Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

218 • Cynthia McDougall, Ravi Prabhu and Robert Fisher
Although the increased interest in forest sustainability is positive for forests
(and in the long term, for livelihoods), researchers in the Nepal case study
raise warning flags about the possible effect of protection of natural capital
and on equity: if the desire to improve forest condition leads to increasingly
protectionist regulations, marginalised groups may suffer. The researchers
therefore emphasise the need for monitoring-based planning to include a
focus on equity and take place in a forum in which all groups can influence
decisions and mitigate potentially harmful outcomes and uncertainties.
Some households in sites in all countries have started to see small-scale
returns from income-generating activities. Probably more important, all
the communities increased the number and activeness of remunerative
initiatives, thus laying the foundation for future gains. Whether the
communities will in fact benefit depends on market conditions and
continued resource availability. In Nepal, the new transparency and
accountability of user group fund management were an indicator of financial
asset enhancement, especially for middle-income and marginalised users.
In Palawan, the higher guaranteed purchase price for almaciga resin most
certainly would augment the incomes of resin collectors. In most other cases,
however, weak markets and market infrastructure as well as inadequate
organisation in the production and value chains meant that little impact
on financial capital could be expected during the project period. Indeed,
this suggests that the ACM model (Chapter 2) lacks sophistication in terms
of a hierarchy of ‘empowerment through material gains’. It would seem
that a safety net or improvements in subsistence living can be expected in
early iterations, but it will take increasing sophistication in all three phases
and several iterations before we can expect to see significant impacts on
financial capital as a result of empowerment through material gains.
On the whole, more material gains were achieved in Nepal and the
Philippines than in Indonesia. Using the model in Chapter 2 once more,
the relative strength of Nepal’s and the Philippines’ ‘axle’ of community
forestry norms, rules and institutions may be the explanation. Indonesia
was just exploring what community forestry meant, and the ACM research
team entered Malinau, Pasir and Jambi to help facilitate some of this
discussion by opening new channels of communication, exploring mental
models and encouraging the emergence of ‘shared visions, meaning and
purpose’ for community forestry. In Nepal and the Philippines, these
questions had been answered, at least sufficiently to establish a foundation
for innovation and community gains. In these cases, the communicative