community forestry by bringing together diverse talents and
experience from each sector of society. Collaborations also help
orient organizations toward community forestry by exposing each
sector to the perspectives of the other sectors and by providing
coalitions for change. Working together, often on the same projects
at the same sites, has helped members of different institutions
develop mutual respect and understanding. Cooperation also
facilitates practical coordination of forestry programs; integrates
the efforts of researchers, practitioners, and educators; and
enables organizations to link field experiences with reforms at the
policy level.
Collaboration
among organizations pursuing different lines of work has sometimes
been compared to constructing a "three-legged stool." All three
legs of the stool—policy formulation and agency
reorientation, research and training, and community
action—are necessary to achieve meaningful social change.
Building relations among government agencies, research
institutions, NGOs, and communities helps this integration
occur.
Any one
agency or organization may assume multiple roles in contributing to
the three lines of work. For example, forestry departments and
NGOs, in addition to providing resources and technical assistance,
have commonly played essential roles in organizing communities and
in conducting research; and universities, in addition to conducting
research, have assisted in implementing programs and in
contributing to policy recommendations.
The following
sections examine some of the activities undertaken to support the
transformation of government agencies, NGOs, and academic
institutions. The work of universities and NGOs in developing and
implementing participatory methods is discussed in the last section
of Part II.
Forest
Departments: Providing an Institutional Base for Community
Forestry
In all of the
countries reviewed, the community forestry programs focused on the
government forest departments because those agencies have the
greatest potential to promote or impair the success of community
forestry initiatives. The forest departments have the authority to
establish policy frameworks conducive to the growth of community
forestry. They also have the financial and technical resources to
implement programs and, eventually, to expand them to have regional
or national impact. Finally, forest departments provide a base of
staff expertise and decision-making capacity accountable to the
public.
At the same
time, however, government forest departments, as large
bureaucracies, have organizational characteristics that can inhibit
the development of community