Participation and Knowledge Management
in Natural Resource Management:

Note to the participants

Manuel Flury, Urs Geiser

Through the Swiss Priority Programme Environment (SPPE), researchers in both the North and the South gained insight into the constraints, potentials and margins of responsible environmental action of bothindividuals and social groups on different societal levels. This not e summarises the main outcome of the exchange held in Solothurn. The workshop brought together researchers, both from the South and from Switzerland, and representatives from Swiss organisations involved in development co-operation. The overall goal of the workshop was to draw conclusions of the findings carried out by SPPE-projects in North and South, focusing on innovative institutional arrangements for localenvironmental management and on related contributions to sustainableenvironmental management at local level.

1. Participation in resource and conflict management

This first chapter provides an insight into the discussions held and the conclusions elaborated jointly among researchers from Burkina Faso, Chad, Ethiopia, Mauritania, Kenya, Pakistan, Switzerland and Vietnam and development practitioners from Switzerland. The work was based on cases of environmental management approaches studied by these researchers in their respectivecountries.

1.1 Understanding

Researchers from the South propose the following understandingof participation: "Participation is an indispensable, dynamic instrument which in the context of development ensures the achievement of sustainable livelihoods, efficient mobilisation and use of resources and guarantees a balanced system, encompassing social peace and stability."

Through participation, resources the actors dispose of are mobilised and pooled, this in contrast to conventional resource management approaches by governmental institutions that are based mainly on expert knowledge. Moreover, participatory approaches aim at empowering theweaker strata of the society, to provide them with power in the respective project or management arrangement. Participation, therefore, is both instrumental to a more efficient management and promoting the empowerment of the weaker parts of the concerned actors.

1.2 Achievable innovations, issues of concern

Through the analysis of cases of participatory approaches in resource management studied in the framework of the SPPE, insights with respect to both achieved and achievable innovations and issues of concern have been gained. This analysis focused on the control overdecisions and resources the different actor categories involved exert in the specific management set up. The example of a donor assisted project with respect to the management of solid wastes in the capitals of Sahelian countries shows a particular "hierarchy" of the different actor categories including their aims and tasks implied (see Fig. 1. next page).

In particular, this analysis has raised attention to the followingaspects:

• The external donors still dispose of the highest degree of control and influence.
• The public institutions at national level have lost a most decisive role. The local public institutions, however, keep high influence in their planning of sound solid waste management (including a regulatory framework).
• Through neighbourhood associations and address-scale enterprises, the concerned population (i.e. the households) have gained substantialcontrol and influence, in economic as well as in political terms. Similar and comparable case studies have shown that such civil society organisations may achieve a higher control over resources and decisions than the traditional local public institutions (i.e. administration) do.
• New institutional constellations give rise to new conflicts and conflicting issues, either within the different actor categories or between them: e.g.
• Within the public sector: Degree and content of privatisation of certain urban services
• Within the private sector (address-scale enterprises): Distribution of clients and cost of services
• Between public and civil society: Location and management of intermediate deposits of waste and landfills and financial compensations
• Between private sector (address-scale enterprises) and civil society: Management of intermediate deposits of waste, financial contributions
  
  

Figure 1: Case Study

Management of Solid Waste in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) and Cotonou (Benin)

In general, the analysis allows to draw the following conclusions:

"Innovations"

• Participation may reinforce the "local visions" of decision makers and local administrators.
• Through persistent, long-term participation a change towards a general awareness among decision makers of the importance of including concerned actor categories into decision making at an early stage canbe achieved.
• Increased participation of (yet) informal groups of actors can contribute to their legitimising. The formalisation of the mechanisms, i.e. the definition of the rules and guidelines and the formal integration of participation into the existing legal, institutional and political framework constitute pre-conditions for sustainable solutions.
• Through participatory approaches, capacities are built up (knowledge, skills). This includes as well the adaptation of technologies introduced by external actors to the local context.
• Participation can open up the space for interaction on all levels. Through experimentation, new institutional relationships between the public sector and the civil society can be built up.
  
  

"Concerns"

• If participation implies empowerment of weaker strata of the society, it can lead to a redistribution of power. Some of the cases analysed demonstrate that the local public administration tend tobe disempowered to the benefit of civil society organisations. This could negatively affect their capacities of providing public services.
• The control over funds - a central aspect of power and influence - remains very often in the hands of donor agencies or governments. Empowerment of local institutions in the sense of transferring controlover decisions and resources remains exceptional.
• Political power structures that are centrally dominated, tend to persist. This holds true even in the framework of policies towards decentralisation and participation.
• The informality of participatory arrangements is seen as problematic. The increasing formalisation and institutionalisation of participatory approaches is considered important.
• There are discrepancies and conflicts between different donor6;s requests:
  requests for participation and corresponding regulations in the framework of policies towards good governance may contradict with support of privatisation and deregulation policies.
  
  
  

1.3 Conditions of success

With respect to indispensable conditions for effective participatory approaches, the following seems of particular relevance:

• Support from the authorities in terms of legitimacy, information and data has to be secured from the start of the process. Such processes require managerial and organisational knowledge and operational funds. Most crucial, room for action and, in particular, for experimentation is indispensable.
• Networking throughout the process is considered crucial in view of associating all interested parties, keeping a high level of motivation and, thus, consolidating the overall framework of the participatory process.
• There has to be an ongoing commitment to reform: processes and experimentation have to develop into an institution, informality has todevelop into some kind of a formal arrangement.
  
  

Participation is meaningful if

• all partners willing to co-operate are included right from the beginning,
• benefits and costs for all involved are transparent,
• information is given to all involved,
• participants set their own agenda and take responsibility,
• there is continued involvement in the search for and negotiation of "win-win" situations.
  
  

1.4 Principles

The search for common solutions requires the acknowledgement of the following principles and ethical values:

• Transparency and flexibility of process
• Commitment of involved participants
• Tolerance during process
• Clarity of communication
• Neutrality of moderation
• Accountability of outcomes
  
  

Transparency would mean: transparency of intentions, of "who does what". Full transparency might conflict with remaining "hiddenagendas" and be limited due to persisting rules and regulations of selected partners.

Through mediation, a certain degree of power is being exerted. Mediation defines rules e.g. for round tables and selects "entry points" that might be of a technical nature in one context and of a socio-cultural nature in another one. Mediators have to be skilled, credible and accepted persons.

Flexibility: There is need for flexible frame conditions - especially with respect to persisting rules and regulations of particular partners. In addition, authorities/donors are supposed to provide flexible funds.

Overall, the "democratic attitude" of all partners constitutes a pre-condition.

1.5 Global changes through local efforts

In order to associate those that at present dispose over political power, efforts towards changing the basic political structure (on the macro-societal level) would be indispensable. However, researchhas shown that social change can be brought about by "persistent participation". This implies the need and the possibility of refocusing efforts on local level through promoting address, decentralised initiatives.

Participatory efforts can resolve the political conflicts mentioned by persistently developing local solutions. By doing so, local societal structures are capacitated and empowered, new institutional relationships with conventional organisations are developed and, hence, the need for adaptations on the upper societal levels are created.

1.6 A final reflection with respect to development co-operation

If donors participate - as all the cases studied demonstrate -they constitute key actors within the corresponding framework of resource and conflict management. They dispose of important means and, correspondingly, of power over the process and over related decisions.The case studies demonstrate the persisting dominant role of the funding agencies. In most cases, high degree of control over resources and decisions are vested with local, non-governmental organisations like neighbourhood associations, producers organisations, etc. However,donors remain highly influential in finally deciding over financial support.

Through international co-operation, empowerment of weaker actor categories is being enhanced. While community organisations gain accessto resources (financial means, knowledge) and start providing services to the public, local authorities lose their (already limited) resources and capacities. The cases studied reflect the corresponding changes in the control over decisions and resources of these organisations. There remains the concern that the disempowerment of the (local) public institutions, both public services and policy development including control functions could be affected negatively.

2. Supporting natural resource management through improved knowledge management

This second chapter summarises findings of the Solothurn Workshop on the issue of knowledge management regarding natural resources management. Researchers from the South and the North discussed actual field case studies from Kenya, Madagascar, Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, and Switzerland, and shared theirfindings with development practitioners.

2.1. Introduction

The present note emphasises on the interaction between agents of development and direct natural resource users. It starts with the key insight that natural resource use by rural people; and related knowledge issues - need to be understood through a livelihood perspective. The note summarises some theoretical reflections on knowledge(s), involved actors, and challenges to communication. These reflections are then applied to highlight the knowledge management as practised by agents of development - and options for improvement by developing a "learning culture".

2.2. Natural resources management: A part of livelihoods

Researchers, development policy makers and development practitioners concerned with the promotion of sustainable natural resource management often equate 'rural' with 'agricultural'. Therefore, their focus has often been on natural resources themselves or the structures that provide services to resource users (e.g. research and extension organisations). The Workshop, however, highlighted the importance to give adequate attention to the complexity of rural livelihoods. Rural people in India's Gujarat state combine incomes in cash or kind from rain-fed and irrigated agriculture, but also from seasonal migration to urban localities. People in Kenya combine (different types of) agriculture with animal husbandry, seasonal labour migration, and incomes obtained through social networks. For all these people, using natural resources is important, but their decision-making on where to invest, where to give attention, or where to "innovate" takes into account a wide array of potential factors - which implies that various types of knowledge and skills are involved, and required, to ensure livelihood security

2.3. Knowledges and actors: Some theoretical reflections

The Workshop came up with a tentative typology of such issues related to knowledge in a livelihood context. Some of them are(see graph):

Types of knowledge: Rural people make "strategic" decisions: They decide on which component of their livelihood systems to give more attention, or less, on expanding their range of income opportunities (including natural resource use) etc. This requires - as the Workshop called it - strategic knowledge. Another important type is technical knowledge, i.e. people's knowledge on crops, cultivation practices, environmental conditions, etc. Institutional knowledge may encompass awareness on "the rules of the game", i.e. social norms, government regulations, etc.

Actors: Decisions on using natural resources are usually taken by the direct resource users, but their decisions are influenced by many others. These may try to enforce (or influence) a certain resource use, provide insights and knowledge on using resources more productively, etc. The Workshop identified the following actor groups as very influential: the resource users' relatives; in-migrants that bring insights from other regions; and the resource users' own exposure during seasonal migration. Important, though less, are what the Workshop called "agents of development". This notion encompasses those actors from formal development ventures, that havedirect contact with local resource users. "Development ventures" canbe formal agricultural research and extension systems (with extension staff as "front people"), specific development projects, NGO efforts, etc. The "front people" in these ventures are often backed-up by people and structures at higher levels - up to state depa

Knowing (other) actors' knowledge: The Workshop reiterated that usually, all the involved actors are knowledgeable and skilled, especially regarding the achievement of their goals and objectives. However often, sustainable natural resource management - withincomplex livelihoods - calls for changes in resource use practices. Research and experience from development ventures highlights, that direct resource users often have considerable knowledge. Blending their knowledge with the knowledge of agents of development might - produceinteresting results. A prerequisite, therefore, is to know and understand others' knowledge - which leads to the issue of communication.

Communication of knowledge: Communication between different actors on knowledge related to resource use encompasses, among others:

(i) understanding of each others' knowledge (existing sets of knowledge are often "known" by respective actors tacitly; to understand each others' knowledge, it needs to be made explicit);

(ii) assessment of knowledge feasibility (e.g. against criteria that are made explicit);

(iii) (joint) search for improving these knowledges towards sustainability; and

(iv) identification and (if required) improvement of frame conditions to allow generated knowledge to operate.

The Workshop found that communication has a lot to do with power. Access to information, or the promotion of specific techniques(and related knowledge) are often fields of conflict.

Handling of knowledge: Finally: Communication should (ideally) enable direct resource users to improve their resource use practices in a sustainable manner. In this regard, the Workshop distinguished especially between adoption (the unchanged taking over of practices – and related knowledge and skills) and adaptation (the modification of recommended practices). Case studies highlight that direct resource users often accept components of development agents' recommendations only. In addition, they often modify them to suit their livelihood requirements.

2.4. From theory to practice: Knowledge management by agents of development

The above theoretical reflections become vivid when applied tothe study of knowledge management as performed by agents of development. Case study insights revealed that in many cases, these agents have developed interesting ways of interaction with direct resource users. Often, however, interaction is hindered by one or several of the following issues:

• Focus on adoption: Agents of development often favour adoption. Resource use practices developed by them are "extended" to direct resource users so that the latter replace (some of) their practices with the advocated new ones. Front people's performance is often evaluated by their superiors against the achieved rate of adoption. Case studies revealed, however, that direct resource users often practice adaptation, and that adaptation can improve resource use practices. "Rates" (or "degree") of "adaptation", though, are rarely accepted as performance indicators.
• Focus on technical knowledge: Agents of development often address technical issues of natural resource use. Strategicissues (and related strategic knowledge) - identified by the Workshop as being central in rural people's livelihood strategies - are not necessarily addressed.
• Refinement strategies: In case direct resource users do not adopt proposed techniques, then agents of development often mobilise supportive measures, e.g. making extension more gender sensitive, giving emphasis on social organisation, to further foster "adoption". However, basic reconsiderations of approaches are rarely done (see for example the importance of adaptation, or of strategic knowledge).
• Difference between higher level policies and front people's realities: The Workshop found that often, strategy papers and policies developed at departmental levels, or by development agencies (e.g. desk officers) or programmes, are progressive, and take into account many of the constraints mentioned here. However, the implementation of these strategies depends on the performance of the frontpeople of development ventures - who's reality to act, and the room for manoeuvre to act, is often different (see below).
• Concern with own livelihood: The Workshop showedthat the livelihood perspective should also be applied to understandagents of development. They too have to secure their livelihoods, and in this, "interacting with rural people" is one component only. Others include the need to satisfy expectations of their employers, the struggling with often low salaries, etc.

The Workshop strongly mentioned that these constraints are not always found, and that many efforts can be identified where individual agents of development, or entire projects, are taking care of them. However, in many cases studied in the field, these constraints apply.

2.5. From knowledge management to learning cultures

The Workshop endorsed the view that direct resource users do have considerable knowledge and skills regarding natural resource use.Many negative consequences of resource use indicate, however, that some of their practices need change, and that agents of development doplay an important role in fostering improved resource use practices.Their present communication and interaction with the direct resourceusers, though, is hampered by many of the constraints mentioned above. To overcome these constraints, the Workshop proposes that knowledge management should develop more into a learning culture: </I>"Knowledge management" is often related to recent efforts for better storage, handling, retrieval and distribution of information. Improvements in information handling can indeed be important, but there is more at stake: The development of sustainable resource use calls for interaction between people, calls upon them to communicate, accept each others' way of expression and thinking, and needs t

To enable agents of development to practice a learning culture, many things need to be addressed. During the Workshop, the following emerged:

• Principle: Agents of development need empathy. But they also need to be aware of power relations.
• Communication: They need to "know the others' knowledge" - which calls for adequate training and tools.
• Strategic knowledge: Efforts to improve natural resource management have to start from a livelihood perspective, in order to identify appropriate (and more specific) interventions.
• Technical knowledge: Agents of development need to be trained in understanding processes of adaptation.
• Awareness knowledge: Potentials and constraints need to be made aware.
• Enabling environment: Agents of development oftenhave to struggle for their own livelihood security too. This needs to be taken into account.
  
  

The Workshop concluded by realising that these recommendations arestill on a general level, and that they need to be further operationalised. One way of operationalisation can be to analyse, and accompany, actual policies and implementation strategies and procedures of state departments or development donors - e.g. to empathically study the operationalisation of the new Agricultural Policy of the Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation (SDC) - a policy that recommends,among others: "SDC will strive for a better balance and complementarity between use of existing knowledge, creation of new knowledge and their adequate utilization".