Carol Colfer gave this presentation on 22 May 2013 at a panel session during the two-day policy and science conference entitled "Sustainable forest management in Central Africa: Yesterday, today and tomorrow", organized by CIFOR and its partners and held in Yaounde, Cameroon. The panel, titled “Response to climate change in Central Africa: Realities and challenges”, focused on revisiting previous efforts in forest management for climate change and on considering future directions while considering the interest of forest communities.

1. PUTTING FOREST
COMMUNITIES AT THE
CENTER OF RESPONSES TO
CLIMATE CHANGE: LEARNING
FROM PAST EXPERIENCE IN
FOREST MANAGEMENT
Carol J. Pierce Colfer
Center for International
Forestry Research
Cornell Institute for Food,
Agriculture and
Development

2. Talk Outline
 History and current
interest in
collaboration with
communities
 Special relevance of
collaboration for
climate change efforts
 A few key research
questions & logistics

3. [Some of] CIFOR’s Enduring History
of Collaboration with Communities
 C&I (Prabhu) & Devolution (Wollenberg) projects (mid-
1990s)
 ACM began in 1998, fully underway by 2000, in
11 countries, 30 sites: Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon,
Ghana, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Malawi, Nepal,
Philippines, Zimbabwe
CAPRI, 2004-6, 2 districts,
Indonesia
LM, 2007-2010, 5 countries,
15 sites: Cameroon, Indonesia, Laos,
Madagascar, Tanzania

4. A 2001 Definition for ACM
 2001: Adaptive Collaborative Management is
a value-adding approach whereby people who
have interests in a forest agree to act together
to plan, observe and learn from the
implementation of their plans while recognizing
that plans often fail to achieve their stated
objectives. ACM is characterized by conscious
efforts among such groups to communicate,
collaborate, negotiate, and seek out
opportunities to learn collectively about the
impacts of their actions.

5. 2008 Supplement on ACM
 Supplement (2008): Working with a given
group of people requires involving other
people acting on other scales — usually at
least one level down and one level up (e.g.
user groups within a community and district
officials above, as in Zimbabwe, Nepal,
Indonesia, Philippines). Effective facilitation
can act as a catalyst to empower communities
to improve their own conditions, both human
and environmental.

6. Collaborative Approaches Popping up
all Over the Place
 Uganda & Nicaragua – Mwangi &
Larson’s gender/tenure/empowerment
 Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania – German
et al. (AHI) agricultural learning within and
across sites (INRM)
 Cameroon, Rwanda, CAR, DRC---
Diaw et al. Model Forests
 Bangladesh, Ecuador, Nepal,
Zimbabwe – Ojha et al.’s global ACM
implementation lessons

8. Sample Collaborative
Climate Change Work - 1
Wollenberg (with CCAFS ++) ensuring benefits to
communities, with EcoAgriculture in E. Africa;
and with industries (oil palm in Indonesia; cattle
in Brazil)
Shames et al. (CCAFS 2013) -
institutional innovations &
carbon credits, Uganda,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana)
German et al. (2010) on PAR
as key for Adaptation (Africa)

9. Sample Collaborative
Climate Change Work - 2
 Djoudi & Brockhaus on
gendered preferences and
practices in Mali (IFR 2011).
 Ahmed & Fajber 2009 –
Vulnerability capacity index
(India)
Gonsalves, social
learning approaches
(with 13 collaborative
‘cases’ (CCAFS, Both
ENDS)

10. Collaborative Climate Change
Work – close to home
 COFCCA – Cameroon, CAR, DRC – policy-
oriented adaptation strategies to ensure
sustainable and equitable use of forest
resources, using ACM-style approach
 COBAM – Congo Basin – seeking synergy
between adaptation and mitigation,
empowering people to define and implement
adaptation & REDD

11. Why are Collaborative Approaches
so Key in Climate Change (1)?
2. The variety of
cultural systems
means people’s
responses will
vary. ACM can
help anticipate.
1. The inherent ecological and human variability
over space is further complicated by change (over
time)

12. Why are Collaborative Approaches
so Key in Climate Change (2)?
3. Intra-community variability
(gender, ethnicity, class,
etc.) is huge, adding
complexity to the mix.
 Coping will require skills
locally at analysis,
prediction & adaptation---
ACM strengthens such
skills (with good
facilitation).
[see Locatelli et al. 2008. Facing an uncertain future: How forests and people
can adapt to climate change, CIFOR]

13. Important Sample Research
Questions for Collaborative Work - 1
 What methodological
variations work best
with different groups?
 What conditions can
make our research
truly transformative &
just (not simply
strengthening
existing inequitable
practice)?

14. Important Research Questions for
Collaborative Work - 2
 How do we more
effectively address
multiple scales (village
to global), including
coping more
effectively with power,
moving upscale?
[& much more!]
How do we more
effectively integrate
social & biophysical
sciences?

15. Some of my own RQs
 How do we involve women and marginalized
ethnic groups more effectively?
 What indicators can help us assess progress?
 How do we fairly and constructively assess,
use & improve swidden agriculture in REDD+?
 How do we more effectively transfer facilitation
roles to communities (leadership, neutrality,
fairness, motivation, networking, resource
access, etc.)?

16. Logistical Needs
 How do we evaluate & prove our successes, given
the qualitative nature of the process?
 How do we satisfy donor planning needs, given the
iterative nature of the process?
 How do we arrange long enough time horizons?
 How do we convey the importance & utility of
conducting research in a bottom up, collaborative
fashion to those enmeshed in rigid
bureaucracy?

18. Lessons learned - 1
 Men, women, youth, elders, ‘underdogs’ in
communities have varying interests and
capabilities; we can strengthen and legitimise
people’s proactive efforts to identify and manage
these differences in pursuit of greater equity.
 Facilitation---fair, motivational, encouraging,
respectful, analytical---is key to success; it can
contribute to empowering people to reduce
vertical inequities
 Having a shared long term goal can contribute to
solving the many barriers, small and large, that
inhibit progress (including overcoming conflicts
among people).

19. Lessons Learned - 2
 Focusing on the positive (traditional knowledge,
interests, goals, ideals), not the negative (poverty,
illiteracy, lack of education), enhances people’s
self-confidence, in turn strengthening their
motivation, involvement, & power.
 Seeing [moderate] conflict & ‘failure’ as
opportunities
 Context is key — one size does NOT fit all
 Respect is key to people’s collaboration, and
without that, we cannot respond well to climate
change

20. Lessons Learned - 3
 Peter (Bolivia) says: Why do community
forest groups continue (despite our
findings) to
 Introduce models poorly adapted to local
conditions?
 Use approaches that marginalize local
participation?
 Ignore groups without ideal forest conditions?
 Create access to community forests by
external actors?

21. Lessons Learned - 4
 Christine (Philippines) sees local people only
being involved in early stages; wants
continuing constructive engagement
 Yurdi (in Thailand) warns us to
 Beware of elite capture, but build on existing
institutions insofar as possible
 Michelle (Laos) stresses flexibility

22. Lessons Learned - 5
 Yanti (Indonesia) stresses importance of
identifying conditions that support (or create)
what we seek to do.
 Anne Marie (Cameroon) defines collaborative
management as ‘Involving interaction,
dialogue and shared decision making by
multiple stakeholders at different scales and
locations.’

23. Thank you!

24. Useful Documents
 Locatelli et al. 2008. Facing an uncertain
future: How forests and people can adapt to
climate change, CIFOR
 Colfer, Carol J. Pierce 2008. Adaptive
Collaborative Management Can Help Us Cope
With Climate Change. CIFOR InfoBrief 13: 4
(available in French & Indonesian).