Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

Chapter 3: Adaptiveness and Collaboration in Community Forestry in Nepal • 65
Table 3-2. Patterns of CFUG practice prior to the ACM approach
Practice
Institutional arrangements
and structures
Planning approach and
processes
Decision-making and
information-sharing
mechanisms
Conflict management
Training and learning
Status (synthesis across sites)
The CFUG executive committee and general assembly
were the main bodies.
One CFUG also had subcommittees at the tole
(hamlet) level, but these were largely inactive.
Processes for the development of priorities and plans
within the CFUG and between the CFUG and
district forest office were linear and/or ad hoc,
not systematic or linked to past experience or
future goals.
Meetings were held irregularly, and collective learning
was limited.
Annual work plans were not clearly agreed upon or
missing altogether.
Action plans were not fully implemented.
Management was often passive and narrowly focused
on subsistence timber and fuelwood, with little
development of nontimber forest products.
Decision making tended to be top-down, dominated
by the executive committee or chairperson.
Marginalised users had little access or input to
decision making.
‘Consensus’ decision making, when used in the
general assembly, tended to drown out the voice
of marginalised people and legitimise proposals
by more dominant members and subgroups.
Communication from the executive committee to
individual members and internal stakeholder
groups (toles, interest groups) was limited.
Understanding and ownership of the constitution
and operational plans, even by the executive
committee, were weak.
Conflict resolution was handled by the executive
committee or external stakeholders and ranged
from very weak to moderately effective.
Training opportunities were typically allocated by
the chairperson or executive committee and
accessed only by these same individuals.
Sharing of learning from training was informal and
infrequent.