Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

Chapter 3: Adaptiveness and Collaboration in Community Forestry in Nepal • 71
prior to the PAR, eight comparative cases and the experience of the
researchers with other CFUGs. In this approach, as described above, the
decision-making practices reinforce decisions ‘from the top’ by keeping the
decision making and information gathering within the control of the more
powerful members of the community. As a result, the actions that are planned
are owned by the committee. If the actions are implemented, there are no
established mechanisms for the CFUG, or even the committee, to actively
learn from them and adjust and refine them for future improvements in
management.
Figure 3-3 illustrates an ACM-based model of structures and processes, as
developed during the PAR in the four main case study sites. This approach
attempts to remove the systematic distortion of power present in Figure 3-2
by creating effective and multiple entry points for all users in the decisionmaking
system. The tole becomes central to decision-making, for example,
there are multiple iterations between the toles and the committee meetings,
users have information and thus create a more level ‘playing field’ at
the general assembly, and specific actions are planned and led by action
groups. Moreover, the arrows in this figure describe a circle, illustrating the
feedback loops in the decision-making system through self-monitoring and
other reflection processes. Shared learning drives continual adjustment
and improvement in CFUG understanding and decision making.
Executive
Committee
Tendency towards:
• elite control
• ad hoc planning
General Assembly
• Information is new to
participants
• decisions by debate, consensus,
or simply ‘rubber stamping’ of
executive committee decisions
Implementation
of actions (or
not) by executive
committee
or user
participation
solicited
Figure 3-2. Common approach to CFUG planning and decision making