Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

Chapter 3: Adaptiveness and Collaboration in Community Forestry in Nepal • 85
had been addressed and new processes, such as self-monitoring, had been
established during the first research phase, the subsequent need for time
investments dropped. We also suggest, however, that despite efforts to
transfer facilitation roles from researchers to local actors by the end of the
first phase, it is likely that CFUG members, including potential facilitators,
had come to view facilitation as the responsibility of outside actors. They
likely felt some lack of ownership over the tole meetings, and the meetings
became less active and effective.
Thus, issues of ownership and local facilitation are critical. Based on our
assessments, the diminished facilitation in the interim period is associated
with decreases in overall momentum and outcomes (rather than ongoing
albeit oscillating constructive evolution that occurred with facilitation). In
two Bamdibhir and Deurali-Bagedanda, local actors continued to facilitate
CFUG processes (although less actively than in the first phase), whereas
in Manakamana and Andheri Bhajana, the facilitation role played by local
actors either did not take root or decreased significantly for various reasons.
The overall pattern, based on our preliminary assessments, was that the
two CFUGs that had more facilitation by local actors in the 2002–2004
period experienced greater positive change in access to decision making
for marginalised users, transparency, and equity in distribution of forest
benefits. Interestingly, in both these sites, the facilitation was largely taken
up by local actors who were engaged in the meso level (such as through
district-level FECOFUN) rather only at the CFUG level. We continue to
explore these questions: in the second research phase the facilitation is
being led from the outset entirely by local and meso-level facilitators rather
than by researchers. Indications at the time of writing are that the careful
selection, training and backstopping of all facilitators from the outset of a
change process—as well as the networking of these facilitators across sites
and levels—is a much more powerful tool for institutionalising changes
in community forestry process and practice than leadership by ‘external’
facilitators with efforts to transfer roles.
Conclusions
Community forestry has evolved and matured impressively in Nepal. The
context is so complex and dynamic, however, and the need to produce
equitable livelihood benefits so urgent that more inclusive, flexible and
responsive practices are essential. In this chapter we have highlighted
lessons from participatory action research about such innovation. The