Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...
Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...
Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
124 • Trikurnianti Kusumanto<br />
Another lesson learned is that ACM enables <strong>management</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiatives to<br />
handle imbalances—<strong>in</strong> resource distribution, for example—because it can<br />
<strong>in</strong>sert learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> socio-political processes. An ACM-<strong>in</strong>spired decisionmak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
structure uses social learn<strong>in</strong>g as an <strong>in</strong>strument for the stakeholders<br />
to arrive at political decisions. In the process <strong>of</strong> decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g, previous<br />
decisions are adjusted if the stakeholders deem it necessary.<br />
Lastly, we learned that the major outcomes <strong>of</strong> the ACM approach are<br />
improvements <strong>in</strong> human and social capital—the prerequisite for long-term<br />
improvements <strong>in</strong> forest resources and human well-be<strong>in</strong>g. Our relatively<br />
short-term research <strong>in</strong>dicates that adapt<strong>in</strong>g old configurations <strong>of</strong> human<br />
and social relationships to new constructions supported the formation <strong>of</strong><br />
livelihood assets—natural, f<strong>in</strong>ancial and physical.<br />
Those lessons provide a necessary base for consider<strong>in</strong>g whether an ACMbased<br />
decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g structure can address the two shortcom<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong><br />
present forest <strong>management</strong> systems. We beg<strong>in</strong> with what Lee (1999) says<br />
about the ways people organise themselves for solv<strong>in</strong>g different decision<br />
problems (Figure 4-6): <strong>in</strong> structures where stakeholders are organised<br />
around rules <strong>of</strong> <strong>management</strong> with agreed outcomes and means <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>management</strong> (representative structures), structures where stakeholders<br />
negotiate about <strong>management</strong> outcomes with already agreed means<br />
(bureaucratic structures), or structures where stakeholders seek to agree<br />
about the means <strong>of</strong> <strong>management</strong> with already agreed outcomes (collegial<br />
structures). Conflicts, Lee suggests, are decision situations that cannot be<br />
handled through one <strong>of</strong> these structures because stakeholders can agree<br />
about neither the <strong>management</strong> outcomes nor the means to achieve them.<br />
Conflict requires that stakeholders shift from an unstructured to a structured<br />
context. This is <strong>of</strong>ten done by either ‘settl<strong>in</strong>g conflicts’ (i.e., seek<strong>in</strong>g to agree<br />
what outcomes to target) or ‘plann<strong>in</strong>g’ for a future consensus (i.e., look<strong>in</strong>g<br />
for agreement on what means to deploy). Each path has its drawbacks,<br />
Lee asserts. Settl<strong>in</strong>g conflicts may not work because there may simply be<br />
no common ground for disputant parties. Plann<strong>in</strong>g for future consensus<br />
may illum<strong>in</strong>ate not only opportunities to collaborate but also <strong>in</strong>compatible<br />
differences. Initially cooperative parties may then disrupt the processes or<br />
even decl<strong>in</strong>e to participate. Given these weaknesses, Lee argues, learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
becomes an essential mode <strong>of</strong> handl<strong>in</strong>g conflict <strong>in</strong> complex environments.