PARTNERSHIP IN LOCAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: THE STAKEHOLDER APPROACH

Dr Guéladio CISSE

Discussion Forum North-South, Basic Documents No. 1
© 1998, Interfakultäre Koordinationsstelle für Allgemeine Ökologie, Universität Bern

INTRODUCTION

The challenge of achieving a better urban quality of life has been a priority in the scientific research agenda for sustainable development, since the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. It is in this context that the Swiss National Foundation for Scientific Research (SNF) and the Swiss Development Corporation (SDC) supported a group of 6 international projects conducting applied research for better urban environmental management.

The Project Group "Urban Environmental Management" (UEM), supported by SNF and SDC in the Environment Priority Program (SPPE), comprises 6 projects, with field activities in Vietnam, Uganda, Pakistan, Mozambique, Chad, Burkina Faso, Senegal, and Mauritania (See Table 1). The creation of the Group responds to a necessity for stronger links between researchers and scientific institutes in Switzerland and in Southern countries working on urban environmental management. The Project Group was formally established in 1996, but many of the specific projects already worked together in the first phase (1994-1996). Furthermore, many of the teams involved already had good scientific contacts before Module 7 started.

The UEM project group, working in different settings in developing countries, has the common following objectives: to reinforce the priority level of environmental issues in urban management; to help decision-makers by providing reliable basic data; to initiate new schemes of mediation among the stakeholders; and to involve scientific institutions, both public and private, in environmental action in the urban context.

Each project is autonomous in its organization, but there is a coordination board located at the Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), which facilitates the collective activities such as: the annual international workshop, quarterly meetings of project coordinators in Switzerland, and joint scientific publications.

The Group held its first international workshop in April 1997 in Ouagadougou/Burkina Faso. The discussions focused on methodological findings on participatory research methods and concepts around urban environmental issues. The proceedings of this meeting are being published as a book to appear by the end of 1998.

The Group held its second workshop in Jinja/Uganda in March 1998, focusing on the topic of "developing innovative partnerships for sustainable urban management: the roles of urban authorities, researchers and civil society".

The Project Group wishes to contribute to the Discussion Forum North-South in summer 1998, since its experience in the field of urban environmental management could contribute to the continued debate about better adapted options for local environmental management in countries of both South and North. Particularly, the Discussion Forum provides a platform for exchanging concepts, experiences and possible conclusions, and for promoting well proved and adapted options, involving multi-stakeholder approaches.

The content of this paper is built on various papers produced by the different project teams on many occasions, mainly the last SNF annual meeting in Zurich (December 1997), and 4 international workshops: Asmara (February 1996), Ouagadougou (March 1997), Grenoble (November 1997), and Jinja (March 1998).

It is obvious that the diversity of disciplines and experiences in the UEM Group could not be easily synthesized. And the period of less than 3 years that the projects have explicitly worked together as a group is so short that not all the experience gathered has yet been capitalized even by the projects themselves. Therefore, this paper aims at presenting a cross-section of the different projects' experiences so far, to highlight what main concepts, ideas, methods and results could be offered to the Forum Debate, particularly on the following aspects: basic understandings, practical experiences, effects and conditions of success, role of research.

BASIC UNDERSTANDINGS

Urbanization

Many forums have stressed that the 21st century will be an urban century (Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, City Summit in Istanbul in 1996, Alliance for Global Sustainability meeting in Zurich in 1998). And some academics and policy-makers argue that at least seventy percent of the urban population will be in developing countries (Arrossi & al., 1994). Estimated in 1995 at about 37%, the urban share is expected to rise to over 60% of the population in the developing countries by the years 2000 (SDC, 1995). The negative consequences of this trend on environmental issues are considerable. One crucial mismatch is between the speed of demographic growth and the institutional framework. Moreover, one should stress here that it is not only a "static" mismatch, but there are various complex processes running in parallel. Urbanization is a process with many dimensions: social, economical, political, and institutional.

Cities are attractive for institutions and individuals looking for employment. That is why cities, with a high concentration of economical activities, are the engine of economic development in many countries. But on another hand, cities also receive the more deprived populations, who could not be integrated in the formal networks. Cities constitute also the major places of political and administrative power, so many important decisions are taken in the cities with important effects on various levels (local, regional, international).

There is much interesting literature about metropolization and the urbanization phenomenon, and particularly about the demographic and epidemiological transition which in turn determines the risk factors in the social sector (Bolay et al, 1998; Harpham & Tanner, 1995; WHO, 1992; World Bank 1992).

The central level authorities, even at the level of a city, lack the capacity and the resources to address all the many environmental issues: solid waste management, wastewater management, food pollution, wetlands preservation, drinking water shortage and pollution, the precarious urban habitat, and others. Today, the tendency in almost all the developing countries is to decentralize, to reinforce the role of the local authorities, and to involve community-based organizations. The decentralization allows a better usage of limited resources, and a better adaptation of solutions to the socio-economic realities, notably in the less developed areas.

It is interesting to underline that the Project Group UEM is already tackling a wide range of these environmental issues, in different settings, as will be illustrated in the chapter "practical experiences" in this paper. Furthermore, the UEM group did not only consider physical environment issues, but also the social, economic and cultural environment, mainly at the urban community level.

Urban "community"

One critical step is to identify what is an urban community (Silimperi, 1995). Given the heterogeneity and mobility of urban dwellers, the individuals living in urban settlements have been reported to have a diminished sense of community. In urban settings, more than in rural ones, there may be several "functional" definitions of the community. It may be defined according to geographic limits associated with administrative responsibilities for public service or governance; or by physical barriers which clearly divide areas (rivers or bodies of water, major highways, etc). But it may also be defined by shared characteristics, cultural traditions or functions of individual members, who may or may not be living in geographical proximity to each other (Loewy 1987, Rifkin et al 1998).

The household level is the lowest level of decision for approaches to local environmental management. This is particularly relevant for the health sector. In the cities, the classical conception of family (traditional extended family) is becoming less and less predominant, there is rather a process of strategic alliances for survival.

Cities are dynamic structures; not only do they change in terms of the number of inhabitants, but also in terms of their shape as they "consume" surrounding territories. These significant shifts affect population densities and consequently may alter the delineation of community borders.

In the area of Environment Management, a very widely-known concept is "think globally, act locally". For instance, some authors have remarked that 60% of the recommendations of the Earth Summit and 40% of the European 5th Environment Action Plan have to be implemented at a local level. The challenge for sustainability is to persuade people to modify their beliefs, attitudes, and actions where they are living. How can these changes be managed? Many academics and policy makers stress strongly that the solution of environmental problems needs to be tackled at a local level. But that is an example of what Marvin & Guy (1997) call the myths of the new localism. Their major criticism against these "myths" underlines the tendency to take the "local" as a black box, isolated from its wider context, which can be physically shaped to deliver a more sustainable future.

Today, it is widely admitted that "balanced development" involves several fields: social, institutional, economic, technological, rules and regulations (Schertenleib, 1998). Rather than the "all local" option, the challenge is now to find innovative approaches in urban environmental management on the local (or lowest possible) level, but at the same time involving all the institutions and groups of actors concerned at several levels. Successful urban environmental planning and management requires coordinated involvement of a wide range of public, private and popular sector groups and organizations (stakeholders) on neighborhood, community, city and national (Habitat & UNEP, 1997; Bolay & Du, 1998; SDC, 1995). There is a priority for action and research at the various levels: micro level (household, families, population), meso level (municipality), and macro level (national, regional, international). At all levels, each stakeholder should assume the functions and responsibilities for which he is best suited.

The UEM Project Group aims at addressing the micro and meso levels and - based on the findings - to generate valid information that can also be used at the macro level.

Actors, parties, stakeholders

In the literature, many words are used to describe individuals or organizations involved in community participation approaches, such as: "actors", "parties", or "stakeholders". From a non social scientist point of view, I will just try to give here (with a lot of care) my perception of these terms, as it appears to me when reading papers from social sciences.

The term "stakeholder" could denominate those individuals, social groups, or institutions that take part directly in the management of resources and related conflict management processes. They are defending particular and specific interests. To identify relevant stakeholders for a specific issue, the following questions may be asked (Habitat & UNEP, 1997): i)- whose interests are affected by the environment-development issue at hand, or by environmental management strategies and actions that may be decided? ii)- who possesses information and expertise needed for strategy formulation and implementation? iii)- who controls relevant implementation instruments or has the means to significantly influence environment-development interactions? One could say that the stakeholders are groups of people or organizations whose living conditions and economic well-being may be positively or negatively affected by a decision/project/policy (Westtendorf, 1998).

The term "actor" could refer to those individuals or collectivities that are playing an active role in a particular resource management issue. The different actors could be described under three main headings, such as public sector actors, civil society, and external development agencies (SDC, 1995)

Public sector actors at the national, regional and local level have the responsibility to guide and facilitate development processes, to provide major infrastructure and urban services, and to operate and maintain public facilities and services. Their role is mainly at a macro-level, but in the context of the decentralization policies which are being vigorously carried out in many southern countries, the local authorities must be associated with the local environmental problem resolution processes. There is very often a big gap between formal prerogatives of public sector representatives and their effective missions in the field (Casalis & al., 1998).

Civil society comprises individual persons and households, men, women and children, neighborhood groups, community-based organizations, users of infrastructure and service systems, private enterprises, associations and non-governmental organizations. The inhabitants are both the ultimate beneficiaries and the essential actors. Their role is crucial. But one major constraint with this group, encountered even in developed countries such Switzerland (Kaufmann-Hayoz, 1998), is that people very often feel helpless. They perceive themselves as having little control of the situation. They tend to delegate the problems to the authorities while at the same time they have little trust in these authorities' problem solving capacities. In some citizens conception, a good mayor is the one who acts as a godfather (Roth & al., 1998).

External development agencies usually intervene at the national level; but they are beginning to have more and more practical operations and interventions even at a local level, through pilot projects teams.

The term "party" could refer to social groupings with similar interests with regard to some particular negotiations. The parties could be constituted by several kinds of "actors". Some processes must help to bring together the views of different actors, before an ultimate negotiation round with other group(s) of actors defending other interests.

Participatory approaches

The multi-stakeholders approaches are based on the principle that all parties' voices should have been heard, their available evidence, theory and arguments considered, and the potentially useful options assessed and evaluated. In many areas and situations, there is a great use of the political mapping approach (Reich, 1994; Cooper & Reich, 1995), which is also very interesting in the discussion of the stakeholder approach. Before choosing a specific participatory approach, it is very important to carry out a political mapping.

The main goal of participatory approaches is to find and use strategies on how best to implement the good policies, how to involve and mobilize the local communities and all the stakeholders, how to assure sustainability. Many methods are used by development practitioners to support participatory development, and a lot of literature could be found about methods and techniques (World Bank, 1998; Enda, 1992; Ellen 1984; Hudelson, 1994; Amelga, 1994; Salmen, 1992; World Bank, 1994; Narayan, 1995; Eberhard, 1996; Narayan, 1996; Srinivasan, 1990). These methods and techniques could be classified under the following headings (World Bank, 1998): workshop-based and community-based methods for collaborative decision-making, methods for stakeholder consultation, and methods for incorporating participation and social analysis into project design.

The workshop-based methods, sometimes called "action-planning workshops" or "stakeholder workshops" are used to bring stakeholders together to design development projects. They help to achieve collaboration between stakeholders by leading them through a series of activities to build consensus. The principal methods in this group are AIC (Appreciation-Influence-Control), ZOPP (Objectives-Oriented-Project-Planning), and TU (Team-Up).

The community-based methods consider that local people are the experts, whereas outsiders are facilitators of the techniques and are there to learn. The techniques energize people and lead to clear priorities or action plans. The two principal techniques are PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal), and SARAR (Self-esteem, Associative strength, Resourcefulness, Action planning, and Responsibility). In West Africa, ENDA-GRAF (Dakar, Senegal) is promoting an approach so called "RAF" (Recherche-Action-Formation) which could be seen as an adapted Participatory -Action-Research (PAR) approach, and CREPA (Centre Régional pour l'Eau Potable et l'Assainissement, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso) is promoting the SARAR approach.

The methods for stakeholder consultation are intended to serve clients better by making donors and service providers aware of client priorities, preferences, and feedback; and to make the development interventions more responsive to demand. These methods are widely used by many enterprises and companies. The two principal techniques are BA (Beneficiary Assessment), and SCC (Systematic Client Consultation).

The methods for social analysis help to identify what communities think they need and set up ways to communicate this back to implementing agencies. The two principal techniques are SA (Social Assessment) and GA (Gender Assessment).

The classification given above is not the only one possible, and is not exhaustive. One could separate the approaches that are pure planning approaches from those that entail planning and action. No method is inherently participatory, or spontaneously encourages "ownership" of the project and innovation among stakeholders. The ultimate responsibility remain with the users and facilitators. For instance, the term PAR (Participation Action Research) is used to describe very different methods depending on the author. Furthermore, not all community-based methods consider that local people are experts, and not all of them explicitly promote the stakeholder approach.

The different projects in the "Urban Group" have experienced many of these techniques, in particular contexts and commitments. The experience gathered will be presented in the next chapter, "practical experiences". For each project only one or two practical examples are given from the environmental problems at hand.

PRACTICAL EXPERIENCES FROM UEM PROJECT GROUP

Project 1: Concerted management of urban environment in intermediary cities. The case of Mingora, Pakistan.

This project (FNRS Project "IUED-SDPI") explores with the urban actors, municipal authorities and citizens, the way to promote a consensual environmental management, taking in account local culture and knowledge. One big question is how to manage in a predictable manner the administrative, financial, and political discontinuities in an intermediary city like Mingora (Mechkat, 1996). In the field of solid waste management in Mingora, the project worked with local community based organizations, and the municipal authorities to set up garbage dumps (Sharar, 1998). The process is just beginning, the project acts as a catalyst and is carrying out the follow up activities.

Project 2: Metropolization and sustainable development. The case of Hô Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

The aim of this project (FNRS Project "EPFL-ENCO") is to give to public authorities and communities training and tools for urban environmental management. How could city authorities get more appropriate tools for management of the eneormous growth of a capital city like Ho Chi Minh (Bassand, 1996; Bui Thi, 1998 )? The methods used are interdisciplinary, including environmental sciences, engineering and social sciences. The project is conducted in partnership between scientific institutions, community based organizations, and the public services of Ho Chi Minh City. In the field of solid waste management, the project provides a address credit to a collector for the purchase of a garbage-cart (Bolay & Du, 1998). After six months, the garbage collector reimburses the credit and he and his family owns the cart as means of carrying out his income generating activity.

In the two experimental areas of the project (sub-district 15, and sub-district 10), the majority of people are poor and are neither able to afford new housing nor to repair what already exists (Bolay & Du, 1998). Most houses do not have toilets. The project used two participatory tools to reach some results: organization of saving and credit groups permitted to construct several toilets and participative model with young volunteers in the area, a scientific partner (Swiss hydrologist from EPFL) and workers employed to install new sewers for drainage.

Project 3: Solid waste management in African cities, particularly organic wastes valorization. The case of Ouagadougou (Burkina Fas) and Cotonou (Benin)

This project (FNRS Project "Alter Ego - MO - CUC") aims to improve the solid waste management in the cities of Ouagadougou and Cotonou. The Project is helping different stakeholders (public and private enterprises, and community groups) to collaborate for a global solid waste management scheme (Waas & Bidaux, 1997).

The project carried out basic research on solid waste management, such as the introduction of new technical systems (compost) among women groups, and the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for a better overview. On the other hand, the Project acts as a facilitator in the communication processes between and among private enterprises, women associations, and municipal authorities.

Project 4: Management of a deprived urban setting by its inhabitants. The case of N'djamena, Chad.

This project (FNRS Project "ITS - UND") is promoting community based initiatives and is providing inhabitants and institutional actors (municipality and regional governments, non-governmental organizations, bi- and multi- lateral agencies), with technologies and methods which permit them to interact in a significant and positive way for the improvement of the urban environment. The activities of the project are concentrated in three fields: a) water and waste management in urban low-income areas, b) social mobilization around street children, c) promotion of impregnated bed nets for malaria control. In the field of solid waste management, the project used a new approach which takes into account the logic that each actor operates according to his or her own interests (Wyss & al., 1998).

The project contributed to local capacity building at community level, and played catalytic role in the promotion of communication between communities and the various actors.

Project 5: Health impact of wastewater use in urban agriculture. The case of Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) and Nouakchott (Mauritania)

This project (FNRS Project "ITS-EIER-OMS") aims to evaluate the health impact of an environmental practice widespread in Sahelian countries, and contribute to a better and healthier form of urban agriculture. In Ouagadougou and in Nouakchott, many urban agriculture sites are using wastewater to irrigate vegetables. This situation involves sanitary risks for a lot of people, and risky health conditions for the homegardeners (Cissé, 1997; Schneider & Gagneux, 1997; Gagneux et al., 1998). The project is conducted using an interdisciplinary approach, involving: a) evaluation of environmental contamination (water, soils, vegetables), b) epidemiological assessments, c) qualitative evaluation of behaviors and perceptions, d) cartography and geographical information systems, and e) participative development process.

The project is currently helping homegardeners to improve the framework of their development activities (Tanner et al., 1998; Odermatt & al., 1997). For example, in Ouagadougou community based associations have been put in place or consolidated, and are leading a wide range of empowerment activities (land security, water quantity and quality). The project is facilitating the communication between the fieldworkers' associations and the municipal authorities.

Project 6: Use and protection of water resources in Lake Victoria through sustainable management of wetlands-ecotones . The case of Jinja, Uganda.

This project ( FNRS Project "UNIZ - FIRI") aims to identify the multiple functions of an urban wetland, and to elaborate in partnership with the municipal authorities, some methods for a sustainable management of this ecosystem. The wetlands, commonly known as swamps in Uganda, are a resource of considerable importance, just like forests, rangelands, arable land, and open water resources (Ministry of Natural Resources / Uganda, 1995). The project analyzed and developed a participative and sustainable management process in three big wetland areas in Jinja (Wacker & al., 1997). A partnership has been built up between municipal authorities, environmental policy authorities at the national level, and more than 500 members of the civil society who are users of the wetlands, mainly women's groups.

The project acts as a facilitator in a process leaving initiatives in the hands of wetland users. For example, in Walukuba area, women drew maps of the sites and conducted various development activities. Participatory research relies on the partnership established between relevant actors (at various levels). The team generates practical concepts and methodologies (Wacker & Wolf, 1997).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Effects, conditions of success

The conditions of success in the UEM group may be attached to some main characteristics: the research agendas were built to achieve action, the research was interdisciplinary (mixed scientific teams), the empowerment of various actors was a central strategy. These characteristics gave a specific shaping to all the projects, which gathered a strong potential for urban environmental management sustainability in the different settings.

The shaping of a research projects depends on the profile of the principal investigators, the basic disciplines supporting the subjects, and the profile of the projects local coordinators . The stakeholder approach developed in each project depends on this background.

In our Group, the 6 principal investigators are from the main following disciplines (see Table 1): public health and epidemiology (STI1 and STI2), social sciences (EPFL, UNIZ), geography (Alter Ego), and architecture (IUED). But even in the two cases (ITS-UND and Alter Ego-MO-CUC), the first principal investigator was not a social scientist, the project ideas were built on the principles of ENDA (particularly the "RAF" approach), so the discipline more used is rather social sciences than epidemiology or geography.

The 9 local project coordinators, who play also a key role in the project shaping, are from the following disciplines: sanitary or environmental engineering, social sciences, geography, ecology.

The projects with social scientists and geographers as principal investigators, or those with the social sciences as a main discipline, have sooner integrated the stakeholder approach in their plans (Waas & al., Wacker & al., Bolay & al., Jeannée & al.). Many aspects of their research, as developed in their document for the PPE program, show that they were basically aware of the theoretical challenge of multi-actors implication in environmental management issues. In these cases, the research is built on the social scientists' main concerns, looking at social processes, even if an environmental issue is chosen to support the theoretical hypotheses and challenges.

The other projects encountered the stakeholder approach as a consequent step in their thematic research process (Tanner & al., Mechkat & al.). In these cases the research is basically built on thematic preoccupations (environmental issues), and the stakeholder approach was not incorporated at the beginning as the basis of the research. The need or the relevance of a stakeholder approach was discovered or reconfirmed by the results of some of the first steps of the research. That does not mean that they were not aware that many actors were implicated in their research theme. On the contrary, a large emphasis was laid on qualitative methods in the data collecting process among diverse actors, and several social groups have been considered and involved in the agenda. But they were not committed to the stakeholder approach as the most appropriate social approach to solve problems, and which would be then documented and capitalized.

But the main common characteristic of the group is that all the urban environmental issues on hand demanded that projects should use an interdisciplinary approach, coordinating methods and efforts between social sciences and technical sciences. Even in the cases where projects started with a technical and professional view, since they aimed at meeting demands at the population level (micro-level), project teams immediately perceived the need for social sciences expertise. This recognition led to a substantial build-up and inclusion of social and cultural science in all projects. This input was fundamental, being a major determinant for the sustainability of the activities initiated in the different project sites. Because the social science did not only pursue a descriptive approach, but aimed at analytical steps, the projects could become catalytic and assisted social action.

So, the profile of our projects was deeply marked by an important weight of social sciences, both through the professionals involved, and through the methodologies adopted. This characteristic of our group shows that all the projects, sooner or later, acted as facilitators of social processes. At present, they are all emphasizing their role as catalysts in a social framework.

Since 1994, the Group has gained various results with the stakeholder approach: a reinforcement of public and private institutional capacities at the local level; a participative involvement of various stakeholders in urban environmental management; the training of several actors in the cities; the elaboration of several tools for negotiation between social partners.

Difficulties, limits and constraints

Even if the stakeholder approach has become widely recognized as essential in development research, there are many constraints and limits in its effective application in the fields:

a) The processes involving the empowerment of groups ask for time, even when the powerful groups have no interest in giving that time. Furthermore the market actors in the private sector particularly and donors cannot afford too many delays. The cultural context in which research is conducted plays a crucial role in its success. The period of 6 years that the 6 projects have lived through so far is really too short to fully bring to life and capitalize the potential of the stakeholder approach.

b) Its is important to privilege local authorities; but it is vital to look at the wider organizational and political context. In most countries, the private sector is playing a crucial role in different domains, like water, sewage, energy, and transport. The market at the local level does not feed all the private sector's needs. So, the links with many other levels are stronger for the management of environmental issues in which the private sector plays an important role.

c) There is a need to focus on local groups (associations) reflecting fragmented identities. It is necessary to increase the collective capacity of poorer or weaker groups for negotiations when they are dealing with other stronger groups. This includes the reinforcement collective strength of the population.

d) The insufficiency of resources at various levels constitutes a big area of constraint. In particular, training is one of the most important support resources that must be given to the people. This is particularly important. The limited resources made it impossible in many cases to carry out all the training sessions needed, particularly for the empowerment of weaker groups. This could induce some problems. For instance, the weaker groups could just pretend to play the game, the activities could be artificially maintained to keep best possible relationships with researchers, but only as long as they are present (N'Diaye, 1997).

e) Many urban environmental issues ask for technical solutions (hydraulic, biological, or geological aspects, civil or environmental engineering studies, etc). For instance, technically-qualified researchers must be charged with the responsibility of establishing practical and correct options for treatment of wastes (Davies-Cole, 1998). Unfortunately, there are many difficulties with technological options. One aspect is that the technicians have an obligation to be in close communication with all the other stakeholders, and they must hear the knowledge and visions of the end users, who are subjects of their own history and destiny (Sottas, 1996). They must do this although the communication between scientists, researchers, policy-makers and users is not easy. The ways and terms in which each group may describe a situation are very often different. Even in the description of their needs, the users may lack effective organization to make these needs clearly known by technicians.

f) Many traditional solutions in the particular area of sanitation have become inadequate, but the conceptual basis for tackling the problems of urban environmental degradation are not sufficiently defined (Doyen, 1998). The lack of technological solutions is sometimes at the heart of the problem. It is certainly interesting to make a long term sequence of meetings with people, but their motivation will remain weak if no technical solution to the problem in hand is known. It is not sufficient to just be able to "animate" people, to make them "proud", to give them the "hopes" if, at the end, no technically feasible solution is clearly identified. If too many qualitative (even the more discrete quantitative) research activities are conducted in a community without any immediate benefits arising, the communities quickly start to show clear resistance.

Role of research

The role of research for success is very important. One big area in which research could help environmental management is the development of a set of decision-supporting techniques and tools. As there are disparate data (qualitative ones and quantitative ones), the difficulty is how to put them together and build adequate indicators of environmental changes at the local level.

It is difficult to get the consensus of different actors on the research agenda in a local setting. How can the communities, for instance, express their needs? In some cases, they can express their needs through their traditional authorities and/or leaders (Roth & al., 1998). In many cases, the lack of interest of the population in an environmental issue is a big constraint, against which the discourse of "participation" is powerless.

Many government departments and development assistance agencies have guidelines or principles recommending that people must participate in the programs. This conception of participation is described by some scientists as "technocratic" (Utting, 1996). The approach tends to get people to support programs shaped elsewhere. The shift is actually done from participation as "consultation" to participation as "empowerment".

It is not easy to coordinate negotiation between stakeholders, as many UEM projects are currently doing. The urban development must meet the needs of diverse social groups, while many changes are happening very fast. In some cases, the formal or traditional local leaders could be not particularly representative of the "community" interests. Sometimes deep divisions exist among "community" members. Even the government institutions do not constitute uniform body. Different ministries and departments may have completely opposite agendas. These oppositions could reinforce internal divisions in the community. That can paralyze the scientists' efforts among the community.

The image of scientists as being neutral and "without interests" may give them the chance to play the role of facilitators among the diverse actors. But, on the other hand, the image of scientists as "dreamers" or "without the means of putting their ideas into practice" could reduce the weight of their opinions. This somehow precarious balance illustrates very well the key place of research in the stakeholder approach. The scientists attitudes and approaches can play a big role, leaving people with enthusiasm or with doubts in their minds.

Perspectives

In the perspectives of the continued debate about stakeholder approach, there are many other supplementary considerations which merit highlighting: issues that require further research, the place of research in the context of development initiatives, what issues in the framework of the Discussion forum.

As many academics and scientists are stressing, the need to work on urbanization will increase in the future. Not only technical solutions will be the challenge, but also the social framework in which these potential technical solutions could be put into practice will become more and more complex. Furthermore, the interface between authorities, civil society, NGOs, and private sector, between local and other institutional levels will need more and more attention.

There is a need for an effective partnership between researchers, decision-makers, implementers, and beneficiaries. The partnership must be established between the stakeholders on the basis of mutual trust. Among the wide range of actors dealing with an particular issue, the scientists may be the ones trying to contribute the most to convince the authorities they should be aware of fast changes at all levels: technical, institutional, social, and economic. The management of differences in perception between community and authorities is of great importance

In a large part, the process is determined by how the "power" is shared between diverse stakeholders. One crucial element of the power games is related to the economic situations of the actors concerned. And in some settings, there could be a real difficulty in identifying all the appropriate stakeholders, and the level of their vulnerability versus the level of their power. Research could and should help in these areas. Training sessions associating community representatives, technicians, and public officials in joint reflections can be very useful.

CONCLUSIONS

The UEM project group objectives are very relevant in the context that in the near future, half of the world population will live in cities. These objectives are: to reinforce the priority level of environmental issues in the urban management; to help decision makers by providing basic and reliable data; to initiate new schemes of mediation among the stakeholders; and to implicate scientific institutions, both public and private, in environmental action in urban context.

In the framework of different disciplines, and from different perspectives, all the 6 projects have tried a stakeholder approach. Since 1994, the Group has gained various results: a reinforcement of public and private institutional capacities at the local level; a participative involvement of various stakeholders in urban environmental management; the training of several actors in the cities; the elaboration of several tools for negotiation between social partners. These results have provided a significant potential for the sustainability of all the processes and tools created in the different settings. The research component has gained a more widely recognised integration in the environmental management framework.

However, the process has been conducted with diverse constraints, related to: lack of financial resources at diverse levels; disparity between institutions involved in the partnership and collaboration; difficulties in interdisciplinary research, particularly the deficit in communication; the shortness of the 6-year period of research; difficulties in conducting an interdisciplinary research, in identifying the stakeholders, and in playing a role of facilitator or catalyst in a social process..

The stakeholder approach could not work magic, or be the sole tool which will solve all the environmental problems in developing countries. The global context, particularly the local institutional framework in which the environmental issue is on the agenda, is crucial for success. The challenge is now to find the best way to integrate and retain in a sustainable manner all that has been gained in this institutional framework.

REFERENCES

AMELGA M., 1994. A review of Beneficiary Assessment conducted by the Bank. ENVSP Consultant Report, The World Bank, Washington.

ARROSSI SILVINA, BOMBAROLO FELIX, HARDOY JORGE, MITLIN DIANA, COSCIO LUIS P., & SATTERTHWAITE DAVID, 1994. Funding community initiatives. Earthscan Publication Limited, London.

BASSAND MICHEL, 1996. Développement durable, metropolisation et pollutions des ressources naturelles:le cas de Hô Chi Minh Ville, Vietnam. In [PPE, 1996. Résumé des résultats de recherche et liste des publications. Période de recherche 1992-1995; FNRS, Berne].

BOLAY JEAN CLAUDE & THAI THI NGOC DU, 1998. Sustainable development, urbanisation and environmental risks: priorities in local actions in Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam. UEM Project Group workshop, Jinja 1998.

BUI THI LANG, 1998. The possibilities to begin real projects of urban development in Ho Chi Minh city: facilities and constraints. UEM Project Group workshop, Jinja 1998.

CASALIS ALICIA, MECHKAT CYRUS, ROTH ERIC, SHAUKAT SHARAR, & VIARO ALAIN, 1998. Groupe de recherche "La gestion prévisionnelle de l'environnement urbain: politiques publiques et dynamiques locales en villes intermédiaires". UEM Project Group workshop, Jinja 1998.

CISSE GUELADIO, 1997. Impact sanitaire de l'utilisation d'eaux polluéers en agriculture urbaine. Cas du maraîchage à Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). Thèse N° 1639, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Suisse.

COOPER DAVID M., & REICH MICHAEL R., 1995. Political mapping of the essential health interventions project in Tanzania. Report document, Havard School of Public Health.

DAVIES-COLE JOHN O. A., 1998. The role of NGOs in sustainable environmental management. UEM Project Group workshop, Jinja 1998.

DOYEN JEAN H., 1998. Water supply and sanitation: policy trends and lessons from the regional experience. UEM Project Group workshop, Jinja 1998.

EBERHARD GOHL & DORSI GERMANN, 1996. Participatory Impact Monitoring. Booklet 4: the concept of Participatory Impact Monitoring. Vieweg, GATE, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.

ENDA-GRAF, 1992. Avenir des terroirs:la ressource humaine. Enda Editions, Dakar, Sénégal.

GAGNEUX SEBASTIEN, SCHNEIDER CHRISTINE, ODERMATT PETER, CISSE GUELADIO, DAH OULD CHEIKH, TOURE AMARA, MOHAMED LEMINE O/ M. SALEM, TANNER MARCEL, 1998. Incidence et facteurs de risque pour la diarrhée des agriculteurs urbains en Mauritanie. Article proposé à Tropical Medicine & International Health, Heidelberg, Allemagne.

HABITAT, & UNEP, 1997. Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) Source Book. Volume 1. Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya.

HARCOURT WENDY, 1996. Understanding women, environment and development. Key terms and concepts. ECOMAN Project Group workshop, Asmara 1996.

HARPHAM TRUDY & TANNER MARCEL, 1995. Urban health in developing countries. Progress and prospects. Earthscan Publications Limited, London.

HUDELSON P. M., 1994. Qualitative research for health programmes. Division of Mental Health, World Health Organization, Geneva.

KAUFMANN-HAYOZ RUTH, 1998. Research and implementation in environmental management: experiences in Switzerland. UEM Project Group workshop, 1998.

LOEWY E, 1987. Communities, obligations, and health care. Social Science and Medecine, 25.

MARVIN SIMON & GUY SIMON, 1997. Creating myths rather than sustainability: the transition fallacies of the new localism. Paper for the Challenge of Environmental management in Metropolitan Areas, University College London UEM Project Group workshop, Grenoble 1997.

MECHKAT CYRUS, 1996. La gestion prévisionnelle de l'environnement urbain: politiques publiques et dynamiques locales en villes intermédiaires. In [PPE, 1996. Résumé des résultats de recherche et liste des publications. Période de recherche 1992-1995; FNRS, Berne].

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE OF UGANDA, 1995. National policy for the conservation and management of wetland resources. UEM Project Group workshop, Jinja 1998.

NARAYAN DEEPA, 1995. The contribution of people's participation. Evidence from 121 rural water supply projects. ESD series N° 1. The World Bank, Washington.

NARAYAN DEEPA, 1996. Toward Participatory Research. World bank Technical Paper N° 307. Washington.

NDIAYE MAMADOU, 1997. Recherche - Action - Formation. Communication au Séminaire Inter Projets "environnement urbain" à Ouagadougou 1997.

ODERMATT PETER, CISSE GUELADIO, & TANNER MARCEL, 1997. Considérations méthodologiques de la recherche participative dans un projet interdisciplinaire. Séminaire Inter Projets "environnement urbain" à Ouagadougou 1997.

REICH M. R., 1994. Political mapping of health policy: a guide for managing the political dimensions of health policy. Harvard School of Public Health.

RIFKIN S., MULLER I, & BICHMANN W, 1988. Primary health care: on measuring participation. Social Science and Medecine, 26 (9).

ROTH ERIC, CASALIS ALICIA & BOET ELISENDA, 1998. Urban environmental management in Bolivia. The case of San Borja, an intermediate city. UEM Project Group workshop, Jinja 1998.

SALMEN LAWRENCE, 1992. Beneficiary Assessment. An approach described. Working paper N° 1. Technical Department. Africa Region. Washington.

SCHERTENLEIB ROLAND, 1998. Guiding principles of development oriented research. UEM Project Group workshop, Jinja 1998.

SCHNEIDER CHRISTINE, & GAGNEUX SEBASTIAN, 1997. Impact sanitaire de l'utilisation d'eaux usées et polluées en agriculture urbaine: Cas du maraîchage à Nouakchott, République. Islamique de Mauritanie. Travail de Diplôme, Institut Tropical Suisse, Université de Bâle.

SDC (Swiss development Corporation) , 1995. Urban Development Policy. SDC Bern, Switzerland.

SDC (Swiss Development Corporation), 1993. SDC Environmental Strategy. SDC Bern, Switzerland

SHARAR SHAUKAT, 1998. Concerted management of the urban environment. Public policies and local dynamics in intermediary cities. The case of Mingora. Valorization and dissemination. NWFP, Pakistan. UEM Project Group workshop, Jinja 1998.

SILIMPERI DIANA S., 1995. Linkages for urban health - the community and agencies. Chapter 2 in [Trudy Harpham and Marcel Tanner 1995. Urban health in developing countries. Progress and prospects. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London].

SOTTAS BEAT, 1996. Conflict resolution in a setting of contradictory regulations and rationales: approaches to resource management in the Ewaso Ng'iro basin (Kenya). ECOMAN Project Group workshop, Asmara 1996.

SRINIVASAN LYRA, 1990. Tools for Community Participation. A manual for training trainers in participatory techniques. PROWWESS/UNDP technical Series. Washington.

TANNER MARCEL, ODERMATT PETER, BOUREIMA OUEDRAOGO, & CISSE GUELADIO, 1998. From research to public health action. Experience from the case study in Burkina Faso and Mauritania. UEM Project Group workshop, Jinja 1998.

THE WORL BANK, 1998. Participation source book. Appendix 1: methods and tools.

UTTING PETER, 1996. Ten pitfalls of participatory conservation: lessons from Costa Rica, The Philippines and Senegal. ECOMAN Project Group workshop, Asmara 1996.

WAAS EVELYNE, & BIDAUX ALAIN, 1998. Méthodes de gestion et de valorisation des déchets solides. Chapitre dans [Bolay & al., sous presse. Environnement urbain. Recherche et Action dans les pays en développement], livre issu des communications du séminaire Inter Projets "Environnment Urbain" de Ouagadougou 1997.

WACKER CORINNE, & WOLF MARKUS, 1997. Use and protection of water resources in Lake Victoria through sustainable management of wetlands-ecotones: participatory research with women's groups in the wetlands of Jinja town. UEM Project Group workshop, Ouagadougou 1997.

WACKER CORINNE, BAGONZA-BIRUNGI JOSEPH, & WOLF MARKUS, 1997. Développement d'un système de gestion participative de marécages autour du Lac Victoria: l'exemple de la ville de Jinja en Ouganda. Chapitre dans [Bolay & al., sous presse. Environnement urbain. Recherche et Action dans les pays en développement], livre issu des communications du séminaire Inter Projets "Environnment Urbain" de Ouagadougou 1997.

WESTENDORFF DAVID, 1998. Personal Communication to UEM Project Group Workshop, Jinja 1998.

WORLD BANK, 1992. World Development Report 1992 - Development and The Environment. Oxford University Press.

WORLD BANK, 1994. Systematic Client Consultation. Mimeo. Washington.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, 1992. Report on urbanization. WHO Commission on Health and Environment.

WYSS KASPAR, DOBINGAR ALLASSEMBAYE, & YEMADJI NDIEKHOR, 1998. Research action training (RAT) a tool for the promotion of better solid waste management: the case of the stimulation of synergies between actors in N'djamena, Chad. UEM Project Group workshop, Jinja 1998.

Table 1: Presentation of the FNRS/PPE Project Group "Urban Environment Management"

Dr Bugenyi F W B (Ecology)