Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

Chapter 3: Adaptiveness and Collaboration in Community Forestry in Nepal • 59
The need for innovation
Through the considerable efforts of local people and governmental and
civil society actors, the Community Forestry Programme has established
thousands of CFUGs, many of which have improved their forest cover and
conditions (Winrock 2002; Nurse and Malla 2005). And yet, despite these
achievements, the anticipated livelihood benefits of the programme have
not unfolded as hoped (Malla 2000, 2001; Kanel and Pokharel 2002). Ojha
et al. (2002) note that even forests in good condition appear not to be used to
their full potential for livelihood contributions. In other forests, tree species
critical to the livelihoods of certain occupational groups are disappearing,
such as the mahuwa (Engelhardia spicata), used by the Chandara for making
pots. Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that inequity within CFUGs
is relatively common, with the economically and socially marginalised
peoples, such as women, the poor and low-caste groups, receiving small
shares of forest benefits relative to their needs (Nurse and Malla 2005;
Acharya 2002; Malla 2000, 2001; Kanel and Pokharel 2002; Winrock
2002). Kanel and Pokharel (2002: 44) note that ‘in worst cases, in fact, the
implementation of [community forestry] policy has inflicted added costs to
the poor in terms of reduced access to forest products and forced allocation
of household resources for communal forest management with insecurity
over the benefits’ 11 . For example, the orientation towards protection
common in community forestry can harm the livelihoods of poor forestdependent
villagers, such as fuelwood and charcoal sellers (Kaski ACM
Team 2002). If it is to build on its promising foundation and enhance
equitable and sustainable livelihood outcomes, community forestry is in
need of innovation.
To address this need, the ACM research team first explored the underlying
causes of community forestry’s shortcomings in equity and livelihoods and
identified two critical aspects of CFUG practices:
1. Collaboration. The level and/or quality of interaction of stakeholders
and the power relations within CFUGs, and between CFUGs and
other actors, is a stakeholder relations or collaboration issue.
2. Adaptiveness. The nature of the planning and decision-making
processes and experiences within CFUGs in terms of learning is
essentially an adaptiveness issue.
Our research suggested that some of the limitations in livelihood benefits
and equity were rooted in the challenges CFUGs face in addressing
collaboration (including power relations) and institutional learning and