new kkiiilllooorrr · 2019. 2. 18. · kkiiilllooorrr kilombero and lower rufiji wetlands ecosystem...

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.

mailto:[email protected]

KILORWEMP/NFBKP2 Review of current inventory methodologies and FMP methodologies in Tanzania

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


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


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


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.


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.


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

http://www.mnrt.go.tz/resources/view/forest-act-2002

http://www.mnrt.go.tz/resources/view/national-forest-programme-in-tanzania-2001-2010


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.


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.


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.


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.?


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,


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


of 50



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


of 50



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)


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



1 Weight)

1


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


2 (Weight)


Scale of application is community-managed forest such as VLFR; hence, it is a forest enterprise scale.

4.0


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



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/

http://www.mpingoconservation.org/home/


of 50



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


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


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


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


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


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


of 50



consuming and prone to errors that cannot be easily detected/traced.


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



A harvesting plan is described and illustrated in a Harvesting Plan Template.

4.0


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


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



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


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


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


Methodology has been applied successfully, but primarily within the Mpingo Conservation Project. It has remained largely within and not spread outside MCP.

2.0


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


of 50



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.


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


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


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/

http://www.fao.org/forestry/17847/en/tza/

http://www.fao.org/forestry/fma/openforis/en/


of 50

concentrates only on the job of collecting and analyzing forest resources data at a

large/national scale.

Table 5: NAFORMA methodology evaluation



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


2 (Weight)


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


Covers inventory only. 0.0



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


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


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


of 50



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


Numerous attributes/parameters are captured: species, DBH, vegetation/forest type, slope, plot locations, canopy cover, regeneration, etc.

4.0


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


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


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







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



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


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


of 50



templates, data sheets, forms, etc. provided with the aim of making the application of the methodology effective and easy?


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



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


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


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


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



1 (Weight)

1


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


2 (Weight)


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


Covers the FMP process only. 0.0



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


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


of 50



REDD+. Measures to enhance carbon stock, e.g., planting, site rehabilitation, and natural regeneration through effective protection are defined.


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


Does not provide details on inventory aspects. Refers to PFRA and conventional inventory methods.

1.0



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



1.0


No procedures/mechanisms for forest inventory and management planning data management and storage described.

0.0



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


No method for estimating sustainable harvesting levels defined/described.

0.0


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



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


of 50




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


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


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



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


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


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/

http://www.unique-forst.de/


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



1 (Weight)

1


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


2 (Weight)


Scale of application is a forest land, where JFM is to be applied; hence, it is a forest enterprise scale.

4.0


Covers all three aspects of inventory, FMP, and harvesting plan.

4.0



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


1.5 (average)*

a. Timber? Important timber species are identified from PRA with rural 4.0


of 50



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


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


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


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


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


Data is stored in the Excel-based inventory database, however, procedures for the data management are not clearly described in the methodology.

2.0



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


of 50




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


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



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


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


Supporting templates, e.g., FMP concept, data recording forms, and an Excel-based inventory database for analysis are provided.

4.0


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



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


of 50



that are used in final calculations/assessments?


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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).


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


of 50

Annex

Annex 1: List of methodologies developers/owners/process

Annex 2: Documents reviewed/consulted


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


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


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.


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


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.


of 50

Field Manual – Biophysical Survey. March, 2010. National Forestry Resources Monitoring and

Assessment (NAFORMA) of Tanzania. Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of


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.