Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

Chapter 4: Improving Forest Quality and Livelihoods in Indonesia • 123
Another limitation of ACM relates to its communicative learning. Although
this kind of learning resulted in positive changes, only in conditions of
relative equality of power did this learning lead to the formation of more
inclusive views 14 . In other words, in situations of balanced power, learning
transformed stakeholders’ perspectives to become more open and inclusive
towards alternative views. For example, in Jambi, the original women and
the settler women adapted their ways of valuing the other group. On the
other hand, where perceptions were affected by severe power imbalances,
transformative learning hardly occurred. Some Jambi customary regulations,
for example, remain inflexible towards settlers.
Lessons learned and discussion
As noted before, the limited success of participatory forestry initiatives
in Indonesia is due to their inadequacy in handling divergent claims on
forests and addressing the inflexibility of management systems in dealing
with complex changes. These shortcomings are often reflected in paralysis
of decision making at various forest management levels. This section
discusses the lessons we have learned from applying ACM and highlights
the conclusions we have drawn about whether ACM can do better. Our
discussion focuses on forest decision making—the area where we believe
ACM can best contribute in Indonesia.
We learned that change is not likely to emerge without sufficient motivation
for people to initiate learning and collaborative action. The need for change
was present at the start of the project, but it did not motivate local actors
until facilitated action research encouraged them to develop the confidence
necessary for tackling problems themselves. This trigger was similar at both
sites: actors were facing rapid and complex social and political changes,
ineffective leadership, policies, and institutions and social disorder.
We also learned that ACM offers to existing forestry programs a structural
approach to dealing with divergent claims and related complexities.
After all, dealing with such challenges demands working structurally.
Stakeholders need to work at the system level in handling multiple claims
across different social entities and jurisdictions—factors that can complicate
learning, engender conflict and prevent collaboration. By improving the
social organisation among stakeholders, triggering learning in complex
environments and balancing power, ACM encourages stakeholders to
organise themselves in structures of collective decision-making.