Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

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.