rigorous and likely to
produce more accurate information. However, they are project/location specific and may not
perform well in other places or regions of the country.
While there is a range in the ease for local communities to use or understand the identified
current inventory and FMP methodologies, communities are not able to apply any of the
inventory and FMP methodologies independently; they require technical support from
professional experts. Experts are needed to either take a lead in the entire process, e.g., in
case of the more technical NAFORMA methods, or guide the process until final results, e.g., in
case of the fairly simplified MCDI participatory forest inventory methods. Therefore, the
institutional support for inventories and FMPs for community-managed forests needs to be
clearly defined and built within the national forestry process.
A common and critical weakness of all methodologies which cover harvesting planning is that
the estimation of sustainable harvesting level is based on very poor quality data. There is a
critical lack of yield increment data for species or species groups in Tanzania; this information
is required to derive a realistic rule or estimate for the sustainable harvesting level. As such,
the establishment of a proper forest growth monitoring system is required in order to obtain
reliable yield data per species or species groups as outlined in section 5.2.1.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 41 of 50
5.2 Recommendations
5.2.1 Components of standardized methods
The design of standardized methods should take into account the current regulatory
framework, which demands a process that is transparent and participatory, complete, and
cost-efficient. As forest and social conditions differ across the country, there cannot be a single
standardized method. Nonetheless, all methodologies should comprise the following key
components:
Mapping and stratification: to delineate external and internal boundaries, and to
establish the size of the forest and different strata. The mapping process needs to involve
neighboring communities to avoid future conflicts. A hand-held GPS can be used in
combination with walking and placement of physical marks along the boundaries.
Strata are defined and mapped according to forest types, level of stocking (degradation),
or any other distinctive criteria. Readily available materials, such as existing land use/land
cover maps and/or Google Earth images should be used (note: GE images were found to
be more appropriate (detailed) than NAFORMA vegetation maps for local level planning in
a NAFORMA sub-project which piloted the use of NAFORMA products in Nachingwea
District).
Forest resource assessment: the forest resource assessment should be varied depending
on the forest type, stocking levels, and planned use of the forest. Therefore, it is
important to start by determining if and what type of forest resource assessment is
required for the forest area being planned for. For example, if the forest is designated as a
strict conservation area (i.e., catchment forest as it is called in Tanzania), then a botanic or
zoological survey is more appropriate and should be undertaken instead of a conventional
forest inventory, which would normally result in the derivation of standing volumes.
When the forest area is not for strict conservation, then it should be determined whether
a full inventory is needed by first conducting a reconnaissance assessment. Use of readily
available information, such as NAFORMA vegetation maps or Goggle Earth (GE) images is
recommended. Both can provide an overview of the stocking (or degradation) level of the
forest. This process could be undertaken by a DFO in his/her office. If this is not feasible,
and if the forest is small (e.g., 500 ha), then transect walks covering different parts of the
forest and visual assessment guided by a forestry official is adequate to guestimate the
stocking level and forest conditions (e.g., stems per ha, degradation, and regeneration).
Where the forest is assessed and found to be highly degraded, the focus should shift from
inventory to demarcating and rehabilitating it.
If the forest is sufficiently stocked, a full inventory is necessary. To produce reliable
information, two principle statistical aspects should be addressed, i.e.:
- Stratification (as explained above).
- Sampling accuracy/precision: a target accuracy level needs to be defined (e.g.,
allowable error of 20% with a 90% confidence level). Without such a prescription, the
reliability of estimates including the sustainable harvest levels will be unknown.
For a stocked forest with a low number of stems per ha, there will be a need to vary the
inventory design by making the plots or transects larger so that a sufficient number of
trees can be sampled.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 42 of 50
Forest management plan and harvesting plan: an FMP and harvesting plan need to be
outlined; the FMP is a legal requirement. A harvesting plan is only necessary where the
forest resource conditions and legal status (classification) permit harvesting. Both FMP
and harvesting plan require reliable information obtained through a forest resource
assessment. The harvesting plan needs to define the methods and/or rules to derive and
implement a sustainable yield or harvest level to ensure a sustainable use of the forest
resource. Other essential components that are directly linked to the FMP and which
should be addressed include:
o Clarification of management objectives and activities: these should be
defined based on the forest condition, management goals/interests and
requirements of the forest owners/rights holders (e.g., local communities,
government, or forest enterprise). Different management objectives and
activities can be defined and prescribed for different parts of the forest, for
example, if the objective is to restore a degraded forest, then enrichment
planting or control of the degrading agent (e.g., control of grazing) are relevant
management activities.
For a forest used for production, management activities should cover
measures to improve the stock (e.g., thinning in order to create space) and
improve the growing conditions of potential future crop trees.
o Stand/FMU description: this describes the sub-division of the forest into
homogenous units for practical management purposes. The sub-division
(referred to as Forest Management Unit (FMU) in Tanzania) is done based on
attributes such as forest types, forest structure or stocking level. Different
management objectives and procedures may then be prescribed for different
FMUs.
Data analysis and storage: this deals with how to process data into useful information
and means/mechanisms to store both data and analyses. This is essential because both
the inventory and FMP will be repeated in the 5-year management cycle. Data storage
systems should be flexible, and match the need and volume of data, for example, it can be
a simple record book where stand descriptions and activities are recorded per
stand/FMU. When the volume of data and detail of required analyses increases, a data
analysis and storage solution should be defined. This can be an Excel-based solution
where the data from the simple record book is entered, or a more elaborate database
solution such as the NAFORMA database, which is based on the freely available FAO Open
Foris system. The entity responsible for data analysis, storage, and updating needs to be
clearly defined.
Reporting: this should define how to document information gathered through the
inventory, monitoring, or during the participatory planning process. Reporting can be
done in many ways, that is, directly in the FMP, in specifically designed formats (e.g.,
Quarterly Forest Management Monitoring Report template of the CBFM guidelines) or
any other form. The basic principles are that the information is able to reach stakeholders
cheaply and quickly, and in a format which they will easily understand.
Monitoring: a process and methods to record the implementation of planned measures,
the re-measurement of parameters that describe forest conditions, and the use such data
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 43 of 50
including institutional responsibilities. Together with data storage, monitoring provides
historical information that is relevant for tracking changes over time. Currently, one of the
biggest challenges is to accurately calculate the sustainable yield, since there is a lack of
growth monitoring data which could be used to derive accurate volume increment
figures. Therefore, monitoring needs to be addressed in all future standard methods in
two ways: first, forest monitoring should be undertaken as part of the process of revising
forest management plans in the five year management cycle; some of the sample plots
previously inventoried should be re-measured to obtain data on growth. Secondly, at a
sub-national level, the density of the NAFORMA permanent sample plots (PSPs) should be
increased. The government should be responsible for this process, including regular re-
measurements of the PSPs. The data generated should then be used to derive increment
data and develop yield tables for individual species or groups of species specific to the
different regions or agro-ecological zones of the country.
5.2.2 Ensuing work steps
The establishment of standardized methods will involve a long process. The process should be
facilitated by the relevant government institutions, i.e., MNRT/TFS/FBD. The following work
steps are proposed:
1. Undertake a number of technical reviews and design meetings. The meetings should bring
together developers and users of the current methodologies as outlined, for example, in
this report. The aim is to discuss the positive elements and weaknesses of the different
approaches/methodologies based on actual field experiences. The outcome should be a
collection of most suitable elements from the different methodologies. For example, the
most suitable stratification approach could come from NAFORMA, the most efficient plot
design from MCDI, a suitable data analysis method and yield estimation method from
UNIQUE’s methodology, and the FMP process from MNRT. Hence, one or two framework
methodologies should be identified by ‘picking and plugging in’ suitable elements from
different methodologies which are currently in use.
2. Consultations with different stakeholders. The objective is to come to an agreement on
the requirements for the structure of a future standardized methodologies. Therefore,
consultations should be held based on a defined set of requirements for the structure of a
future standard FMP – similar to what has been described in section 4.2 of this report.
Wider consultation – involving government, communities, private forest owners, and
development partners – will be necessary to clarify and agree on issues such as who
should bear the responsibility and costs of undertaking the forest inventory and managing
planning. This is a particularly relevant question where a forest area is being brought under
community-led management for the first time. In such instances, it is most likely that there
are no previous experiences in undertaking the process and/or resources (particularly
finance) coming from the community-managed forest to pay for the costs.
3. Testing and validation of the framework methodologies. The identified methods should be
tested by applying them in several pilot cases, taking into account any significant regional
differences in socio-economic and forest conditions in the country. During the testing,
adjustments are made where necessary and incorporated into the final validated methods.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 44 of 50
4. The methodologies are finally disseminated and maintained by the facilitating
institution(s). In this manner, a proper institutional record of the methodologies is kept
and made available for any future need for revision and updating.
Therefore, using the various methodologies currently in use across the country as a starting
point, the process should now be to bring together suitable elements from the different
methodologies, and agree the structure/framework for the design of standardized methods.
Finally, two or more framework methodologies should be fully developed and institutionalized.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 45 of 50
Annex
Annex 1: List of methodologies developers/owners/process
Annex 2: Documents reviewed/consulted
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 46 of 50
Annex 1: List of methodologies developers/owners/process
Developer and owner of process
Products and users
Basic handbook and guidelines, key methods
Linkage with Village land use planning
Guidance for inventory
Guidance for forest mgmt planning
Guidance for harvesting plan
Templates Experience of use and availability of plans
Evidence on workability
Cost implications and pros and cons
Data available from NFBKP II BTC et al
PFRA of PFM, MNRT
All forest resources, MNRT, NGOs, as MJUMITA
PFRA guidelines for CBFM and JFM
no yes yes no yes and data processing
NFBKP assessment of 16 plans
Poor due to implementation failures
Rough cost estimates
X
MCDI Commercial species, Mpingo, WWF, LIMAS project
MCDI guidelines no yes yes yes yes and data processing
LIMAS project good rough cost estimates
X
NAFORMA,
FAO, MNRT
PFRA basis with multisource maps for one Ngunichile VLFR
guidelines exist yes yes yes yes yes and data processing
Nachingwea VLFR
FAO-Open Foris for data storage and processing
X
SULEDO, PMO/RALG,
SIDA
? Jorge Maluenda to be consulted
TFCG All forest resources, charcoal, carbon, NAFORMA as a base
guidelines under development
yes? yes yes templates? Kilosa sustainable charcoal project
NAFORMA as a base, higher sampling intensity
? Theron x knows, back in T in 10 days
X
SUA ? professors to be consulted
?
TFS NAFORMA system, nation wide
no yes Own FMP format under
yes ? FAO-Open Foris for data storage & processing
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 47 of 50
Developer and owner of process
Products and users
Basic handbook and guidelines, key methods
Linkage with Village land use planning
Guidance for inventory
Guidance for forest mgmt planning
Guidance for harvesting plan
Templates Experience of use and availability of plans
Evidence on workability
Cost implications and pros and cons
Data available from NFBKP II BTC et al
development for GOT FRs
TFS NAFORMA, Mtanza-Msona VLFR;36 species
transects and sample plots;0.04% SI
no yes done earlier
yes cutting level leads to heavy overutilization (PB)
BTC
UNIQUE, KVTC
UNIQUE guidelines
no yes yes yes PFRA template for FMP
KVTC/BTC
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 48 of 50
Annex 2: Documents reviewed/consulted
BTC
Assessment of Forest Management Plans and Way Forward for 16 VFLRs in Ruangwa,
Nachingwea, Handeni, Kilindi and Korogwe Districts (Working Document). March-April,
2014. Back to Office Report, National Forestry and Beekeeping Programme (NFBKP II).
Community Based Forest Management Guidelines – for the Establishment of Village Land
Forest Reserves and Community Forest Reserves. April, 2007. Forestry and Beekeeping
Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Consultancy Inputs on Evaluation of Harvesting Contract, Harvesting Plan and Forest
Management Plan SULEDO. May, 2010. Securing Sustainability of LAMP Initiatives –
Support to SULEDO Forest Reserve. ORGUT.
Consultancy Inputs on Harvest Operations and Forest Management. February, 2010. Securing
Sustainability of LAMP Initiatives – Support to SULEDO Forest Reserve. ORGUT.
Forest Assessment Simulator Version 0.98. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania.
Guidelines for Participatory Forest Resource Assessment and Management Planning (Draft).
October, 2004. Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and
Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Isango, J.A., 2007. Monitoring of Permanent Sample Plots (PSPs) established in SULEDO
Miombo forests in Kiteto Districts. Tanzania Forestry Research Institute (TAFORI).
Joint Forest Management Guidelines – for the Establishment of Joint Management
Agreements in Protection and Production Forests. April, 2007. Forestry and Beekeeping
Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Manual for Forest Assessment Tool and Forest Simulator, Version 0.98. November, 2013. FAO
Finland Forestry Program.
Namatunu Village Forest Management Plan. 2009-2014. Namatunu Village Government.
Nachingwea District Council.
Namitonga VLFR Forest Management Plan and Ngunichile Village Land Use Plan Review. July,
2014. Namitonga Village Land Forest Reserve. Ngunichile Village. Nachingwea District.
Nzunda, E. and Vesa, L. NAFORMA Support to Local Level Forest Management and Planning.
Draft summary Paper.
Report on Workshop to Present and Discuss the Draft of Harvesting Plan for Mtanza-Msona
VLFR and to Discuss Strategies and the Way Forward in Addressing Environmental
Challenges in Rufiji. June, 2014. BTC Tanzania and Kilombero and Lower Rufiji Wetlands
Ecosystem Management Project (KILORWEMP). Ministry of Natural Resources and
Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Reviewed Guidelines for the Preparation of Management Plans for Natural Forests in Tanzania
– A Synthesis Guide for Forest Managers. September, 2013. Tanzania Forest Services
(TFS), Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 49 of 50
Sustainable Harvesting Plan for Mtanza-Msona VLFR. February, 2014. Plan developed by
Village Sub-Committee involved in the Participatory Resource Assessment in collaboration
with District Forest Staff and Tanzania Forest Services, and facilitated by KILORWEP
project. Rufiji District Council Coast Region.
NAFORMA
NAFORMA Database. FAO Finland Technical Cooperation Programme – Sustainable Forest
Management in a Changing Climate.
A Report to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in support of
Sampling Study for National Forestry Resources Monitoring and Assessment (NAFORMA)
in Tanzania. March, 2010.
Trust Fund Agreement between the Government of Tanzania and the Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations. May 2009 – December 2012.
Field Manual – Biophysical Survey. December, 2010. National Forestry Resources Monitoring
and Assessment (NAFORMA) of Tanzania. Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
SUA
Field Manual – Biophysical Survey. December, 2010. National Forestry Resources Monitoring
and Assessment (NAFORMA) of Tanzania. Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
SULEDO
Basic Plan of Harvesting Operations in SULEDO (Technical Paper).
Consultancy Inputs on Harvest Operations and Forest Management. February, 2010. Securing
Sustainability of LAMP Initiatives – Support to SULEDO Forest Reserve. ORGUT.
Guidelines for Harvesting in Village Land Forest Reserves. December, 2013. Policy and Planning
Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Isango, J.A., 2007. Monitoring of Permanent Sample Plots (PSPs) established in SULEDO
Miombo forests in Kiteto Districts. Tanzania Forestry Research Institute (TAFORI).
PFRA Guidelines. Policy and Planning Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism,
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Pre-harvest Operations in SULEDO (Technical Paper).
TFS
Guidelines for Preparation of Management Plans for Natural Forests in Tanzania – A Synthesis
Guide for Forest Managers. Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania
Page 50 of 50
Field Manual – Biophysical Survey. March, 2010. National Forestry Resources Monitoring and
Assessment (NAFORMA) of Tanzania. Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Tom Blomley
PFRA Tanzania Workshop Papers
Experience of Tanzania Forest Conservation Group in Conducting Participatory Forest
Resource Assessment in Ruvu South Forest Reserve. A Paper presented at the
Orientation Workshop for Preparation of PFRA Guidelines. September, 2004. Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania.
Forest Resource Assessment in Iringa District, Mema Support Experience. A Paper
presented to a Workshop on Forest Resource Assessment for Participatory Forest
Management. September, 2004. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Hansen, J.N., and Oestergaard, J. Review of Participatory Forest Resource Assessment
in Tanzania.
Participatory Forest Monitoring System for Community Managed Forests. April, 2004.
Participatory Forest Resource Assessment Methodology. FARM Africa / SOS Sahel
Participatory Forest Management Programme.
Participatory Forest Resource Assessment – The Case of Duru-Haitemba Village Forest
Reserves.
Village Based Forest and Woodlot Management in Lindi Region. Experiences in
Participatory Forest Resource Assessment in Lindi and Kilwa. Case Study on
Participatory Forest Resource Assessment.
Guidelines for Participatory Forest Resource Assessment and Management Planning. January,
2005. Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar
es Salaam, Tanzania.
Workshop to Discuss National Guidelines for Participatory Forest Resource Assessment (PFRA).
Final Report. September, 2004. Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Unique forestry and land use GmbH
Feasibility Study for a Management Model of Participatory Forest Management – Inventory
Guideline. August, 2014. UNIQUE forestry and land use GmbH.
Feasibility Study for a Management Model of Participatory Forest Management – Management
Plan Concept according to JFM Guidelines for the “Nakafulu” Joint Forest Management
Area. November, 2014. UNIQUE forestry and land use GmbH.
Feasibility Study for a Management Model of Participatory Forest Management – for the
“Kilombero and Lower Rufiji Wetlands Ecosystem Management Project”. Final Report.
November, 2014. UNIQUE forestry and land use GmbH.