Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

62 • Cynthia McDougall, Hemant Ojha, Raj Kumar Pandey, Mani Ram Banjade and Bishnu Hari Pandit
The research project ran from 1999 to the end of 2002. In this chapter
we focus on the CFUG level research and its in-depth lessons into the
subtleties of catalysing adaptive and collaborative management-based
innovations. The CFUG main case studies that form the basis for these
lessons took place in four sites that were selected, in collaboration with
the district forest offices, because they were relatively representative of
‘average’ CFUGs in their districts in terms of geography, demographics,
resources, governance, activity and success; sites that were well above or
below average were ruled out.
The research combined traditional social and biophysical research
methodologies with participatory action research (PAR). Traditional
research was the basis for the background studies and the reassessments
that enabled before-and-after comparisons of socioeconomic, institutional,
forest management and biophysical information in each main case study site,
as well as cross-site comparisons. The background studies were conducted
in March 2000–February 2001 and the reassessments in March–June 2002
and involved a variety of participatory rural appraisal methods, such as
well-being ranking and participatory mapping.
The essence of the project was the participatory action research, which
took place from approximately March 2001 to July 2002 in each main case
study site. PAR methodology enabled the research teams to engage local
stakeholders in catalysing or enhancing ACM approaches appropriate to
the local situation, including strengthening local institutions, addressing
boundary negotiations and increasing income-generation activities. As
described in the introduction to this chapter, this meant catalysing an
approach that was inclusive, enabled networking and flexibility and was
rooted in social learning. PAR began at the CFUG level and expanded
(in a preliminary way) towards the meso level. Adaptive collaborative
management-related facilitation was initially led primarily by the research
teams 15 ; the teams then made efforts to shift the facilitation role to CFUG
members, CFUG supporting agents and meso-level leaders. The limitations
of researcher-led facilitation led to some insights that we discuss below,
under ‘Reflections’. The main activities and roles of the researchers during
the participatory action research were the following:
• Building rapport and developing social relationships with local
stakeholders, and discussing whether and how the CFUG wanted
to introduce innovations into its governance and management.
• Catalysing the development of an adaptive and collaborative
approach to CFUG management by hosting and facilitating a