| European
Tropical Forest Research Network |
IX A LEARNING PERSPECTIVE ON PARTNERSHIPS IN COLLABORATIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT
Collaborative forest management approaches develop in response to broader change processes in society, when the roles and responsibilities of groups and organisations dealing with natural resource management are reviewed and questioned. The increased involvement and interactions of participants from different levels (national, regional and local) is increasing diversity among stakeholders and their interests. The involvement of various (community) groups and organisations, each with their own agenda and interests, imposes special requirements on work processes to ensure durable agreements and solutions. Active monitoring and feedback on results need to be accompanied by learning processes among stakeholders and groups, the so-called social or collaborative learning perspective. This process requires participants to develop an appreciation of other stakeholders' interests and perceptions, as well as an awareness of their own 'mental models'. The complexity of such process management requires special attention, as well as flexibility to adjust to the inherent uncertainty and diversity in managing the natural resources. The following contributions explore the potential of social learning methods for enhancing partnerships at the local and regional level. This is particularly important when considering sustainable forest management in conditions where poverty, land degradation and loss of biodiversity are in a vicious spiral.
LEARNING IN ADAPTIVE COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT OF COMMUNITY FORESTS: LESSONS FROM INDONESIA
By Yurdi Yasmi and Yanti Kusumanto
Problems and issues related to forest management are undeniably complex. Different stakeholders have different views about forest objectives and needs as a result of differences in rationales and mental models. Furthermore, the context of decision-making on forest issues is also highly complicated due to differing, even directly conflicting, objectives, changing social, economic and political conditions and changing policy. Conflict is therefore a key concept in co-management (Yasmi, 2003). Due to the complexity and the continuing state of change, not only in social but also ecological environments, forest management entails considerable risks and uncertainties. It is in this context that many community forest managers face the challenge of trying to implement or achieve sustainable management while addressing livelihood needs. In this situation, adaptive learning and collaborative decision-making processes are required that provide opportunities for negotiation. Adaptive collaborative management (ACM) attempts to combine these elements into a conscious and intentional approach (Prabhu, 2002).
CIFOR and its partners undertook ACM research between 1999 and 2002 in Indonesia, Nepal and the Philippines as part of an ACM-wide initiative in Asia covering a total of eight sites. This paper provides a brief overview of the key concepts of ACM and how learning has been used as the basis for planning and decision-making. Learning as it is referred to here emphasises the shared and applied nature of learning rather than the building or transfer of individual knowledge or skills (e.g. through training) (McDougall et al., 2003).
ACM in Indonesia
The context in which ACM research was implemented in Indonesia is the chaotic
environment concerning decision-making about forest management and forest governance
at all levels (national, district and local). The main focus of ACM activities
was to work towards improving the capacity of local institutions to engage in
collaboration and negotiation with outside agencies in decision-making (Prabhu,
2002).
ACM research in Indonesia was conducted in two sites:
In Pasir, dialogue has been a key platform for learning. Continuous dialogue and negotiations among stakeholders aimed at exploring problems and finding solutions was the key to learning. Initially, ACM researchers initiated the dialogue and brought stakeholders together in a forum in which they discussed their problems. Along the way, trust developed between them, as a result of which it became easier to share views and ideas and be more open. One issue that they addressed was degraded lands around community settlement.
Based on continuous dialogue, it was jointly agreed that degraded lands were to be rehabilitated with local fruits. Roles and responsibilities were identified based on discussion and consultation that occurred during several meetings. Finally, the actors involved successfully identified who was going to do what. The District Forest Service provided seedlings and the local community was then responsible for planting and taking care of them. The local community formed several groups and each group worked in a particular area. Meanwhile, the role of ACM researchers was mainly to function as facilitators. After the ACM group concluded its research in Pasir, the activity continued and is now being coordinated by the District Forestry Service.
Social learning
In Baru Pelepat, various aspects of social learning have been identified. Knowledge
construction and group consolidation were evident throughout the Participatory
Action Research (PAR) cycle, in which collective processes were prominent. The
knowledge acquired throughout the PAR cycle has led to the build-up of collective
knowledge of the group with regard to village boundaries and related matters,
such as policies. The knowledge has been used as the basis for action or learning
with other groups (i.e. other stakeholders groups).
Previously, Baru Pelepat interacted on only a small scale with its neighbouring communities. This explains why the Baru Pelepat community seemed to be somewhat isolated. Through the PAR cycle they communicated with neighbouring communities and as a result of communication and relationship-building the following outcomes emerged:
Another important aspect of social learning in Jambi is knowledge sharing. Similar to the Pasir case, meetings and dialogue have been used as a platform for knowledge sharing between groups. This led to the generation of skills and knowledge on negotiation, consolidation, conflict management and leadership. Knowledge was shared about their own adat norms and values, as well as on physical matters related to village boundaries.
The desire for clear village boundaries was one of the motivations for learning and collaboration. It was evident that local communities were confronted with the fact that limited resource availability creates a demand for clear and respected boundaries. This was considered important to avoid future conflict among communities. Learning apparently adapted over time from 'simple' to more 'complex' forms (e.g. from comparing own perceptions with those of others, revisiting assumptions and looking for ways of learning). These processes were not facilitated but were developed in a natural way.
We conclude that ACM provides good opportunities for learning, not only for group learning but cross-group learning as well. ACM values learning as a base for planning and monitoring.
References:
McDougall, C. and Prabhu, R. with Macoun, P. and Hartanto, H. (2003). Adaptive
collaborative management of community forestry: experiences in Nepal, Indonesia
and the Philippines. Paper submitted to WFC, Canada.
Kusumanto, Y., Hakim, H., Yuliani, Y., Indriatmoko, Y. and Adnan, H. (2002).
Indonesia country report. CIFOR, Bogor.
Prabhu, R. (2002). Planning for sustainability of forests through adaptive co-management.
Summary of volume 1-4 page 1-11. Project report submitted to ADB.
Yasmi, Y. (2003). Understanding conflict in the co-management of forests: the
case of Bulungan Research Forest. International Forestry Review 5(1): 38-44.
Further information:
Yurdi Yasmi
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
P.O. Box 6596
JKPWB Jakarta 10065
Indonesia
E-mail: y.yasmi@cgiar.org