Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

Chapter 2: Adaptive Collaborative Management: A Conceptual Model • 29
communication is not the transmission of information but rather the
coordination of behaviour between living organisms. It follows that
linguistic communication, which is our primary interest in this model, is
communication for the coordination of behaviour. Language is a system of
symbolic communication. According to Capra (2002: 46), ‘its symbols—
words, gestures and other signs—serve as a linguistic coordination of
actions’, which in turn allows the symbols to become associated with our
mental image of objects. Thus, in human conversation ‘our concepts and
ideas, emotions and body movements become tightly linked in a complex
choreography of behavioural coordination’ (Capra 2002: 47).
The model of ACM draws from cybernetics first in highlighting the need
for collaborators to be empowered to create and maintain a shared vision.
This can be seen as part of the coordination function of communication,
since it contributes to improved coordination between the collaborators.
We have noted above that for information to be used effectively, there
must be congruence between the various stakeholders’ mental models of
the problem (Brunner and Clark 1997; Weeks and Packard 1997). The
visions and goals of the stakeholders necessarily inform these mental
models. Returning for a moment to visions and visioning, we agree with
Walters (1986) when he suggests that the essence of managing adaptively
is to have an explicit vision of the systems one is trying to guide. Supporting
this from a business management perspective, Senge (1990) notes that the
change process in various kinds of organisations and communities requires
a clear vision of the desired goal, which is also shared by the stakeholders.
The ACM model also draws from cybernetics in emphasising the need for
collaborators to monitor what is happening and to adjust and correct their
decisions and actions accordingly. As with visioning, this can be seen as
part of the coordination function of communication, since it contributes to
improved coordination between the collaborators. (It is also an important
part of the social learning function, as described in phase 2, below.) Forest
policy makers and managers must understand the structure and behaviour
of their resource systems if they are to make useful decisions about them.
They are often hindered in this because ecosystem, social and economic
processes and changes are often not tangible. This might be because they
are not visible or because they occur at temporal, geographic or political
scales outside the normal cognitive range of the stakeholders. One response
to this challenge has been the development of monitoring systems, usually
focused on tracking the planned outcomes or targets. Yet Goyder et al. (1998)
warn that conventional monitoring systems only inform us of the kinds of