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 3: <strong>Adaptive</strong>ness and Collaboration <strong>in</strong> Community Forestry <strong>in</strong> Nepal • 65<br />
Table 3-2. Patterns <strong>of</strong> CFUG practice prior to the ACM approach<br />
Practice<br />
Institutional arrangements<br />
and structures<br />
Plann<strong>in</strong>g approach and<br />
processes<br />
Decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation-shar<strong>in</strong>g<br />
mechanisms<br />
Conflict <strong>management</strong><br />
Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Status (synthesis across sites)<br />
The CFUG executive committee and general assembly<br />
were the ma<strong>in</strong> bodies.<br />
One CFUG also had subcommittees at the tole<br />
(hamlet) level, but these were largely <strong>in</strong>active.<br />
Processes for the development <strong>of</strong> priorities and plans<br />
with<strong>in</strong> the CFUG and between the CFUG and<br />
district forest <strong>of</strong>fice were l<strong>in</strong>ear and/or ad hoc,<br />
not systematic or l<strong>in</strong>ked to past experience or<br />
future goals.<br />
Meet<strong>in</strong>gs were held irregularly, and collective learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
was limited.<br />
Annual work plans were not clearly agreed upon or<br />
miss<strong>in</strong>g altogether.<br />
Action plans were not fully implemented.<br />
Management was <strong>of</strong>ten passive and narrowly focused<br />
on subsistence timber and fuelwood, with little<br />
development <strong>of</strong> nontimber forest products.<br />
Decision mak<strong>in</strong>g tended to be top-down, dom<strong>in</strong>ated<br />
by the executive committee or chairperson.<br />
Marg<strong>in</strong>alised users had little access or <strong>in</strong>put to<br />
decision mak<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
‘Consensus’ decision mak<strong>in</strong>g, when used <strong>in</strong> the<br />
general assembly, tended to drown out the voice<br />
<strong>of</strong> marg<strong>in</strong>alised people and legitimise proposals<br />
by more dom<strong>in</strong>ant members and subgroups.<br />
Communication from the executive committee to<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual members and <strong>in</strong>ternal stakeholder<br />
groups (toles, <strong>in</strong>terest groups) was limited.<br />
Understand<strong>in</strong>g and ownership <strong>of</strong> the constitution<br />
and operational plans, even by the executive<br />
committee, were weak.<br />
Conflict resolution was handled by the executive<br />
committee or external stakeholders and ranged<br />
from very weak to moderately effective.<br />
Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g opportunities were typically allocated by<br />
the chairperson or executive committee and<br />
accessed only by these same <strong>in</strong>dividuals.<br />
Shar<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g from tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g was <strong>in</strong>formal and<br />
<strong>in</strong>frequent.