Document(s) 17 of 24

Abstract

This chapter highlights key lessons from a participatory action research (PAR) approach to community forestry in the Philippines. The main reason why community forestry initiatives in the Philippines are unsustainable is the lack of incentives for community members to invest in forest management. Interdependent issues such as corruption, policy instability and the lack of rights, as well as the absence of platforms for meaningful community participation and the blueprint nature of development projects, are all fundamental barriers that hinder such community investment. Despite this lack of incentives, donors, governments and NGOs remain focused on community capacity-building and organizing. This chapter questions the assumptions underlying such approaches. It emphasizes that the lack of opportunity for meaningful participation by community members is the most pressing barrier to community forestry. It argues that to tackle this barrier, it would be more effective to address the skills and practices of professionals in the forest sector, rather than those of community members. The chapter argues that today professionals should no longer be seen only as part of the solution in community forestry, but should be identified as a significant part of the problem.

In response to these insights, two new experimental initiatives were developed by the research team. They aimed to transform the role of professionals in the forest sector, and thus 'shape the key to better fit the lock'. These initiatives introduced new policy communications and advocacy tools to provide a fair platform for communities to address policy issues, and new training to provide skills for professionals to apply the principles of PAR to their work.

The learning context

This chapter explains how a research project which set out to support community forestry in three village sites on Luzon, the main northern island of the Philippines, led instead to a very different learning experience. The research team, the community members and various professional forestry officials were all engaged in learning. The research project became more like a journey of exploration and discovery than a predictable, carefully planned field study. Along the way, most of the actors found their basic assumptions about community forestry challenged and tested in unexpected ways. This learning journey is described below, by first explaining the methodological concerns which guided project researchers, and then describing early lessons and how these led to completely different interventions from those originally anticipated. The chapter provides a description of these interventions and how the participants responded to them, and draws some conclusions about the kinds of learning needed in community forestry in the Philippines.

The research project team is based at the International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) in the Philippines. In responding to concerns raised about the difficulty of implementing community forest management, the research team proposed to undertake a participatory research project to explore community forestry implementation options with local forest user communities in the field. The team identified three different village sites, which varied in many respects: engaged or not in the national Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) programme; assisted or not by local NGOs; having formal forest use rights or none. The identities of the villages will not be revealed in this chapter as part of an agreement with the community members who took part. The fieldwork was conducted over a two-year period.

A comprehensive historical analysis of the forest sector was undertaken early on in the learning journey as part of the conceptualization of community forestry issues in the Philippines It provides some insights into the origins of contemporary challenges to community forestry in the Philippines and also helps place the work in context.

Methodological concerns and early lessons

The fundamental methodological premise of this work was the value of experiential and participatory learning in addressing contested NRM issues at the community level. The PAR spiral in Figure 13.1 represents the approach of the research team along a shared learning journey that has so far lasted three years.

Assumptions were revisited after each cycle of experimentation and reflection, and were often changed and adapted. This process took the team in new directions involving varying actors at different times. Having some structure in such an organic process was important: this spiral provided clear process steps and milestones to help guide the team.

When it came to the 'P' in PAR, care was taken to define what kind of participation the team would employ. 'Participation' is a widely used term in development work and has many interpretations. Therefore, unless the degree of participation is qualified, its usefulness in defining an approach is questionable. The degree of participation and whose agenda is given the most weight can determine the entire direction and relevance of the action-learning journey. 'Whose reality counts?' This is a phrase that was coined by Robert Chambers (1997). It is a very appropriate question for any team of professionals to consider before embarking on a PAR learning journey. Figure 13.2 illustrates how the relationships between professionals and community members differ depending on the approach to participation in a research process. The team attempted to place its role within the lower section of this figure.

Great care and time were taken in building an appropriate relationship with community members as well as determining the most appropriate methodologies to guide the team away from a path of least resistance. We cannot overemphasize the importance of the time we spent in the village, including overnight stays and informal socializing with the villagers. At the outset of our fieldwork, no matter which tool we used, the kind of information villagers shared with us represented obvious fishing, on their part, for our material inputs. However, with time and continued interaction, these early shopping lists gave way to a more nuanced perspective, and when it became clear we were not providing them with the material inputs they requested, those individuals who had previously been most eager to engage with the research team lost interest.

Figure 13.1 A PAR spiral, an iterative, experiential learning guide
Source: Adapted from King, 2000; Kolb, 1984.

A wide range of communications and analysis tools was used. Effort was made to match the purpose and context of tool use with the problem being analysed. Venn diagrams; ranking exercises; time lines; and strength, weakness, opportunity and threat (SWOT) analyses were all used on different occasions as well as focus-group discussions and chats with individuals. The team specifically attempted to procure feedback from as many individuals and groups as possible in the village, and from every geographical section of the community. In meetings, meta cards were used to capture written inputs and avoid the domination of oral discussions by the most articulate people (more than 90 per cent of villagers are literate). Confidential discussions with individuals were also conducted. Some of the quietest people seemed to open up and become at ease during long walks in the forest. Triangulation of information was carried out through formal and informal methods. All findings were reproduced and shared in every hamlet of the village, and feedback, adaptations or strong objections were solicited in confidence. Revised findings were then shared in group settings for discussion and verification.

Figure 13.2 Shades of participation

Throughout the research process in the village, especially in the meetings where community members developed such procedures as problem analysis, there was often much debate, and at times discussions were heated. However, confrontation often produced the most insightful findings. What typically resulted (both in meetings and in individual feedback) was not what could be called consensus. Although sometimes there was compromise, sometimes it was a case of agreeing to disagree while the majority had their way. One such debate occurred when some villagers began to trust the research team enough to get beyond the standard handout requests and share more complex perspectives on forest management problems, while others remained wedded to problems that could be solved by convenient material inputs.

The use of questionnaires (even in semi-structured interviews) was dropped early in the research process, because this method seemed to stimulate biases. Although an easy method for the team, this tool was inappropriate in the Philippines' cultural context, where outsiders are unable to easily gain accurate feedback on sensitive issues. This situation became clear during triangulation with more open methods. When they responded to formalistic questions, respondents tended to downplay conflicts and concerns about the behaviour of other people. Reframing sensitive information using PRA methods where comments were written by the community members seemed a far more effective way to free up individual expression.

Breaking down false expectations regarding the purpose of the study became very important especially in the Philippines where externally funded, community-based development projects are common. Careful use of language is extremely important: many development words are value- and agenda-laden for community members, and can often take a learning process in the wrong direction. Considerations of semantics can affect the development of a suitable relationship. For example, the word 'study' rather than 'project' was used to describe the research team's work. Even more important to the interaction was using the words 'views' and 'opinions' rather than 'needs'. The word 'need' implies inherent assumptions about the roles of community members and researchers, assumptions with which the researchers were uncomfortable. Such terms play into a scenario where the professional is cast in the role of providing 'solutions' to community 'needs'. Using a needs-based terminology, we believe, would have directed the entire learning and action journey quite differently. The result could have been the development of alternative livelihood projects at the study sites. These might have provided temporary albeit tangible and photogenic benefits for a few hundred community members at most, and would not have led to the two initiatives described below.

During these initial months, the research team's initial plans were challenged by the perspectives of community members. Even when they were part of the CBFMP, the villagers were reluctant to become involved in forest management due to the policy environment. This contradicted one of the research team's initial assumptions: that the programme and policy environment was positive, but that examples of good practice of CBFM at community level were needed. As a result, the research plan shifted. Instead of building the forest management capacity of communities and developing tree nurseries, the focus became how to learn from communities while focusing on exploring and challenging those aspects of the policy environment that were problematic.

To assess whether the community's issues with policy were anomalies, the team spent a few days in villages in different parts of the Philippines. The team applied their methodological lessons from earlier work, and community members from the core study sites came along as 'assistants'. This strategy appeared to work reasonably well although care had to be taken that these community assistants would not influence what informants in other villages said. Perspectives we got were generally consistent with those in the core study sites but there was a spectrum of views between and within communities. For example, there were differences in perspectives about relationships with staff in the DENR. These differences seemed to be related to the different roles in which DENR staff had engaged community members. Some community members had encountered very helpful DENR staff, often involved in service delivery. Others had encountered staff who had a more regulatory or bureaucratic role.

The overall findings were also generally consistent with an independent study (Borlagdan et al., 2001) which was based on 27 communities who were all taking part in the CBFMP. This report concluded that the 'existing operational policies urgently need refinement, simplification, deregulation, and standardization. Higher transaction costs will mean lesser benefits to the communities.' It noted: 'Sustainable forest management practices will be sustained if and only if communities actually benefit from these resources... (there should be a focus on) improvement of enabling policies, implementation of incentive systems, and assistance (to communities) in carrying out advocacy and collective action.'

Our research in the three village sites validated Borlagdan et al.'s (2001) findings in general, considering our interpretations were based on a smaller sample of communities. In the next section, we offer selected quotes from community members, because their personal comments illustrate the key issues in their own words, while preserving their anonymity. The quotes are representative of hundreds that we captured in interviews and meetings with villagers from different socio-economic groups and both genders. Care was taken to get broad representation from within communities, so that even so-called illegal loggers were involved.

Why communities do not invest in forest management

'We don't have rights over the forest, so why should we protect it?'

'When there is much restrictions in forest policy there is much corruption.'

'Cost of the permits/taxes is more than the value of the trees, it is best just to cut and bribe.'

'The reason there are rampant illegal activities is because we are forced into illegal activities because the forest policy is just so complicated.'

Lack of recognized resource tenure was the most common explanatory factor for communities' unwillingness to invest in forest management. From the handful of communities nationwide which had been granted limited rights to forest use (one of which was a research site), a common complaint was that fees for the required official papers were excessive. Documentation requirements were over-demanding. For example, community members argued that the DENR's obligatory requirements of environmental impact assessments and technical forest inventories were of such elevated scientific standards that they could only be undertaken by highly experienced professional foresters. Therefore, communities found them unaffordable unless external assistance was offered.

Although generally classified as illegal, the customary utilization of forests in the Philippines continues, as suggested by the statistical evidence (Kummer, 1992; FAO, 2001). The research team's observations echoed this; the ongoing cutting and transportation of lumber were also discussed by community members. At present, there is no legal option to allow the majority of community members to continue their customary utilization. Moreover, the few individuals who possess the legal right to harvest find that following an illegal route is less costly and more convenient than a legal one. This situation suits some individual officials. Villagers are critical of this situation, as these comments indicate.

'The government likes the log ban as there is much corruption then.'

'Forest guards do not guard the forest, they guard the road (so they can collect bribes to allow "illegal" wood products to be transported).'

'Restrictive policy only benefits government officials, forest guards and policemen on an unofficial, individual basis.'

'The law bans cutting hardwoods (but this has resulted in) lots of hardwoods being transported on the road.'

Community members currently involved in the (officially illegal) forest products trade were keen to see their commercial activities legalized, even if it meant paying reasonable taxes and fees. There is effectively a log ban throughout most of the country, which prevents legal utilization of natural forest, although limited exemptions can be obtained for plantation and private forestlands. According to one farmer who wanted to harvest trees he had planted on his private land, he had tried to follow procedures to obtain legal exemption, but became disillusioned with their complexity and decided it was easier to cut and bribe.

Another factor that discourages management investment by communities is the unpredictability of the regulatory environment for forestry and logging. Since forestry is a medium- to long-term investment, a reasonable measure of stability in the rules and regulations would appear to be an extremely important consideration with respect to investing in forest management. Unfortunately, according to community members, the frequent changes of leadership in the DENR seem to be partly responsible for the instability. One person noted, 'The changing of leadership at a national level has a big impact on (forest) policy.' It seems that every new senior official revises the policies of their predecessor as a matter of course.

Since the people power of the late 1980s overthrew President Marcos in a popular uprising, civil society (or, more accurately, vocal urban-based environmental NGOs and newspapers) has been able to exert considerable pressure on the government. However, populist reactions to high-profile incidents may ignore local realities, as in the log ban after the floods in Leyte in the early 1990s, or the suspension of formal community logging rights (see box).

The team notes from its experience in many workshop discussions that when the topic of community forest rights is mentioned, the question 'Can we trust communities?' is raised by government foresters. But when the issue of community forest rights is raised among community members, the question 'Can we trust forestry professionals/government?' is often raised. Even if legal rights to use the forest were handed over to communities today, community members say it may take many years for them to trust the government sufficiently to invest in forest management.

'Because of the past, how can we trust the government, we are being asked to plant trees but we do not know the future.'

'How can we be assured that in the future the government won't molest us?'

'Maybe the community will work hard (to restore the forest), but in the future, the rich will come and take the forest again. The forest was only given to communities after it was exploited by the rich.'

Ironically, professionals often cite the lack of management investment by communities or isolated cases of abuse after legal rights have been transferred. They use such instances to suggest communities cannot be trusted or lack capacity. Our research suggests that communities base their scepticism about long-term policy commitments on bitter experience. Lack of investment and overexploitation of forests are rational responses to such local insecurity as well as to frequent changes in policy or its implementation.

Why professionals contribute little to community forestry

Individuals from the research communities were vocal about injustices they perceived in forestry practices. A typical comment was, 'The "projectization" of community forestry is problematic. Projects come with solutions but don't understand the issues, how can you have a solution if you don't understand the issues?' Regarding CBFM projects, another community member said, 'What happens is that there is a consultation with us after they have been formulated, but they come with inputs so we say they are beautiful.'

'Yes there is 'slash and burn' here. Money from donors gets 'slashed and burned' before it reaches us the villagers.'

'There has been little success with forestry, because forestry takes time, (yet) projects come for two years- then after the project leaves there is no further implementation by us.'

There is a thin line between facilitating a process driven by community members for long-term positive change and 'facipulation' of a community to come up with a short-term, tangible success story for donor consumption. According to community members in the Philippines, this line is often crossed. As a result, temporary and site-specific projects rather than the fundamental issues of resource user rights have often driven the incentive for action, both for communities and development professionals. In fact, contrary to what the acronym would suggest, community members often perceive CBFM to be primarily focused upon alternative livelihood activities such as piggeries or pineapple production, rather than forest management. As far as our research team could see, separating communities from their forests as a way to promote forest recovery does not demonstrate any convincing evidence of success. Rather than promoting sustainable forest management, it seems to promote sustainable project funding.

'They (professionals) should learn from mistakes and our experiences.'

'It is important to deal with the truth to avoid duplication of mistakes.'

'As new acronyms (projects) were introduced there was no learning from the previous ones.'

According to community members, organizations and professionals involved in forest projects generally have preconceived plans and fixed assumptions. This seems to be true even though they do consult community members on the implementation of the projects. For instance, project promoters believe that providing alternative livelihoods projects will help the forest to recover. Community members also often report that these professionals do not learn enough from them beyond extracting supposed needs, and have a tendency to bury failure. This is part and parcel of the projectization phenomenon.

The key does not fit the lock

Figure 13.3 generalizes the apparent mismatches we have highlighted in the previous section between community perspectives on forest problems and the solutions provided by development professionals in the forest sector. The professional intervention 'key' does not fit the community forest management problem 'lock' identified by community members. Therefore, the parties are at cross-purposes.

We must emphasize here that our intent is not to blame specific individuals involved. We do not wish to blame community members who use forest resources but do not invest in management, government officials who take bribes to supplement their meagre salaries, local development professionals who are zealous about community organization and alternative livelihood projects, or well-paid foreign consultants engaged in training workshops, short site visits and recommendations. Rather, our critique is of the failing system that underpins the forest sector in which such individuals operate in the Philippines.

Figure 13.3 Does the key fit the lock?

In this system, professionals receive inadequate information, are equipped with inappropriate skills and are misdirected by perverse incentives. These factors conspire to prompt them to take inappropriate actions. The questions communities and researchers are left with are: how do we move away from more of the same and challenge the current, failing system? How do we reshape the key to better fit the lock?

By starting our research in the field with community members, by using participatory methods to engage with their realities and by exploring the history and policy contradictions of the forestry sector, the research team members realized that their own preconceived notions for intervention to improve community forest management were inappropriate. This realization prompted a different kind of exploration for the team.

What kind of innovation made sense under this newly perceived set of constraints?

We found our inspiration in the opinions of community members. The team concluded that the most effective community forestry innovations would be those that attempted to help transform the roles of professionals and the relationships between them and community members in the forest sector. Two initiatives were primarily built on community perspectives to respond to these opportunities and to shape the key to better fit the lock.

Linking people to policy

It was noted in earlier consultation meetings concerning forest policy in the Philippines, that the consultation process was inappropriate for fostering community engagement, and as a result, there was limited participation. Realizing this, the team designed a more appropriate communication process that included substantial representation of community members. As far as possible, the strategy avoided constraints on the engagement of community members. The result of this communication design process was the workshop called Linking People to Policy, held for the first time in November 2002 at IIRR.

A year's preparation, engaging community members from the three research sites, was required for the workshop. Communities selected their own representatives using different criteria, sometimes local officials, sometimes geographical representation, and sometimes representatives were those who felt most strongly about the issues. All presented points of view that had been gathered from the communities they represented in a paper for presentation at the workshop. The research team facilitated the development of these papers through processes of local verification to ensure that there was a broad representation of local views.

Professional staff from key NGOs, the DENR and academic organizations from different regions of the country, of varying rank, were invited to submit papers based on editorial guidelines prepared by the research team. These guidelines were designed to ensure that participants had relevant interest and experience in forest policy issues, particularly related to the rights and responsibilities of community forest users. Eventually, 50 representatives from communities, NGOs, academics and the DENR were selected. Although they had been invited, no foreign development professionals or organizations active in the forest sector took part in the workshop.

The prospect of having the papers published in an internationally circulated book acted as a carrot to help attract some professionals. But community members did not need any encouragement because the idea was basically theirs.

'Well, I'm so eager! I'm so eager to meet them in order to give our... you know, what we like and what we dislike to the government.'

'To link people to policy – this is rare for us. Meaning to say we don't have any opportunities in the past and probably not in the future, except this one.'

The workshop process was an adaptation of IIRR publication writeshops, which have been used to produce over 50 publications on technical issues and best practices in rural development using participatory editorial techniques. However, because Linking People to Policy was focused on potentially very contentious issues, the process needed a greater emphasis on appropriate communication strategies, rather than on editorial effort. In this case, the majority of the workshop was conducted in Tagalog, the local language.

The three basic steps in the five-day workshop were:

1. Enabling all to listen to each other first, before reacting. All groups of actors had an equal opportunity to present their perspectives through the presentation of their papers. Only written feedback was allowed. Each group was given time to digest the feedback before the next step of the process.
   
   
2. Facilitating multiperspective analysis. A debate was organized using a 'fish-bowl' technique, which provided opportunity for all groups to state their position, justify it, receive and respond to comments, and identify issues of divergence.
   
   
3. Encouraging the development of joint recommendations. The final step was for small multistakeholder groups to develop practical, joint recommendations together to tackle issues of divergence in a constructive way.

Workshop actors reveal different views

The different actors in the forestry sector represented in this workshop expressed very different views, particularly about barriers to community forestry. The communities are the first to experience any negative consequences from decisions the professionals make concerning forest resource management. Yet they are often the last to have a say in these decisions. During the Linking People to Policy workshop, the implications of current policy on community members were presented by those who are directly affected, to those who influence and implement such policies. Tears were shed by some DENR staff during some very direct and angry evidence-based arguments from community members. They spoke of the impact current policies and corruption have upon them and their forests.

What was very clear from communities was that they regard lack of use rights and the connected corruption as major barriers to community forestry. From their point of view, corruption not only involved professionals taking bribes, but also professionals taking more than their fair share of development assistance. They were openly cynical of forestry-related service provisions by the government and NGOs, saying that the service providers themselves were the biggest beneficiaries of the projects. Community members added that the projects were often not well thought out. Most, however, claimed they still welcomed projects and the assistance they brought.

One community group which had taken part in the CBFMP said they were worse off after a forest project was implemented in their village. After the project was completed and the alternative livelihood projects faded, they still had no rights to legally utilize wood from the forest and they had to deal with new problems in their community. This included feelings of jealousy and infighting because of the uneven distribution of project handouts. However, the community members acknowledged that because of the intervention, they felt more confident to speak to outsiders, and credited the DENR for this. Nonetheless, they added that what they now had the confidence to say, the DENR might not like to hear.

Participants from NGOs, the DENR and academia found it hard to talk about 'them', the community members, in the third person because the community members were present and speaking for themselves. When the professionals referred to deficient 'community capacities', they were often met by a strong reaction from community representatives.

The fish bowl debating tool proved very effective for handling contentious issues. Each group of participants had separately discussed and come up with five statements about community forestry that they thought had to be debated. Equal time was allocated for each group of actors to have their representative justify these points.

Workshop participants sat in a large circle of chairs, facing each other. At the centre of the circle, another small group of chairs were set facing each other. One of these central chairs was reserved for the proponent of a selected statement, while the others were for respondents. Only those in the centre could speak. The proponent first justified the statement, and then permitted respondents to enter the central circle and provide feedback. Once respondents had finished making their comments, they had to move to the outside ring to allow any other respondent to take part. The proponent had the right to remain in the centre throughout the debate, and could reply to any respondent's comments at any time. The maximum time that any person was allowed to speak was agreed in advance and managed strictly using time cards. This interactive process enabled all groups of actors to have an equal sense of control and provided space so everyone was able to take part. Heated debate took place in a controlled manner; therefore, this proved to be a constructive confrontation.

From observation among the professionals in the workshop, responses were divided. Some appeared willing to listen to perspectives that fell outside their own, and expressed genuine surprise and learning at the conclusion of the workshop. Others seemed less open and were more focused on getting their points of view across. However, it must not be forgotten that vested interests also came strongly into play.

There were challenges in managing the interactions. Perspectives of members within a group sometimes varied so much that some individuals within had more in common with another group. In such instances, sometimes groups asked for outside assistance.

In the final portion of the workshop, actors from each of the groups were brought together into think-tanks. They were challenged to find constructive steps for some of the issues in the debate where consensus was not reached. All groups found some forward steps that they could agree on, even if they did not reach consensus.

The workshop approach appeared to change both attitudes and behaviours, although these were difficult to measure. One method used to try and measure any changes in vision among participants was to ask participants at the beginning of the workshop to draw a picture of their vision of good community forestry, without using any words. Then, at the end, they were asked again to draw their vision of good community forestry. In particular, in the professionals' second drawing, people had generally become more prominent and trees less so.

Conclusions from the workshop

Beyond feedback from participants about learning and attitude change, it is difficult to identify direct impacts from the workshop. The innovation of this consultation process itself may represent the biggest outcome.

'As we have heard in the presentations there are experiences that are particular to a certain group. Like for example, the experiences of NGOs that are different from the experiences of the community members, the experiences of the academe are different to the experiences of the DENR... In developing policy, I think we need to look at how this (process of bringing different perspectives together) could help to improve the policy.' Domingo Bacalla, Chief CBFM Division, DENR

Institutionalizing such communication platforms in policy development and review procedures may be a useful condition for programming, so that there is increased accountability and transparency in the forestry sector. Approaches such as this have the benefit of helping to democratize the forest sector by supporting reform efforts, and illuminating the contradictory perspectives and agendas in the sector.

Training learners

It was evident from the Linking People to Policy workshop that some forestry and rural development professionals required better learning and communication skills. Most training in these fields tends to be technical in nature, but this is inadequate to deal with the contemporary challenges facing community forestry. The dominance of blueprint planning and predetermined procedures seems to be a main cause of the mismatch between professionals' skills and community forestry challenges. Blueprint approaches to the forestry sector are characterized by a lack of respect, failure to incorporate multiple perspectives in decision-making, and a lack of systematic and experiential learning. Using this model, plans are built upon assumptions that are seldom tested in the field. In contrast, the strengths of PAR lie in an appreciation of multiple perspectives linked to a systematic framework for context-specific, experiential learning.

The IIRR research team, in partnership with the Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC) and the IDRC, designed a new 'Training of Learners' initiative built around this gap. PAR principles were adopted to structure the training experience. As far as we know, this is the first time PAR principles have been used so explicitly in an international training course for professionals working with NRM. The PAR training initiative has been tested three times, under regional and national contexts, with a wide range of participants, building on participants' own experiences and a field programme that included exposure to multiple perspectives on NRM problems. Community members were the key resource persons and facilitators generally provided the process and methods.

Coming full circle

Between 2002 and 2003, reformers in the DENR conducted a consultation process with academics, NGOs and community members to try to improve the CBFMP. Just like communities, the DENR is not homogeneous, and strategic external support can be very helpful to internal reformers who are struggling for change, even if such changes are modest in scale. The Linking People to Policy workshop was designed as a part of this process.

The review process resulted in changes to programme guidelines, which now incorporate community perspectives. Many of the changes make it more difficult for corrupt government officials to receive bribes. For instance, endorsement of all the official papers required by communities in CBFM is now automatic if government officials do not act within a limited period after a community request. In addition, some of the excessive and costly prerequisites associated with communities seeking legal utilization rights have now been removed. Examples include the reduced requirements for environmental impact assessment; instead, a management plan that is prepared by the community now suffices. In addition, the required work plan now covers a five-year time frame rather than a one-year period, as suggested by community forest users.

In 2002, there were 4,956 CBFM sites in the Philippines covering 5,708,395 ha and including 496,164 households (Philippines Government,, 2002), so changes in the guidelines are potentially very significant. If initiatives such as the Linking People to Policy workshop have even a small impact on policy so that it becomes more supportive of community forestry, the benefits to community forest users could be immense.

Although these positive changes in the CBFM guidelines bring community investment in forest management a step closer, some obstacles remain. One is the requirement for a scientific inventory: this is a prerequisite to granting rights for the utilization of trees. The inventory still must be conducted by professionals and is based on requirements that have a technical sophistication, sample size and cost that are inconsistent with the reduced management plan procedures for CBFM. In the vast majority of CBFM areas, the inventory is impractical. Apart from reinforcing the control functions of professionals, its usefulness seems questionable. During the following two years, part of the challenge faced by the IIRR team at their study sites is to explore alternatives to this inventory that can be accepted by all parties.

The learning journey has now brought the research team full circle, to where it started back in the communities, albeit under a revised policy environment. Now the team plans to explore whether the changes in the CBFM guidelines are sufficient to merit local investment in forest management. If they are, the new guidelines will be tested in a learning-by-doing way in partnership with the communities and the DENR. It may be that policies and guidelines can be implemented on a trial basis to reduce barriers, for instance.

The research team's approach has now evolved into three components:

1. learning with and from community members in pilot implementation at study sites;
   
   
2. undertaking more 'Linking People to Policy' workshops; and
   
   
3. maximizing the impact of the Training of Learners initiative.

The three components are interlocking, with outputs from one structured to lead into the next. For example, lessons from the study sites will be incorporated into both the Linking People to Policy and the Training of Learners initiatives, thus magnifying their potential impact. Community members are involved in all three components and their participation anchors communications and training initiatives in local realities. The relationship between community members and professionals in all three components is unconventional. For example, in Training of Learners, community members are the teachers, while professionals are the learners. This reversal of roles and relationships may be crucial to advancing community forestry.

Reflections

Many professionals working on community-based initiatives profess to use participatory approaches. Yet they persist in planning projects whose outputs, outcomes and impacts five years down the road have already been determined at the proposal stage.

PAR challenges us to respond to local problems and local learning. In this case, the community perspectives explored by the IIRR research team led to a major change in the direction of the research project. Unfortunately, this level of responsiveness is a luxury that few development professionals have. As a research approach, we have found PAR may be most appropriate at a certain time and with certain participants. Sometimes it may be more effective at the community level, but at other times at the level of national government agencies. Outcomes are very difficult to predict, particularly quantitative outcomes such as the numbers of trees planted. Switching to this kind of process planning and iterative learning requires great flexibility from individuals, organizations and funding agencies.

In particular, there are challenges involved with institutionalizing PAR approaches. These include devising operational planning systems that provide incentive and opportunity, yet offer sufficient guidance and structure for the iterative and interactive planning process that a PAR approach requires. PAR will not work as an add-on to existing systems. Instead, it is a different way of working that can produce better results.

In this case, it became clear that the key to advancing community forestry in the Philippines involves stepping into the shoes of community members to better understand their perspectives. Community forestry will not grow in the Philippines if there is no incentive for communities to invest time, effort and money in forest management.

Using an iterative PAR approach to shared learning within communities also made it clear that the skills, attitudes, and behaviour of forestry and development professionals were unsuited to the problems of community forestry implementation perceived by those who were responsible for its implementation. Therefore, the research team shifted its focus to understanding why the key does not fit the lock and how to reshape the role of professionals so that it fits better.

We conclude that there is a need for better professional training in listening and communication skills, a clear requirement for iterative and participatory learning processes rather than top-down blueprint planning and a need to transform the roles of all key actors.

The most exciting conclusion the team draws from its experience with PAR is its potential to challenge and change professional practice through shared learning. Professionals do not control the PAR agenda. This is a great opportunity for them to let go of their need to control outcomes, and allow community members to take more initiative and responsibility. The application of PAR also stimulated new critical questions about the roles of development professionals and their organizations. Often, this included critical self-analysis, which is always challenging. After all, development professionals, as well as community members, are motivated in part by self-interest. Therefore, it is important that we recognize and critically expose our self-interest in policy and project outcomes rather than hide behind claims of altruism.

There is nothing new about the concepts of participatory development, but it would be novel for them to be implemented in practice. The vested interests of powerful players in political and economic decision-making mitigate against meaningful participation, limiting what can be accomplished through new communications tools and training courses. This case has explored how the application of iterative PAR tools in a field-based learning and training environment can help expose these contradictions, provide forums for more balanced communication and challenge conventional professional assumptions and roles. These are essential measures to improving professional practice and public policy in CBNRM, and can serve as steps to broader reforms.

Acknowledgements

The author wrote this chapter on behalf of and in consultation with the IIRR staff members on the community forestry team, notably Amando Yambao, Adel Piso and Scott Killough.

Document(s) 17 of 24