‘if you saw it with my eyes’‘if you saw it with my eyes’: collaborative research and...

Forests and Governance Programme No. 14/2008

‘If You Saw It with My Eyes’:Collaborative Research and Assistance withCentral American Forest Steward Communities

Peter Leigh Taylor Peter Cronkleton Deborah Barry Samatha Stone-Jovicich Marianne Schmink

Peter Leigh Taylor1 Peter Cronkleton2 Deborah Barry3

Samantha Stone-Jovicich4

Marianne Schmink4

‘If You Saw It with My Eyes’:Collaborative Research and Assistance with Central American Forest Steward Communities

1 ColoradoStateUniversity,FortCollins,Colorado2 CenterforInternationalForestryResearch(CIFOR),SantaCruz,Bolivia3 CenterforInternationalForestryResearch(CIFOR),Washington,D.C.4 UniversityofFlorida,Gainsville,Florida

© 2008 by Center for International Forestry ResearchAll rights reservedCover photos by Peter Cronkleton and Peter Leigh Taylor

Published by Center for International Forestry ResearchJl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Bogor Barat 16115, IndonesiaTel.: +62 (251) 622622; Fax: +62 (251) 622100E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org

ISBN: 978-979-14-1250-654p.

Printed onrecycled paper

Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms.................................................................................... iv

Abstract ................................................................................................................. v

1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 11.1 TheGrowingCommunityRoleinManagingForestsfor ConservationandDevelopment..................................................................... 1

2 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development...................................... 52.1 ParticipatoryApproachesinAgriculturalContexts....................................... 52.2 ParticipatoryApproachesintheForestContext............................................ 6

3 Grassroots Forestry Organizations and Community Forest Stewards in Central America: Current Successes and Future Challenges.................................. 8

3.1 ThePetén,Guatemala:theCaseofACOFOP................................................ 83.2 Siuna,Nicaragua:theCaseofPCaC.............................................................. 103.3 TheNeedforOrganizationalStrengthening.................................................. 123.4 RespondingtoMembers’ChangingNeedsandInterests............................... 133.5 OrganizationalStrengtheningviaImprovingIndigenous ResearchandAnalysis................................................................................... 13

4 The Grassroots Assistance Project Activities and Methodology............................ 154.1 ParticipatoryCommunityResearch:the‘Self-systematization’Studies.......... 164.2 TheInternationalExchangeMeetinginthePetén,Guatemala....................... 184.3 DoParticipatoryTechniquesReallyLeadtoChange?.................................... 18

5 Results of the Collaborative Research................................................................... 205.1 TheSelf-systematizationCommunityStudies................................................ 25

6 Models of External Assistance.............................................................................. 296.1 The‘Official’ModelofTechnicalAssistance................................................. 296.2 The‘Pro-community’ModelofAccompaniment........................................... 31

7 Conclusion........................................................................................................... 377.1 TheEmergenceofForestStewardCommunities............................................ 377.2 InnovationsandPreliminaryImpactsoftheCollaborativeResearch............. 377.3 TheLinkbetweenCollaborativeResearchandAlternativeAccompaniment

Models.......................................................................................................... 387.4 LessonsLearned............................................................................................ 39

References................................................................................................................. 41

Acknowledgements................................................................................................... 47

iv

‘If You Saw It with My Eyes’ Collaborative Research and Assistance with Central American Forest Steward Communities

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACICAFOC Coordinadora Indigena y Campesina de Agroforesteria Comunitaria Centroamericana(CentralAmericanIndigenousandPeasantCoordinatorofCommunalAgroforestry)

ACM AdaptiveCollaborativeManagement

ACOFOP Asociación de Comunidades Forestales de Petén (Association of ForestCommunitiesofthePetén)

Campesino Farmer

CIFOR CenterforInternationalForestryResearch

CONAP Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas(NationalCommissionforProtectedAreas)

DFID DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment(UK)

FAO UnitedNationsFoodandAgricultureOrganization

FSC ForestStewardshipCouncil

IDB Inter-AmericanDevelopmentBank

IMAZON AmazonInstituteforPeopleandtheEnvironment

MBR MayaBiosphereReserve

MUZ MultipleUseZone

NGO Non-governmentalOrganization

NTFP Non-timberForestProduct

PCaC Programa Campesino a Campesino(Farmer-to-FarmerProgramme)

PFA ProjectAgriculturalFrontier

UMI UniónMayaItzá

UNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme

USAID UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment

UNAG Unión Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos (NationalUnionof FarmersandRanchers)

UNESCO UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization

v


Communities are making unprecedentedgains worldwide in forest resourceaccess and management rights. A newconservation actor, the forest stewardcommunity, is emerging in CentralAmerica as an effective collaborator inforestconservation.Howbesttosupportand strengthen this community-basedconservation actor while minimizingexternal dependency? This paperdiscusses an experience with innovativeparticipatory research in GuatemalaandNicaragua that aimed to strengthencommunitycapabilitiesinnaturalresourcemanagement. The Grassroots AssistanceProject trained community membersto document and critically reflect uponlocalexperiencewithforestmanagementand external assistance. Together withregional context studies undertaken byprofessionalresearchers,theselocal‘auto-systematization’ studies made possiblecomprehensive documentation of themultiple dimensions of communities’resource management, identification oftheir strengths and vulnerabilities anddiscussion of future strategies. Theirendeavours also reveal an emergingalternative ‘accompaniment’ approachto technical assistance, which promotes

a high level of partnership betweencommunities and external institutions,in contrast to traditional assistance,which often creates dependency.Technical ‘accompaniment’ emphasizeslong-term social processes, sharedlearning, community empowerment,validation of local knowledge andcontinualstrengtheningoforganizationalcapabilities. It also suggests organizingassistance to pursue closer proximityto communities and their processes,flattening of technical staff hierarchies,flexible response to community input,more horizontal information exchange,and incorporation of social processindicators into assessment. Employedin combination with more traditionalassistance approaches, the technical‘accompaniment’ approach holdspromise for strengthening communities’capabilitiesaskeyalliesinprotectingandmanagingtheenvironmentforthefuture.

KEYWORDS: Community forestry,grassroots organizations, participatoryresearch,technicalassistance,Guatemala,Nicaragua

Abstract

�


Communitiesaremakinghistoricallyunprecedented gains worldwidein forest resource access and

management rights. In Latin America,this impressive shift in responsibility formanaging forest resources is propelledin part by the growing importanceof forest-based social movementspromoting community resource rights.The shift is also being produced bygreater recognition by governments andinternationalconservationinstitutionsthatconventional conservation approachesthat exclude community participationhave not been effective in protectinghighly threatened tropical biodiversity.Today a new conservation actor, theforest steward community, is emergingto become an effective collaborator inforest conservation in the region. Howbest to encourage and support this newcommunity-based conservation actor?How may alternative ‘accompaniment’approaches be developed that buildstrong local conservation partners whileminimizing dependency and promotinglocal capabilities for effective resourcemanagement? This paper discusses anexperience with innovative participatoryresearch activities in Central America

which aimed to strengthen communitycapabilities in support of greater localautonomyinnaturalresourcemanagement.The experience with and results of thisparticipatoryresearchactivityalsosuggesttheoutlineofanalternativeapproachtoexternalassistancethatisemergingtodayinCentralAmericanforestcommunities.

1.1TheGrowingCommunityRoleinManagingForestsforConservationandDevelopment

Facedwithalarmingratesofdegradationof tropical forests worldwide (FAO2005a) and intensifying competition toclaim,exploitandprotectforestresources,governments have recently established agrowing number of protected areas andreserves in highly threatened Southernforests. Large numbers of local people,already living in and deriving theirlivelihoods from these newly protectedforests, have frequently been assumedto be responsible for forest degradationandhave lostcustomaryaccesstoforestresourcesorhavebeenexpelledoutright.Thestakesinresolvingtensionsbetweenconservationandlocallivelihoodinterestsare high. As conservation organizations

1. Introduction

�


have come to recognize the complexityof the social landscape of endangeredforests,manyhavesoughttoworkmoreclosely with indigenous and traditionalcommunities, often through IntegratedConservation and DevelopmentProgrammes (ICDPs).Results havebeenmixed(seeBrayandAnderson2005).

Atthesametime,becauseoflegalreformsin Latin America, Africa and Asia,community and indigenous control offorests is increasing dramatically (WhiteandMartin2002;Molnar2003;Tayloret al.2006).Asmuchasone-quarterofforestsin developing countries are communityowned or managed (White and Martin2002). Molnar (2003) reports that in2002communitiesownedoradministered377millionha,or11%ofthe3.6billionhaofglobalforest.Ifdevelopedcountriesin which government-owned forestspredominateareexcluded,thecommunityshare of the global forest increases to25%.Thesefigures represent adoublingover the last15years andare likely1todoubleagaininthenext15years.

Thebulkoftheworld’sforestsrecognizedas being under community control oras legally transferred to communitiescurrentlyliesinLatinAmerica(WhiteandMartin 2002; also see Klooster (2000);Taylor and Zabin (2000); Bray andMerinoPérez(2003);Bray,MerinoPérezandBarry(2005)ontheexperiencewithcommunity-based forestry in Mexico).Significantly, in this region grassrootsforest movements have emerged thathelpintroduceanewsocialactorintothegovernanceofprotectedforests:theforeststewardcommunity.Theseforeststewardcommunities have attained significantlegal and customary access and rightsoverforestresources.Theyarebecoming

a cornerstone of broad-based efforts tosustainably manage natural resourcesforconservationanddevelopment.Theirexperiencesuggeststhatatthelocallevelconservation and development neednot be opposing strategies. Rather thanbeingpartof thedeforestationproblem,organized forest communities canpotentiallybekeyalliesinsolutionsthatprotectandmanagetheenvironmentforthefuture.

Several crucial questions arise from thegrowingcommunityinvolvementinforestmanagement:Howmaylocalcommunitycapabilitytopursuesustainable,positivesocial and environmental outcomesbe strengthened? In this paper and itscompanion paper on environmentalgovernance and grassroots forestmovements (Cronkleton et al. 2007),we refer to community ‘capability’,following the distinction that Morgandraws between ‘capacity’ -existingskills and behaviour patterns within anorganization- and ‘capability’ -what anorganization can do (Bonis-Charancleet al. 2007)1. How can partnerships bedeveloped that recognize the uniquecapabilities and potentials that diversesetsofinternationalandlocalactorsbringtoforeststewardship?Whattypesofandapproaches to external assistance maybestsupportgrassrootssocialmovementsand encourage the emergence of foreststewardshipcommunities?

A 3-year, Ford Foundation-supported,Center for International ForestryResearch (CIFOR)-managed project,“Support to Grassroots CommunityForestry Organizations in Central

1OurthankstoCarolColferforpointingthisout.

�


America and Brazil”,2 focused on fourcasesinCentralAmericaandtheBrazilianAmazoninwhichruralcommunity-basedorganizations have staked out centralroles in natural resource managementprogrammes,andintheprocess,developednetworksofforeststewardcommunities.TheGrassrootsAssistanceProjectpursuedseveralobjectives:

• to conduct innovative collaborativeresearch on the communities’experiencewithforestmanagement.

• to strengthen community-levelcapabilities by training communitymembers in research, analysis andplanningmethods.

• toidentifystrengthsandweaknessesofexistingmodelsoftechnicalassistancetograssrootsforestryorganizations

• to support the development of newassistance models which betteracknowledge and strengthen localcommunity-basedcompetence.

• to disseminate information andknowledge about the grassrootsforestry movement experience amongcommunity members and researchersvia field site visits, workshops,conferencesandwrittenpublications.

Drawing on Cronkleton et al. (2006),this paper focuses on the Grassroots

Assistance Project’s work in CentralAmerica, where participants developeda collaborative research and assistanceapproachtostrengtheningtwograssrootsforest community organizations: theAssociationofForestCommunitiesofthePetén (ACOFOP) in Guatemala and theFarmer-to-FarmerProgramme(PCaC) inSiuna,Nicaragua.

The collaborative work developed inCentralAmericabuiltonseveraldecadesofexperienceworldwidewithparticipatoryresearch and development approaches,especially in the agricultural and ruraldevelopment sectors. Participatoryapproaches in forest contexts havebeen slower to develop and gain highprofiles, in large part because of uniquestate regulatory frameworks, commonpropertytenureandusufructinstitutions,andhighlychargedpoliticalcontexts.Theproject’s participants strived to developparticipatory research activities moreappropriate to the Central Americanforest sector and its forest communities.Theygavecommunitiesanunusualdegreeof autonomy in developing indigenousaccountsoftheirexperienceswithforestconservationanddevelopment.Theprojectaimed to strengthen the communities’forestorganizationstocopewiththenewchallengesfacingthembyenhancinglocalcapabilitiesforresearchandanalysis,andhelpingdevelopmoreeffectivemodelsofexternalassistance.

The Grassroots Assistance Projectcoordinatedresearchbyprofessionalandcommunity-level researchers to developcomprehensiveaccountsoftheexperienceofcommunity-basedforestryinthePetén,Guatemala, and Siuna, Nicaragua. Theresults of these two sets of studies (alsoseeCronkleton et al. 2006) suggest that

2TheGrassrootsAssistanceProjectwassponsoredjointlybytheCenterforInternationalForestryResearch(CIFOR),theCentralAmericanIndigenousandPeasantCoordinatorofCommunalAgroforestry(ACICAFOC)andtheAmazonInstituteforPeopleandtheEnvironment(IMAZON).TheCentralAmericateamwasledbyRubénPasosandNeldaSánchez,sociologistsandcommunitydevelopmentspecialistsassociatedwithACICAFOC,andincludedresearchersfromthe Salvadoran research NGO PRISMA. The Brazil teamwasledbyPauloAmaral,seniorenvironmentalresearcherat IMAZON, with Samantha Stone taking the lead onthe Brazilian context studies. Staff from Colorado StateUniversityandtheUniversityofFloridaprovidedtechnicalandadvisorysupport.

�


effective external assistance models arenecessarytobuildstronglocalconservationanddevelopmentpartners.Theresultsoftheproject’sresearchmethodologysuggestthat self-systematization represents onepromising means to strengthen localcapabilities.

Moreover, a potentially close linkexists between collaborative researchand the development of new technical‘accompaniment’models that strengthenlocal capabilities and respond flexiblyto changing community needs (Theauthorsusetheterm‘accompaniment’tohighlightthelevelofpartnershipbetweencommunities and external institutionspromotedbyalternativeassistancemodels,in contrast to assistance that createsdependency relationships). Asdiscussedbelow, collaborative research activitiescan help identify the strengths andweaknesses of past assistance strategiesand suggest features of alternative

strategies to support communities. Byhelping develop systematic communityaccounts of their own experiences,collaborativeresearchcanhelpstrengthencommunity capabilities for analysis andnegotiation, in turn encouraging moreequitablerelationsbetweencommunitiesandexternalsupport institutions.At thesame time, it canhelp lay andmaintainafoundationforcontinualorganizationallearningon thepartof external supportinstitutions.Below, the results of the participatoryresearch activities are summarized anddifficulties encountered indesigning andimplementingtheapproacharediscussed.Basedontheexperiencesofcommunity-based forestry in thePeténandSiuna,apreliminary sketch of the organizationalprinciples and characteristics of analternative accompaniment modelappropriate to community forestrysettingsisthendeveloped.

�


The Grassroots Assistance Projectaimed to develop a collaborativeresearch approach combining

skillsandperspectivesofbothprofessionalandlocalresearchersinCentralAmerica.Involving community members in datacollectionandanalysisisnotentirelynew,ofcourse,butbuildsonnearly30yearsofexperiencewithparticipatoryresearchandcapability-buildingapproachesandtools.Theseapproachesandmethodshaveaimedtoenable localpeopleto ‘share,enhanceand analyze their knowledge of life andconditions,toplanandtoact’(Chambers1983,1994,1997;Bunch1985).

2.1ParticipatoryApproachesinAgriculturalContexts

Mostparticipatoryresearchandcapacitybuilding approaches have emerged fromagricultural contexts and have tendedto emphasize farmer participation inimproving productivity and communitywellbeing. Participatory Rural Appraisal(PRA) approaches enlisted professionaldevelopmentpractitionersinbothscalingup and scaling down participation tolocal levels (Holland 1998). Farming

systems, research and extension, andother approaches sought to recognizelocal farmer expertise (Richards 1985;Hildebrand1986;FarringtonandMartin1988). More recently, participatorysustainablelivelihoodapproachesadoptedby the Department for InternationalDevelopment–UK(DFID),UnitedNationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP),United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO), Oxfam and CARE(Carney et al. 1999) emphasized theneed to ‘place the poor and all aspectsof their lives andmeansof living at thecentreofdevelopment,whileatthesametime, maintaining the sustainability ofnatural resources for present and futuregenerations’(FAO2005b).

Early pioneers in participatory researchmethodswereoftenworkingwithafinitenumber of agricultural commodities orattempting to transfer new technologiesto farmers. When confronted by non-adoption, it was common to viewfarmersas‘laggards’unabletograsptheimplicationsofnewpractices.Eventuallysomeresearchersandpractitionersbeganto recognize that farmers were integral

2. Participatory Approaches to Research and Development

�


actors in the development process,rather than simply passive recipients oftechnology.Farmersneededtobeinvolvednotonlyinthetestingandevaluationofnewtechnologybutevenintheselectionof problems to be addressed throughresearch. Researchers began adaptingtheirapproachestogainaccesstofarmerperceptions and evaluations to findsolutionstolocallyrelevantproblems,aprocessthatentailedsharingpowerandcontroloverdevelopmentinitiatives(seeHolt-Giménez2006).Althoughnotallagriculturalresearchwasrefocusedinthisway,theparticipatorytrendwasquiteinfluentialinruraldevelopmentfocusedonsmallholders.

2.2ParticipatoryApproachesintheForestContext

Bycomparison,participatoryapproachestoresearchanddevelopmentinmostforestcontextshavebeenslowertodevelopandachieveahighprofile.Firstofall,asearlyasthecolonialperiod,forestsbegantobeconceptualized as Crown property andthen state-administered domains. Underthe latter, foresters were delegated therole of stewards determining not onlyhowforestsshouldbemanagedbutwhocouldlegitimatelyparticipateandbenefit.As a result, forest peoples, whethertreated as annoying intruders or wardsof the state, were frequently excludedfrom management planning and policydecisions related to forests. Traditionalpeople’sforestmanagementpracticeswereoften invisible, or ignored. Local peopleand their communities have often beenseen as a principal problem underlyingdeforestationandbiodiversitylossratherthanaspartofaneffectivesolution.

Second,theforestsectorposessignificantlydifferent conditions for development

practitioners, natural resource managersand donors. By contrast with theagricultural sector, characterized by thepredominance of private property orindividualusufructandtenurerights,thecontext of forest communities typicallyinvolves the sharing of common poolresources and a collective framework ofresourcemanagementandtenuresimilarto those identified in other contexts byOstrom(1990)andGibsonet al.(2000).Stateregulatoryframeworksoftenattempttodictatemanagementrulesandrestrictlocaluseinwayswhichareinappropriate,cumbersome and contradictory. Inaddition,forestcommunitieslikethoseinthePeténandSiunaareoften enmeshedinhighlycomplexandpoliticallychargedrelationships as a broad range of levelsof stakeholderspursueconservationanddevelopmentinterests.

Participatory approacheswerefirst triedin large-scale projects in communityforestry in the 1970s. Many of thesefailed because of the disproportionateattentiongiventotechnicalandeconomicissues over genuine encouragement oflocal community involvement (Thomsonand Schoonmaker-Freudenberger 1997).In recent years, community-based forestmanagement has gained increasingvisibility as a promising alternative forconserving forests and supporting locallivelihoods.Indeed,aquietbutdramaticshift is underway toward devolvingadministrative responsibilities andownership rights to local communities(WhiteandMartin2002;Molnar2003).

Scholars of decentralization of naturalresource management point out thatreforms have frequently fallen shortof actually transferring authenticownership and control to communities

�


(see, for example, Larson et al. 2006).Nevertheless, cumbersome attempts toexclude forest people have begun givingway to more participatory managementapproaches as decision makers realizethat forest people are not going to goaway,andinfactaregainingstrengthandalliestodefendtheirrights.Governmentshave increasingly recognized thelegitimate claims of indigenous peoplesand communities (Taylor et al. 2006).They have begun to recognize that top-downofficialmanagementhasoftennotproducedeffective resource stewardship.Thepositivelinkbetweenlocaleconomicdevelopment and environmentalprotectionhasbecomeclearer.Devolutionofresponsibilityhasalsobeendrivenbyfree market restructuring policies whichhave progressively downsized states andtheir activities worldwide over the pasttwodecades.Molnar(2003)estimatesthatwith continued devolution, communitiesmaysooncontrol700–800millionhaofforestworldwide.

Ascommunitiesgainmorerightstoforestresourcesandasdonoranddevelopmentinstitutionsseektosupportthemeffectively,interest in participatory approaches toresearch and development in the forestsectorhasbeenincreasing(Arnold1991).Collaborative management approacheshave promoted joint conservation anddevelopment strategies between forestauthorities and indigenous populations

and communities (Poffenberger 1990;Fisher1995).Relatedworkhasdevelopedtoolsforpromotingandassessingeffectivelocalparticipation(Molnar1989;Davis-Case1990;ColferandWadley1996;ISTF2005;Evanset al.2006).

The Grassroots Assistance Project hasbenefitedinparticularfrompriorCenterfor International Forestry Research(CIFOR)-sponsored research under itsAdaptive Collaborative Management(ACM) Programme, which spannedthree continents. The ACM programmeexploredtheconditionsunderwhichforeststakeholder groups acted collaborativelyandadapted their strategies to changingcircumstances, identifying tools andmethods that promoted social learningprocessesconducivetocollaborationandadaptation. Drawing on experiences ofACMpractitionersin30fieldsitesin11countries, Colfer and her collaborators(Colfer 2005a, b) found that thecomplexity of the natural and socialsystems in forest communities calls foralternativepartnershipswithforest-basedpopulations. ACM can contribute tostrengtheningofhumanandinstitutionalcapabilities at the community level,whichinturnmaycatalyzeotherpositiveoutcomes, includinghigher incomes andsustainable improvements in the healthof forests and the wellbeing of forestpeoples.

�


TheGrassrootsAssistanceProject’sparticipatory research activitiesstart from the recognition that

organizational strengthening is one ofthe most urgent needs articulated byforest social movements in the region.The discussion below of experiences inthe Petén and Siuna draws on contextstudies by Gómez and Méndez (2005)and Cuellar and Kandel (2005). Theseexperiencesunderscore the fact thatoneof the greatest challenges facing forestsocialmovementsandtheiralliesishowtoensureeffectiveexternalsupportwhichalsopromotestheprogressiveassumptionof new management responsibilities bycommunitiesthemselves.Forcommunitiesto embark on a process of continuallearning,itiskeythattheydeveloptheirown indigenous research and analysiscapabilities, beginning with systematicdocumentationof their own experiencesfromtheirownperspectives.

3.1ThePetén,Guatemala:theCaseofACOFOP

In Guatemala, the Association of ForestCommunities of the Petén (ACOFOP)leadsamovementofdiversecommunity-basedorganizationsthathavewonrights

to manage forest concessions in theMultipleUseZone (MUZ)of theMayaBiosphere Reserve (MBR). The PeténregionislocatedinnorthernGuatemala,bordering with Mexico to the northeastand with Belize on the southeast (seeFigure1.)Thelowlandtropicalforestsofthe Petén are recognized worldwide fortheirgreatbiologicaldiversity,with1400knownspeciesofplantsand450speciesof animals and birds, and its ancientMayanruins.ThePeténisthelocationoftheMBR,establishedin1990aspartoftheUnitedNations’ManandBiosphereprogramme.TheMBRencompasses2112940haandaimstoconservetheregion’sarchaeological and biological treasures,safeguard its diverse ecosystems, andpromoteopportunitiesforsustainableuseofnaturalandculturalresources(GómezandMéndez2005).

For many years Guatemala’s mostgeographically and politically isolatedregion, the Petén has been shaped bycompetition among diverse groups ofactors to control its wealth of naturalresources. The Petén was settled byconsecutive waves of official andspontaneous settlement aimed atextractingresourcesincludingpetroleum,

3. Grassroots Forestry Organizations and Community

Forest Stewards in Central America: Current Successes and

Future Challenges

�


preciousmineralsandtimber,chiclegum(Manilkara spp.), ornamental greenerysuch as xate (Chamaerdorea elegans, C. oblongata and C. ernesti-augustii) andwildlife; there is also great agriculturalandanimal-raisingpotential.ThePetén’scivilianpopulationsufferedgreatlyduringGuatemala’s30-yearCivilWar;afterthewar, the region was a destination forlarge numbers of displaced people. Thelegacyofthisconflictcontinuestoshapegovernance in the region (Gómez andMéndez2005).

The MBR’s design and implementationhave been profoundly shaped by thePetén’shighlevelsofconflictandfrequentabsenceofformalstatecontrol,aconditionreferred to locally as ‘ingovernability.’The MBR’s original design did notadequately take intoaccount thePetén’slonghistoryofcompetitionamonggroupsofactorstocontrolitsnaturalresources.

More recently, with peace and a senseof newly emerging governance withinthe region, new competitive strugglesover cultural resources have emerged asnational and international groups vie toprotect and develop the region’s manyancientMayansitesanditspotentialforprofitable tourism. A combination offactors,includingthe1996PeaceAccordsending Guatemala’s Civil War, creatednational and international support forgreatercommunityparticipation(Gómezand Méndez 2005). After extendednegotiation, 25-year forest managementconcessions were granted to six localcommunities within the MUZ, sixcommunitiesborderingtheMUZandtwolocal forest industry companies (NittlerandTschinkel2005;alsoseeFigure2).

ACOFOPwasakeyplayerintheoriginalnegotiationofthecommunityconcessionsand, as their collective representative,

Figure 1: The Petén and Siuna, Central America

�0


continuestobeinfluentialintheoperationof the concessions and the national-level projection of their efforts. Today,ACOFOP has 22 member communitiesand organizations representing nearly2000 individuals.The community forestconcessions generate an annual value ofUS$5millioninwoodproductsandUS$2–3millioninnon-timberforestproducts(NTFPs). Members of community firmsreceive an average of US$ 1120 forwoodproductextractionandprocessingand on the whole generated over 50000 persondays of work in 2003 witha value of nearly US$ 360 000 (NittlerandTschinkel2005).ACOFOPobserves,moreover,thatin2003itsmembers’forestconcessionsgeneratedoverUS$424000intaxes(ACOFOP2004).

Reliable time-series data on theconservationanddevelopmentimpactsofACOFOPandthecommunityconcessionsis still relatively limited. Nevertheless,several recent studies suggest that, onbalance, the community concessions in

thePeténappeartobeproducingpositiveimpacts on conservation and economicwellbeing in the communities. Dramaticsatellite images suggest that protectedareas and parks in the MBR, such asLagunadelTigre,wherecommunitiesdonot have a management role, are morevulnerabletodegradationbecauseofficialprotectionislessadequatethancommunityprotection(WCSet al.2003,2004).Otherforthcoming research shows significantsupportforthepositionthatcommunityconcessions are better than the Petén’sparks at inhibiting deforestation. A fullexplanationofdifferencesindeforestationrateswillrequiretheexplorationoffactorssuchascolonizationhistoryandvariationindemographicpressures(Braypersonalcommunication).Nevertheless,NittlerandTschinkel (2005; also see Radachowsky2004;Roneyet al.undated)remarkthat‘Despiteconstantchallenges,theevidenceindicates that forest management in thePeténisfunctioning,fromtheperspectiveof resource management, communityincomeandconservationofbiodiversity’.

Nucleus Zone

Mexico

Mirador National Park

Multiple Use Zone

Río Azul National ParkDos Lagunas Biotope

Zones of the Maya Biosphere Reserve

Laguna del Tigre

Lagunadel Tigre

RíoEscondido

SanMiguel

de PalotadaBiotope

Tikal National Park

YaxhaNakúmNaranjo

El Pilar

Buffer Zone

Legends

CerroCahui

Melchor de MencosSierra del Lacondon

National Park

Petén Protected Area

Biotope

Natural Monument

Cultural Monument

National Park

Multiple Use Zone

Buffer Zone

Figure 2: Community Concessions in the Petén (based on PRISMA 2005)

��


3.2Siuna,Nicaragua:theCaseofPCaC

In the Siuna region of Nicaragua, theFarmer-to-Farmer Programme (PCaC)contributes to the effective managementof the Bosawas Biosphere Reserve bydeveloping and disseminating more-sustainable farming and ranchingpracticesandpromotingnewconservationawareness and attitudes. The Siunaregion is located in northeasternNicaragua, bordering Honduras (seeFigure 1). The region holds ecosystemsof rich biodiversity and is the locationof the Bosawas Reserve, established asa United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organization (UNESCO)Biosphere Reserve in 1997. Bosawasand its three neighbouring protectedareasofHonduras(RíoPatucaNationalPark,TawhakaAnthropologicalReserve,and Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve)form the heart of the MesoamericanBiological Corridor and representthe largest protected area complex oftropical mountain moist forest north ofthe Amazon basin (Cuellar and Kandel2005).Totallingapproximately2millionha,theBosawasReserve’sNucleusZoneincludes almost 800 000 ha; its BufferZone represents another 1.3 million ha(CuellarandKandel2005).

Like the Petén, Siuna has a history ofgeographic, political and economicisolation.Ithasalsohadahistoryofconflictandweakgovernance,asdiversegroupsofsocialactorshavecompetedtoextractthewealthof itsmineral, forestproductand agricultural and ranching potential.Siuna was settled through official andspontaneous colonization, which servedtoreducepressureforlandinNicaragua’sinterior.TheregionwasthesiteofsomeofthefiercestfightingbetweenSandinistaandContraforcesduringNicaragua’scivilwarinthe1980s.Sincethe1987Central

American Peace Agreements, Siuna andBosawashavecontinuedtoexperienceahighlevelofconflictasarmedmovementshavesoughtreparationforcivilwarlosses,and as indigenous and mestizo groupsandnationalandinternationalextractionindustries have disputed resource accessandtenure(Kaimowitz2002;CuellarandKandel2005).

The establishment of the BosawasBiosphere Reserve occurred with stronginternationalbilateralanddonorsupport.International conservation organizationsand donors such as The NatureConservancy and the German Agencyfor Technical Cooperation (GTZ) andotherswereclosely involved inplanningand implementing Bosawas. Yet muchliketheMBRinGuatemala,Bosawaswasestablished with little consultation andparticipation of indigenous and mestizogroupsalreadylivingintheterritory.Anestimated25000inhabitantsofMiskitoand Mayanga indigenous communitiesliveintheBosawasNucleusZone.Morethan 200 000 persons, mostly mestizocampesinos (peasants/farmers), areestimatedto livewithin theBufferZonearoundBosawas.CommunityactorswithintheBufferZoneweremostlyoverlooked,asmostattentionfocusedonprimaryorvirginforestswithlittleattentionpaidtotheimportantrolethatbufferzonesplayinmaintainingthestabilityofecosystems(CuellarandKandel2005).

Organizing 120 communities directlyand 300 communities indirectly, PCaC’snetwork of almost 500 volunteerpromoters has helped local farmersslow the advance of the agriculturalfrontiertowardBosawas.ThemajorityoffarmersinPCaC’sareaofinfluencehavestoppedburning,havebegunreplenishingtheir soils with cover crops and haveadopted other sustainable practices,

��


such as planting perennial crops,promoting natural forest regenerationandincorporatingagroforestry.Thelocalfarmercooperatives’memberswhohaveadhered to this alternative agriculturalprogramme have emerged as respectedleaders in both agriculture and naturalresource management, laying the basisfor PCaC’s widespread recognition as aprogrammethatplaysanimportantroleinpromotingeffectivegovernanceoftheregionand itsnaturalresources (CIFORet al. 2004a).

Reliable time-series data on theconservation and development impactsof PCaC is quite limited. Nevertheless,though PCaC is first and foremost alooselyknitassociationoffarmersithasbecome a major source of support forforestconservationinSiuna,helpingslowthe advance of the agricultural frontier.RecentinternalPCaCreportsstatethatanestimated3000farmersin80communitiesuse the cover crop Mucuna pruriens onmore than 5000 ha rather than relyingonburningpractices.Some300 familieshave seen their production operationsstabilized, with planned and diversifiedfarms.Byincreasingfamilyfoodsecurity,PCaC’sparticipantshavegreatlyreducedtheimpetusfornewlandclearance.Theiractionshaveprotected2500haofforestfromfellingovertheprevious8yearsand15 000 ha of forest have been set asideforrestorationinthose80communities.The group has planted approximately25 000 Pimienta Pimenta doica treesandanadditional10000 treesofotherspecies in agroforestry systems. PCaCand its participants have created 1000haof‘corredores biológicos campesinos’(Peasant Biological Corridors) whichserveasbufferzonestoBosawas(PCaC-Siuna undated). PCaC contributes,therefore,totheeffectivemanagementofBosawasbyhelpingreducepressureonthe

reserveandpromotingnewconservationawareness and attitudes among farmersandranchers.

3.3TheNeedforOrganizationalStrengthening

ACOFOPisanassociationofcommunityforestry concessionaire organizations,whilePCaCisafarmer-basedtrainingandexperimentationprogrammethatbuildsanetworkofinnovativefarmerswhoteacheach other through horizontal learningexchanges. Nevertheless, both ACOFOPandPCaCandtheirmembersfacesimilarorganizational challenges, some causedby their rapid expansion, others rootedin their very success in managing forconservationanddevelopment.

In the Petén, the communities’ right toparticipateinforestmanagementremainsa struggle in a context inwhichnaturalresource conservation and developmentare shaped by powerful external actors(Nittler and Tschinkel 2005; also seeTaylor et al. 2006). The communityconcessionaires as a whole also facecontinuedscepticismand,insomecases,oppositionfromindustryandsomenon-governmental organizations (NGOs)(Gómez and Méndez 2005; see TropicoVerde 2005). In 2003, for example, anewproposaltoexpandandprotecttheMirador Basin would have restrictedor halted forest management andlivelihood strategies in six communityforest concessions. The Mirador BasinExpansion Project was halted, at leasttemporarily,inmid2005afterACOFOP,its members and their allies successfullychallenged the project in Guatemala’sSupremeCourt(ACOFOP2005).

YetthefutureoftheMiradorBasinanditsrelationship to community management

��


of the MUZ continues to be unclear. Anew proposal emerged in late 2005 forUNESCO todeclare the region a globalCulturalHeritage site (Cortavepersonalcommunication).In2007,newdiscussionswereemerginginthePeténofprojectstodevelopMirador’s tourismpotential.AnInter-AmericanDevelopmentBank(IDB)-supported Sustainable DevelopmentProject for the Petén was awaitingGuatemalan Congressional approval. Akeydifferencein2007,however,wasthatACOFOPanditsassociatedcommunitieshad succeeded in gaining more formalparticipation in negotiations related tothese and other proposals affecting thecommunityconcessions(Cortavepersonalcommunication; Córdova personalcommunications).

In Siuna, PCaC grapples with ongoingproblemswithresourcegovernancealongthe agricultural frontier. A thriving butvolatile land market encourages land-use change, expanding agricultural andcattleranchingactivitiesandthreateningencroachmentonthebordersofBosawas.In addition, government proposals tofurther integrate Nicaragua into theCentral American economy includeconstruction of a major new highwayimproving Siuna’s connection with theAtlantic coast. While a new highwaywouldprobablybringeconomicgrowthtoSiuna,itwouldalmostcertainlyalsobringintensifiedpressureonBosawas throughupward pressure on land prices, greaterland-market volatility and expandedagriculturalandranchingactivities.

3.4RespondingtoMembers’ChangingNeedsandInterests

BothACOFOPandPCaCneedtoadaptto the changing needs and interests oftheirmembers.Sinceaccesstotheforest

resource was won in the case of thePetén, and greater resource and foodsecurity achieved in the case of Siuna,both organizations face new challenges.In thePetén,ACOFOPand itsmembersseektomovebeyondcommercialtimberextraction to develop a more integratedmanagement approach including theharvestofNTFPssuchasxate(jadepalm) and chicle (natural gum), environmentalservices, community-based ecotourismandculturalsiteprotection.Theyhopethatthis more integrated approach will helpconsolidatethecommunityconcessionsforthefuture,respondingtoconservationistconcerns about timber exploitation andopening up new opportunities for bothconcession members and non-members(Taylor2007).

InSiuna,oneofPCaC’sgreatestcurrentchallengesistoestablishanewandmoreexplicitroleinenvironmentalgovernancerelated to the Bosawas reserve. Cattleraisinghasrecentlybecomeanincreasinglyimportant threat to the forest. Sincemany farmers have now stablized theiragricultural plots and homes, thusslowingtheadvanceofdeforestation(theagricultural frontier), the introductionof cattle raises new challenges formaintaining these gains. Thus, PCaC’smembershavebeguntoexperimentwithmoresustainablecattle-raisingtechniquesintheforestarea.

3.5OrganizationalStrengtheningviaImprovingIndigenousResearchandAnalysis

ACOFOP and PCaC and their membercommunities have made considerableprogress inpromoting sustainable forestmanagement in their regions. Externaltechnicalassistancehasbeenkeyinmakingtheir positive experiences possible. As

��


thesecommunitieshavegainedexperienceand new skills, however, they havesought to assume greater managementresponsibilities and reduce theirdependency on external organizations.The challenge facing these grassrootsorganizationsandtheirinstitutionalalliesishowtoensurethatexternalassistanceenhancescommunitycapabilitywhilealsoprovidingthenecessarysupportfortheirchangingneeds.Inpursuitofmoreflexibleassistance approaches, the GrassrootsAssistance Project sought to develop aparticipatory approach to research andanalysisappropriatefortheregion.The experiences of Latin Americangrassroots forestry organizations haverarely been documented systematicallyfrom their own perspectives. Researchand analysis on natural resource issuesaretypicallypresumedtobethepurviewof professionals whose responsibility itis to identify problems and appropriateresponsesandthen,perhaps,toenlistlocalparticipation in implementing solutions.Pasos(2004)commentsthatthiskindofresearch tends to generate informationthat responds to external rather thancommunityconcerns,rarelyreturnstothecommunityinusefulformand,therefore,oftenfailstocontributeeffectivelytothestrengtheningoflocalcapabilities.

A key to ACOFOP and PCaC’s successin natural resource management hasbeentheirabilitytoclaimrolesasactiveparticipantsandcollaboratingpartnersinconservationanddevelopmentinitiatives.Consolidation of these grassrootsorganizations’significantsuccessrequirestheir member communities to becomeadept at managing the complex politicsoftheirresourcebase.Forexample,bothACOFOP and PCaC continually seek

to balance conservation and livelihoodgoals.Whileconservationisanimportantcomponentoftheiragendas,participatingmembers expect their organizationsto continue to generate concreteimprovements in their livelihoods, oftenmeasured in terms of employment andincome.

Nevertheless, the external legitimacy ofgrassroots forestry organizations’ claimstomanageforestresourcesgreatlydependsonthecommunities’abilitytodemonstratethat they are sustainably managing andconserving forest resources. Thoughstate support for community-basedresource management has increased, thecommunities’credibilitywithgovernmentand conservationist stakeholders oftenrequires that competing stakeholderclaimsorcriticisms,whichareoftenbasedonoverlynarrowdataandobservations,becountered.

The lack of documentation from thecommunitypointofviewlimitsgrassrootsforestry organizations’ ability to shareexperienceswithrelatedmovementsandhampers their capability to enter intodeliberations on behalf of their owninterests and negotiate effectively withpolicy makers. As one participant putit in the Petén International Exchangemeeting, ‘community leaders used to goto meetings with decision-makers andit was other people who had the mapsand information’ (cited inTaylor2004).Communitygroupsneedtodeveloptheircapacitytorecounttheirownexperiencesmoreaccuratelyandpersuasively,andtovisualizeandarticulate theirneeds.Thisrequires strengthening of local skills inthe collection, analysis and presentationofdata related to their forestsand theiractivitiesinthem.

��


TheGrassrootsAssistanceProject’smethodology developed anintegratedresponsetotworelated

problems: the lackof systematicand in-depthunderstandingofthecommunities’experiences with forest managementfrom their own perspective, and theneed for technical assistance strategieswhichmoreeffectivelybuild communitycapabilities to manage for conservationanddevelopment.

The project’s research methodologysought to combine the perspectives andskills of forest community membersand external professional researchersto develop a comprehensive account ofthe grassroots forestry organizations’experiences. Its multimethod researchapproach (Brewer and Hunter 1989)combined ethnographic techniques ofobservation, in-depth individual andgroupinterviewsanddocumentanalysis.Itscomparativeanalyticalapproachplacedcurrent experiences of community-basedforestry within their historical contexts.An emergent study design involvedregular face-to-face discussions by localand externalparticipantsof commonorcompatible questions and themes. Data-

gathering techniques, common researchthemes and questions and researchlogistics were periodically discussedand negotiated in face-to-face meetingsamongparticipantsheldinMexicoCity,San Salvador and Belem. CommunityresearchertrainingworkshopswereheldinthePeténandSiunainwhichcommunity-based researchers and external contextresearchersdiscussedtheirprogress.Theseproceduresaimedtodevelopaconceptualstrategythatallowedfruitfulcomparisonyet remained inductive and adaptive todeal appropriately with diverse casesacrossgeographicregions.

Theprojectalsosoughttointegratecapacitybuilding into each aspect of researchdesignandimplementation.Tostrengthenparticipating grassroots communityforest organizations, administrative andfinancialresponsibilitiesforplanningandimplementing the self-systematizationand context studies and exchangeworkshops were highly decentralized.Decentralization required acceptingand managing coordination difficultiescaused by the varying organizationaland community paces and rhythmsof the project’s diverse participants.

4. The Grassroots Assistance Project: Activities and Methodology

��


Decentralization alsomeant thatprojectactivitiesandoutcomeswerenotidenticalin each region. In Central America, theproject’s coordinators built on extensivecommunity development experienceto develop an innovative participatorymethod that they termed ‘auto-systemization’ (self-systematization),intended to empower communities toarticulate their own perspective of whothey are and how they have interactedwith external assistance providers (InBrazil, by contrast, the project partner’sfocusonenvironmentalanddevelopmentpolicyledtoagreaterfocusonthepolicycontextdrivingcommunityassistance).

4.1ParticipatoryCommunityResearch:the‘Self-systematization’Studies

The Central American project teammembers understood from prior closecontactwiththecommunityorganizationsandleadersthatthroughtheirstrugglesforrecognitionandnegotiationwithexternalinstitutions the grassroots groups haddevelopedawealthofinformation,manyresident experts and a well developedcollective consciousness. Yet little efforthad been made to process or documentthis local knowledge. Opportunitieswere being missed to promote learningand dissemination and to improvecommunities’ capability tonegotiate.Toaddressthelackofsystematicknowledgeoflocalexperiences,communitymemberswere trained and ‘self-systematization’studies were carried out in fourcommunitiesandcommunity-basedforestassociations: Unión Maya Itzá (UMI)andLaborantesdelBosqueinthePetén,Guatemala,andTadaznaandElBálsamoin Siuna, Nicaragua. These community‘systematizers’ were given a significant

degree of autonomy. Once trained,provided with a common conceptualframeworkandsentintothefield,localresearchers were given minimal externalassistance. The studies they produced(GuerraBañosandRecinos2003;Lizanoand Martínez 2003; Martínez MoranandMercadoZamora2003;MatíasandAldana2003)aretheirown.

Theterm‘self-systematization’signalsthegoalofaccessingandorganizingalreadyexistinglocalknowledgeandexperiencestodevelopcomprehensive,usefulresearchoncommunityforestryexperiences.Self-systematization implies not just datagathering but encompasses collectivedeliberation,negotiationandanalysis oflocal knowledge. It means the collectiveprocess of constructing consensus anddissention on the explanations, causesand evolution of the communities’ ownorganizational history. The rhythmsand emphases of research and its majorlessonsaregeneratedbytheselocalactorsthemselvesratherthanbyexternalactors.Self-systematization aims to create aninstitutionalized, permanent process ofreflection ledby local expertswhowerethemselves trained in the same process(CIFORandACICAFOCundated).

Project coordinators Pasos and SánchezHidalgo’s self-systemization approachadaptedsustainablelivelihoodandrelatedparticipatory approaches to the uniqueconservation and development problemsofCentralAmerican forest communities(ACICAFOC–PCACSiuna2003;CIFORet al. 2004a; CIFOR and ACICAFOCundated; Sánchez Hidalgo undated).The sustainable livelihood methodology(medios de vida)adaptedfortheproject’sself-systematizationstudiesofcommunityforest experiences focused on natural

��


resource management. It employed an‘assets approach’ (FAO 2005b) whichinstead of emphasizing developmentproblems and obstacles systematicallydocumentedcommunityassets,includinghuman, social, physical, natural andfinancial ‘capitals’ (ACICAFOC–PCaC-Siuna 2003; Sánchez Hidalgo undated).Community members were encouragedtoexplicitlycharacterizeexistingmodelsof natural resource management andrelated organizational processes andtechnicalassistance.Theconcretenessandimmediate relevance of this conceptualframework led participants to talktogether about the resources they needin order to live, and about productiveactivities in which they possess highlevelsofexperienceandexpertise.‘Astheparticipantstalkaboutwhathashappenedwith their community’s assets over eachhistoricalperiod,deeperquestionsabouteachtypeofassetemerge’(ACICAFOC–

PCaC-Siuna2003).This‘assetsapproach’encouraged participants to establishanalyticalrelationshipsamongresources,socialactorsand institutions,promotingacriticalevaluationprocessnecessaryforeffectiveplanning.

Tenlocal‘systematizers’werenominatedbytheircommunitiesandassociationsfortraininginthePeténandteninSiuna.Theselected individuals received intensive2-week theoretical and hands-on trainingin workshops organized in their areasby Project Coordinators Rubén Pasosand Nelda Sánchez Hidalgo. Trainingincludedmethodsforfacilitatingcollectivereflection and analysis, individual andgroup interviewing,organizationoffieldnotes,informationanalysis,preparationofdocumentsanduseofvisualpresentationaids.Researcherswere trained togatherinformation related to the sustainable

livelihood conceptual framework. Adetailedworkplan,with research topicsand associated information gatheringtechniques,wasdeveloped.Attheendofthe workshops, four of the ten traineeswere selected to carry out the self-systematizationstudiesduringfourweeksof fieldwork. Researchers were given amodeststipendtooffsettheopportunitycostsoflostwagesandproductiveworkintheir communities.The researcherswereprovided with a backpack containingbasicresearchmaterials,includingpaper,notebooks,writingimplements,tapeetc.

AccordingtoProjectCoordinatorSánchezHidalgo, the participatory researchprocessvariedsomewhatbycommunity,butalwaysinvolvedteamsoftwotrainedcommunity members interviewingindividuals and conducting focus groupdiscussions.First,ahistoricalchronologyof the community was constructedcollectively,usuallywith local leadersorcommunitymembersenlistedtorecordthediscussionatawhiteboardorrotafolio.Acollectivediagnosisofproductiveactivitiesand ‘sustainable livelihoods’ followed.Participants were asked to describe thecommunity’s economic activities, toclassify them by type, and to develop aphysical map of their distribution. Theywere asked to describe their leadershipandtoelicit informationabout informalas well as formal leaders. They wereaskedtodescribemomentsofcommunitycrisis and to whom people turned toresolve such crises. In similar fashion,participants developed an inventory oflocal organizations. They also discussedpossible scenarios to elicit descriptionsof community threats or challenges andtohelplinkthemtoexistingcommunitynatural,financialorsocialassets(SánchezHidalgo2006).

��


4.2TheInternationalExchangeMeetinginthePetén,Guatemala

A key part of the self-systematizationmethodology was the organizationof horizontal community–communityexchanges, a technique which built onthe Association of Forest Communitiesof the Petén (ACOFOP) and Farmer-to-Farmer Programme (PCaC)’s ownextensive experience with exchangeevents.Membersandleadersofgrassrootsorganizations rarely have the time todocument,articulateanddiscusstheirownexperiences, much less the opportunityto consider those of their counterpartsin other regions. In many cases, newgrassrootsorganizationsenduprepeatingtheerrorsofothersbecause theydonothave information about prior successesand failures. Exchange visits allowleadersandmemberstointeractdirectly,to present and discuss their experiencesamongthemselves,tovisitsitesofsuccessesand failures, and to collectively designimproved management and assistancemodels.Theexchangesalsohelpestablishnewsocialandpoliticalnetworksamonggrassrootsorganizations.

To help strengthen community politicalcapabilities, the reflections and lessonslearned through the self-systemizationstudies were taken to a higher level.The project organized an internationalexchange meeting, ‘If You Saw It withMy Eyes – Learning from Our OwnExperiences of Community Forestry’in the Petén, Guatemala. More than 50community-based forestry organizationleaders and members, communitymembers,technicalsupportstaffmembers

andgovernmentofficialsfromGuatemala,Nicaragua, Brazil and Bolivia met overa period of eight days in a systematicexchangeofinformationandexperienceswith community-based natural resourcemanagement and technical assistance.Professional researchers presentedpreliminary results of their contextstudiesandfacilitateddiscussiontohelpensure adequate coordination of theregional context studies and local self-systematization studies (CIFOR et al. 2004b).

4.3DoParticipatoryTechniquesReallyLeadtoChange?

The self-systematization studies and theinternational exchange meeting soughtultimately to enhance communities’political capability to identify theirown needs and to make proposals forcollaborationwiththirdparties.Yetsomeresearchers have questioned the extentto which participatory approaches andmethodsactuallycatalyzechangesinthestatus quo effectively. Cornwall (2000),for example, argues that peopleneed tohave opportunities to make and shapetheirownspacesforengagementandthatprocessesmustbedeveloped to enhancethe accountability of local and globalinstitutions affecting peoples’ lives. Inother words, community involvementin research and development planningmust go beyond accurately gatheringinformation and identifying needs toenablecommunitiestooperateeffectivelyinapoliticalsphereofnegotiation.

Sánchez Hidalgo (2006) points out thatseveral ‘proofsofconsistency’shouldbe

��


requiredoftheself-systematizationprocess,to indicate whether it really producesresults. The first proof of consistencyrequiresconfirmationthattheanalysishasbeen constructed from thepeoples’ownexperience and perspective. The secondproof lies inwhethercommunity leaders

actuallyutilize theresultsof thestudies.The third proof comes from whetherthe studies provoke change. Below, thepreliminary impacts of the project’sactivitiesaccordingtoSánchezHidalgo’sframeworkareassessed.

�0


Theproject’scollaborativeresearchaimed to combine the skills andperspectives of both professional

researchers and local people in order todevelopthemostcomprehensiveanalysespossible of community-based forestmanagement experiences. The project’sdifferently trained and uniquely locatedsets of researchers brought distinct butcomplementaryanalyticalframeworkstotheir research. While this paper focusesmainly on the experience with thecommunity self-systematization studies(seeCronkletonet al.2007)fordiscussionof the regional context studies), therewereinstructivedifferencesinthefociandframeworks employed by professionalandcommunity-basedresearchers.

Forexample,thecontextstudyresearchersadopted an analytical framework whichplacedthePeténandSiunainthebroaderterritorialcontextofCentralAmericaandwithinthecontextofabroad‘community’of local, national and internationalstakeholders in the region’s threatenedforests. These professional researcherssoughttoexplainwhatconditionsaccountfor the emergence of highly successfulgrassroots movements in the Petén andSiuna when such collective action hasfailedtodevelopinsomanyothercontexts.Theystudiedtheenvironmental,political,

social and economic factors shapingthe organizational trajectories of thecommunities’ forest management. Theyaimedtoidentifythemovements’principalstrengthsandweaknessesandtheirneedsfor assistance. Finally, these researchersdocumentedthecommunities’experienceswith traditional technical assistance andthe emergence of alternative forms ofassistance that strengthen communities’managementandpoliticalcapabilities.

By contrast, the community-basedresearchers employed an analyticalframework which, understandably,exploredfactorsatthelocallevelthatdirectlyshapenatural resourcemanagementandlivelihoods.Their researchwasdesignedtobehighly interactivewithcommunitymembers, with group interviews andcommunity discussion workshops. Theself-systematizationstudiesfocusedmoreconcretely on eliciting consensus on thekey historical events that had shapedtheir communities. Drawing on theassets identification approach impartedintheirtrainingbyprojectcoordinators,local researchers explored communityproductionstrategieswhich,whilelargelybased on forest resources, also involveddiversified subsistence and commercialagriculture and animal raising. Theyinventoried existing physical, natural,

5. Results of the Collaborative Research

��


Petén, Guatemala: Unión Maya Itza

Unión Maya Itzá (UMI) is a community of nearly 1000 inhabitants located near Guatemala’s border with Mexico. Although the UMI is located in the Maya Biosphere Reserve’s Multiple Use Zone, the people became owners of their 5924-ha forest through the government refugee resettlement programme, part of the 1996 Peace Accords. The community was formed as a cooperative in 1992 by Civil War refugees and today includes 155 families of 8 distinct indigenous ethnic groups, languages and mestizos. UMI’s members pursue small-scale agriculture and animal-raising strategies, within the context of a larger agro-forestry strategy including timber and non-timber forest product (NTFP) harvesting and commercialization, and artisanry. They also receive significant income from remittances from community members who work in Mexico. The UMI’s forests are certified as sustainably managed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

The UMI’s self-identified social capital includes a village council, women’s organization, artisan and carpenters’ association, and membership of external organizations such as the Association of Forest Communities of Petén (ACOFOP), and FSC Smart Wood certification. Physical capital includes electricity in the community, eight common piped water sources, a clinic and four community-owned and operated cargo trucks and buses. Productive activities include timber harvesting, xate (ornamental jade palm leaf – Chamaerdorea spp.) collection, cultivation of basic food crops, small artisanry centres and small-animal husbandry. Natural capital includes their nearly 6000 ha of forest in productive use, including 3700 ha dedicated to timber harvesting, a xate nursery and a 13-ha xate plantation, and 700 ha for cultivation of maize, bean, peanuts and other crops for consumption and small-scale commercialization. Financial capital includes sales of food crops, xate and artisanry, wage labour work, NGO donations, and remittances.

The UMI’s development strategies include planning for forest conservation through the sale of environmental services, sustainable management of timber and NTFP extraction, zoning of use of their territory, agricultural production for subsistence and commercialization, and strengthening of local organizational and management capability.

The UMI’s principal vulnerabilities are migration of young people, forest fires, squatter encroachment, flooding of agricultural areas, and scarcity of markets. The external threats they identified included a planned hydroelectric dam in Mexico and the Plan Puebla Panama, which is anticipated to bring new competitive pressures and stresses on members’ conservation and development strategies. The UMI’s strategies in response to these vulnerabilities include strengthening monitoring of their boundaries, seeking external markets for diversified production, improving storage facilities, and introducing and developing eco-tourism (Matías and Aldana 2003).

��


Petén, Guatemala: Laborantes del Bosque

The Laborantes del Bosque (Workers of the Forest) are a non-profit ‘civil society’ of 91 members based in the northeastern town of Melchor de Mencos, located on the border between Guatemala and Belize. In 1999, the Workers of the Forest were granted a community concession to manage 19 390 ha in the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR)’s Multiple Use Zone (MUZ). The Workers of the Forest’s members do not live in their concession area, but their forest managements activities are a principal source of livelihood. Their forest activities and sawmill operations represent a significant source of employment and income both for its 91 members (70 men and 21 women) and non-members in the community of Melchor de Mencos. The Workers of the Forest concession has been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) as sustainably managed.

The Workers of the Forest’s social capital consists of an administrative council and general assembly for the society, auditors’ committee and commission, and women’s group. They also include as social capital a hard-won level of organizational development, including internal regulations and statutes, an annual operating plan for forest management, administrative and functions manuals, and member life insurance policies. Their social capital also encompasses close relations with external organizations including the National Commission for Protected Areas (CONAP), the Association of Forest Communities of Petén (ACOFOP), the Community-owned Community Forest Services Firm (FORESCOM), other community-based concessions in Melchor de Mencos, and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

The Workers of the Forest’s physical capital consists of their office installations, sawmill and timber extraction and processing equipment, fire control tools, and three archaeological sites within their concession. Natural capital refers to their concession area, which has valuable commercial species including Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) and Spanish Cedar (Cederela odorata), and access to the Rio Azul waterway. Financial capital includes the extraction and processing of over 900 m3 of certified wood in 2004, operating loans from banks and NGOs, including ACOFOP, and income from rent of sawmill, carpentry and cafeteria services.

The Workers of the Forest’s development strategies aim at improving their competitiveness in processing and commercialization of wood in local, national and international markets. They are working to further develop a now-incipient activity in furniture manufacture and expand sales of their milling, carpentry and cafeteria services. In the future, Workers of the Forest members want to develop eco-tourism activities in their concession, collect and market seeds from valuable plant species, and develop xate (Chamaerdorea spp.) and community pharmacy activities among women members of the concession group.

The Workers of the Forest’s self-identified local vulnerabilities involve deteriorating road access to their concession area, forest fires and illegal logging, territorial conflicts with neighbouring Belize, and internal divisions within the concession organization. They plan to respond to these local vulnerabilities by improving road maintenance, negotiating new access arrangements with Belizean neighbours and strengthening their monitoring committees’ activities in the concession. Their externally derived vulnerabilities include the possibility of future government policy changes undermining commitment to community forest concessions, and a planned highway to Mexico being promoted within the rubric of the Plan Puebla Panamá. The Workers of the Forest members plan to address these external threats through continued commitment to organizing at the secondary level, as they have done with ACOFOP, and by seeking support from accompanying NGOs (Guerra Baños and Recinos 2003).

��


Siuna, Nicaragua: El Bálsamo

El Bálsamo is located on the border of the Bosawas Reserve in Siuna, Nicaragua. El Bálsamo is a community of 428 families of small and medium-scale agroforestry producers. This community has, with project and Farmer-to-Farmer Programme (PCaC) support, mapped and zoned their 2500 ha of lands, of which 2160 ha are under primary and secondary forest cover. Zone I constitutes a corridor to Bosawas and is dedicated to conservation and permanent (rather than shifting) crop cultivation. Non-traditional forest production is also carried out in Zone I, and includes agroforestry systems in association with pimienta (Pimenta doica – Allspice), coffee, cacao, cinnamon, citrus and other products grown in the forest. Here El Bálsamo members produce maize, beans and rice, and other vegetables on a small scale. They have incorporated use of the frijol abono – Mucuna pruriens – cover crop to eliminate traditional clearing and burning, reporting that yields have nearly doubled. Zone II is dedicated to the sustainable production of animals, including cattle, pigs and chickens, for consumption and marketing.

El Bálsamo’s social capital includes a village council, and committees related to schools, religion, health, non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and tourism. Residents participate in an essential-oils cooperative, and are members of external organizations such as PCaC. Physical and natural capital consists of productive activities with basic grains, essential oils and seedlings and fish farming. The residents hope to take advantage of the area’s ecotourism potential related to El Bálsamo’s mountain corridor to Bosawas. Financial capital includes sales of basic grains, fruits, vegetables, essential-oil plants and small domestic animals.

El Bálsamo’s development strategies aim at improving food security and diversification of production and income to stabilize community families. They improve agricultural yields using the frijol abono cover crops and are developing agroforestry systems to harvest, process and market NTFPs such as essential oils, including pimienta, zacate limón (Cymbopogon ciratus) and jengibre (Zingiber officinale. El Bálsamo’s members plan for future marketing of environmental services, ecotourism and reforestation to help maintain the peasant biological corridor promoted by PCaC and the Central American Indigenous and Peasant Coordinator of Communal Agroforestry (ACICAFOC).

The principal threats facing El Bálsamo consist of natural phenomena such as forest fires, droughts and landslides. Uncertain markets and low prices also create problems for local families. Residents also suffer physical insecurity stemming from continuing violence in the area. The community is vulnerable to the effects of its out-migration as Siuna opens the door to newcomers pursuing an extensive cattle-raising model rather than the more sustainable methods pursued by El Bálsamo’s more established residents. External threats include expected price drops with further regional trade liberalization. El Bálsamo’s strategies in response to these vulnerabilities involve organizing fire brigades and intensifying monitoring, increasing diversification of crops, and strengthening community organizations, including formation of a grain cooperative (Martinez Moran and Mercado Zamora 2003).

��


Siuna, Nicaragua: Tadazna

Tadazna is a community of 213 families (1065 inhabitants) located in the Rio Blanco area of Siuna. Originally established in the 1960s by settlers working on chicle (Manilkara spp.) harvesting and timber extraction, Tadazna’s principal economic activity today is cattle raising, with some agricultural cropping for local consumption. Like El Bálsamo, with project and Farmer-to-Farmer Programme (PCaC) support this community has mapped and zoned its 6550 ha of land, of which 2900 ha are under pasture and 840 ha are dedicated to agriculture.

Zone I is mostly pasture with compacted soils; it is used for extensive cattle raising for milk and meat commercialization. Zone II is dedicated to combined agriculture and a limited amount of small-animal husbandry (e.g. pigs and chickens). Production is principally dedicated to consumption and limited commercialization. PCaC’s promotion of the frijol abono – Mucuna pruriens – cover crop has been influential in this zone and has helped stabilize family food security. Zone III is reserved for agroforestry combinations. In addition to traditional food cropping, non-traditional plants such as allspice (Pimenta doica), cacao, coco and citrus are cultivated. As a significantly forested area, this zone is considered part of Tadazna’s contribution to the PCaC-promoted ‘peasant biological corridor’.

Tadazna’s self-identified social capital includes community organizations such as a multipurpose cooperative, and community development, crime prevention, civil defence and natural resources committees and women’s groups. Physical capital consists of a cooperative meeting house, community roads, clinic, well and latrines, in addition to pastures, gardens and storage facilities. Financial capital includes income from the sale of cattle and firewood, wage labour and local restaurants.

Tadazna’s principal development strategy reflects its inhabitants’ principal productive activity, seeking more sustainable cattle-raising methods through improved cattle species, better pastures and forest-pasture systems. Tadazna wants to increase yields of basic food grains through greater use of cover crop systems such as those promoted by PCaC.

The main vulnerabilities include continued use of burning techniques by some community members, which reduce forest cover and undermine local water sources. Deteriorating road conditions have encouraged more local sales of grains, provoking a reduction in basic food prices and discouraging producers from investing in improved seeds. The community’s response strategy includes farm planning, zoning and use of cover crops to achieve natural regeneration, implementation of forest-pasture systems for cattle management, reforestation of watersheds, improved seed selection, and dedication of user fees to road maintenance (Lizano and Martinez 2003).

��


ofa25-yearmanagementconcession. InNicaragua, El Bálsamo directly borderstheBosawasReservewhileTadaznadoesnot. Yet both communities are helpingslow the advance of the agriculturalfrontier by developing more sustainableproduction techniques and participatingin the Farmer-to-Farmer Programme(PCaC)-promoted Peasant BiologicalCorridorconnectingwithBosawas.

b) Conservation and productive strategies

Insimilar fashion, the fourcommunitiesshow that forest management forconservation is closely integrated withdiverse production and developmentstrategies. UMI members pursueagroforestry strategies emphasizing non-timberforestproducts(NTFPs)andtoalesserdegree,commercialtimberharvestingandsalewhiletheWorkersoftheForest focus principally on timber harvesting,processing and commercialization. ElBálsamomemberspursueagroforestryincombination with harvesting of NTFPssuchasessentialoils,and,toalesserdegree,sustainable small-animal husbandry.Tadaznamembersareprincipallyinvolvedincattleproductionandseektocombinesustainable agrosilvopastoral systemsinvolvingNTFPs.

c) Benefits and the boundaries of ‘community’

The definition and boundaries of the‘community’ participating in naturalresource management vary in the fourcases. Founded by refugees returningunderthe1996PeaceAccords, theUMIis a cooperative. It benefits directly andcollectivelyfromforest-relatedresources,income from which is invested ininfrastructure suchaselectricity,potable

financial and social resources withinthe communities, then focused on keyvulnerabilities and threats to localwellbeing and resource sustainability.Theyalsoassessedthemajorneedsofthecommunity,potentialforpositivechange,and possible allies in improving theirmanagementandlivelihoodcapabilities.

5.1TheSelf-systematizationCommunityStudies

Thedocumentationofthecommunityself-systematization research was generatedwiththeassistanceofprojectcoordinatorsand included written reports, detailedtables and PowerPoint® presentations.Initial results of the self-systematizationstudies were presented to communitiesand feedback was solicited before thefinal presentations and documents weredelivered to community leaders andmembers. Multiple presentations werealsomadetoexternalaudiences,includingparticipantsintheinternationalexchangeinthePetén.

Below, the findings of the self-systematization studies in the fourcommunities are summarized and theirsignificanceisdiscussed.

5.1.1 Discussiona) Relationships between communities

and the resource

These four self-systematization studiessuggestthatarangeofdirectandindirectcommunity relationships to protected-areamanagementexists.TheUniónMayaItzá(UMI)andtheWorkersoftheForestin Guatemala are formally and directlyinvolved in management of the MayaBiosphereReserve(MBR)’sMultipleUseZone (MUZ), one as collective ownerof forest lands, and the other as holder

��


pipedwater,aclinicandcommunity-ownedstores,cargotrucksandbuses.Bycontrast,theWorkersoftheForest isanon-profit‘civil society’whose91membersbenefitdirectlyfromforest-relatedactivitiesintheform of income, and collectively ownedandoperatedinfrastructureandservices;non-membersinthetownofMelchordeMencosbenefit indirectly in the formofemployment income from the Workersof the Forest’s timber harvesting andprocessing. The entire community of ElBálsamoisinvolvedinandbenefitsfromnaturalresourcemanagementintheformofimproved,morestableandsustainableagro-forestry and small-animal raising.Tadazna’scommunitybenefitsasawholeinsimilarfashionthroughimprovedfoodsecurity and the development of moreproductive, more sustainable animalraisingsystems.

d) Principal vulnerabilities

The main threats facing communities’capabilitytomanageforconservationanddevelopment are in many ways similar,despitetheirdiverseregionalcontexts.Inadditiontonaturalandartificialphysicalthreatssuchasfire,allfourcommunitiesface problems posed by impingement ofoutside actors engaged in unauthorizedsettlement and resource extraction andother illegal activities. Less directly, butasimportantly,thecommunitiesconfrontpressures from large-scale externaldevelopmentinitiatives,suchasaplannedhydro-electric project in neighbouringMexico and proposed highway projectsrelated to the Plan Puebla Panamá. Atthe same time, all four face difficultiesin gaining adequate access to marketsforforestandagriculturalproducts.TheUMI in Guatemala and El Bálsamo inNicaragua identify the loss of membersthroughpoverty-drivenout-migrationasamajorvulnerability.

e) Organizational strategies

All four communities respond to thesevulnerabilities by seeking to consolidatetheir current organizational andmanagementcapabilitieswhileworkingtodevelopnewones.All fourcommunitiesareworkingtoimprovetheproductivityand sustainability of their currentactivitiesintimber,NTFPs,agro-forestryand animal raising. The UMI, Workersof the Forest and El Bálsamo want todiversify their productive activities inforest-related timber and NTFPs. ElBálsamoandTadaznaarestillparticularlyconcerned to further stabilize local foodsecurity. The UMI and Workers of theForest bothaimto improvetheirbordermonitoring to control illegal access andextractionbyoutsiderandtogetherwithElBálsamoexpressinterestindevelopingeco-tourism activities, encouraged bytheircloseproximitytoforestreservesorculturalsitesofinteresttooutsiders.

All four communities strive to furtherdevelop and consolidate their role informalforestmanagementintheirareas.InGuatemala, theUMIandWorkersofthe Forest are concerned to protect thelegitimacy of community concessions ina context in which future official policysupportmaybeuncertain.InNicaragua,though neither El Bálsamo nor Tadaznahave formal involvement in themanagement of Bosawas, both activelysupport thePeasantBiologicalCorridor,expressinterestinpursuingreforestationactivities, and in general want theircontributions toward conservation toachievegreaterrecognition.

f) Technical support needs

These four self-systematization studiessignal areas in which external technicalsupport might be fruitfully directed. All

��


four communities express a need forassistanceinorganizationalstrengthening,aperceivedneedunderlyingtheirinterestinparticipatingintheself-systematizationtraining and research. Organizationalstrengtheningisparticularlyneededinthesubstantive areas of commercialization,environmental services, and ecotourism,aswellasinstrengtheningtheproductivityof timber, agroforestry and ranchingwithin the constraints of environmentalsustainability. The communities alsosignal theneed for assistance inmakingtheir land and natural resource tenurerights more secure. Achieving greatertenuresecurityrequiresthatcommunitiesincrease their negotiating capacitywith influential stakeholders, includingofficial policy makers and national andinternationalconservationgroupsshapingthemanagementofprotectedareas.

g) Methodological considerations

The training of local researchers andthe conduct of the self-systematizationstudiesfacedanumberofobstacles.First,theselectionofcommunitiestobestudiedand negotiation of their participationprovedalengthyprocess.TheAssociationof Forest Communities of the Petén(ACOFOP) and PCaC were crucialsponsors, lending their credibility to theactivity. Forest communities and forestmanagement groups were sought whoseexperiences illustrated both the majorachievementsandsignificantproblemsofcommunity-based resource managementintheregion.Theyalsohadtobewillingto commit considerable time and efforttotheself-systematizationactivity.InthePetén,onecommunityinitiallyconsideredfor self-systematization declined toparticipate,mainlybecauseofmembers’fearsthatsystematicresearchandpublicdiscussion could exacerbate existinginternalconflicts.

Uneveneducationallevelsandliteracyskillsamongcommunity-based researchers ledproject coordinators topairparticipantswith stronger educational backgroundswith others possessing weaker literacyskillsbutstrongexperienceandcredibilityinthecommunities.Projectcoordinatorsprovided editing and organizationalsupport in thedevelopmentof thestudydrafts.Eachteamproduceditsownfinalwritten study. Inaddition to thewrittendocumentswhichwereformallypresentedto the authorities in each community,significant emphasis was placed onexhaustive direct local feedback anddiscussionofthestudies’findings.

h) Implications of the self-systematization studies

Theself-systematizationstudiesinCentralAmerica illustrate community members’existing and potential capabilities tocarry out systematic studies of theircommunities’ diverse resource-relatedassets(natural,physical,human,socialandfinancial), to identifyandprioritizetheirprincipal development and conservationvulnerabilities and problems, to developindigenous strategies of response, andto identify potential sources of externalsupportandcollaboration.Thesestudiessuggeststronglythatcommunitymemberslink conservation and developmentobjectives into increasingly integratedresource management strategies. Thestudiesalsoindicateareaswhereoutsideassistance could appropriately supportcommunity-based conservation anddevelopmentstrategies.

In addition, these self-systematizationstudies point not only to the need forassistance.Theyalsosuggestsomeoftheoutlines of an ‘accompaniment’ modelthat could strengthen local participation

��


in natural resource management forboth conservation and developmenteffectively. This accompaniment modelwouldrecognizetheexistingknowledge,expertise and analytical capabilitieswithin these fourcommunities. Itwouldemploy a flexible approach to designingand implementing support activities, asthecommunities’needsfororganizational

strengthening vary and are likely tochange as those capabilities developover time. All four communities needaccompanimentthathelpsstrengthentheirpoliticalcapabilitiesinordertosecureandconsolidate resource tenure rights andtheir right to a place at the negotiationtablewithinfluentialstakeholders.

��


Aprincipal objective of theGrassrootsAssistanceProjectanditsparticipatoryresearchactivities

wastodocumenttheforestcommunities’experienceswithtechnicalassistanceandto help develop new approaches whichmight better build local capabilities.Below, the communities’ experiencesbothwithtraditionaltechnicalassistanceand an emerging alternative model of‘accompaniment’arebrieflydiscussed.

6.1The‘Official’ModelofTechnicalAssistance

The external support received by theAssociation of Forest Communities ofthe Petén (ACOFOP) and Farmer-to-Farmer Programme (PCaC) has variedin both type and approach throughwhat Gómez and Méndez (2005) called‘official’ and ‘pro-community’ modelsof technical assistance. Rather thannecessarily competing, these twomodelshave served different needs at differentstages of communities’ involvement innaturalresourcemanagement.Thesetwoapproaches are not necessarily mutuallyexclusivebut couldplay complementaryroles in supporting community-basedorganizations.

The ‘official’ or traditional model ofassistance has been highly effective at

mobilizinglarge-scalefinancialresources,contributing technical knowledge andskills,andrecruitingtheparticipationofimportant institutions in ecological andnaturalresourcemanagement(GómezandMéndez 2005). In the Petén, assistancefrominternationaldevelopmentagenciesand donors such as the US Agency forInternational Development (USAID),the World Bank, the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau(KFW),theUKDepartmentfor International Development (DFID),theFordFoundation,internationalNGOsand their national counterparts helpedcommunitiessatisfylegalandbureaucraticrequirementstogainingforest-concessionrights. They carried out socioeconomicand technical planning, and providedvaluabletechnicalassistanceandtrainingin forest management, tourism andmarketing (Gómez and Méndez 2005).InSiuna,externalresourcessuchasthoseOxfamchannelledthroughPCaC’sparentinstitution,theNationalUnionofFarmersand Ranchers (UNAG), helped lay theorganizational foundation for PCaC’scommunity promoter and exchangeprogrammes(CuellarandKandel2005).

Technical assistance programmes oftenmakeinadequateprovisionsforminimizingdependencyrelationswithbeneficiaries.InthePetén,accordingtomanycommunity

6. Models of External Assistance

�0


membersandobservers,therelationshipsbetweencommunitiesandtheNGOswereultimately characterized by paternalismand dependency. ACOFOP and itsassociatedcommunitiesandorganizationscomplainedthattheNGOs’methodologydid not allow communities to developtheirowncapabilitiesforintegratedforestmanagement,administrationandbusiness(Gómez and Méndez 2005). In the caseofSiuna,PCaCanditsparentinstitution,UNAG, often found themselves atloggerheadsoverissuesofadministrativeautonomy.

Moreover, traditionally organizedtechnical assistance usually arrives asformal projects requiring traditional,organized hierarchies that may runcontrary to the horizontal, process-oriented social networks that structuregrassroots movements. Even whereprojectsavoidgeneratingdependency,thedemandsofformaltechnicalprojectsoftenpush participants to respond to projectobjectives and conform to planningframeworks. Pasos (2006) argues thatin the Petén the NGOs were designedfromthetopdown,andtendedtoevolveinto project implementers, reducing thecommunity to the role of ‘beneficiary’.Their staff tended to focuson satisfyingdonor requirements and as they werehiredbytheNGOratherthanselectedbythe community they ended up workingmorefortheNGOinthecommunitythanforthecommunity.

In the Siuna case, while UNAG is atraditional, formal organization, manyofPCaC’smostimportantandinnovativecharacteristicsarebetterconceptualizedasthoseofasocialmovementratherthanaformalorganization–noneofitsnetworkofalmost500volunteerpromotersappearsin a formal organizational hierarchy.

The contradictions that official projectscan pose for a movement, for example,weredramatizedwhenPCaCfounditselfresponsibleforenforcingloanagreementsandcollectingdebtsincurredbymembersparticipating in a farmer loanproject, arelationshipthatthreatenedtoundermineitscapabilitytosustainitssocialnetworksinthecountryside.Significantly,by1993PCaC’s strength as an organization andinfluenceinthecountrysideledtointernaltensions with its parent institution,UNAG,particularlywith relation to thechannellingofexternalresources(CuellarandKandel2005).

External technical, financial andorganizational assistance from thestate, international donor agenciesand foundations and international andnational NGOs has been crucial for theemergenceandconsolidationofgrassrootsforestmovementsineachoftheselectedregional cases. Traditional technicalassistance has made it possible in bothregions for forestcommunitiesandtheirorganizations to surmount existing legaland organizational obstacles to realparticipationinresourcemanagement.Ithas also been important for developingthe basic skills and knowledge neededby community leaders and members foreffective management for conservationanddevelopment.

Yet the design and implementation oftraditional technical assistance has beenshapedlargelybyexternalinstitutionalandpolitical considerations and is generallyexpert-driven. The existing wealthof local knowledge and organizationhas often been overlooked. Moreover,externaltechnicalandfinancialassistancetypically arrives in the shape of formalprojectsthatarefullydesignedandtargetpredeterminedindicators.

��


The formal logic of projects seeks todetermine in advance the principalobjectives, methods and indicators ofsuccess that are easily quantifiable butnot necessarily locally relevant. Whilea powerful tool for effective formalorganization of activities in many ways,itdoesnotlenditselftolearningfromthefieldandadaptingtounexpectedoutcomeswith modified objectives and methods.Nordoesiteasilyaccommodatechangesintheroleofbeneficiarycommunitiesastheygaingreatermanagementcapability.Inshort,theformallogicofprojectstendstomeasuresuccessintermsofcompletionasplannedoftheprojectitself,ratherthanin terms of catalyzing greater capabilityamongcommunitymembers.

Thus, projects’ objectives, timelines andrequirements of financial accountabilitylend themselves to, even require, formalinstitutional structures. They encouragetraditional organizational hierarchieswith technical experts at the top andcommunity beneficiaries at the bottom.While such interventions can produceconcretebenefitswithincreasedefficiencyand transparency, formal projectimperativesoftenruncountertothemorehorizontal,process-orientedprinciplesofcommunity-basedmovements.Traditionaltechnicalassistance,asaresult,oftenfailstostrengthenlocalcapabilitiesadequately.Communitiesandgrassrootsorganizationsendupbeing less rather thanmoreableto assume increased responsibilities andautonomyinresourcegovernance.

6.2The‘Pro-community’ModelofAccompaniment

The Petén and Siuna context studies,the four self-systematization studies anddiscussion in the Petén InternationalExchange meeting suggest that a non-

traditionalmodelof technical support isemerging inCentralAmerica.This ‘pro-community’ model of ‘accompaniment’(Gómez and Méndez 2005) may underappropriate circumstances be moreeffectivethanmanytraditionalassistancemodels in strengthening communitycapabilities.Itattemptstocreateconditionsthrough which rural communities canbecomeactiveparticipantsrespondingtotheir shared needs, generating processesof learning and ownership that localgroupscansustainafterexternalsupportdisappears.

The use of the word ‘accompaniment’rather than ‘assistance’ signals animportantprinciple:thatexternalsupportof grassroots forest movements shouldaim to develop a role of ‘accompanist’ of a social processratherthanactingon the community’s behalf.Externalsupportinstitutions and communities ‘traveltogethergeneratingideasandidentifyingchallenges to the consolidation ofcommunity forest management’ (Gómezand Méndez 2005). This approachrecognizesthelegitimacyandimportanceof the community’s knowledge andhistoryofsocialorganizationandutilizesbothas startingpoints for thedesignoftechnicalaccompaniment.Pro-communityassistanceseekstoavoidtakingovertasks,responsibilities and roles already withinlocal capabilities, but rather to ‘doonlywhatlocalcommunitiescannotdo.’

In the Petén, several key internationalinstitutions and foundations, includingthe Ford Foundation, the AgriculturalFrontier Project (PFA), the Iniciativa Cristiana Romero (CIR), the Inter-EcclesiasticOrganizationforCooperativeand Development, the German Servicefor Social Cooperation and Helvetas ofSwitzerland, have explicitly promoted

��


the development of communities’organizational and political capabilities.Though these institutions’ financialcontributions have been more modestthan those of official assistance, theyhave invested directly in the incipientcommunity institutions. The FordFoundation, for example, invested US$670000between1999and2004fortheinstitutional development and capabilitystrengthening of ACOFOP. Oxfam’ssupportofthehorizontalfarmer-to-farmerexchangesinSiuna,andPFA’sdecisiontochannelsupporttoPCaC-Siunaareotherexamplesof thisalternativeapproachtostrengthening local capabilities. In bothregions,theseinstitutionshavesupportedsocialandpoliticalnetworkingatnationaland international levels by providingnecessary inputs and resources suchas access to information, linking withrelevantprocessesandeventsworldwide,aswellasfinancialsupport.

Asignificantdimensionoftheexperiencewithalternativetechnicalaccompanimentin Central America has been theemergenceofindigenousaccompanimenttograssrootsforestmovements.Althoughitsprimaryroleisnottoprovidefinancialsupport to community concessionorganizations, ACOFOP has developedinto a key indigenous accompanist ofthe community concession process inGuatemala. In Nicaragua, PCaC hasassumedakeyroleofaccompanistofitsmember communities’ social processes.Both ACOFOP and PCaC have alsotakenonimportantrolesasinterlocutorsbetween external state institutionsand international donors interested ininvesting resources in the region. Botharealso recognizedasprincipalpoliticalrepresentatives of their associatedcommunitiesandassociationsatnationalandinternationallevels.

6.2.1 Organizationalprinciplesoftheaccompanimentmodel

From the experiences with innovativetechnical accompaniment of communityforestry experiences in the Petén andSiuna, certain organizational principlesandorganizationalcharacteristicsmaybedistilledinapreliminaryfashion.

Underlying organizational principles oftheaccompanimentmodelmayinclude:

a) A long-term focus on social process

An accompaniment model employs along-term focus on the social processesunderlying community self-managementas the building block for governance.It implies a more flexible type ofcooperation, more horizontal, andcloser to populations and their socialprocesses, less tied to a formal logic ofprojects (Gómez and Méndez 2005).Theaccompanimentmodeltriestoavoidpaternalism and unnecessary externaldependencyviaa sustainedcommitmentto learning by local actors. Communitymembers shouldbecomeprotagonists intheirdevelopmentprocesses, evenat thecostoferrorscommittedintheprocessoflearning.Whileitremainsimportantthatsupportactivitiesgeneratepositiveresults,project results may also be measured interms of lessons learned and processesstrengthened rather than solely in termsofformaloutputs.

A more process-oriented approach tomeasuringprojectoutcomeswillrequirethedevelopmentofnewevaluationindicators.For example, measures of successfulprocess strengthening could include thenumberofplanninganddecision-makingcycles including local participants,development and implementationof information sharing procedures,community apprentices trained, number

��


andtypeofprojectactivitiessuccessfullydevolvedtocommunityparticipants,andinstances of project priority activitiesappropriately adjusted in response toincreasingcommunitycapabilities.

b) A focus on shared learning

Both local and external participantsin community-based forestry possesssignificant experience and knowledgeto contribute to effective managementfor conservation and development. Anaccompanimentmodel seeks tocombinethe strengths and compensate for theweaknesses of each participating group.It works to strengthen capabilities forresearch, analysis, monitoring andevaluation and to increase levels ofparticipation,bothwithinthecommunities(via self-systematization methods, forexample)andamongexternalprofessionalsupport staff (via participation inexperientialexchangeswithcommunitiesandotheractors).Todothis,itisnecessarytomakethelearningprocessmoreexplicitbyencouragingreflectionandfacilitatingthedocumentationoftheseprocesses.

c) A commitment to community empowerment

Theaccompanimentmodeliscommittedto the empowerment of communities.Empowermentmaybeviewedinconcretetermsasincreasedcontroloverresources,knowledge of resource rights andresponsibilities,andtheabilitytodecide,mediate,negotiateanddefendrights.Thiskind of empowerment is fundamentalif communities are to become activemanagers capable of negotiating andcollaborating on an equal footing. Thisempowerment includes communities’capabilities to exercise influence overaccompaniment activities. Thoughexternal support institutions necessarily

respond to the priorities of donor andstate institutions, they should also takeinto account community perspectivesin designing and implementing flexibleprogrammes. Communities shouldbe able to participate effectively inidentifying and prioritizing problemsneeding attention, negotiating supportactivities, and assessing the success ofthose activities. The accompanimentmodelalsoseekstosupportthepoliticalnegotiation capabilities of communitiesand their leaders, in large part throughdevelopmentand strengtheningof socialnetworks.

d) Continual strengthening of technical and organizational capabilities

The pro-community accompanimentmodel strives to progressively devolvegrowing responsibilities to communitymembers.AsoneCentralAmericanprojectcoordinatordescribedthisprinciple: ‘Doonly what the communities cannot do’.This principle does not require externalsupportprovidersto‘workthemselvesoutof a job’ but rather to work themselves into a different job most appropriatelyreflecting a community’s currentmoment in a process of learning. Whatcommunities need will vary at differentstagesof theirdevelopmentand include,for example, legal assistance, conflictresolution, technical forestry expertise,organizationalstrengthening,andeffectiveinternalandexternalcommunication.Theaccompanimentapproachisalsoreflectedin the funding pattern: some funds maybetransferreddirectlytotheorganizationto manage logistics and other activitiesforwhichitisheldaccountable.

e) Validation of local knowledge

The pro-community accompanimentmodel recognizes that local people

��


possess in-depth knowledge of theirenvironmental, social, political andeconomic contexts. This provides themwith unique perspectives on what isrelevant and what is feasible, as well astheinsightnecessarytoplanandevaluatepotentialactions.Theystillneedscientific,administrative and political informationbut this shouldbedelivered ina formatasintelligibleaspossibletolocalpeople.Thisimpliesnotadebateovertheprimacyofscientificortraditionalknowledgebutinstead an understanding that effortsto facilitate synergy between the twoformsofknowledgearelikelytoleadtopromisingoutcomes.

6.2.2 Organizationalcharacteristicsoftheaccompanimentmodel

Successful, systematic pursuit of theabove-describedorganizationalprinciplesunderlyingtheaccompanimentmodelcallfor significant reconsideration of somecommonorganizationalcharacteristicsofexternaltechnicalsupport.

a) Closer proximity to communities and their processes

Support agencies providing effectivetechnical accompaniment shouldencourage technical staff to develop acloser proximity to communities andtheirprocesses.Thisimpliesgreatertimespentinthecommunitiesforthepurposesof observing and listening, as well assharing expertise related to concretesupportactivities.Thiscloserengagementwith community processes requiresadequate logisticalandfinancialsupportforthemobilizationandhousingofstaffwhile in the field. It requires orientingthe training of technicians so that theyare acute observers and active listenersandhave the capacity to recognize theirownbiases and reachacrossboundariesofclass,ethnicityandgender.Itwillalso

require design of staff job descriptionsandevaluationcriteriasothattimespentin the communities is evaluated as timewellinvestedinstaffmembers’successfulperformance.

b) Flattening technical staff–community hierarchies

Anaccompanimentmodelseekstoflattenunnecessary organizational and socialhierarchiesseparatingtechnicalstafffromcommunity members. More-horizontalrelations between technical staff andcommunity members are necessary tomake negotiation of support activityobjectivesandtimingpossible.Ratherthanoccupying traditional roles and statusesof service provider and beneficiaries(or project targets), staff members andcommunity members are ideally viewedascolleagues,albeitwithdifferentialskillsand experiences, in pursuit of commongoals. At the same time, underlyingunequalpowerrelationsbetweenexternalstakeholdersandcommunitieshavetobeacknowledgedandmanaged.

c) Greater flexibility in responding to community input

Greater organizational flexibility isrequired to respond to community-identifiedstrengths,needs,prioritiesandstrategies.Technicalstaffneedstoassumearoleoffacilitatorwhichmovesbeyondpower-neutral approaches to recognizethat communities typically begin as theweakestparticipants inmultistakeholderdialogues.As communities gain skills toanalyze,planandmanage,theirvisibilityandpower tonegotiatewhat theyneed,will increase. Technical staff are likelytofearthatopen-endednegotiationwithcommunities will result in their gettingpushed‘offtrack’bylimitlesscommunityexpectations. Nevertheless, facilitating

��


community input into the identificationof problems, design of responses andimplementation of action can allowfor a greater appreciation of complexcommunity problems and priorities,resultinginmoreeffectiveimplementationofsupportactivities. It isnotaquestionof technicians giving up their goals andagendatorespondtotheeachcommunity’schanging whim, but instead opening uptonegotiationssothatmoreneedsofeachstakeholder can be met. Moreover, theenhanced understanding made possibleby more effective negotiation can makeiteasier foreachpartytomakeclear itsowncapabilitiesandlimitations.

d) Information exchange as a more horizontal, two-way process

Inatechnicalaccompanimentmodel,theintendedflowofinformationisseenasatwo-wayprocess.Externalstafftransfersknowledge and skills to communitymembers through training. At the sametime,as technical staffandcommunitiesparticipate together in the process of‘accompaniment’,communitiesalso‘train’technicalstaffinprinciplesandmethodsofeffective accompaniment.Technical stafftherebygainbetterunderstandingoflocalcontexts, constraints and opportunities,andtheneedforresearch thataddresseslocally relevant issues. In an importantsense, staff originally prepared to actas traditional technical experts becomemoreskilledandeffective‘accompanists’astheyengageinworktogetherwiththecommunities.

Moreover, the accompaniment modelcontemplates that ultimately thecommunity itselfwillplayacentral rolein mobilizing outside experts. Externaldonors may channel funds to thecommunity,whichthenmayparticipatein

finaldecisionsonhiringoftechnicalstaff.Thismorehorizontal relationship iskeyfor ensuring that the two setsofpartieslearnfromeachother.

e) Incorporating social process indicators into performance benchmarks

The strengthening of communitycapabilities requires direct investmentandshouldbeincorporatedexplicitlyintoobjective benchmarks of organizationalsuccess. In the case of projects, social process needstoberepresentedinexplicit‘outputs’ratherthanrepresentingvaguelyidentified ‘preferred means’ towardtraditionalprojectobjectives.Benchmarksof successful staff performance need toreflect and reward their commitmentto community processes and capabilitystrengthening, including skills ineffective negotiation. Examples mightinclude designing objectives such asthe successful training of apprentices,specific skills transferred to communitymembers, specific functions devolved tocommunitiesover the lifeof theproject,and periodic transition to new supportrolestobeassumedbytheaccompanyingorganization in response to newcommunitycapabilities.

6.2.3 Combiningtraditionalassistanceandalternativeaccompanimentmodels

Theauthorsdonotsuggestthattraditionaltechnical assistance be replaced with analternativeaccompanimentmodel.Indeed,one of the limitations of the alternativeaccompanimentmodelisthatsupportinginstitutions’ financial contributions havetendedtobemoremodest thanthoseofinstitutions providing more traditionalassistance.Moreover,theaccompanimentmodel’s commitment to social processimplies the need to stay close to the

��


rhythmsofparticipatingcommunities,anapproachwhichmaybemoreappropriatefor smaller-scale donor programmes.There remains an important role forlarger-scalefinancialandtechnicalsupportorganized more traditionally. A moretraditional technical assistance modelmay be more appropriate for makingpossible larger-scale, coordinated effortsto promote appropriate conservationand development outcomes at regionallevels. At the same time, alternativeaccompaniment approaches might buildlocal organizational capability to takemore effective advantage of traditionaltechnicalassistanceprogrammes.

Rather than seeing the choice as beingbetween traditional assistance andalternative accompaniment models,effective approaches to supporting

grassrootsnaturalresourceorganizationsmight build on the strengths of bothtraditional technical assistance andof such ‘pro-community’ models ofaccompaniment. With an adequateunderstanding of the strengths andweaknessesofbothtraditionalandnon-traditionaltechnicalassistanceapproaches,newmodelsofsupportmightbedevelopedwhichwillhavemoreconsistentlypositiveoutcomes, conceivably at significantlylower cost. Such combined approacheswillalsohelpframeandnurturenewandmore effective forms of collaborationamong the diverse stakeholders. Thesestakeholders,despitetheirwidelyvaryingidentitiesandinterests,neverthelesssharea commitment toprotectingbiodiversitythrough managing resources forconservationanddevelopment.

��


7.1TheEmergenceofForestStewardCommunities

The experiences of the Associationof Forest Communities of the Petén(ACOFOP) and the Farmer-to-FarmerProgramme (PCaC) suggest that a newsocial actor has begun to emerge in thegovernanceofprotectedforestsinCentralAmerica, the forest steward community.These forest steward communities haveattained significant legal and customaryaccess and rights over forest resources.They are poised to become integralpartners in broad-based efforts tosustainablymanagenaturalresourcesforconservationanddevelopment.

An important question for governmentpolicy makers, international donors anddevelopment agencies, internationalconservation organizations, non-governmentalorganizations(NGOs)andother stakeholders in Latin America’sthreatenedforests,ishowbesttosupportthese grassroots community groups andto encourage the emergence of others?Howtoprovideassistancewhichprovidesneeded knowledge and skills but whichrecognizes and builds on communities’hardwonexperienceandexpertise?

7.2InnovationsandPreliminaryImpactsoftheCollaborativeResearch

The Grassroots Assistance Project’scollaborative research activities inCentral America helped address a needfor stronger indigenous capabilities forresearch and analysis. The project’sinnovative collaborative approachsupported communities’ needs todocument their own experiences, whiledrawing on professional expertise foranalysis of the larger context. Drawingon external and local ‘experts’ helpedcreate more comprehensive, multi-sidedaccounts of the successes and problemsofcommunity-basedforestmanagement.The collaborative research process andits results also aimed to help strengthenthegrassrootsorganizations’ capabilitiesto negotiate in an increasingly complexpoliticalcontext.Finally,theprojectself-consciously attempted to identify andimplement in itsactivities characteristicsof an alternative model of technical‘accompaniment’ that may moreeffectivelystrengthenforestcommunitiesandtheirsecondary-levelorganizations.

Whathasbeentheimpactofthisproject’scollaborative research activities in the

7. Conclusion

��


PeténandSiuna?Althoughmoretimeisneeded to properly assess the long-termimpact of these grassroots experiences,Sánchez Hidalgo’s three proofs ofconsistency (Sánchez Hidalgo 2006)provide several angles from which toassess some preliminary impacts. Herfirst ‘proof of consistency’ requires thatanalyses be constructed from peoples’own experiences. The results of thefour self-systematization studies andthe International Exchange meetingrepresent data and analysis producedby the community members themselves.They showa significant step forward incommunitymembers’assessmentoftheirownsituation,identificationofstrengthsand problems and planning of responsestrategies. The catalyzing effect of thismethodinpromotingincreasedinterestincollective action has been recognized bythecommunitymembers themselvesandbytheirrespectiveorganizations.

The second proof of consistency lies inwhether community leaders actuallyutilizethestudies(SánchezHidalgo2006).ACOFOPinthePeténandPCaCinSiunacollaborated closely with the projectbecausetheysawpotentialforgreatutilityin the participatory research activities.In both the Petén and Siuna, severaladditionalcommunitiessolicitedinclusionintheself-systematizationstudiesaftertheprojectwasunderwayandastheprocessbecamebetterunderstood.ACOFOPhasindependentlyfinancedadditionalstudiesintwocommunities;theorganizationanditscommunitymembersputasignificantamount of their own resources into thePetén International Exchange. In Siuna,PCaChasbegunutilizingthecommunity-based studies to facilitate discussion ofits current situation and possible futurestrategies. Leaders of both ACOFOPandPCaChaveexpressedtheirintention

to utilize the information generatedin community and context studies innegotiationwithoutsideinstitutions.

The third proof of consistency comesfromwhetherthestudiesprovokechange(SánchezHidalgo2006).Itisstillearlytoassesssystematicallytheextenttowhichtheself-systematizationexperienceshavecontributed to enhanced communitynegotiating strength. Nevertheless, bothgrassroots organizations strengthenedtheir administrative capabilities throughexercising significant direct financialand administrative responsibility for theproject’s self-systematization studies intheir regions.Bothhavebegunadoptingkeyelementsoftheproject’smethodologyintotheirownorganizationalprocedures.InaninterviewinJuly2005,ACOFOP’sExecutive Director remarked that theexperiencewiththeGrassrootsAssistanceProjecthasbecomeamodelforACOFOPinnegotiatingcollaborationwithexternalorganizations, which helps strengthenorganizational capabilities (Cortavepersonalcommunication).

7.3TheLinkbetweenCollaborativeResearchandAlternativeAccompanimentModels

A potentially close link exists betweenthe collaborative research discussedin this study and the development ofalternative accompaniment models. Ina sense, collaborative research activitiesin these Central American forestcommunities have revealed some of thekeystrengthsandprincipalweaknessesofpast assistance strategies. Collaborativeresearch has suggested some of thefeatures of innovative accompanimentactivitiesthatareemergingintheregion,thus contributing to the developmentof a new model of accompaniment.Finally, collaborative research could

��


have an ongoing role in alternativeaccompaniment as one importantinstrumentbywhichappropriatesupportactivitiesinbeneficiarycommunitiesmaybedesigned,implemented,evaluatedandredesigned.

In other words, collaborativeresearch activities and the alternativeaccompaniment model outlined in thispaper can potentially have a mutuallysupportiverelationship.Thecollaborativeresearch process can help strengthencommunity capabilities in analysisand negotiation. This in turn can helpestablishmoreequitablerelationsbetweencommunities and external supportinstitutions. The information gatheringand analysis capabilities enhanced bycollaborative research can help supportcommunities’ efforts to assume newmanagementandtechnicalactivitiesonceprovidedbyexternalinstitutions.

Collaborative research can also help layandmaintainafoundationforcontinualorganizational learning on the part ofexternal support institutions. It canprovide a mechanism for accompanyinginstitutionstoworkjointlywithbeneficiarycommunities to identify priority localneedsandtoseeksynergiesbetweentheseneeds and external institutions’ ownstrengths.Collaborativeresearchcanhelpexternalinstitutionsgainamorecomplexunderstanding of local context anddevelopmoreappropriateaccompanimentactivities by incorporating communities’own experiences and perspectives.Finally, collaborative research could beanimportantongoinginstrumenttohelpensure that accompaniment activitiescontinue to respondflexibly and changeinwaysappropriateboth to communityneeds and the institutional objectives oftheaccompanyingentity.

7.4LessonsLearnedA number of significant lessons areemerging from the experience ofcommunity-based forestry in the PeténandSiuna.

• Rather than necessarily representingdrivingforcesbehinddeforestationandbiodiversity loss, local communitiescan be effective stewards of theforest while simultaneously pursuingsustainable livelihood strategies.Effective partnerships are necessarybetween external interests and localcommunitiespromoting conservation,especially given the social, politicaland economic realities underlyingconservation in regions like thePeténandSiuna.

• Localcommunitiesarecapableofbeingfullpartnersingeneratinginformationand contributing knowledge aboutdevelopment and conservation, andcan contribute valuable perspectivesthrough their analysis of their ownsituation. They need to develop theirown accounts and analyses of theirexperiences with forest access andresourcemanagementasasteptowardbecoming more effective negotiatorswithpowerfulexternalinterests.

• Assistancemodelsareneededthatcanbettercontributetodeveloping,ratherthan substituting for, communitycapability to manage conservationand development effectively. A ‘pro-community’ assistance approach maybeaneffectiveandmorecost-effectivemeansofsupportinggrassroots forestcommunities by conceptualizing therelationshipbetweenexternalsupportentities and local communities asa shared ‘accompaniment process’

�0


rather than as one-way ‘assistance.’Theaccompanimentapproachmaybebest implemented,whereappropriate,in combinationwithmore traditionalformsofassistance.

• Elements of the accompanimentapproachcanbeincorporatedintotheoperationofsecondary-levelcommunityorganizations, strengthening theircapability to adjust and fine-tunerelationships with their membershipbase. The approach can help buildcapabilities for effective decisionmaking and adaptive managementwhere social, political and economicconditionscontinuetochange.

Theauthorsbelievethatcommongroundexists for more effective collaborationamong the major stakeholders inconservationanddevelopmentinsouthernforests. Assistance models need to bedeveloped which build more effectivelyon the perspectives and skills of bothexternal and community expertise.Developing suchmodelsmayhelpmakeeasier the striking of a balance betweenstakeholder interests too often seen asirreconcilable.Itmightalsomakepossibleconservationanddevelopmentoutcomesthat are at once more sustainable andmoreequitable.

��


Arnold,J.E.M.1991.CommunityForestry:Ten Years in Review. In: CommunityForestry Note No. 1. UN Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO),Rome.

Asociación de Comunidades Forestales dePetén(ACOFOP).2004.CartaAbiertaal Sr. Presidente De La RepublicaDe Guatemala, Lic. Oscar BergarPerdomo, Magistrados de la Cortede Constitucionalidad y Miembrosdel Congreso, enero 26, 2004. [InSpanish.](OpenlettertothePresidentof Guatemala, Mr. Oscar BergerPerdomo,JudgesoftheConstitutionalCourt and Members of Congress,January26,2004.)

Asociación de Comunidades Forestalesde Petén – Programa Campesinoa Campesino (ACICAFOC –PCaC-Siuna). 2003. Proceso deSistematización de la ExperienciaPCaC Siuna. Paso a Paso: Guia deTrabajo de Sistematizadores Locales.Taller de Capacitacion. Unpublishedreport.Siuna,Nicaragua,[InSpanish.](The Process of Systematization ofthe PCaC-Siuna Experience. TrainingWorkshop.)

Asociación de Comunidades Forestales dePetén(ACOFOP).2005.Representamos

al Proyecto Forestal ComunitarioMásGrandedelMundo.http://www.acofop.org(4Feb.2005).[InSpanish.](WeRepresenttheLargestCommunityForestryProjectintheWorld.)

Bonis-Charancle, J.M., Michael, M.,Akwah, G., Mogba, Z., Tiani, A.M.,Lescuyer,G.,Warne,R.andGreenberg,B.2007.HowtheCommunityOptionsAnalysisandInvestmentTool(COAIT)increases analytical capability andinstitutional capacity in communitybased natural resource management.Unpublished report to InnovativeResources Management, Washington,D.C.

Bray,D.B.andAnderson,A.B.2005.GlobalConservation Non GovernmentalOrganizationsandLocalCommunities:PerspectivesonProgramsandProjectImplementation in Latin America.Working Paper No. 1, Conservationand Development Series. FloridaInternationalUniversity,Miami,FL.

Bray,D.B.andMerinoPérez,L.2003.TheRiseofCommunityForestryinMexico;History, Concepts, and LessonsLearned from Twenty-Five Yearsof Community Timber Production.The Ford Foundation, Mexico City,Mexico.

References

��


Bray,D.B.,MerinoPérez,L.andBarry,D.(eds.) 2005. The Community ForestsofMexico:Managing forSustainableLandscapes.UniversityofTexasPress,Austin.

Brewer,J.andHunter,A.1989.MultimethodResearch. A Synthesis of Styles. SagePublications,NewburyPark,CA.

Bunch, R. 1985. Two Ears of Corn: AGuidetoPeople-CenteredAgriculturalImprovement. World Neighbors,OklahomaCity.

Carney, D., Drinkwater, T., Rusinow, K.,WanmaliNeefjes,S.andSingh,N.1999.LivelihoodsApproachesCompared.ABrief Comparison of the LivelihoodsApproachesoftheUKDepartmentofInternational Development (DFID),CARE, Oxfam and United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP).DFID,UK.

CenterforInternationalForestryResearch(CIFOR),CentralAmericanIndigenousandPeasantCoordinatorofCommunalAgroforestry (ACICAFOC) andAmazon Institute for People and theEnvironment (IMAZON). 2004a.Assisting Latin American GrassrootsForestry Organizations. Unpublishedproject document. CIFOR,ACICAFOC, IMAZON. Managua,Nicaragua.

CenterforInternationalForestryResearch(CIFOR),CentralAmericanIndigenousandPeasantCoordinatorofCommunalAgroforestry (ACICAFOC) andAmazon Institute for People and theEnvironment (IMAZON). 2004b.Memoria Taller Internacional ‘Si loVieras Con Mis Ojos’ Aprendiendode Nuestras Propias Experienciasde Manejo Forestal Comunitario.Unpublished project report. CIFOR,ACICAFOC, IMAZON and FordFoundation, Ixlu, Flores, Guatemala.

[InSpanish.](MinutesofInternationalWorkshop ‘If You Saw It ThroughMy Eyes’ – Learning from Our OwnExperiencesofCommunityForestry.)

CenterforInternationalForestryResearch(CIFOR) and Central AmericanIndigenousandPeasantCoordinatorofCommunalAgroforestry(ACICAFOC).Undated. Proceso de SistematizacionProyecto Innovativo: EnfoqueMetodológico. Unpublished projectdocument. CIFOR and ACICAFOC,Managua, Nicaragua. [In Spanish.](The Process of Systematization ofthe Grassroots Assistance Project:MethodologicalFocus.)

Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development:Putting the Last First. Longman,Harlow,UK.

Chambers, R. 1994. The Origins andPractice of Participatory RuralAppraisal.WorldDevelopment22(7):953-69.

Chambers,R.1997.WhoseRealityCounts?Putting the First Last. IntermediateTechnology Publications, Ltd.,London.

Colfer, C.J.P. (ed.) 2005a. The ComplexForest:Communities,UncertaintyandAdaptive Collaborative Management.Resources for the Future, Centerfor International Forestry Research(CIFOR),Washington,D.C.

Colfer, C.J.P. (ed.) 2005b. The EquitableForest: Diversity, Community andResourceManagement.Resourcesforthe Future, Center for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR),Washington,D.C.

Colfer, C.J.P. and Wadley, R.L. 1996.Assessing ‘Participation’ in ForestManagement:WorkableMethodsandUnworkable Assumptions. Centerfor International Forestry Research(CIFOR),Bogor,Indonesia.

��


Cornwall,A.2000.Beneficiary,Consumer,Citizen: Perspectives on ParticipationforPovertyReduction.SidaStudies2.Swedish International DevelopmentCooperationAgency,Stockholm.

Cronkleton, P., Taylor, P.L., Schmink,M., Barry, D. and Stone-Jovicich, S.2006. Synthesis Report: Rural SocialMovements and Forest Governance:AssistancetoGrassrootsOrganizationsto Promote Conservation andDevelopment in Latin America. TheFord-Foundation-MexicoCity,MexicoCity, and Center for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor,Indonesia.

Cronkleton,P.,Taylor,P.L.,Stone-Jovicich,S., Schmink, M. and Barry, D. 2007.Environmental Governance and theEmergence of Forest-based SocialMovements. Center for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor,Indonesia.

Cuellar,N.andKandel,S.2005.AnalisisdeContexto:DelProgramaCampesinoaCampesinodeSiuna:OportunidadesyDesafosenlaZonaeAmortiguamientodeBosawas,Nicaragua.PRISMA,SanSalvador, El Salvador. [In Spanish.](The Farmer-to-Farmer Programmeof Siuna, Nicaragua: Context,accomplishmentsandchallenges).

Davis-Case,D’A.1990.TheCommunity’sToolbox: the Idea, Methods andTools for Participatory Assessment,Monitoring and Evaluation inCommunity Forestry. UN Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO),Rome.

Evans, K., de Jong, W., Cronkleton, P.,Sheil, D., Lynam, T., Kusumanto,T. and Colfer, C.J.P. 2006. Guideto Participatory Tools for ForestCommunities.CenterforInternationalForestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor,Indonesia.

Farrington,J.,andMartin,A.1988.FarmerParticipationinAgriculturalResearch:A Review of Concepts and Practices.Overseas Development Institute,London.

Fisher,R.1995.CollaborativeManagementof Forests for Conservation andDevelopment.IUCNandWWF,Gland,Switzerland.

FoodandAgricultureOrganization(FAO).2005a. Global Forest ResourcesAssessment 2005: Progress TowardsSustainable Forest Management.’FAO,Rome.

FoodandAgricultureOrganization(FAO).2005b. Sustainable Livelihoods andFood Security. http://www.fao.org/participation/SL/SL_index.htm.(4Feb.2005).

Gibson, C.C., McKean, M.A. andOstrom, E. (eds.) 2000. People andForests: Communities, Institutions,and Governance. The MIT Press,Cambridge,MA.

Gómez,I.andMéndez,V.E.2005.AnálisisdeContexto:elCasodelaAsociaciónde Comunidades Forestales de Petén(ACOFOP). PRISMA, San Salvador,ElSalvador.[InSpanish.](ContextualAnalysis: the Association of ForestCommunitiesofthePetén.)

Guerra Baños, A. and Recinos, I. 2003.Sistematización de la ExperienciaComunitaria: Melchor de Mencos,Petén. Sociedad Civil ‘Laborantes delBosque’. Asociación de ComunidadesForestales de Petén (ACOFOP),Flores,Petén,Guatemala.[InSpanish.](Systematization of the CommunityExperience: Melchor de Mencos, thePetén.)

Hildebrand, P. 1986. Perspectives onFarming Systems Research andExtension. Lynne Rienner Publishers,Boulder,Colorado.

��


Holland, J. (ed.) 1998. Who Changes?Institutionalizing Participation inDevelopment.IntermediateTechnologyPublications,Ltd.,London.

Holt-Giménez, E. 2006. Campesinoa Campesino: Voices from LatinAmerica’sFarmertoFarmerMovementforSustainableAgriculture.FoodFirstBooks,Oakland,CA.

International SocietyofTropicalForesters(ISTF).2005.Forest,TreesandPeopleProgramme Ends. http://www.istf-bethesda.org/FTPP/farewell_to_ftp.htm(17Mar.2006).

Kaimowitz,D.2002.Resources,Abundanceand Competition in the BosawasBiosphere Reserve, Nicaragua. In:Halle,M.,Matthew,R.andSwitzer,J.(eds.)ConservingthePeace:Resources,Livelihoods and Security, 171-97.International Institute for SustainableDevelopment,Winnipeg,Canada.

Klooster, D. 2000. Institutional Choice,Community, and Struggle: A CaseStudy of Forest Co-Management inMexico. World Development 28: 1-20.

Larson,A.,Pacheco,P.,Toni,F.andVallejo,M.2006.Exclusión e Inclusión en laForestería Latinoamericana: ¿Haciadondevaladescentralización?Centerfor International Forestry Research(CIFOR)/International DevelopmentResearch Centre (IDRC), La Paz,Bolivia. [In Spanish.] (Exclusion andInclusioninLatinAmericanForestry.)

Lizano, A. and Martínez, K. 2003.Sistematización Comunidad deTadazna. Programa de Campesinoa Campesino PCaC UNAG Siuna,RAAN,Siuna,Nicaragua.[InSpanish.](SystematizationoftheCommunityofTadazna.)

Martínez Moran, M. and MercadoZamora, O.A. 2003. Sistematización

de la Experiencia Comunitaria:Comunidad El Bá. Programa deCampesinoaCampesinoPCaCUNAGSiuna,Siuna,Nicaragua.[InSpanish.](Systematization of the CommunityExperience:ElBálsamoCommunity.)

Matías,J.andAldana,H.2003.HistoriadelaUniónMaya ItzaUMI.Asociaciónde Comunidades Forestales de Petén(ACOFOP),Flores,Petén,Guatemala.[InSpanish.](HistoryofUniónMayaItzá–UMI.)

Molnar, A. 1989. Community Forestry:RapidAppraisal.FoodandAgricultureOrganization(FAO),Rome.

Molnar, A. 2003. Forest Certificationand Communities: Looking Forwardto the Next Decade. Forest Trends,Washington,D.C.

Nittler,J.andTschinkel,H.2005.ManejoComunitariodelBosqueenlaReservaMaya de la Biosfera de Guatemala:Proteccion Mediante Ganancias.University of Georgia, Watkinsville,GA.[InSpanish.] (CommunityForestManagement in the Maya BiosphereReserve of Guatemala: ProtectionthroughProfits.)

Ostrom,E.1990.GoverningtheCommons.The Evolution of Institutions forCollective Action. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

Pasos, R. 2004. La Sociedad CivilCentroamericana y las InitiativasRegionales para la Conservación ySostenibilidad del Medio Ambiente.Unpublished consultant’s report.Managua, Nicaragua. [In Spanish.](Central American Civil Society andRegionalInitiativesforEnvironmentalConservationandSustainability.)

Pasos, R. 2006. Gestión comunitariade recursos naturales y modelos deacompañamiento técnico: Leccionesdesde Centroamérica. Unpublished

��


consultant’s report. Managua,Nicaragua [In Spanish.] (CommunityManagementofNaturalResourcesandTechnical Accompaniment Models:LessonsfromCentralAmerica.)

ProgramaCampesinoaCampesino–Siuna(PCaC-Siuna).Undated.DeCampesinoaCampesino,Siuna,Nicaragua.PCaC,Siuna,Nicaragua.[InSpanish.](FromFarmertoFarmer,Siuna,Nicaragua.)

Poffenberger, M. 1990. Conclusion: StepsTowards Establishing CollaborativeManagement. In: Poffenberger, M.(ed.) Keepers of the Forest: LandManagementAlternativesinSoutheastAsia, 277-83. Kumarian Press,Hartford,CN.

Radachowsky,J.2004.EffectsofCertifiedLogging on Wildlife in Communityand Industrial Forest Concessions ofNorthern Guatemala. UnpublishedreporttoWildlifeConservationSociety(WCS), Consejo Nacional de AreasProtegidas (CONAP), United StatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment(USAID) and FortalecimientoInstitucional en Políticas Ambientales(FIPA),GuatemalaCity.

Richards,P.1985.IndigenousAgriculturalRevolution. Westview Press, Boulder,CO.

Roney, J., Kunen, J. and Donald, M.Undated. Evaluacion arqueológico.Unpublished Evaluation Report toUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment (USAID) GuatemalaCity. [In Spanish] (ArchaeologicalEvaluation.)

SánchezHidalgo,N.2006.CómoloHicimos.Presentation to the CIFOR/FordFoundation Second Phase GrassrootsAssistance Planning Workshop. SantaCruzdelaSierra,Bolivia,October5–72006.[InSpanish.](HowWeDidIt.)

SánchezHidalgo,N.Undated.ElEnfoqueMediosdeVidaSostenible.Unpublishedreport to the Central AmericanIndigenous and Peasant Coordinatorof Communal Agroforestry(ACICAFOC). [In Spanish.] (TheSustainableLivelihoodsApproach.)

Taylor, P.L. 2004. Notes from theInternational Workshop: Learningfrom Our Own Experiences ofCommunity Forest Management.Center for International ForestryResearch (CIFOR),CentralAmericanIndigenousandPeasantCoordinatorofCommunalAgroforestry(ACICAFOC),Amazon Institute for People and theEnvironment (IMAZON) and FordFoundation,Ixlu,Flores,Guatemala.

Taylor,P.L.2007.Conservation,Community,and Culture? New OrganizationalChallenges of Community ForestConcessions in the Maya BiosphereReserveofGuatemala.Paperto2007CongressoftheLatinAmericanStudiesAssociation. Montréal, Canada, 5–8September2007.

Taylor,P.L.andZabin,C.2000.NeoliberalReform and Sustainable ForestManagement in Quintana Roo,Mexico: Rethinking the InstitutionalFrameworkoftheForestryPilotPlan.Agriculture and Human Values 17:141-156.

Taylor, P.L., Larson, A.M. and Stone-Jovicich, S. 2006. Forest Tenureand Poverty in Latin America: APreliminary Scoping Exercise. Centerfor International Forestry Research(CIFOR),Bogor,Indonesia.

Thomson, J.T. and Schoonmaker-Freudenberger, K. 1997. Craftinginstitutional arrangements forcommunity forestry. CommunityForestry Field Manual 7. Food and

��


Agriculture Organization (FAO),Rome.

TropicoVerde.2005.ElProyectoTuristicoCuencadelMiradorylasConcesionesForestalesenlaZonadeUsoMúltiplede la Reserva de la Biosfera Maya.TropicoVerde,Flores,Guatemala.[InSpanish.](TheMiradorBasinTourismProjectandtheforestconcessionsinthemulti-usezoneoftheMayaBiosphereReserve.)

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS),International Resources Group(IRG), Proyecto FIPA/Guatemala andConsejoNacionaldeAreasProtegidas(CONAP). 2003. Monitoreo deIncendios Forestales y Estimación deSuperficies Quemadas, Reserva deBiósfera Maya, 2003. WCS, IRG,Proyecto FIPA and CONAP, Petén,

Guatemala.[InSpanish.](MonitoringofForestFiresandEstimationofBurntArea,MayaBiosphereReserve,2003).

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS),International Resources Group(IRG), Proyecto FIPA/Guatemala andConsejoNacionaldeAreasProtegidas(CONAP). 2004. Estimación de laDeforestaciónenlaReservadeBiosferaMaya,periodo2003–2004.WCS,IRG,Proyecto FIPA and CONAP, Petén,Guatemala. [In Spanish.] (EstimationofDeforestationintheMayaBiosphereReserve,2003–2004.)

White,A.andMartin,A.2002.WhoOwnstheWorld’sForests?ForestTenureandPublic Forests in Transition. ForestTrends and Center for InternationalEnvironmental Law, Washington,D.C.

��


We are deeply indebted to theauthors, researchers andotherswhocontributedtothe

contextstudies,participatorycommunitystudies and methodological documentsunderlyingthisreport.TheseincludeRubénPasos (with special acknowledgementfor suggesting the title of this paper),NeldaSánchezHidalgo,CarmenGarcía,Ileana Gómez, Ernesto Méndez, NelsonCuellar, Susan Kandel, Herman Rosa,Marcedonio Cortave, Fabián Saavedra,Abelardo Morales, Eduardo Baumeister,AndrésLizano,KarinaMartínez,MiguelMartínezMoran,OmarAntonioMercadoZamora, Juan Matías, Hector Aldana,

Alexia Guerra Baños and Isael Recinos.Wealsothankthemanylocalcommunityleaders and members of the grassrootsforest organizations whose experiencesand accomplishments this project hassought todocument and strengthen.Weparticularlywant to thankCarolColfer,BobFisherandMarilynHoskinsfortheirinsightful comments and suggestions inreviewing the paper. Many thanks alsogo to our editor, Rosie Ounsted, whoserevisionsandsuggestionwerecrucialforfinalizing this document. Finally, we aregrateful to the Ford Foundation, whosegenerous support has made this projectpossible.

Acknowledgements

‘if you saw it with my eyes’‘if you saw it with my eyes’: collaborative research and...

Documents