Book Review: The Complex Forest: Communities,Uncertainty and Adaptive Collaborative Management

The Complex Forest is as complex and dense as the forest relations it describes. It weaves together detailed case material from 30 sites in 11 countries with thematic syntheses, systems analysis and discussion of research team processes. Based on the work of the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and other international and local partners, it shows how principles of Adaptive Collaborative Management (ACM) were put into practice. ACM is defined in the book as “a value-added approach whereby people who have interests in a forest agree to act together to plan, observe, and learn from the implementation of their plans while recognizing that plans often fail to achieve their stated objectives. ACM is characterized by conscious efforts among such groups to communicate, collaborate, negotiate, and seek out opportunities to learn collectively about the impacts of their actions” (p. 4).

Colfer and her colleagues believed that the concept of ACM and related efforts such as the development of sustainable forest management criteria and indicators needed to be tested in the real world. More than that, they felt strongly that forest communities should benefit from these concepts and models. Within forest communities, the team had “a strong interest in enhancing equity. In many ACM sites, women, particular ethnic groups, and low-ranking castes tend to be marginalized in any efforts to improve conditions” (p.6). This marrying of social justice and improved natural resource management (NRM) objectives with fine grained, hypothesis-driven research is limited in either the development or academic arenas, and is rare and precious to both the practitioner who craves scientific rigor in development research and the academic who chafes at being unable to effect meaningful change by writing books and journal articles.

Systems theory brings to the study most notably an emphasis on uncertainty of outcomes due to complexity and human agency. Colfer notes for example that “We cannot…really predict whether an effort in Rantau Layung (East Kalimantan) to intensify fruit production in forest fallows will or will not have an adverse effect on forest sustainability” (p. 49). She relates the reality of this uncertainty to attempts to standardize solutions for better management. This standardization, she argues, are “likely interfering with the efforts of people in forested areas to address the problems creatively” (p. 49).

While citing James Scott and related work (e.g., Seeing like a State), the theoretical underpinnings of the book could have been improved by more attention to the trends and trajectories of agrarian change. While there is surely considerable uncertainty in outcomes for rural or “local” people in relation to the state and other supra-local actors, there are also well-worn paths of interaction. In addition, it must be noted that Colfer and her colleagues’ approach to understanding outcomes was not neutral: they were testing a particular approach, albeit a broad and multi-faceted one. Other approaches to sustainable forest management such as national level policy change, market incentives and investments and large-scale rural development efforts could be considered in relation to ACM.

To test hypotheses derived from literature reviews and the ACM team's experience, the sites were chosen based on dimensions considered to be critical to forest management: devolution status, national conflict, forest type, population pressure, management type, external diversity, internal diversity, local conflicts, social capital, and overall success. Some factors turned out to be more significant than others and some outcomes belied conventional wisdom. For example, ACM processes “seemed most effective in sites with no formal devolution, second best in sites with strong, formal devolution and worst in sites with weak, formal devolution” (p. 185). Another analytic “shocker” is the finding that sites with low levels of social capital did best at ACM. To learn why, you will need to read the book.

The final 170 pages of The Complex Forest are taken up with detailed descriptions of the sites and ACM case studies. This detail allows the reader to capture some of the richness of the process and understand how particular conclusions were drawn. For development and academic researchers involved in forest conservation and management, many of these sites will be familiar, and these details offer the opportunity to become acquainted with key developments and actors at these sites.

The Complex Forest can be used in the classroom to provide students with rich case material on forest management and processes to improve outcomes for forest dwellers. Its methodology can also be discussed and debated: did the effort involved in collecting and analyzing all the data to test ACM pay off? Were forest dwellers better off? What alternatives and complementary approaches could be proposed and tested? The book's descriptions of the team process are highly useful for those who desire to put together—and sustain— multi-disciplinary, multi-site teams to study complex linked social and biophysical phenomena. Colfer's participatory and adaptive management style and the engaged but critical ethos of the team shine through the book and should be emulated.

For development practitioners, the book is an important caution against putting faith into any one model or approach. It posits that the complex interactions between human agency and uncertainty are likely to be more significant in producing specific outcomes than a factor or set of factors posited in many project approaches (e.g., “get the market right” or “decentralize for better management”). For some, it will produce frustration. They will ask “so what should we do now?” While few action research efforts are likely to match the complexity of this attempt to understand and actualize ACM, many could do a much better job of linking detailed site analysis and action to a theoretical framework that assesses the role and interplay of different factors in generating outcomes. In terms of trying to do a better job at sustainable forest management, the implication of Colfer and her team's work is that development and conservation planners need to emulate “local people.” We need to be more creative, alert to the interplay of diverse factors and able to adapt and adjust strategies in our complex forest of ideas, institutions and forces.