0806-C1
C. McDougall and R. Prabhu with P. Macoun and H. Hartanto 2
In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.
Edward Hoffer3
Forest-dependent communities are expected to cope with increasingly rapid changes in information, policy, tenure, markets, risks and opportunities. Furthermore, they are often expected to do so with limited support from under-resourced forestry extension agencies, and sometimes in forests that have previously been significantly degraded. It is in this context that many community forest (CF) managers (i.e. forest-dependent people) face the challenge of practising sustainable management while addressing their livelihood needs. In this paper we examine the initial results of a traditional and participatory action research program of CIFOR and many partners, which explored the question of whether an adaptive collaborative management (ACM) approach can be used by local forest managers to successfully meet the twin demands of improving their livelihoods, while at the same time maintaining their resource base. An adaptive collaborative management approach in this context refers to CF management and governance being rooted in effective social learning, communication and collective action. In this paper we provide an overview of the key concepts and the ACM research project, and examine its main impacts on livelihoods and forests. We suggest that this approach may present a viable and flexible opportunity for forest-dependent communities to strengthen their institutions and better meet their livelihood and resource goals.
Diversity characterizes all life on earth; this applies equally to natural and human systems. A `local community', for example, is generally far from homogenous; communities embody a dynamic web of overlapping social differences, such as gender, ethnicity, and wealth, and relatedly, access to resources and power. Furthermore, the multiple, and often non-linear, interactions within and between human and natural systems generate complexity, which is characterized by time lags and unclear links between `cause and effect'. Processes of globalization are increasing the connectedness of human societies, leaving forest-dependent communities to cope with increasingly rapid changes in information, policy, tenure, markets, risks and opportunities, with limited support from under-resourced forestry extension agencies, and often in forests that have been significantly degraded previously. It is in this context that many community forest managers face the challenge of trying to practice sustainable management while addressing their livelihood needs.
In this paper we examine the initial results of a three year research program which explored whether the conscious development of social learning and collaboration as cornerstones of community forest management (CFM) can help local forest managers (i.e., forest dependent people) successfully meet the twin demands of sustaining and improving their livelihoods, while at the same time maintaining their resource base. CIFOR4 and multiple partners undertook this research between 1999 and 2002 in eight sites5 in Indonesia, Nepal and the Philippines while testing an `adaptive collaborative management' (ACM) approach. In this brief paper we provide an overview of the key concepts and the ACM research project, and examine its main impacts on livelihoods and forests.
Adaptation, like evolution, is a natural process. An adaptive collaborative management approach to CFM is a way of engaging in community forestry (CF) management and governance so that this natural process is strengthened and enhanced, and the groups involved have the capacity to adapt more efficiently and appropriately to the pressures of rapid change and complexity that confront them7.
The essence of an `adaptive collaborative approach' to CFM is that forest stakeholders use intentional (i.e., deliberate) `on-going learning' as the fundamental basis for decision-making and planning, and work for effective relations amongst stakeholders, including communication, equitable access to decision-making and benefits, negotiation, conflict management, and collective actions as appropriate. `Intentional learning' not only includes the building or transfer of knowledge and skills, but also, and especially, `social learning8' processes. The latter, for example, would include undertakings such as joint monitoring of changes in a CF's natural and institutional system and in its livelihood and forest outcomes.
To further explore the concept, we look at some differences between of the some common and adaptive collaborative approaches in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Comparison of commonly applied versus adaptive (and collaborative) management approaches (McDougall et al, 2002)
Commonly applied approaches to CFM (including by `trial and error') |
Adaptive collaborative management approaches |
Learning is a by-product of experience (Occurs to differing degrees, but is incidental and may or may not be used) |
Learning as a planned output (& input) (built into the management process; it is conscious and applied) |
Punishes `failure' |
`Failure' as an opportunity for learning |
Plans (with/out monitoring) are prepared for implementing policy |
Plans are considered as policy experiments; (there are action plans and monitoring plans) |
Monitoring of compliance and inputs; focus on information collection |
Monitoring to generate information and knowledge on identified `learning questions'; joint analysis is key |
Assumptions are considered as ideas and rarely challenged |
Uncertainty recognized and assumptions made explicit and tested through experience |
Views/perspectives seen as `right' or `wrong' |
Multiple perceptions; negotiation of views |
We view ACM as a flexible approach to planning and decision-making that fits inside the community forest management framework. This approach can be applied from decision-making and planning of a single activity such as income generation or silviculture, to annual or longer term plans locally, up to and including the national level policy development process. As a means of creating `guideposts' for practice, we have broken the concept down further into smaller elements (after McDougall et al 2002):
The ACM research fed into a set of overarching research questions: Under what conditions (if any), and with what processes, institutional arrangements, and tools, is collaboration and processes of conscious social learning in CFM possible and/or desirable? What are their influences (impacts) on human well-being and the maintenance (or improvement) of forest systems, under different conditions and why?
In Asia we selected eight main case study sites11 in 1999, across Nepal, the Philippines and Indonesia, together with our diverse national partners to form the core of the research project. Thereafter research teams undertook background studies12 in each case in 2000, followed by participatory action research13 (PAR) from 2001-2002, concluding with re-assessments of key variables. We used `traditional research' (i.e., data collection and analysis oriented towards researcher-identified questions and variables) in the background studies and final re-assessments as a means of carrying out longitudinal and cross-site comparisons. PAR was initiated in the sites as the means of catalyzing or enhancing ACM approaches appropriate to the local situation, including for strengthening local institutions, addressing boundary negotiations, or increasing income generation activities.
Assessment of the local CF contexts indicated that while there are many contributing factors to challenges in each site14, there are also several common threads running through them relating to management and governance, which were likely institutional `pressure points'. These included: lack of access to the internal decision-making processes within local management groups, especially for marginalized users; the planning processes at all levels tend to be linear and/or ad/hoc in nature, and sometimes passive; and, often weak or ambiguous, or sometimes conflictual (especially in Indonesia15) relationships among local and district level stakeholders and other stakeholders (although some networks have been emerging).
There was no single set of steps or processes followed in the sites to enhance or catalyse adaptiveness and collaborativeness of the local forest management institutions; rather, in each site the ACM researchers worked with local forest users and other stakeholders to develop appropriate innovations in local decision-making and planning that were rooted in ACM elements.
In Nepal, at the FUG level, in terms of institutional arrangements, this included: creating more space for non-elite member input to FUG decision-making and enhanced information flow through the development of sub-user group (i.e. hamlet) committees16; institutionalizing representation of women and marginalized groups in FUG committees; devolving control and responsibility of FUG plans to small, voluntary, interest-based action groups (i.e., rather than committee control of activities); inclusion of outside stakeholders (such as District Forest Offices, Federation of Community Forest User Groups, and other FUGs) in planning processes as resource people. In terms of processes, the main changes in FUG planning and decision-making was the shift towards rooting the Operational Planning (5 year) and on-going (annual) planning of FUGs in a self-monitoring process17 that generates critical reflection on multiple aspects of CFM (including forests, livelihoods, institutions, including equity). Two of the sites developed a form of internal stakeholder analysis that tracked changes in participation and equity, as well as guiding on-going planning and distribution of benefits and costs (for example, to help determine who was eligible for activities targeted to the poorest of the poor, and thereby avoid the capturing of these benefits by the middle or upper class). Furthermore, each FUG activity (e.g., income generation) also includes some elements of `conscious learning', for example, `action groups' in the research sites implemented activities through small `trials' or experiments with learning questions or on-going reflection. Figures 1 and 2 show a comparison of the pre-PAR arrangements and processes (common to many FUGs beyond the research sites as well) and the ACM approaches developed during PAR in the Main Case Study sites.
Figure 1. Common FUG planning institutions and processes
Figure 2 `Adaptive collaborative management approach' to FUG management
At the meso level, the ACM-related innovations included: the development of networks or new levels of networks that linked FUGs to each other, and in some cases to the local government unit; adapting the processes of existing `networks' to become more `learning-based' and FUG mutually support oriented; collaboration on specific CF initiatives, such as joint trainings or NTFP enterprises; and, other FUG-FUG exchanges, such as FUG-FUG cross-site visits and learning tours.
In the Philippines, researchers noted that while CBFM, in theory, is based on partnerships between DENR, local government units (LGUs), and the community, in reality, genuine partnerships were rarely found in their work areas. As such, ACM approaches in the sites manifested themselves through effective participatory stakeholder identification processes and deliberate conscious efforts of engagement among these different stakeholders based on trust, common interests and objectives. Relatedly, the approach involved creating "platforms"18 to bring different stakeholders together to negotiate, resolve conflicts, and learn jointly from experience. This was both within the PO, and between the PO and other community members and agencies, e.g. such as the Palawan forestry department (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), and local NGOs in Palawan. Relatedly, the POs began to make efforts to decentralize their planning processes including seeking more input and information sharing. As with the Nepal sites, the main change in terms of decision-making process was that the POs and collaborating agencies built in mechanisms for checks and balances, feedback, and learning to their CBFM process through collaborative monitoring19 of actions and outcomes.
In Indonesia, the ACM approach focused more on basic strengthening of local communities' control over their livelihoods. This is reflective of the relatively weak and unclear community tenure situation in the Indonesian context. The processes used focused on three main aspects: capacity building of local institutions and organizations for self-governance, which included problem solving and conflict management regarding forests and other natural resources; improving local communities' competence in negotiating with the government regarding responsibilities and benefits of forest use and management, as well as increasing their participation and influence in public-decision-making processes (through, for example, helping establish a democratic village `parliament'); and, engaging government and development organizations in `stakeholder analysis' as a learning process to develop understanding of local stakeholders' needs and perspectives (ACM-Indonesia 2002). The building of self-governance included facilitating processes for local knowledge building to deal with perceived problems, and facilitating the development of strategies for enhanced internal communication and relationship building. In terms of negotiation, the ACM team and partners focused on supporting community members to improve their knowledge of policy and experience in negotiation, as well as facilitating actual processes of negotiation between local communities and governments. As with Nepal and the Philippines, a key part of all the above was the creation of `platforms'20 for on-going and effective interaction (including social learning) within and between local and other stakeholders (ACM-Indonesia 2002). These `platforms' were designed and facilitated with the aim of accommodating and addressing power differences, and building on complementarities in their knowledge (ACM-Indonesia 2002).
In all sites, researchers noted an institutional strengthening of the local forest management institutions. In fact in Nepal, two of the sites - that had been considered institutionally average or below average in 1999 - received District Forest Office Prizes in a competition for FUG institutional development during the final research phase. Some of the key changes included: improvements in access to (influence on) decision-making by women and marginalized forest users, both in terms of representation mechanisms as well as participation; more explicit attention to equity in development of rules and regulations, including regarding distribution of resources; significant increases in multi-directional information flows amongst users and between forest users and other agencies23; increases in transparency and accountability, and mechanisms to support that; development of increased internal capacity to manage conflicts; and, increased engagement of more forest users, and mechanisms for shared leadership and ownership.
In terms of social capital development, some of the key changes noted in all three country sites included: increased trust and respect within groups of forest users, and between the local forest users and other groups; increased collective actions within the local forest users groups and between the groups and other stakeholders; increased satisfaction amongst non-elite community members with access to decision-making, to trainings and to other opportunities, and with quality of decision-making and planning processes.24
ACM approaches tended to increase human capital in all sites, as they emphasized on-going learning and capacity building through a variety of means. This included the development of facilitation skills and leadership, as well as skills in participatory decision-making and planning processes, record keeping, and in some cases, funding-proposal writing. Researchers in all countries noted the increased knowledge and understanding of CF policy and regulations by the forest users. In some cases, there was a change also in the means of generation of forest-related knowledge: although there was some `reproductive learning' (e.g., through forest management training) forest users also generated increased collective knowledge through enhanced information sharing, and through social learning processes25. Researchers also noted that the self-confidence of many forest users, including marginalized ones, and of the groups as a whole in dealing with outside groups appeared to increase.
While the time period is too short to observe any major changes in natural assets, the communities involved have more plans and activities related to planting of various species, such as bamboo, fruit, timber, and rubber trees, or traditional herbals. In some Nepal and Philippines sites, the self-monitoring processes appeared to create an increased awareness of the forest condition, and incentive to manage it sustainably, including developing nurseries for future replanting26. At the same time, in the Nepal and Indonesian cases - where there had been some long standing dissatisfaction amongst marginalized groups with benefit sharing - the forest users initiated efforts for more equitable access to and tenure over resources. In all Nepal sites there has also been a decrease in infraction of FUG rules, including by elite members.
In terms of financial assets, while time has been too short to generate significant changes, some households in sites in all countries have generated some small scale returns from income generation activities (IGA) developed through the PAR. Probably more important is that the communities have all increased their IGA efforts (through increased number and activeness of initiatives). (Though these are not definitive predictors of increased financial capital for the communities, as they are dependent on market conditions, and continued resource availability). Finally, we include from the Nepal cases, the enhanced transparency and accountability of FUG fund management as a positive indicator of financial asset enhancement, especially for middle and marginalized users.
An adaptive collaborative management approach to CF links management and governance through social learning. Thus, rooting CFM in social learning, in an inclusive and collaboration-oriented way, appears to bring both equity and sustainability more clearly and firmly into the local management agenda while increasing the adaptive capacity of local user groups. While is it too early to know the long term outcomes of this approach, the indications to date are positive that it can contribute to institutional strengthening, and improving social and human assets. Longer term tracking of the research communities, and further initiatives in this area will reveal if it will follow through to enhance natural and financial ones as well.
The ACM approach has no fixed structure or exact set of steps; in each research site, the local stakeholders and the ACM researchers shaped institutional innovations based on the ACM elements to suit local contexts. As such, we view ACM elements as useful `guideposts' for forestry extension agents, CF projects, and other actors in CFM in areas and regions beyond our research. The processes we used, such as self-monitoring by forest users, may be adapted, or new ones created, as a means of supporting the adaptive and collaborative capacity of local CF institutions. What is critical is that the nature of facilitating or catalysing an ACM approach, whether from inside the community or outside it, or both, has to be an empowering one. In other words, one in which the strengthening and innovations in CFM are equitably negotiated and owned by stakeholders, including marginalized ones, with genuine returns in various livelihood assets - both the tangible and intangible ones. Finally, the research suggests that ACM type approaches may be viable strategies for dealing with the challenges of dynamism and complexity in sustainable forest use and livelihoods development.
ACM PAR Indonesia Team. 2002. Research on Adaptive Collaborative Management of Forests in Jambi Province, Sumatra and Pasir District, East Kalimantan: Country Report. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Buck, L., Wollenberg, E. and Edmunds, D. 2001. Social learning in the collaborative management of community forests: Lessons from the field. In: Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D. Buck, L., Fox, J. and Brodt, S. (eds.). Social Learning in Community Forests. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. Pp. 1-20.
Colfer, C.J.P., Brocklesby, M.A., Diaw, C., Etuge, P., Günter, M., Harwell, E., McDougall, C., Porro, N.M., Porro, R., Prabhu, R., Salim, A., Sardjono, M.A., Tchikangwa, B., Tiani, A.M., Wadley, R.L., Woelfel, J. and Wollenberg, E. (1999). The BAG (Basic Assessment Guide for Human Well-Being). C&I Tool No. 5. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Diaz, C.P. & Bacalla, D.T. 2002. ACM Research in the Philippines: Implications for Community-Based Forest Management. A paper presented in the workshop on Adaptive Collaborative Management of Community Forests: An Option for Asia, organized by FAO RAP, Bangkok, 26-27 September 2002.
Malla, Y. 2000. Impact of community forestry on rural livelihoods. Unasylva 52/202
Maarleveld,M. and C.Dangbegnon. 1999. Managing Natural Resources in the face of evolving conditions: A social learning perspective. Agriculture and Human Values. 16: 267-280.
McDougall, C., Forest Action, Kaski ACM Team, and NewERA. 2002. Planning for the Sustainability of Forests through Adaptive and Collaborative Management: Nepal Country Report. CIFOR/MOFSC. CIFOR Research Report, Bogor Indonesia.
Selener, D. 1997. Participatory Action Research and Social Change.Cornell Participatory Action Research Network. Cornell, Ithaca, New York.
1 The research reported here was supported by CIFOR and a grant from the Asian Development Bank under RETA 5812 (Planning for sustainability of forests through adaptive co-management). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not in any way express positions held either by CIFOR or the Asian Development Bank.
2 Forests and Governance Programme, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bogor, Indonesia. [email protected]; Website: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org
3 Quotation from Baum, D. 2000. Lightening in a Bottle: Proven Lessons for Leading Change, Dearborn, Chicago, USA.
4 The Center for International Forestry Research, which has headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia.
5 In Nepal these were the 4 sites of Manakamana and Anderi Bhajana forest user groups (FUGs) in Sankhuwasahba District, and Deurali Bagedanda and Bamdibhirkhoria FUGs in Kaski District. In the Philippines these were the 2 sites of the San Rafael, Tanabag and Concepcion Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (STCMPC) in Palawan and the village of Basac in the buffer zone of a Protected Area in Bukidnon, North Mindanao, Lantapan. The two sites in Indonesia were Baru Pelepat village in Bungo District, Jambi Province and Rantau Layung and Rantau Buta villages in Pasir District, East Kalimantan Province.
6 For reasons of limited space we will not review the roots of adaptive collaborative management from various fields here, suffice to say that they lie outside forestry and date back to the 1950s.
7 This approach has several key points of departure for improving adaptive capacity, including: strengthening social (including institutional) and human assets of the groups concerned, rather than focussing only on natural, physical or financial assets; enhancing the embeddedness of social learning in planning and decision-making, including organizational `space', structures, and support processes, and speeding up the `feedback and response time' between decisions, learning and adjustments in management; and, broadening the `knowledge and resource base' upon which management decisions are made and acted upon, including the diversity of perspectives and knowledge types. The expansion of the knowledge and resource base occurs also through explicit (locally led) identification of stakeholders.
8 `Social learning' can be understood as a process in which multiple stakeholders bring together their different knowledge, experiences, perspectives, values and capacities for a process of communication and critical reflection/analysis, as a means of jointly understanding and addressing shared challenges and potential options (Buck et al (2001); Maarleveld and Dangbegnon (1999); McDougall et al (2002).
9 Implies that there is the co-creation of understanding and knowledge, and forest managers are constantly increasing their understanding, knowledge and skills. It includes the notion that there are several kinds of `learning loops' in action, i.e., the forest manager may be: learning about a specific aspect of forests; cause and effect relationships between a policy/management activity and forest or social outcome (thus about the systems); and/or learning how to learn and manage more effectively (see Maarleveld & Danbegnon, 1999).
10 `Uncertainties' can range from information that can be accessed from somewhere/someone else, to knowledge that has to be generated, to information that can only be speculated about, for example: market prices; future demand for key products; likelihood of drought; relationship between certain species and other environmental functions.
11 There are also Main Case Studies underway in Africa and South America.
12 The background studies included some participatory methods (e.g. following Colfer et al. (1999)), and covered: site selection studies; stakeholder analysis; historical trends analysis; criteria and indicator-based socio-economic assessment; criteria and indicator based policy assessment; criteria and indicator based biophysical assessments; and assessment of adaptiveness and collaboration.
13 By participatory action research, we refer to a process through which a group of people identify a problem, collect and analyze information, and act upon the problem in order to find solutions and promote social and political transformation (Selener, 1997). Its foundation is a cycle of iterative learning: reflection, planning, action, observation, reflection.
14 Nepal and the Philippines both have well-established and relatively mature community forestry programmes however, both countries face some `second generation' related mainly to relatively limited livelihood returns from the forests, and equity issues such as perceptions of exclusion of some groups from decision making. In Indonesia, it is currently uncertain what form `social forestry' might take if it were to be implemented on a larger scale (ACM PAR Indonesia Team 2002).
15 Underlying factors include: overlapping claims to forests by groups with potentially divergent interests and management systems; conventional, `top down', management systems of the government, with little input to policy by non-commercial stakeholders; history of nepotism and corruption; and very rapid decentralization processes handicapped by a lack of institutional capacities to manage forest exploitation and conflicts over claims (ACM PAR Indonesia Team, 2002).
16 It is very important to note that the reason `tole committees' emerged as appropriate and effective sub-FUG level institutions in our research sites was that the toles were relatively homogeneous in terms of caste/ethnicity and class. This is not the case in all FUGs; in cases where the toles are not very homogeneous then other sub-FUG institutional arrangements may be more effective. The arrangements need to be appropriate to each FUG (McDougall et al, 2002c).
17 The process was based around an inclusive cycle of shared visioning, development/adjustment of indicators, assessment of strengths and weaknesses, development and adjustment of plans (and formation of action groups).
18 `Platforms' in the Philippines cases' contexts refers to forums and processes for information sharing, for raising issues, discussing challenges, or resolving conflicts; these were mostly in the forms of meetings, workshops, and dialogues.
19 The PO with participation of the stakeholders mentioned above did the development of monitoring system. However, data collection was done by the PO members themselves, without the involvement of local stakeholders.
20 These included, for example, village meetings, the (newly formed) Village legislative Body, district workshops, and participatory mapping activities (ACM PAR Indonesia Team, 2002).
21 The PAR took place over approximately 1 - 1.5 years, and as such the changes observed should be considered preliminary. Furthermore, the changes that occurred were, likely also to have resulted from a convergence of other actors and forces in the communities at the time. However the changes described here, seem very likely to be causally linked to the efforts to catalyse or enhance ACM approaches in the sites.
22 The main changes that took place during the PAR phase of the research are organized roughly along the lines of livelihoods assets in a sustainable livelihoods framework (see DfID, URL:http://www.livelihoods.org/index.html).
23 In the Palawan case, the ACM processes involved the PO interacting and networking beyond the local and city levels, and up to the provincial level, which also increased their capacity to influence policy (e.g. policy on forest charges/fees).
24 We note that while the majority of local people involved expressed satisfaction with the redistribution of power in decision-making that was emerging in most of the sites, some traditional powerholders in the communities were less satisfied because this implied a loss of privilege. In a number of cases (but not all), these individuals' attitudes also appeared to shift somewhat over the course of the research.
25 These included, for example, self-monitoring, or small group reflection (such as in Nepal an investigation group on causes of previous failure of bamboo seedlings), and the implementation of various activities as trials and experiments (for example, broomgrass and bamboo trials).
26 While this is positive for forests (and potentially long-term for livelihoods) this also carries the risk that increased awareness of poor forest condition may lead to increasingly protectionist regulations, which could bring hardship to marginalized groups if plans are not included to mitigate these risks; reinforcing the need for the monitoring-based planning to take place in a forum in which all groups, including marginalized ones, can effectively influence decisions, and potentially harmful equity-related outcomes can be anticipated and addressed (McDougall et al, 2002b).