Abstract

The trend towards participatory, learning-based approaches has become common to most extension agents working with private landholders across Australia. In contrast, professionals in forestry and other public land management agencies have traversed a somewhat different spectrum of approaches – from consultation and other tools of public engagement, to working with reference panels, stakeholders bodies and non-government groups. These agencies dealing with public natural resources – particularly forests – now face a major paradigm shift – towards supporting citizens in collaborative management initiatives. Will extension agents across all resource management domains face a similar challenge in the future?

The global movement towards community forestry is phenomenal - in rate, diversity, and extent. Since the 1970s it has exploded from a few ‘common’ forests in countries like Switzerland, Italy and Mexico, to over 100 000 community groups worldwide and 22 percent of forested land in the global south owned or managed by communities. While better-known examples are in Nepal, India, and The Philippines, the concept has also caught on strongly in parts of Africa and South America. The USA, Canada and England have developed community forest programs in the past decade. In Australia, the Wombat State Forest became a pilot area for community forestry in Victoria in early 2003. Redefinition of roles and retraining have become major activities in forestry agencies globally, to enable staff to cope with change from technocratic management and limited public engagement - to fostering and facilitating citizens in collaborative management.

Keywords

collaboration management extension natural resources forest

Key learning points

• A combination of ‘drivers’ can bring vast global change in resource management
• current modes of public engagement (and extension) contrast strongly with concepts required in supporting collaborative resource management
• principles of collaboration need to be learned, and adapted locally.

Media summary

Rural extension professionals will need new attitudes, knowledge and skills to support citizens in collaborative management of natural resources – both public and private.

Introduction – drivers of change

Forestry agencies in most countries have traditionally had a mandate to manage public forest for the good of the nation. Hence decisions on timber harvesting and other forest uses have been made largely by trained foresters, and the proceeds from timber sales have gone to the public purse. But this tradition has changed in many countries and is being strongly challenged in many others. There has been a strong movement towards community-based management of forest – starting in lower-income countries, and extending rapidly to industrial regions too.

The drivers of community forestry (CF) vary from place to place. In lower-income regions the main drivers have been equity considerations, such as fuel and other benefits for forest-local people. CF is often claimed to be consistent with national aims of rural capacity-building, and in some countries CF has even been hailed as a forerunner of democratic change (e.g., Mohan and Stokke 2000). In both industrial and less developed regions major drivers of CF have been pressure from environmental organizations, and public dissatisfaction over the dominance of industrial methods of forestry. Increasingly, civil society is demanding a greater say in the way that forests are managed, and in how the benefits are distributed. Other important influences have included new policies of decentralization and devolution of power to rural regions (O’Brien 2003). Gilmour (2000) observes that many government staff are realising that highly participatory management approaches are likely to produce more widely accepted and durable outcomes than the centralised decision-making of the past.

Although the approaches to community management vary widely between countries, communities and forests, a common element in the process of change is the difficulty faced by forest agencies and their staff in adapting to their new responsibilities, new competencies needed and the new mode of operation required. Staff invariably feel threatened by the prospect of handing over responsibility and power, and many have difficulties adapting to new roles, i.e. of ‘supporting citizens’ in development of collaborative management partnerships (Gilmour and Fisher 1991).

In Australia, various community groups have aspirations towards managing local forest. The main drivers appear to be pressure by local groups, public dissatisfaction with past forestry practices, and change in emphasis from commercial wood production towards conserving biodiversity and ensuring water quality (Anderson 2003). In Victoria, a community steering group appointed by government and with forest agency representation, decided in early 2003 that the Wombat State Forest should be pilot area for community forest management (Forster 2003).

The terms associated with community forestry can be confusing because different names are used in different countries, and sometimes the same name is used for different management models. Participatory forest management is a broad term that covers most approaches, whatever level or role in management the community assumes. In this paper the term collaborative forest management (CFM) is mainly used – because it implies a partnership between a government agencies and various (other) stakeholders in forest management. The term also allows us to relate to the literature on collaboration in general - which provides valuable theory and guidance.

Magnitude of change towards community forestry

The global movement towards CF is spectacular in the rate it has occurred, in the extent of land area affected, and in the numbers of communities and people involved (see examples in Table 1). It is also remarkable in the diversity of CF models that have been developed.

How rapidly the movement towards community-based models of forest management develop in Australia will depend upon a combination of political and other factors. Some drivers will be unique to Australia, while others seem likely to be common to those in many other countries – such a decentralisation and devolution of natural resource management, and changes in public values and demand for producing timber versus other forest products and services.

It seems that Australia is developing its own models for CFM in certain locations, to suit local political, ecological and economic conditions. However, the trend towards collaborative management of resources in not only confined to forests: the earliest models of collaborative resource management have been in respect of parks and other resources; Gurig National Park (Cobourg Peninsula, northeast of Darwin) became the first jointly managed national park in Australia in 1981 (see Ross et al. 2002 for an Australian based typology of community based natural resource management processes). It seems likely also that collaborative management concepts will become increasingly important in regional management of catchments, agriculture, and other forms of resources use.

Table 1. The extent of participatory forest management worldwide – some examples

Nepal. Community Forestry (CF) (HMG 2000). Since 1980 about 850 000 ha of forest has been handed over to 12 000 Forest User Groups (FUGs), involving about 1.2 million households. Supportive policies, legislation and training of foresters for CF have been adopted, although there is controversy over allowing communities to take-over valuable lowland forests. Philippines. Community-based Forest Management (CBFM) (Rene de Rueda, pers. com. 2002) Starting in the mid 1970s, CBFM has become the national strategy for management and conservation of forest. There are 5 000 social forestry projects covering 5.7 m. ha of forest, 4.4 m ha of which has involved change in land tenure to People’s Organizations (POs). A new Act will institutionalise CBFM and strengthen rights of communities to manage forests. Mexico. (Bray et al. 2003) Well over 50% of Mexico’s forests have been community held since the 1930s. After a struggle with authorities over rights to harvest timber, 300-400 communities now produce timber from these community lands. Recent studies indicate substantial gains in social and economic justice, forest management and biodiversity conservation. Africa (Alden Wily 2002). Results of a community-based wildlife program in Zimbabwe (CAMPFIRE) provided an example for Africa, with many countries now introducing new legislation allowing community management. An upcoming law in Tanzania has led to over 500 Village Forest Reserves and 1 000 clan-owned forests since 1996. Innovative CF initiatives exist in Ethiopia, Mozambique, The Gambia, South Africa and several other African countries Europe (Jeanrenaud 2001). Community managed forests have existed in Switzerland, Italy and certain other countries for centuries. Recently there have been moves away from industrial management of public forests, to multi-purpose management with increasingly participatory decision-making. In England a network of 12 Community Forests are supported by The Forest Commission and The Countryside Council. Canada (Holmes 2002; Haley 2001; Burda 1998) The Model Forests Program started in the early 1990s and gave impetus to CF in some areas. In British Colombia legislation now allows communities to apply to manage local forests in partnership with government. United States of America. (Kusel and Adler 2001; Haley 2001). There has been considerable growth in community-based approaches to management of forests, lakes, watersheds and pollution.

In this paper, we hold that developing collaborative approaches is likely to be a major challenge both for the communities and the agencies involved. As has occurred in other countries, staff of government resource management departments will need to develop new skills, new attitudes, and to be highly innovative if they are to adapt from their current role of ‘engagement’ or ‘extension' - to a collaborative management paradigm.

Modes of public engagement and extension

Agencies involved in all forms of natural resource management in Australia have experienced a transition towards more participatory modes of ‘engaging’ their clients and the public over the past decade or two. In the case of forestry professionals dealing with public forest (see Buchy et al. 1999 and White and Maclean 2001), this transition has been limited to minor forms of public participation, such as public consultation, public meetings and advisory and reference groups. In particular areas, the first tentative steps towards collaborative partnerships have been seen, such as those in the Wombat State Forest near Ballarat (Forster 2003).

However, in many countries now, forestry officers have been re-trained as facilitators of participatory planning and community forest management. This has meant major adjustment for thousands of foresters in Asia and around the world. For instance in Nepal, forestry officers are now known as ‘community forestry extension agents’ (Rejal and Petheram 2002). In parts of Australia, forestry agency staff are having to face similarly major changes in focus of their work and in the skills they will require - if they are to adequately support collaborative forest management initiatives.

Professionals involved in the management of some state and national parks in Australia have undergone changes similar to those experienced by foresters, from a rather technocratic and top-down management style, to much more participatory modes of public engagement. In some areas, especially in Northern Australia, parks agencies have had to adapt to working with communities to develop models of management that are some of the first examples of co-management of resources in Australia. The ‘iconic’ examples are the joint management of Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks, but the diversity in approaches and processes for collaboration between indigenous owners and state and federal agencies is increasing in sophistication (see Baker et al. 2001 and Orchard et al. 2003).

The profession of extension in agriculture and related resource management in Australia has experienced a much longer period of transition (than in forestry) towards more participatory modes of operation. The traditional ‘Transfer of Technology’ model of extension started losing favour in the 1980s, as more emphasis was placed on understanding how farmers make sense of their environment (Vanclay and Lawrence 1995) and more participatory approaches were developed. In the 1990s group extension and co-learning approaches became the norm to many extension agencies, and officers became more skilled in facilitation and innovation in participatory modes of extension and evaluation.

These trends were stimulated partly by research and development (R&D) agencies, which encouraged farmer involvement in planning extension strategies as part of research funding applications.

The large numbers of extension agents involved in Landcare and the need here for close farmer involvement in R&D, and the recent emphasis by R&D funding organizations on farming systems approach, have all played a role in stimulating participatory extension practices. However, the increase in capacity of extension personnel to handle participatory modes of extension has not extended to the concepts, knowledge and skills needed to support 'collaborative management – because in agriculture and related private resource management there has been no pressing need.

Anderson et al. (1998) point to an increasingly complex institutional environment associated with resource management worldwide, and a growing number of autonomous and interdependent actors. This wide variety of interested groups (or pluralism) has broad ramifications for forest policy, and approaches to planning and management. The many groups with legitimate interests in the results of resource planning and implementation of field programs may include staff of natural resource departments, townspeople, shires and local authorities, conservation NGOs, forest industry organisations, tourism and recreation groups. Nowadays global interest groups can also have a large stake, and hence an influence, in the management of particular resources. The collaborative forms of management being developed to deal with such complexity (and conflict) start with acknowledgment of differences that exist between the interests of major groups, and open the way to building dynamic institutional frameworks for sustainable management (Gilmour 2000).

Evidence of a move towards collaborative management in resource management

The spectacular global movement towards collaborative (or community-based) management of forests has been outlined above. Also mentioned was the commencement of collaborative resource management in Australia – such as the co-management of national parks, and the pilot community forestry initiative in the Wombat Forest in Victoria.

At an APEN conference such as this, one might ask what this trend might mean for agricultural extension in Australia. Is there evidence that drivers of collaborative management from other parts of the world are at work in Australia? Will extension agents in agriculture and sustainable management of private land be facing the same challenges as professionals in park management and forestry around the world? How different are the skills and attitudes needed to support ‘real’ collaboration, to those held by our extension professionals? Will extension workers require the new knowledge and skills needed to support citizens, rather than simply engaging clients?

We suggest that there are already numerous drivers and indications of change toward collaborative management of resources in the rural and agricultural sphere in Australia. Some examples are:

• Political moves towards decentralization and devolution of responsibilities for management of natural resources are prevalent in all states (e.g. see Sapin 2003).
• Urban-based environmental groups (with strong political sway) are taking increasing interest in the way rural land is used. These groups are serious stakeholders to be included in collaborative management of resources – such as occurs in Catchment Management Authorities at present. Their role is likely to increase in private land resource management.
• Farmers have initiated local organizations to deal with their R&D needs in several regions (see Sounness 2003 in Victoria and Gaintti 2003 for Western Australia ). These initiatives are run by farmers, who invite participation by stakeholders who they see as important to their aims.
• There are instances of groups of communities establishing community management of areas of private land, and even establishing community tenurial arrangements to facilitate this process (e.g. Mt Elephant in western Victoria – Petheram et al. 2002).
• The development of regional planning and implementation processes through the rise of the catchment management authorities.
• State Departments (e.g. Sustainability and Environment in Victoria) are placing increased emphasis on community capacity building, rather than focusing on resources alone.

The above list suggests that certain resource management functions may increasingly pass out of the control of individual land-owners and into the hands of collaborative bodies. The nature of such bodies is likely to be wide ranging – from collaborative partnerships established by farmer groups (e.g., farming systems groups with agro-industry), to collaborative bodies set up by communities (e.g., salinity, flood or fire networks), or entities established by government to deal with resource management on a regional scale (e.g. Catchment Management Authorities).

While the national Landcare program has involved the devolution of responsibility for resource management to community groups across Australia (e.g. Buchy et al. 2000) it is not an example of collaborative management. Landcare has been driven mainly by funding incentives for groups to become involved, and the power and direction has remained largely in the hands of government agencies. True collaboration involves devolution of much more power to citizen groups than has usually occurred in Landcare.

Collaboration as an approach in natural resource management

Collaboration is a process that involves different interest groups constructively exploring their differences and aims, and then seeking a vision and solutions agreeable to all parties.

Collaboration involves more than just organised participation – because, in collaborative management, stakeholders must come to the table with a desire to develop shared goals and then work out strategies for achieving those goals (Gray 1989, 5).

The process of collaboration is ‘emergent’ (i.e. comes from efforts of the participants) rather than a prescribed state of an organisation. Typically, collaborations progress from ‘under-organised’ systems in which individual stakeholders react independently to a problem, to more organised relationships characterised by concerted and joint decision-making (Brown 1980). This is in contrast to cooperation and coordination, which indicate static patterns of inter-organisational relations. In collaborations, parties become involved in developing a process, including important pre-negotiations to bring stakeholders together. Benefits claimed by proponents of collaboration, over alternative means of dealing with multiparty problems, are listed by Gray (1989) and Fratus et al. (2003) as:

• Broad comprehensive analysis of the problem domain improves the quality of solutions
• Capability to respond is more diversified because of different skills and ideas
• It is useful for re-opening deadlocked negotiations
• The process ensures each stakeholder’s interests are considered in any agreement
• Parties gain ownership of the solution, and hence commitment to implement it
• Parties most familiar with the problem, not their agents, invent the solutions
• Participation enhances acceptance of solutions and willingness to implement
• The potential to discover novel, innovative solutions is enhanced
• Relations between stakeholders can be improved by working together (under skilful leadership)
• Mechanisms for coordinating future actions among stakeholders can be established.

The term collaborative resource management has become increasingly popular as a generic description of a range of approaches involving some form of co-management between government and other stakeholders. Figure 1 depicts a continuum of forms of collaborative management – reflecting different levels of leadership, authority, responsibility, control and benefit to government and community partners respectively.

Government leads
		Community leads
Management centralised in government. Benefits go to state and people (e.g. public use).	Government consults public - to seek views, but still controls process and management Government decides on product use and benefit distribution.	Government’s role is supportive. Authority, decision-making and responsibilities shared between government agencies and stakeholders. A range of possible combinations of sharing of benefits.		Government’s role is advisory. Community has authority and responsibility for management, may get share or all benefits	User group ownership and user-based management with little or no government interference e.g. Some indigenous management groups.
	Collaborative management
	Community as passive beneficiary (through access rights, product sharing, or benefit-sharing agreements)		Community as actor in management (through significant input in decision making as to status, future and use of forest)

Figure 1. Continuum of forms of collaborative management – involving different levels of leadership, authority, responsibility, control and benefits to government and community partners

Issues of conflict and power

Complex and difficult issues and problems that have caused conflict and evaded simple solution in the past are usually the subject of collaborations. Collaboration is not a panacea that will end conflict. Many multiparty problems are difficult and political because they involve ‘distributional’ issues – where stakeholders are concerned about the allocation of funds or other resources, or the setting of rules.

For collaboration to start it is usually necessary for some third party (convener) to propose the possibility and to:

introduce a mind-set, a vision, a belief in the creative potential of managing differences. They must couple this mind-set with a constructive process for designing creative solutions to complex problems (Gray 1898, 20).

The design of processes of pre-negotiation, and of meetings between stakeholders is critical to success, and requires skill and sensitivity to local issues of risk and power and representivity. Many well-intended efforts to achieve collaboration have only exacerbated the existing conflict, through poor facilitation and failure to manage differences (Carpenter and Kennedy 1988).

The development of collaborative partnerships may not always be feasible or advisable at a particular time because powerful or weak stakeholders refuse to become involved. Some parties will see considerable risks in collaborating, or fear that they will be poorly represented. Success depends as much on legitimising different parties’ interests, as upon substantive outcomes (Gray, 1998). Facilitation of a collaborative process requires understanding of principles of collaboration and the skills and ability to support poorly represented groups and to encourage participation by reluctant stakeholders.

Common principles, values and concepts in collaborative management

Successful collaborations usually establish a set of principles and values to guide their endeavours and the relationships between members and the wider public. The following list is drawn from Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2000) and other authors, as fundamental aspects of collaborative management.

• Pluralism - recognising different values, interests and concerns involved in managing a set of forest resources, both within and outside the local community (Anderson et al 1998).
• Being open to various types of resource management entitlements (e.g. different tenure arrangements and other rights) - beyond the ones commonly recognised.
• Avoidance of the placing of blame; focussing rather on future plans.
• Seeking transparency and equity in natural resources management.
• Allowing the civil society to assume ever more important roles and responsibilities.
• Harnessing the complementarity of the capacities of different institutional actors.
• Linking entitlements and responsibilities in the context of natural resource management.
• Appreciating that the process is more important than the short-term products
• Learning by doing through on-going revisions and improvements in management
• Preparedness to allow adequate time for mutual trust and co-learning to occur.

In addition to the principles and values listed above, the literature identifies various other concepts as important in contributing to the understanding and practice of collaborative resource management:

• Adaptive management (Buck et al. 2001¹)

Accommodating multiple stakeholder interests (Wollenberg et al. 2001)

Combining human and biological sciences

Management (and harnessing) of conflict (Carpenter and Kennedy 1998)

Social communication (Borinni-Feyerabend et al. 2000)

Action learning and organisational learning (Gray 1989; Ingles et al. 1999).

Resource management professionals involved in fostering collaborative partnerships will need appropriate attitudes, knowledge and skills to enable them to work comfortably within the paradigm suggested by the principles, values and concepts listed above.

Common features of a collaborative management process

Putting collaborative management into practice requires those participating to plan a process appropriate to the circumstances. The literature describes processes ranging from three to five stages, but there is general accord about ‘what it takes’ to get to the table, to explore, to ‘accommodate multiple interests’, and to ‘reach agreements for action’ (Ramirez 2001). Writing on collaborations generally, Gray (1989) contends that the process can be divided into three major stages (and steps) shown in Figure 2. Note that the process is not linear, but incorporates cycles of feedback, reflection and review to ensure continuous learning and adaption.

Figure 2. The collaborative process (generally)

The ideas suggested here on design of a collaborative process are drawn from several authors who have worked across a wide range of domains - from protected areas in Africa, to environmental and land management issues in the USA, to community forestry in Nepal and Cameroon (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2000; Ingles et al. 1999; Gray 1989; Gilmour and Fisher 1991). Manuals on collaboration in resource management in general are becoming more common (e.g. Fratus et al. 2003; Adler and Birkoff 2000) but some older texts still provide valuable guides (e.g. Gray 1989).

Case studies of collaborative management from numerous sources show that no two processes for collaboration are the same, and that the stages and steps depicted in Figure 2 must be modified to suit local circumstances. For example, sometimes the collaborative initiative evolves spontaneously among local individuals; elsewhere the process has been prompted and supported by government or non-government agencies. An essential feature of any collaborative management process is that of participatory action research, or iterative cycles of reflection, planning and action (e.g. Fisher 1999).

Supporting roles in collaborative resource management

The development of collaborative partnerships can be greatly enhanced through support given by outside agencies. Appropriate support requires good skills in participatory techniques, as well as acceptance and sound understanding of principles and processes, and a strong will to enhance the process and the capacities of the various partners in whatever ways are needed. DFID (2000) states that collaborative management of natural resources refers to:

• The establishment of a coalition or partnership of stakeholders committed to agree on common visions for the future and to negotiate plans and agreements
• The arrangements for management that are negotiated by multiple stakeholders and are based on rights recognised by government
• The process for sharing power among stakeholders to make decisions and exercise control (or at least advice) over resource use (see DFID 2000).

Initiatives to foster collaboration need therefore to be capable of providing a wide range of types of support and of co-learning among partners. The support team must take an integral part in the learning process and be receptive to new ideas and needs that emerge. The following list of common constraints and pitfalls in supporting collaborative initiatives is drawn mainly from Ingles et al. (1999):

• Mistakes in starting too big and setting physical (not human) targets
• Rushing to start collaboration before an appropriate process is developed
• Lack of appropriate training, understanding of collaboration or commitment by
  convening or supporting organizations or individuals
• Imposition of collaborative ‘models’ without adequate participation of interest groups
• Provision of ‘support programs’ for collaborative management of too short a lifespan
• Beliefs that knowledge of science or technical experts has greatest relevance
• Lack of confidence in ability of local people to manage resources
• Difficulty in accepting error as a learning experience
• Unwillingness to hand over power to non-government agencies
• Tendency to overlook local institutions and local perceptions
• Belief than anybody can be an expert in facilitating collaborative management
• Improper or unskilled design and use of participatory processes.

While the skills held by many modern extension professionals may assist in some areas mentioned above, there are other areas that will require special training to equip agency staff to support citizens in developing successful collaborative processes.

Conclusions

The first key learning point made in this paper is that spectacular changes have occurred in resource management on a global scale – from those dominated by a top-down and technocratic style, to collaborative management by thousands of community groups to suit local needs. One implication here is that rapid social change in resource management can result where particular combinations of drivers and conditions exist. Another is that the worldwide trend towards collaborative management is coming to Australia – not only to forests and public land, but with important and wide ranging implications for the management of private resources. This could have important implications for the attitudes, knowledge and skills needed in the future extension profession.

Key point number two is that current modes of public engagement contrast strongly with those required in supporting collaborative models of resource management. While this statement applies more to the mode of action used by forestry and other agencies dealing with public resources, than to that of extension agencies working with private landholders, the implication is that few professionals engaged in natural resource issues in Australia are attuned or trained to support a collaborative style of management. Only some professionals involved in indigenous management of parks and catchment management have had to face up to collaborative management issues. While rural extension agents have made major strides towards more participatory paradigms in recent years, the role of supporting citizens in truly collaborative initiatives would demand new attitudes and different skills, and is likely to present major challenges to extension agencies and staff.

The third key learning point is that the principles of collaboration can be gleaned from successful cases around the world. These can therefore be learned by extension professionals involved in natural resource management, but will need local adaptation. The extent of new in knowledge and skills needed will depend on the paradigms in which the particular extension workers currently operate. As has occurred in forestry agencies around the world, the major difficulty for resource professionals is likely to be ‘handing over power’ to citizen groups to allow them to design and control their own management process, plans and collaborative partnerships. Aspects of the knowledge and skills base already possessed by modern rural extension agents that will be valuable in fostering collaborative partnerships are the concepts of co-learning and action learning. Fundamental requirements of collaboration, such as acceptance of pluralism, and capacity to manage (and harness) conflict are will require considerable adaptation and time, on the part of Australia’s future extension professionals.

One strength of collaborative management approaches is their capacity to re-open deadlocked situations in which there has been a history of conflict. Some would even argue that high levels of conflict over resources is a prerequisite for successful ‘start-up’ of a collaborative process. Other strengths of collaborations are dealt with in earlier sections of this paper. One drawback of collaborations is that it can take years to develop the levels of trust and understanding needed by stakeholders. Other requirements are strong commitment and leadership from within the community, and champions within the agency and/or amongst local politics or policy makers.

The existence of a major global trend towards collaborative management does not necessarily mean that this is a movement worthy of promotion and support by extension agents in Australia. Experience by forestry agencies to date suggests that collaborative processes can (a) help to reduce conflict in communities, (b) give communities and agency staff hope for resolution of resource problems, (c) involve stakeholders in using their local knowledge to help solve problems, and (d) enable local people to take on responsibility for resource management issues that affect their lives.

References

Adler P and Birkoff J (2000). Building Trust: When Knowledge from Here meets knowledge from Away. Keystone Centre. Policy Consensus Center, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon; U.S.A. www.keystone.org .

Alden Wily L (2002). Community forest management in Africa: An overview of progress and issues. Second International Workshop on Participatory Forestry in Africa. Food and Agriculture Organisation. February 2002. Arusha, Tanzania.

Anderson J, Clement J and Crowder LV (1998). Accommodating conflicting interests in forestry—concepts emerging from pluralism. Unasylva 49, 3-10.

Anderson T (2003) Wombat community forest management. Proceedings of Community Forestry Forum, 25-26 October 2003, Creswick Campus, University of Melbourne.

Baker R, Davies J and Young E (eds) (2001). Working On Country: Contemporary Indigenous Management of Australia's Lands and Coastal Regions. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.

Borrini-Feyerabend G, Farvar TM, Nguinguiri JC and Ndangang VA (2000). Co-management of natural resources. Organising, negotiating and learning-by-doing. Kasperag Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.

Brown LD. (1980). Planned change in under-organised systems. In Cummings TD (ed.) Systems Theory for Organisational Development. Wiley, New York.

Bray DB, Merino-Perez L, Negreos-Castillo P, Seugua-Warnholz G, Torres-Rojo J, and Vester HFM (2003). Mexico’s community-managed forests as a global model for sustainable landscapes. Conservation Biology, 17, 672-676

Buchy M, Hoverman S and Averill C (1999). Understanding public participation in forest planning in Australia: How can we learn from each other? Department of Forestry, Australian National University, ANU Forestry Occasional Paper 99.2, Canberra

Buchy M, Ross H and Proctor W (2000). Enhancing the information base on participatory approaches to Australian natural resource management. Social and Institutional Research Program, Land and Water Australia, Canberra.

Buck LE, Geisler CC, Schelhas J and Wollenberg E (eds) (2001). Biological Diversity. Balancing Interests Through Adaptive Collaborative Management. CRC Press, New York.

Burda C (1998). Community forestry in British Columbia, Canada. An ecological perspective. In Victor M (ed.) Community forestry at the crossroads: reflections and future directions in the development of community forestry. Report No.16. RECOFTC, Bangkok, Thailand. 77-86.

DFID (2000). Shaping forest management. How coalitions manage forests. Department For International Development, London, U.K.

Fisher RJ (1999) Participatory action research, Training Workshop Report, Vietnam, RECOFTC and CARE International.

Forster C (2002) wombat Forest Community Consultation. Report by the steering group to the Minister for Environment, John Thwaites, MLA. December. Melbourne, Victoria.

Fratus N, Komoto J, Morgan C Whitaker T and Worth S (2003). Collaborator’s Handbook: Working together to manage Los Padres National Forest. Available under Resources at www.cbcrc.org/ .

Gianatti T (2003). Characteristics of Successful Farmer-driven Farming Systems Groups in Western Australia. First International Farming Systems Conference, Toowoomba. 7-11 September 2003.

Gilmour DA (2000). Institutional change for participatory forest management. Report for Community Forestry Unit of FAO, Rome.

Gilmour DA and Fisher RJ (1991). Villagers, forests and foresters. The philosophy, process and practice of community forestry in Nepal. Sahayi Press, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Gray B (1989). Collaborating. Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Haley M (2001). Community forests: From dream to reality in the British Columbia. In Forests in a Changing Landscape; 16^th Commonwealth Forestry Conference, Freemantle, Western Australia, 217-220.

HMG (2000). Statistical Pocket Book, Nepal. National Planning Commission, Kathmandu.

Ingles AW, Musch A and Qist-Hoffmann H (1999) The participatory process for supporting collaborative management of natural resources: An overview. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.

Jeanrenaud S (ed.) (2001). Communities and forest management in Western Europe. A regional profile of the Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management. Forests, People and Policies. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Kusel J and Adler E (eds)(2001). Forest Communities, Community Forestry: A Collection of Case Studies of Community Forestry. For the 17th American Forest Congress Communities Committee, Taylorsville, CA, USA. www.FCResearch.org

Lawrence D (2000). Kakadu: The Making of a National Park. Melbourne University Press, Carlton.

Mohan G and Stokke K (2000). Participatory development and empowerment: The dangers of localism, Third World Quarterly 21, 247-268.

O’Brien EA (2003). Human values and their importance to the development of forestry policy in Britain: A literature review. Forestry 76, 3-17.

Orchard K, Ross H and Young E (2003). Institutions and processes for resource and environmental management in the indigenous domain. Managing Australia's Environment. Dovers S and Wild River S (eds). Federation Press, Sydney, 413-441.

Petheram RJ, Stephen P and Gilmour DA (2002). Review of collaborative forest management. Institute of Land and Food Resources, University of Melbourne; www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/resman/review.html

Ramirez R (2001). Understanding the approaches for accommodating multiple stakeholders’ interests, International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 1, 264-286.

Ross H, Buchy M and Proctor W (2002). Laying Down the Ladder: A Typology of Public Participation in Australian Natural Resource Management The Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 9(4)

Sapin V (2003). Regionalisation and devolution of power: what are the implications for Australian Farming Systems and Farming System Approaches? First International Farming Systems Conference, Toowoomba. 7-11 September 2003.

Sounness C (2003). Building partnerships with and between Large Farming Systems Groups in Victoria. First International Farming Systems Conference, Toowoomba. 7-11 September 2003.

Vanclay F and Lawrence G (1995). The Environmental Imperative; Eco-social Concerns for Australian Agriculture. Central Queensland University Press, Rockhampton.

White K and Maclean A (2001). People, participation and public native forest. Forests in A Changing Landscape; 16^th Commonwealth Forestry Conference; Fremantle Western Australia, 153-163.

Wollenberg E, Edmunds D and Anderson J (eds). (2001) Editorial: Accommodation Multiple stakeholder interests in local forest management, International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 1, 193-198.

Wollenberg E, Edmunds D, Buck L, Fox J and Brodt S (eds). (2001) Social Learning in Community Forestry. Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

¹ In adaptive management there is acceptance that knowledge to manage ecosystems is inadequate, and therefore management can only be achieved by applying existing knowledge, monitoring the results, and making changes as needed to achieve sustainability. .