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.
22 • Ravi Prabhu, Cynthia McDougall and Robert Fisher<br />
stakeholders and depart, then comb<strong>in</strong>e the disparate bits <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
and views <strong>in</strong>to a report and send back their recommendations (or, sometimes,<br />
make the recommendations to others). In an ACM approach, any outside<br />
experts help generate <strong>in</strong>formation for <strong>in</strong>ternal use, and only secondarily for<br />
external use, and they <strong>in</strong>teract with the local stakeholders <strong>in</strong> a facilitated<br />
process. The process <strong>of</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g and mak<strong>in</strong>g sense <strong>of</strong> different perspectives<br />
and knowledge takes place <strong>in</strong>teractively, with direction from and the active<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>of</strong> local actors. Local actors become proactive <strong>in</strong> identify<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
access<strong>in</strong>g needed <strong>in</strong>formation and knowledge, and this <strong>in</strong>creases their power.<br />
Box 2-2. Traditional versus adaptive <strong>collaborative</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />
In the background studies <strong>of</strong> the CIFOR and partner project <strong>in</strong> Nepal, the<br />
research teams observed several commonalities <strong>in</strong> the forest <strong>management</strong><br />
and governance processes and <strong>in</strong>stitutions that preceded the ACM approach:<br />
• Forest user group committees, the ma<strong>in</strong> decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g bodies, were<br />
dom<strong>in</strong>ated by men from local elites.<br />
• Decision mak<strong>in</strong>g was restricted to a small group or an <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
• Full assemblies <strong>of</strong> members, if held, were <strong>of</strong>ten used for rubber-stamp<strong>in</strong>g<br />
or dissem<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g committee decisions.<br />
• Decision mak<strong>in</strong>g was based largely on exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation and beliefs.<br />
• There were no mechanisms feed<strong>in</strong>g back lessons from the implementation<br />
<strong>of</strong> plans <strong>in</strong>to the plann<strong>in</strong>g process.<br />
Dur<strong>in</strong>g the participatory action research phase, the facilitators tried to catalyse<br />
the follow<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
• the <strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>of</strong> all relevant stakeholders;<br />
• effective communication <strong>in</strong> multiple directions;<br />
• jo<strong>in</strong>t actions;<br />
• effective conflict <strong>management</strong>;<br />
• the application <strong>of</strong> shared <strong>in</strong>tentional learn<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>management</strong>;<br />
• the use <strong>of</strong> a systems view <strong>of</strong> human and natural systems; and<br />
• decision mak<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>in</strong>corporated vision<strong>in</strong>g and took <strong>in</strong>to account<br />
uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty.<br />
One <strong>in</strong>stitutional change that emerged across the research sites dur<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
ACM projects <strong>in</strong>volved the locus for decision mak<strong>in</strong>g: it moved from the<br />
committees <strong>of</strong> elite men to <strong>in</strong>volve <strong>community</strong> members at the hamlet level.<br />
The result was a correspond<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> two-way <strong>in</strong>formation flow between<br />
forest users and the committee, and more people had ownership <strong>of</strong> the<br />
decisions taken. The processes that emerged contrasted noticeably with the<br />
more l<strong>in</strong>ear ‘committee —› assembly —› implementation (or not)’ sequence<br />
<strong>of</strong> events. In the ACM approach (as synthesised across the sites), forest user<br />
group members developed an agreed shared vision <strong>of</strong> the future and then<br />
used that to create ‘<strong>in</strong>dicators’ for their group.