158
65 Jerome Lewis and Téodyl Nkuintchua
Figure 3: Overview of icon software
greatly appreciated that CBOs took time to
train them in how to adapt these types of
agreements to other partners. They also
examined how to address possible positive
and negative consequences of participation
in the project. They reflected on their own
institutional limitations, internal factions
and overall organisational capacities, to
decide the extent to which they required or
desired supervision. Goodwill and selforganisation were more important than the
demands and financial incentives usually
given in other social mapping projects.
Step 2: Documenting rights to the forest
Next, the communities began resource
monitoring by mapping their forest territory. Data was collected using an icon-based
touch-screen unit connected to a global
positioning system (GPS). The icons were
developed participatively with communities
to capture key resources and divided into
six categories (Figures 3 and 4). The user-
friendly device is usable by non-literate or
multi-lingual communities (Lewis, 2007)
and allowed communities to appropriate
the data collection process, addressing a
frequent reproach made of social mapping
initiatives, where communities simply assist
an outsider technician in data collection.8
The data was then sent by Internet to a
secure server held by Helveta. These
records can only be viewed or copied by
entities authorised by participating
communities. CBOs and communities
worked with a rough map for about three
meetings until a final validated map was
produced. To date, more than 75 maps have
been produced.
Step three: Organising communities for
advocacy
Project partners pooled their experiences
of advocacy and capacity-building with
forest communities to develop an advocacy
strategy. They supported participating
8 A video summarises the process: www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3I8O2DRu7A