Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

224 • Cynthia McDougall, Ravi Prabhu and Robert Fisher The potential benefits of an ACM approach as outlined in the table are supported by the evidence from the case studies in this book, in that ACM impacts seemed greatest in these situations: • where forest-dependent stakeholders had at least de facto access to, and control over, forest resources; • where government policy and institutional framework provided sufficient space for local stakeholders to create and manage their own community forestry programmes, either by supporting the creation of stakeholders’ own natural resource institutions and organisations or by adapting existing government ones to better accommodate stakeholders’ needs and perspectives; • where government and/or civil society programmes supported the development of human and social capital and were not necessarily linked only to forestry programs; and • where institutions and organisations, governmental and nongovernmental alike, were open to incorporating a learning attitude in their programs and activities and building in adaptiveness in their policies, programs or projects. Conclusions The patterns of processes and outcomes described in Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 reflect the model of adaptive collaborative management offered in Chapter 2. The Philippine and Nepal case studies show local groups striking out towards material gains from a fairly strong basis in strategic action related to their self-organisation. The communities undertook confident processes of social learning about herbal medicine or almaciga resin or border disputes or decision making, and groups and individuals that were previously unconnected to each other were now connected. By contrast, in Indonesia the struggle was to find some shared vision or meaning. In Jambi and Pasir the communities worked to develop a shared vision, overcome mistrust and ‘learned helplessness’ and improve communication and relationships before moving on to strategic action around processes of self-organisation and social learning. In the Malinau case there is repeated reference to ‘hot groups’, which appear to be ephemeral communities of practice, perhaps based on transient need but more likely reflecting instability and the lack of a shared vision and mutual commitment. The result seems to be constant sliding back and forth between the two phases of communicative and strategic action.
Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusions • 225 The ACM explanatory model has some limitations—especially as it is applied at supracommunity levels, best illustrated by the Malinau case study. Although this team was not facilitating an ACM approach per se, its efforts to facilitate ‘spontaneous orders of cooperation’ across the district lead to insights about catalysing positive change at a large scale—where there are potentially several ‘axles’ with the concomitant ACM phases turning simultaneously at different levels. Taking into account interactions at this scale raises the issue of how material action by powerful external actors (such as building a road or creating a map that disregards local rights) might affect strategic or communicative action by less powerful players. This is particularly a dilemma if the two sets of actors have not been effectively—and lastingly—drawn together by common purpose and converging interests. The Malinau researchers underscore that dilemma when they point out that ‘the most powerful agencies of strategic importance to communities’ interests were often not interested in collaborating with [the facilitation team], while those that were less strategic or weaker politically were’. At this level, there was no basis for communicative action between the two groups: there were no incentives for the powerful actors to risk engagement that might reduce their power or benefits or create additional tensions. The current ACM model would suggest that the less powerful groups need to proceed on their own through the three phases and build internal institutional, social and human capital and alliances until they can challenge the power of the external actors—and engage them in effective communicative action. At least two forces in the ACM model can allow such cycles to build momentum. First is through both top-down and bottom-up adjustments to norms, rules and institutions in resource management (i.e., the axle at the centre of the model). The Indonesian state was in the process of making top-down adjustments with its push to decentralisation. Nepal and the Philippines had already been through a few iterations of this process. Bottom-up aspects include the development of more inclusive and effective institutions, as illustrated in the Nepal case. Second is the presence of active, learning-oriented facilitation. When appropriate and effective, this kind of facilitation can create momentum for building the bottom-up institutional strengthening. Especially if the local community has ownership, the facilitation can be an engine in this phase of communicative action—and thus ultimately lead towards other forms of action.
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:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Chapter 4. Shaping Opportunities fo
Page 107 and 108:
Chapter 4: Improving Forest Quality
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Chapter 5: Muddling Towards Coopera
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Chapter 6: Facilitating Change from
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186: Chapter 6: Facilitating Change from
Page 221 and 222: Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusio
Page 235: Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusio
Page 241 and 242: CIFOR is a leading international fo
show all

Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?