Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

84 • Cynthia McDougall, Hemant Ojha, Raj Kumar Pandey, Mani Ram Banjade and Bishnu Hari Pandit
The second challenge—or dilemma—relates to the role of the facilitator
in an adaptive collaborative management approach. Facilitators appeared
to be critical to triggering and supporting the feedback loop and changes
described above. What would happen in their absence in the absence
of the externally-led (i.e., researcher) facilitation team? The followup
ACM project (2004–2007) sought to answer this question and ascertain
the long-term utility and appropriateness of an adaptive collaborative
management approach by assessing the changes in process and outcome
that occurred in 2002–2004, when there was no intervention or facilitation
(i.e., in the gap between the first and the followup research phase). If the
adaptive collaboration continued during this time, it would have been
under the direction of the CFUGs themselves and thus an indication of
institutionalisation of the approach.
Interim assessments indicate that the CFUGs did institutionalise and
continue to use the processes and arrangements triggered by the approach,
especially visioning, self-monitoring, and tole committees as a link to
the CFUG committee. In the assessments, CFUG members and other
informants indicated that the collaborative and learning-oriented attitudes
and capacities developed during the project appeared to have been
generally maintained or slightly increased during the gap period. Finally,
in terms of outcomes, most action plans initiated during the first phase
project continued. For example, the low-caste group members of Deurali-
Bagedanda CFUG who had planned for a sawmill during the first research
phase continued discussing the plans, although they could not begin
implementation until they secured financial support in 2006. Moreover, a
nursery that was established in Bamdibhir CFUG continued through the
gap into the second phase. In both cases, this represents more activeness
and success than the CFUGs had generated prior to their developing an
ACM approach.
However, although the overall approach was maintained during the gap
between project phases, as described above, the continuous feedback and
improvement cycle linking shared learning processes, governance structures,
and outcomes seemed to maintain as much momentum. Processes and
activities continued, but the more essential soft elements and attitudes
plateaued and—in our view—may not have been fully institutionalised. One
indication of this was that the time invested in CFUG processes by members
and facilitators dropped in all sites between research phases. For example,
the frequency of tole meetings dropped from monthly to approximately
every six months. Some users suggested that because so many major issues