Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

88 • Cynthia McDougall, Hemant Ojha, Raj Kumar Pandey, Mani Ram Banjade and Bishnu Hari Pandit
boundaries are not always a perfect fit with de facto and traditional uses of forests,
the formation process of CFUGs (and their ongoing membership processes) face
challenges.
11 Nurse and Malla (2005: 4) in fact suggest that ‘There are further indications
that only one-fourth of all [C]FUGs function effectively and manage the resources
actively and equitably, while in the remaining three-fourths, the poorest and most
dependent members may actually be worse off’.
12 In tackling these objectives, the research project acknowledged that some
other actors and organisations were also recognizing these underlying problems and
addressing them by promoting strategies such as CFUG-CFUG linkages, community
animation and other initiatives. This potential synergy reinforced the need for an
integrated as well as collaborative approach to the research.
13 The comparative case studies focused on assessment of existing CFUG
approaches, including processes and arrangements, and on their outcomes, successes
and challenges. The case studies were Sharada Devi CFUG, Kavre District; Rani
CFUG, Makwanpur District; Raktamala CFUG, Saptari District; Bhadaure Pakha
CFUG, Terhathum District; Judhabir CFUG, Parbat Distrct; Koidim CFUG, Tanahu
District; Barandgi Kohal CFUG, Palpa District; and Janaki CFUG, Dadeldhura
District. These span regions from the Terai (i.e., the plains), lower-middle to uppermiddle
hills and from the eastern, to central, to mid- and far-western regions.
14 Through advisors and other linkages, the project also engaged in numerous
formal and informal partnerships with other institutions, such as FECOFUN, and
individuals. Although these collaborators are too numerous to identify here, it is
important to note that any success the project achieved in meeting its goals was
directly linked to this web of partnerships.
15 In all cases, while researchers generally had an initial ‘action’ in mind when
they began (i.e., hosting a CFUG self-monitoring workshop), specific subsequent
actions were planned only as processes and learning unfolded over time. As they
worked with local stakeholders and jointly planned and reflected on options, research
teams tried to ensure that innovations continued to be guided by the ACM elements
(Chapter 2). Thus ‘they had the ACM elements in mind as “beacons” but were making
their own paths’ (McDougall et al. 2002: 90).
16 The ‘elite’ are not a homogeneous group, just as ‘the poor’ are also not
homogeneous, as Hobley (2007) points out. She usefully suggests viewing the elite in
categories according to their relationship with the poor: patron-client elites, neutral
elites and propoor elites.
17 This lesson aligns with the suggestion of the French philosopher Bourdieu
that a substantial cultural core of beliefs, ideologies and schemes of perceptions and
thought (‘doxa’) inscribe learning and human action (Ojha 2006).
18 By ‘ACM-related’ activities, we refer to the nature of the process or activity
rather than its source institution. In other words, we include both those directly
emerging from the ACM project and those that were ACM-related but initiated from
other partners. For example, the UK Livelihoods and Forestry Project catalysed the
multistakeholder meso-level planning process in Sankhuwasabha, in which the ACM
researchers and local partners participated. It was ACM-related because it focused on
increasing social learning and collaboration across CFUGs.