Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

114 • Trikurnianti Kusumanto Third, learning had to create opportunities for the stakeholders to form new knowledge based on their experience. New experience does not necessarily lead to new knowledge and/or new behaviours. As attested by our fieldwork, however, the PAR made experiential learning more reflective and hence a stronger basis for learning. We believe that the PAR methodology we adopted was effective in making ‘experiential learning’ (Kolb 1984) operational for two reasons: • PAR provided a framework that guided our team and the stakeholders to structure and systematise the process of learning. • Because of reflections throughout PAR, stakeholders felt encouraged to learn from experience. Fourth, so that stakeholders had a common way to share ideas and views, we organised activities that used communication as the central means for sharing knowledge and perspectives. Simultaneously, we tried to minimise communication hindrance (or ‘noise’) affecting the way messages were received by taking the following measures: • creating an atmosphere of mutual trust, respect, and confidence between stakeholders; • preparing stakeholders who were normally less vocal and articulate in larger encounters to more effectively communicate their opinions and respond to messages; • preparing the more dominant stakeholders to listen better and analyse messages prior to forming opinions; and • assisting as a spokesperson for particular stakeholders. It was important to understand the principles that underlay the organisation of learning. However, it was equally important to know how our team, as facilitators, encouraged stakeholders to actually learn. We observed three factors that motivate stakeholders, and three main roles that facilitators can take in response: • Stakeholders were motivated by external factors. For instance, the community’s desire to improve livelihood conditions predated our arrival, but it was our facilitation that encouraged the community to do something about it. The facilitator’s role was to trigger learning and to encourage stakeholders to bring about changes in perceived conditions. • Stakeholders were motivated by internal factors. People have the capacity to look into the future on their own, even in the absence of any external motivating factors; this is sometimes called anticipatory learning (Wollenberg et al. 2000). Facilitation should focus on developing stakeholders’ abilities to reflect and anticipate.
Chapter 4: Improving Forest Quality and Livelihoods in Indonesia • 115 • Stakeholders were motivated to learn from the interactive processes that emerged along the collaborative efforts. The facilitator can encourage communication among stakeholders and assist group processes. JAMBI • Baru Pelepat community • Communities of neighbouring villages • Representatives of Baru Pelepat • Representatives of neighbouring communities • Representatives of each of the following stakeholder groups: - - - - - - - - Nomadic (Orang Rimba) Original inhabitants Settlers Village elite Youth Customary institution Village government Women’s organisation District Government PASIR • Rantau Layung community • Rantau Buta community • Communities of neighbouring villages • Logging companies • Representatives of Rantau Layung • Representatives of Rantau Buta • Representatives of neighbouring communities • Representatives of logging companies District Government Figure 4-4. Organising learning for stakeholders in ‘nested platforms’ (Source: Kusumanto et al. 2005) Outcomes of ACM In this section we discuss the social processes of change that emerged as a result of the interactions amongst stakeholders when we applied the ACM approach. It also describes the changes in social and human capital generated by those processes.
Page 1:
Adaptive Collaborative Management o
Page 4 and 5:
Copyright © 2007 by Center for Int
Page 6 and 7:
iv • Contents Chapter 5. Muddling
Page 8 and 9:
vi • Foreword problem solving. Th
Page 10 and 11:
viii • About the Contributors God
Page 12 and 13:
Acknowledgements In early 1999, two
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter 1. Introduction: People, Fo
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter 1: Introduction: People, Fo
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 2: Adaptive Collaborative M
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Chapter 3: Adaptiveness and Collabo
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76: Chapter 3: Adaptiveness and Collabo
Page 105 and 106: Chapter 4. Shaping Opportunities fo
Page 107 and 108: Chapter 4: Improving Forest Quality
Page 125: Chapter 4: Improving Forest Quality
Page 147 and 148: Chapter 5: Muddling Towards Coopera
Page 175 and 176: Chapter 6: Facilitating Change from
Page 177 and 178:
Chapter 6: Facilitating Change from
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusio
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
CIFOR is a leading international fo
show all

Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?