Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...
Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...
Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Chapter 2: <strong>Adaptive</strong> Collaborative Management: A Conceptual Model • 29<br />
communication is not the transmission <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation but rather the<br />
coord<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> behaviour between liv<strong>in</strong>g organisms. It follows that<br />
l<strong>in</strong>guistic communication, which is our primary <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> this model, is<br />
communication for the coord<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> behaviour. Language is a system <strong>of</strong><br />
symbolic communication. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Capra (2002: 46), ‘its symbols—<br />
words, gestures and other signs—serve as a l<strong>in</strong>guistic coord<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong><br />
actions’, which <strong>in</strong> turn allows the symbols to become associated with our<br />
mental image <strong>of</strong> objects. Thus, <strong>in</strong> human conversation ‘our concepts and<br />
ideas, emotions and body movements become tightly l<strong>in</strong>ked <strong>in</strong> a complex<br />
choreography <strong>of</strong> behavioural coord<strong>in</strong>ation’ (Capra 2002: 47).<br />
The model <strong>of</strong> ACM draws from cybernetics first <strong>in</strong> highlight<strong>in</strong>g the need<br />
for collaborators to be empowered to create and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> a shared vision.<br />
This can be seen as part <strong>of</strong> the coord<strong>in</strong>ation function <strong>of</strong> communication,<br />
s<strong>in</strong>ce it contributes to improved coord<strong>in</strong>ation between the collaborators.<br />
We have noted above that for <strong>in</strong>formation to be used effectively, there<br />
must be congruence between the various stakeholders’ mental models <strong>of</strong><br />
the problem (Brunner and Clark 1997; Weeks and Packard 1997). The<br />
visions and goals <strong>of</strong> the stakeholders necessarily <strong>in</strong>form these mental<br />
models. Return<strong>in</strong>g for a moment to visions and vision<strong>in</strong>g, we agree with<br />
Walters (1986) when he suggests that the essence <strong>of</strong> manag<strong>in</strong>g adaptively<br />
is to have an explicit vision <strong>of</strong> the systems one is try<strong>in</strong>g to guide. Support<strong>in</strong>g<br />
this from a bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>management</strong> perspective, Senge (1990) notes that the<br />
change process <strong>in</strong> various k<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>of</strong> organisations and communities requires<br />
a clear vision <strong>of</strong> the desired goal, which is also shared by the stakeholders.<br />
The ACM model also draws from cybernetics <strong>in</strong> emphasis<strong>in</strong>g the need for<br />
collaborators to monitor what is happen<strong>in</strong>g and to adjust and correct their<br />
decisions and actions accord<strong>in</strong>gly. As with vision<strong>in</strong>g, this can be seen as<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the coord<strong>in</strong>ation function <strong>of</strong> communication, s<strong>in</strong>ce it contributes to<br />
improved coord<strong>in</strong>ation between the collaborators. (It is also an important<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the social learn<strong>in</strong>g function, as described <strong>in</strong> phase 2, below.) Forest<br />
policy makers and managers must understand the structure and behaviour<br />
<strong>of</strong> their resource systems if they are to make useful decisions about them.<br />
They are <strong>of</strong>ten h<strong>in</strong>dered <strong>in</strong> this because ecosystem, social and economic<br />
processes and changes are <strong>of</strong>ten not tangible. This might be because they<br />
are not visible or because they occur at temporal, geographic or political<br />
scales outside the normal cognitive range <strong>of</strong> the stakeholders. One response<br />
to this challenge has been the development <strong>of</strong> monitor<strong>in</strong>g systems, usually<br />
focused on track<strong>in</strong>g the planned outcomes or targets. Yet Goyder et al. (1998)<br />
warn that conventional monitor<strong>in</strong>g systems only <strong>in</strong>form us <strong>of</strong> the k<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>of</strong>