Forschung

Swiss National Science Foundation - Swiss Priority Programme Environment (SPPE)
Discussion Forum North-South
Workshop Solothurn, 29 November - 3 December 1999

Knowledge Management

Minutes of Working Group

Urs Geiser, Zurich, January 2000

Contents

1. Objectives of the Working Group "Knowledge management"
2. Inputs
3. Participants
4. Programme
5. Details: Introduction
6. Recalling case studies
7. Changing livelihoods and resource use practices (and the role skills and knowledge)
8. Dimensions of "knowledge systems / learning cultures"
9. Interaction between local resource users and agents of development
10. "Knowledge management" in a livelihood context
11. Issues that support or hinder "learning cultures"
12. Final remarks

1. Objectives of the Working Group "Knowledge management"

Please note: For the overall context of the Working Group on "Knowledge management" within the Discussion Forum North-South, please refer to the introductory chapters of the Forum's Basic Document No. 5.

Objectives: The Working Group on "Knowledge Management" is intere­s­ted in learning insights on how innovative knowledge is produced, adapted, shared, learned, accep­ted, and used to change natural resource management practices into sustainable directions. Prior to the workshop in Solothurn, several researchers were invited to compile their findings in the form of draft papers which were then summarised in the Basic Document No. 5. During the Solo­thurn workshop itself, these case study insights were discussed in a comparative manner in order:

• to better understand processes of knowledge generation, adoption, etc.
• to learn from each others' experience on how to research these issues, i.e. questions of research approaches, methodologies, and methods;
• to arrive at "messages" felt important for a specific group of actors in the overall process of knowledge generation, adoption etc, i.e. "development practitioners";
• and to clarify the further procedure of the Working Group in view of publications etc.

2. Inputs

The following case studies were written prior to the Solothurn workshop:

• Madagascar: "Innovative strategies of resource users in the local knowledge management; a case study from Beforona Region, east coast of Madagascar", by P. Messerli and P.Kistler
• Kenya: "Innovation and adaptation in a new environment; knowledge management among pea­sants in the Upper Ewaso Ng'iro River Region, Kenya", by E.Künzi, in collaboration with U.Wiesmann, F.Maina
• India: "Technology adoption and livelihood security in semi-arid areas of India: need for a holistic approach", by BN Hiremath and KV Raju
• India: "Participatory research on rural livelihood: sharing research findings for local empower­ment?" by R. Baumgartner, in association with G.S.Aurora, G.K.Karanth, V.Ramaswamy
• Switzerland (planned)

In addition, two papers dealt with specific issues of "development projects":

• Kenya: "Knowledge management in domestic roof catchment projects; aspects of two case studies with women self-help groups in Laikipia district, Kenya", by A.Bisaz and M.Lutz
• Ethiopia: "Soil and water conservation: from indigenous knowledge to participatory techno­lo­gy development", by Y.G.Michael and K.Herweg.

Besides these case studies, the personal experience of workshop participants represented an other important source of inputs.

3. Participants

Fig. 1: Participants in the Working Group on "Knowledge Management"

Name	Country	Position	Case study	Presence at workshop Mo   Tu    We   Fr
Baumgartner Ruedi	Switzerland	Professor	India: South	x       x       x
Binder Claudia	Switzerland	Research Associate	-	x       x
Bisaz Arianna	Switzerland	M.Sc. student	Kenya	x       x
Filemonina Anrianantenaina	Madagascar	M.Sc. student	(Madagascar)	x       x       x       x
Geiser Urs	Switzerland	Workshop moderator	-	x       x       x        x
Herweg Karl	Switzerland	Research Associate	Ethiopia	x       x       x       x
Hiremath B.N.	India	Professor	India: Gujarat	x       x       x       x
Hurni Hans	Switzerland	Professor	-	(x)     x
Künzi Erwin	Switzerland	Ph.D. student	Kenya	x       x       x       x
Loosli Susanne	Switzerland	M.Phil. student	(Madagascar)	x       x       x       x
Lutz Marionna	Switzerland	M.Sc Student	Kenya	x       x
Peter-Hodel Wendy	Switzerland	Farm women / activist / researcher	Switzerland	x       x
Rauf Fauzia	Pakistan	Lawyer/NGO activist	-	x        x        x
Wacker Corinne	Switzerland	Research Associate	Switzerland	(x)

As Fig. 1 indicates, all except the Madagascar case study were represented by at least one of the original authors (the Madagascar case, though, was very well presented by members of the respective SPPE team).

The following persons visited the Working Group for short periods and provided interesting feedback to the Group:

• Dr. Rudolf Häberli, Programme Director SPPE
• Walter Grossenbacher, Programme Officer SPPE
• Dr. Daniel Maselli, SDC.

4. Programme

Fig. 2: Programme

Day, time

Sessions

Theme

PART I (Scientific workshop)

Monday 0930 - 1000	I: Introduction	- Welcome - Introduction of participants - Clarification of roles - Objectives, programme
1000 - 1230 1400 - 1530	II: Recalling case studies	- Madagascar - Kenya: Laikipia - Kenya: roof catchment - India Gujarat - India South - Ethiopia
1530 - 1730	III. Livelihood complexity and sources of knowledge
2000 - 2045	(continuation of session II)	- case study Switzerland
2045 - 2130	IV. Dimensions of knowledge management
Tuesday 0900 - 1230	V. Selected issues of knowledge management	Group A: Interaction between local resource users and agents of development Group B: Conceptual approach to the understanding of rural livelihoods and knowledge management
1400 - 1630	(interim presentation of preliminary findings to the entire workshop)
1630 - 1800	VI. Issues that support or hinder improved knowledge management

PART II (Preparation for dialogue with development practitioners)

Wednesday 0900 - 1200		Review of findings and decision regarding issues for presentation on Friday Drafting poster presentation
Thursday		Finalising poster presentation

PART III ( Dialogue with development practitioners)

Friday 0915 - 1130	Dialogue first part	Presentation and discussion of posters A - D in address groups
1130 - 1230	Dialogue second part	Plenary discussion on poster E

The Solothurn workshop consisted of three parts, with some participants joining in selected parts only (see Fig. 1). The three parts were (Fig. 2):

• "Scientific part": comparative discussion of the case study findings in view of a better understanding of knowledge management (Monday, Tuesday).
• Identifying "key messages" for "development practitioners" (Wednesday, Thursday).
• Presentation of key messages to, and interaction with, development practitioners (Friday). On this day, several people from development practice came to Solothurn to listen to the Working Group's findings, and discuss them (see Fig. 3 for a list of participants).

Fig. 3: Participants in the Friday workshop

Name	Designation
Eggenberger Markus	Institute for Regional Planning (ORL), ETHZ Zurich
Fässler Olivia	Intercooperation, Berne
Grieder Christine	SDC Section Agriculture, Berne
Grossenbacher Walter	SPPE Ofice Berne
Guntern Joseph	Consultant, Biel
Lys Jon-Andri	Swiss Commission for Research Partnership with Developing Countries KFPE, Berne
Salmeron Diego	Institute for Regional Planning (ORL), ETHZ Zurich
Sauvain Paul	SEREC, Bruson
Speich Nadine	SDC Berne
Würtenberger Laura	Commission for Development Issues; Zurich University; Zurich
Zahner Philippe	SDC Section Environment, Forest, Energy
Zeller Thomas	SDC Section East Africa
Zellweger Tonino	(Moderator)
Züberbühler Nora	Commission for Development Issues; Zurich University; Zurich
Plus members of the Discussion Forum North-South's Working Group on Participation: Yacob Arsano, Ethiopia Paul Bayili, Burkina Faso Gueladio Cisse, Burkina Faso Bui Thi Lang, Vietnam Francesca Maina, Kenya Shaukat Sharer, Pakistan Alain Viaro, Switzerland Manuel Flury, Switzerland

The structure of the Group's presentation to the development practitioners is shown in Fig. 4. The Working Group argued that researchers dealing with (rural) knowledge systems can

• contribute to a better understanding of such knowledge systems;
• provide insights into knowledge systems by analysing and assessing specific contexts;
• and contribute to a dialogue with practitioners by reflecting on possible options to support learning cultures.

An excellent interface between this understanding, and the world of development practice, is given by the new Agricultural Policy of SDC (Swiss Development Cooperation). It states: "SDC will strive for a better balance and complementarity between use of existing knowledge, creation of new knowledge and their adequate utilization" (for a summary of this policy, see the Basic Document No. 5).

To illustrate the Working Group's contribution to such efforts, and in order to enter into a dialogue with the development practitioners during the Friday workshop, the Working Group presented four posters, the contents of which emerged out of the debates from Monday to Wednesday:

• Poster A: Components of knowledge systems (see Fig. 10).
• Poster B: An example of a conceptual framework (see Fig. 13).
• Poster C: Livelihoods: Complexity, change, and sources of knowledge (see Fig. 8).
• Poster D: Knowledge management by local resource users and agents of development (Fig. 12).

These posters were discussed in address groups, stimulating a final plenary discussion that reflected on possible options for support. This discussion was introduced through a fifth poster:

• Poster E: Improving interaction / learning culture.

Please note: As the Working Group findings presented on Friday emerged out of the earlier debates in the Group, the present minutes combine the discussions from Monday to Wednesday with the respective exchange with development practitioners on Friday.

Fig. 4: Overview on the presentation to development practitioners (Friday)

 

5. Details: Introduction

Case studies as starting points: The moderator opened the workshop by stating that the case studies (summarised in the Basic Document No. 5) are forming the key input into the forthcoming discussions. He thanked all the authors for their efforts. The theme of "knowledge management" was not necessarily at the core of their respective SPPE projects, but they made an important effort to compile related issues identified during their research.

Most of the case studies are looking (at least in parts) at specific rural settings, and they all apply a livelihood perspective. A livelihood perspective means that the studies address how people try to ensure, or try to improve, their "livelihoods", i.e. how they combine farming (and different kinds of farming) with the use of other natural resources (such as forests) and with the earning of income in cash or kind from outside farming (such as seasonal off-farm labour or returns from social networks). Of special interest for the Discussion Forum is the part of livelihoods that has to do with natural resources, i.e. the use of land, soils, water and vegetation. All the case studies report on the complexity of livelihoods, and this in time and space (e.g. the combination of rainfed and irrigated agriculture; the combination of agriculture with animal husbandry; the production for self-consumption and for marketing, etc.).

The practices of using natural resources (within livelihoods) are guided by skills and knowledge people have acquired over time. These may stem from their own (conscious) experimenting, or from trial and error; they may stem from what people saw others doing, by trying to adopt or adapting what others do, and so on. These resource use practices of course have consequences at household level as well as higher societal levels: They may help the families to sustain their living, even improve it; but these practices may also overuse some resource components.

Certain practices would be in need of change to avoid negative consequences. Changing resource use practices needs new skills and new knowledge on how to do it – and that is where the core interest of this workshop lies: How do people acquire skills and related knowledge required to make their resource use practices more sustainable.

Entry points for the workshop:  This workshop can not produce a blueprint on how rural people should acquire new skills for improved resource management, or define the role state agencies have to play in this process – but what it can try to do is to brainstorm on issues that support, or hinder, such processes: By comparing the insights gained in the different case studies, the workshop can discuss whether there are similar issues playing a role in these localities, or whether each situation is specific, not allowing for generalisations.

One way to discuss is to focus on problem issues. People in Madagascar for example overuse soils on slopes under shifting cultivation. Thus, the Working Group could discuss on  the kinds of practices required to overcome this problem, and discuss how related skills and knowledge can be generated and diffused. The Group could then compare this with the problem of watershed management in South India, or the overuse of water resources in the Kenya example. And the Group most likely would then discuss problems of how to motivate people to change practices.

The moderator called this approach a bit provocative as a tunnel vision: By concentrating on "problem issues", one may miss positive changes, and capacities for change, on the part of local resource users.

He therefore proposed a different approach which would not focus on "negative issues", but on "change". As a matter of fact, all the studies report that many people in the case study localities are changing their resource use practices – though not necessarily in the way we might like it: They for example put more land under cultivation in Gujarat; they introduce cash crops into the shifting cultivation in Madagascar: and they introduce a whole new system of irrigation in South India. All these "changes" somehow or the other call for new skills and knowledge in technical and institutional fields. Therefore, he recommended to enter the discussion by first looking at "the reality of change" (what kinds of changes do you see; what are their consequences), and then gradually approach questions of knowledge management (who initiated the changes observed; from where do related knowledge and skills stem; etc.).

This introduction resulted in the following sequencing of the discussions:

• In a first round, the Working Group compared the case study findings on the structures of livelihoods, changes in livelihoods, the question of the types of knowledge involved in these changes, and the sources of this knowledge (see chapter 7).
• In a second round, issues and dimensions of knowledge management were listed and compiled (see chapter 8).
• In a third round, selected details within knowledge management were addressed (interaction between local resource users and agents of development; see chapter 9; conceptual approach to processes of knowledge management; see chapter 10).
• And finally, issues were identified that support or hinder improved knowledge management (see chapter 11).

But first, the case study findings were recalled (see chapter 6).

6. Recalling case studies

All the case studies were presented to recall their main findings. For details on the studies, please refer to the Discussion Note No. 5.

In addition, findings from the Swiss study were presented (which are not included in the Discussion Note No. 5). 

7. changing livelihoods and resource use practices (and the role OF skills and knowledge)

Group questions: In order to enter into a comparative discussion along the lines outlined in chapter 5, the workshop participants formed two groups (A and B), and each group was  requested to debate the questions shown in Fig. 5:

Fig. 5: Questions for group discussion

Livelihoods; livelihood changes: What changes in livelihoods do you see (in your case studies)? What changes take place in natural resource use practices? Which emphasis is given to changing natural resource use practices within livelihoods? Knowledge management: What kinds of new skills and knowledge are involved in these changes (technical, institutional)? From where do people get the new skills and knowledge? Consequences What are the consequences of these changes?             Compare case study insights: similarities? differences?

Findings of Group A: These are given in Fig. 6. The group choose a matrix approach by listing the key questions and then collecting respective insights from the participants. The subsequent discussion in the plenary circled around some of the statements, mainly questioning their normative nature. As an example, the group states that (based on their case study experience) traditional social networks become increasingly unreliable. The discussion indicated, though, that such networks in a first place are changing; the question whether they become unreliable, and for whom, needs detailed analysis.

In general, the discussion reiterated the complexity of livelihoods, and the reality of change – hinting at the basic fact, that much knowledge and new skills are involved. Regarding the sources of these skills and knowledge, the discussion revealed the importance of inmigrants and relatives.

Findings of Group B: These are given in Fig. 7. The insights to Pakistan were provided by the Pakistani member of the group. The group emphasized on the consequences, which often correspond to the findings of group A.

Summary for presentation in the "Friday workshop": The discussion showed that the use of natural resources is just one component of often complex livelihoods. Knowledge management related to natural resources is thus embedded in a wider arena of knowledge management – which needs to be better understood even if one wants to focus on natural resources. This point was considered as crucial, and thus a poster was compiled on Wednesday that contained the following key issues (see Fig. 8):

• The complexity of livelihoods, and the embeddedness of decision making regarding natural resources within a wider arena of decision making requirements.
• The reality of change of livelihoods.
• The consequences of these changing livelihoods
• The sources of knowledge playing a role in changing livelihoods. The case studies identified inmigrants, relatives, or seasonal migration as main sources of knowledge.

Feedback during the "Friday workshop": The poster was presented by Working Group members on Friday to development practitioners, inviting their comments. Most of them supported the statement of livelihood complexity, and showed  interest in the finding, that more formal "agents of development" (e.g. development projects, extension services, etc.) played a minor role in knowledge management (as far as the case studies are concerned). Some other comments included:

• What is the influence of globalisation on (local) livelihoods, and changes in livelihoods?
• There are many other issues (besides skills and knowledge) that influence livelihood changes.
• The poster mentions many negative consequences of the livelihood changes: Would these be even worse without new skills and knowledge?
• "New knowledge"  should make the best out of existing system ("not reaching sky").
• How could improved knowledge management be promoted through immigration?
• Importance of media as an origin of new skills and knowledge.
• The consequences are formulated too negative only.
• What is the role of the state (rules, politics)?
• By separating positive and negative consequences, it might be easier to know "where to start".

One important feedback (that emerged already during the Working Group's internal debates) refers to the quality of statements by the researchers. Very often, when analysing processes of change in rural livelihoods, researchers enter into normative statements: a change  is for example described as "loss of traditional community ties that earlier ensured sustainable resource use". Discussion showed that in a first step, researchers might highlight (in a more neutral manner) that for example institutional regulations are changing; in a second step, the nature of this change might be described; and assessed in a third step – whereby the researcher should clarify his/her position out of which change is assessed (e.g. whether he/she feels that in earlier times, arrangements really ensured sustainability). Many of the statements in Fig. 6 - 8  regarding  "consequences" would read differently if such a procedure would be applied.

Fig. 6: Findings of Group A (session III)

Changes in livelihood	Changes in resource use practices	Importance of resource use in livelihood	New skills, knowledge (manage-ment)	Origin of new skills and knowledge	Consequen-ces of changes (impact)
increasing scarcity of resources increasingly unre-liable traditional social networks increasing social disparity, selected access to resources more individual-isation increasing depend-ancy on off-farm resources and networks push and pull factors of migration	more crop land, less forests and common grazing land decreasing quality of resources intensificat-ion of production green revolution technologies diversificat-ion of products, decreasing varieties	depends on availability of off- farm opportunit-ies	needs information on markets, com-patibility, performance; needs new breeds, varieties taking risk of inno-vation if livelihood secured (India) cannot afford not to experiment (Kenya) adaptation of research findings openness and flexibility needed	local innovative potential and experiment-ation friends and relatives, immigrants, returning migrants NGOs schools	new skills, new dependencies (e.g. knowledge import) flood of information limited access to information for land users according to wealth, connections, etc. additional capacity needed to obtain, manage new information erosion and re-trieval of traditional knowledge impacts on traditional institutions

Fig. 7: Findings of Group B (session III)

Changes  in livelihood	New skills developed for sustaining livelihood	Consequences
Madagascar: immigrants bring new technologies and culture vanishing resource base innovations by NGOs and govt. organisations from subsistence to market orientation	Madagascar: irrigated rice through immigrants cash crops (ginger) pork technical skills and infrastructure for innovations through NGOs, Govt.	dependency on market increased mobility undermining traditional skills more work for women individualisation new institutions new dependencies diversification social mobility generation conflicts new alliances between rural and urban people, regional, national, international more awareness growing social disparity skills sharing increasing role of parties and politics new power distribution between man and woman more women in village politics more women in public space politisation of communities
Kenya: change of land use competition for water agricultural knowledge not  adapted resistance to change  if not culture-bound	Kenya: water tank technology through NGOs, Govt., social networks women self help groups awareness creation through churches, seminars, NGOs, Govt.
India: occupational diversification (seasonal migration) changing village governance move from local to external resource mobilisation	India: irrigated agriculture (NGOs, Govt.) cash crops (NGOs, Govt., own initiative) social networking with parties (own initiative) off-farm occupations (own initiative) education, literacy (Govt.) credit schemes (NGOs)
Pakistan: regulative interest of influential people industrial development macro projects (dams) vanishing of traditional livelihood resources	Pakistan: move from fishing to farming move into textile industries (own initiative) women stitching (NGOs, Govt., donors) organisation among women, alphabetisation energy saving, smokeless stove garden project

Fig. 8:  The "livelihood poster"

(Click on image to view the poster)

 

8. Dimensions of "knowledge management"

The recalling of the case studies (session II), and the discussion of the relationship between livelihood changes and changes in skills and related knowledge, revealed a wide array of issues. In session IV, an attempt was made to list and group issues of relevance to knowledge management. This brainstorming resulted in a first rough typology (see Fig. 9).

A debate emerged on the meaning of "knowledge management". For some, this notion relates to recent efforts for better storage, handling, retrieval and distribution of information – thus more the technical dimension of information handling. For others, such kind of information (or knowledge) handling is only one part of a broader understanding – which might better be labeled as "learning", or "learning cultures": besides technical aspects, such an understanding also addresses questions of the enabling (or disenabling) environment for learning, and for making use of, or creating, new knowledge. It also looks at politics (e.g. access to information and knowledge). Therefore, the Group gave preference to the notion of "knowledge systems", and "leaning cultures".

Fig. 9: A first rough typology of issues relevant in knowledge systems

Knowledge types	Knowledge dimensions	Communication	Enabling environment	Actors, stakeholders	Politics of knowledge
technical institutional strategic/management awareness	adaptation reproduction production	interaction between stakehold. networks	institutional support access to additional means	farmers, men, women relatives, migrants development agents (NGOs, Govt., projects)	• control

Presentation for Friday: The above issues were further discussed, and the results presented on a poster for Friday (see Fig. 8).  Some of the points highlighted in the poster include:

• There are various groups of people involved in a knowledge system, and in a learning culture. Immigrants and relatives are very important sources of knowledge.
• Communication is a very important dimension in a knowledge system / learning culture, and this from individual to groups to larger societal entities. Individuals for example may "know" things tacitly, i.e. without talking about this knowledge. Interaction with others in the local context, or with outsiders, requires that this individual (tacit) knowledge is "expressed", i.e. made explicit. Again, there is a need to communicate between local resource users and e.g. external agents of development – communication that always requires the making explicit of knowledge, experience, and intentions. Communication is thus essential for a shared perception.
• Various types of knowledge were mentioned, ranging from technical (cultivation practices; crop-specific issues; etc.) to institutional (how to organise; related rules and regulations) and strategic (how to improve one's livelihood when many things need to be considered). Awareness knowledge refers to people being "aware" of the context of their lives.
• Knowledge is handled, e.g. produced, adopted, adapted, etc.
• Knowledge is controlled by some, thus giving others selected access only, etc.

Researchers often try to "model" these dimensions of learning cultures / knowledge systems in order to facilitate analysis, and allow normative recommendations. But the Working Group stated that the nature of learning cultures and knowledge systems are very location specific, and need to be analysed in great detail – being rather skeptical on the possibility for much generalisation (as required in models).

Feedback on the panel on Friday: Some of the feedbacks were:

• We need more knowledge on the "enabling environment" (e.g. role of subsidies).
• Communication of knowledge: different actors talk in different languages.
• Interlinkages between local decision making and decisions at higher levels are difficult.
• What is the impact of national policies?
• The introduction of external techniques needs follow-up.
• How to connect alien and local? Train outsiders to understand adaptation.
• Projects top up salaries to create enabling environment.
• Do we have knowledge about "strategic knowledge"?
• Do we know how local resource users think?
• Is there a need for capitalisation on knowledge, retrieval, need to store?
• Hybrid knowledge needs open-mindedness.

Fig. 10: Components of knowledge systems and knowledge management

(Click on image to view the poster)

9. "Learning culture" between local resource users and development agents

The Working Group then selected two issues for further probing:

• Group A: Issues relevant in the knowledge management between "local people" and "agents of development"; this was selected specifically in view of the Friday workshop, where mainly people from development practice were expected.
• Group B: Conceptual issues of knowledge management in a rural context (for findings see chapter 10).

Discussion and findings of Group A: This group compared their case study insights regarding the interaction between local resource users and "agents of development". This notion encompasses those actors from formal development ventures, that have direct contact with the local land users. "Development ventures" can be the formal agricultural research and extension systems (with extension staff as "front people"), specific development projects, NGO efforts (e.g. with their "change agents"), etc. These "front people" are often "backed-up" by people and structures at higher levels (up to the level of desk officers in development agencies in the North). The findings of the brainstorming are given in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11: A first brainstorming on knowledge by "agents of development"

Knowledge on different issues	Knowledge management	Actors; gender  issues; networks	Enabling environment	Disabling environment
awareness of resource degradation	extension has a mandate (agenda)	awareness of gender issues is there, but put into practice?	demand driven extension, paid services	distance extension-community
no awareness of land users awareness	top-down approach and programming	interaction with social organisations?	friendly Govt. policies (Coop. laws, India)	rapid turn-over of personnel, no institutional memory
technology oriented	sectoral and theoretical knowledge	following fashions and catch words (gender, empowerment, etc.)	NGO extension more accepted than Govt.	securing own survival
	focus: adoption, not open for adaptation (related to fixation on performance indicators, e.g. from logical framework)

Presentation for Friday: The findings of this group (as well as some of the findings of group B) were then compiled on a poster for Friday (see Fig. 12a and 12b).  The main point of this poster is the following: Case study insights suggest that the relative role of agents of development, and local resource users within "learning cultures" can often be distinguished. While local resource users often emphasis the adaptation (or accommodation) of  new knowledge to support and fit their livelihoods, outside agents often favor adoption. In case local resource users do not adopt, then supportive measures are mobilised, e.g. making extension more gender sensitive, giving emphasis on social organisation, etc.

The situation of the agents of development was then further analysed (see Fig. 12 b).

Feedback during Friday workshop: Some of the participants challenged the analytical approach selected in this presentation, i.e. the comparison of local resource users with external agents. Working Group members maintained, though, that these characteristics emerged from the case studies. Other feedbacks included:

• Approaches of agents of development are changing.
• Differentiation is necessary between person at local level and institutional level.
• There is often no coordination between agents of development (fundamentally different approaches).
• Political interests and hidden agendas play an important role.
• Policy dialogue and local interaction each take place in different frameworks and localities,
• so that effective communication and exchange is not easy.
• Hidden agendas should be put on the table, and should be addressed in the process of interaction (over time).
• Local resource  users and development agents need adaptation of approach for each others knowledge perspective.

(Click on image to view the poster)

Fig. 12a: The Poster on knowledge management between local users & agents of development

Fig. 12b: (Poster continued)

Assessment of "agents of development" Conflicts of interest: hidden agendas consern for own livelihood self-image of expert Institutional-organisational issues: rapid staff turn-over lacking institutional memories Skills, experiences: lack of communication skills Mandate and orientation: programming by paradigm (upwards; fashions) pressure for quick success "donor driven"

10. "Knowledge management" in a livelihood context

Findings of Group B: This group focused on the following three issues:

• How do people perceive the state of their natural resource base (and the state-strategy-problem, i.e. from perception of state to strategy for action)?
• How are their own visions and solutions challenged by external knowledge?
• How to merge internal and external knowledge plus other resources (all are needed for solutions)?

The group approached these issues by applying one specific concept to the understanding of rural livelihoods and related knowledge management, i.e. the approach developed in the SPPE project "Rural Livelihoods" (see case studies by Hiremath et al, and Baumgartner et al.). This project uses a "nine-square mandala" for the analysis of rural livelihoods (for a description see the case study of Hiremath et al), and a "local knowledge portfolio" for the analysis of knowledge management (for a description see the case study by Baumgartner et al).

These concepts were introduced to the group, which then tried to apply them on the example of the roof catchment case study from Kenya. The group found that:

• Women in the study area needed water at household level. The solution of rain (roof) water tanks emerged.
• The available knowledge  in the local livelihood system included: water use, group organisation, project management.
• Knowledge provided by external actors included: technical knowledge (tank construction), health, sanitation, problem-solution awareness.
• But the project did not achieve expected results.
• What went wrong? The women were not able to build the tanks with knowledge "how to do it!" No financial assistance was given from their husbands; i.e. decision-making processes were not properly addressed by the project. Further explanations include: technical training inadequate; too short; not enabling; hidden agenda of trainers to maintain dependency of women.

From this analysis, the group concluded:

• The tank construction was just considered an issue of technology and awareness, neglecting the knowledge on gender and social systems.
• Assumption: women are already working in functioning groups; thus lack of institutional knowledge.
• Knowledge appropriation by women was not properly conceived by the project.

Discussion of group findings: The group members reported that they perceive the two conceptual approaches as interesting. They, however, were not in a position to apply them within the short period available in the workshop. More time would be required to get familiarized. It was also mentioned that the Mandala was not "explaining" rural livelihoods, but was intended to provide a checklist for analysis.

Presentation for Friday: The Working Group felt that the Mandala is one way of approaching rural livelihood issues, and that this approach should be presented to the development practitioners. A poster was thus compiled which illustrates the use of the Mandala on the case of one individual farmer in Gujarat, India (see Fig. 13a; Fig. 13b gives details on the farmer).

Feedback from Friday workshop: Feedbacks included:

• Is there a manual describing the use of the Mandala for actual analysis in the field?
• The Mandala is not explaining livelihoods; analysis depends then on the specific contexts.
• Can the nine square mandala be used under urban situations?
• Can the nine square mandala be used under Swiss condition situations?

Fig. 13a: Poster: A conceptual framework for understanding rural livelihoods (see Fig. 13b)

(Click on image to view the poster)

Fig. 13b: The farmer in Fig. 13a (Text by HN Hiremath)

Kanu Visiya Katara (Kanubhai) is a farmer in Bhoraj faliya (hamlet) of Mahudi village. Mahudi is located in the Panchmahals district of Gujarat, India. His case analysis illustrates the multi-facetted considerations of a farmer in arriving at a decision to adopt a new technology.  He perceives that his family is above the livelihood security threshold.

The Family: Kanubhai (50 years) is head of a joint family with 19 members. The three sons and their wives are living with Kanubhai on the farm.  He has two unmarried daughters. None of the family members are literate. Only the younger children are in school. He has a address mud house on one of the elevations of the hills of Bhoraj faliya that is inadequate. To accommodate the large family, Kanubhai constructed another house for his younger son and his family. Kanubhai, his wife, and 2 elder sons with their families share the old house, which has 3 rooms and a kitchen.

Cultural Identity: Being a follower of "Guru -Jyotisar" he preaches the tribal community to speak the truth, to be self-reliant and self-dependent, to practice non-violence, to avoid superstitious beliefs, to maintain peace at home, to practice vegetarianism and non-alcoholism, to discourage bride price, etc. The white flag hoisted on top of his house indicates that he is a follower of the Bhagat ideology. Since Kanubhai did not accept bride price during the marriage of his 2 daughters, he encourages others to follow it. He believes that his belonging to the Bhagat Panth has enabled him to maintain a cohesive joint family, to take collective decisions, to reduce wasteful expenditure and to make the family self-reliant and self-dependent. Kanubhai's social, cultural and traditional responsibilities towards festival celebration, birth, death and marriage rituals prevent him from moving out of the tribal society. The tribal community also has strong emotional attachment towards their ancestor's stones, land and ritual with cattle, the temple, fast on particular festivals etc.

Resources: Kanubhai owns 2.5 acres of land out of which 2 acres are irrigated. On the 2 acres of irrigated land he grows crops, and the other 0.5 acres of land are used for growing trees and for grazing cattle. He owns 2 bullocks, 1 cow and 2 goats. In addition, Kanubhai has a address kitchen garden near his house where he grows chillies, brinjal, lady’s fingers, beans, red pumpkins on the roof, bottle guord, castor and tobacco to meet his family's needs. However, the land has not yet been divided among the children.

Personal Traits: Kanubhai is open-minded, innovative, extrovert and co-operative in nature. He would like to analyse a new technology before its adoption. As per his own perception, he has crossed the line of livelihood security and is willing to take more risk and experiment with new crops. At the same time, he thankful for having a joint family which is crucial for labour intensive agriculture. In recent years, he has started providing loans to other farmers as moneylender.

He undertook tomato cultivation on scientific lines three years ago. The crop was grown under economic rationale and the motive was to maximise profits - a deviation from nor­mal traditional approach towards growing staple food crops. To have a proper understanding of his decision-making behaviour, it is essential to note the background that led him to technology adoption.

Technology Adoption: The Sadguru Water and Development Foundation (SWDF) built a check-dam across Macchan River in 1993. The check-dam provides irrigation to the farmers living in Bhoraj hamlet. Irrigation co-operative was formed to manage the check-dam. The successful operation of the Bhoraj Irrigation Co-operative Society is attributed to the co-operative nature of Katara caste who belongs to Bhagat Panth. The Bhagat Panth brings them together with a strong cohesive feeling. Kanubhai is one of the active members of the Irrigation Co-operative Society.

Before the check-dam was built he used to grow a mixed crop of maize and pigeon pea (upland) and paddy (lowland) in the Kharif season and a mixed crop of maize and gram in the Rabi sea­son.  In summer, land was kept fallow. Importance was given to maize as this met the food re­quire­ment of the family and fodder for the animals.  The cultivation practices were traditional and the use of chemicals in the field to increase yield was minimal.  The grain yield was low, about 350 kilos per acre. The income generated from land did not offer a livelihood security for the family. He along with his sons had to undertake seasonal migration for generating enough income to maintain the family.  With the check-dam near Bhoraj faliya, some farmers started cultivating three crops a year. The availability of water not only reduced the risk of crop failure, but also increased the yield of crops substantially (2-3 times). With the increased yields, the families were assured of livelihood security. Irrigation did not induce an instantaneous change in farmers' agricultural technologies or practices. The increase in yield was mainly due to the availability of water rather than improved practices. However, the increase in crop yields was sufficient to bring down the magnitude of seasonal migration. The various shifts observed in Bhoraj faliya are:

• some farmers started growing two to three crops a year
• cultivating a pure crop of maize rather than  a mixed crop
• adopting improved varieties of some crops  
• experimenting with various cash crops
• shift towards commercial crops
• increased application of fertilisers and chemicals
• drop in the magnitude of seasonal migration.

In the case of Kanubhai, the intervention by SWDF had two effects. The first was to give him an opportunity to do labour work on the construction site of the check-dam and thus not go for seasonal migration.  He could save some money earned from such work and thereby increase his assets. The second facilitated him to take three crops in a year as against two.

"Things have changed. Earlier the Kharif crop used to be dependent on monsoon rains and the Rabi crop was dependent on the availability of leftover moisture in the soil. Now, we are assured of irrigation water and we can take up to 3 crops in a year.“

Instead of growing maize mixed with other pulse crops, he started cultivating a pure crop of local maize. The yields increased noticeably. He could meet the food and fodder requirements of his family and animals from the increased production of maize. Once the basic food and fodder requirements were met, Kanubhai ventured to grow cash crops. The change was gradual.

Kanubhai’s case illustrates that the process of technology adoption gains momentum with a positive change in the physical base. With an assured water supply, Kanubhai had the following options to increase his income:

• Growing high yielding variety of staple crops using fertilisers and chemicals and go in for a market-oriented agriculture, i.e., shift to cash or commercial crops.
• Diversify his activities by shifting to non-farm activities like flourmill, shops, etc.

He has used all three options in variation. Kanubhai did not go for high yielding varieties of maize. He still prefers to grow local varieties of maize on part of his land because of his family's preferences and needs take priority over the market considerations. On the remaining part of the land he continues to experiment with different commercial/cash crops for the market. With the increased yield from agriculture due to water availability and the „monetary cushion“ provided by the migratory income, Kanubhai could pull himself out of the livelihood threshold level. Once livelihood security was assured he shifted to cultivation of groundnut. Here also the technology package was not adopted in total. Kanubhai also experimented with soybeans for one season. Although he succeeded in the experiment, he abandoned soybeans due to non-availability of a market. He then decided to experiment with tomatoes and he succeeded. There was a ready market for tomatoes. At present, he grows tomatoes while he continues his experimenting with other crops like potatoes, green chillies, brinjal, etc. Not only availability of water and markets but also joint family (labour) financial means from irrigation, availability of technical know-how,  negative effects of fertilisers on the soil, among others influenced his decisions. "Income from migration is used for cash and Chandla and for purchasing seeds, fertiliser and for irrigation."

The assets of Kanubhai increased with the increased income from his fields and the savings from migration work.  He started lending out money against usury rights of the land.  He found this venture to be more profitable than depositing in banks or diversifying in non-farm activities.

 „It's better to cultivate land by taking it on mortgage rather than investing it in other activities like opening shops.  In the case you open a shop you will have to give material to others on credit terms and the Bhil community is not very good in paying you back, this leads to fights within the community.“

Kanubhai came to know about the cultivation of tomato crops, during his migrations to other areas before the check-dam, but he could not undertake tomato cultivation in his own fields, as the resources available with him were not adequate then. More importantly, at that time he was below the livelihood security threshold. However, after the check-dam, Kanubhai could experiment with his knowledge base once he was assured of food for his family (he never experimented with a crop at the expense of maize and paddy). He diversified his profession (assuming the role of a moneylender) and agricultural practices (experiments with new crops and chemicals). Thanks to the stability and relative security of his livelihood system, Kanubhai's orientation changed from subsistence towards the market.

Decision Analysis of Kanubhai: Kanubhai on one occasion said,  „ I have covered all costs of production today and the next six months of yield of tomatoes is going to be all profit. It was a costly venture and a very risky one at that time, as the initial investments were very high and the products not too sure, as it is for the first time that someone is growing tomatoes in this region. It has been successful and I would continue with this crop next season also.“

From the above statement, any economist would say that it must be purely economic rationale that prompted him to go for commercial agriculture; but if we look more closely, along with water availability there are other non-economic and non-physical factors that also were equally important in arriving at his decision (see Figure 13a). It is no doubt that the physical basis got expanded purely due to water and lift irrigation co-operative society. To manage the water delivery system, the Bhagat Panth and mutual co-operative nature among Katara Bhils are equally important than purely physical thing of water and land. Again, the degree of cohesiveness among Katara community (among the family members and houses) is found to be very strong; maybe they are the people from the same genealogy. One may not find this kind of co-operative and cohesive nature in any co-operative society.

Despite their illiteracy, Kanubhai and his family has adopted cash-crop technology by using locally made agric. implements and adapting technologies to grow tomato. Skills, craftsmanship within the family, individual capability, personal innovativeness, also facilitated efficient allocation of land to staple food crops, commercial crops and for pasture/forests based on their family food, fodder and fuel needs. Despite water availability, they preferred to grow local varieties of maize - Nani- and Moti- gangli - for home consumption. It was easy for them to go for other commercial crops, sell them and buy back local maize for home consumption. This suggests that economic and market considerations alone are not deciding factors in technology adoption. Tomato being a labour-intensive crop he would have faced labour problems during the peak requirement of labour had he depended on hired labour. Given his large joint family and the members' willingness to farm collectively he did not anticipate any labour constraints. The women folks in the family have equally participated in the tomato cultivation on the farm as well as at home.

The family preference for a secure village life within the tribal society with its culture and customs, rituals and festivals, births, marriage and death, ancestors' tombs, land, house etc., were also some of the contributing factors to technology adoption. Being in familiar surroundings gives him a sense of control over his destiny. His experiences during seasonal migration to distant places were not so pleasant. Living on streets, harassment by police, thefts, etc., and the sense of being physically and psychologically insecure are memories he would like to forget. Being in unfamiliar surroundings gave him a sense that his destiny was not under his control.

Kanubhai's personality characters like courage, being open minded and extrovert in nature, innovative and his willingness to learn, etc. along with his perceptions about himself as a moneylender, forest owner, experimenter; learner etc., were equally important contributors in his decision-making. Being in harmony with nature and a nature lover, Kanubhai does not use pesticides (although he uses chemical fertilisers) saying, „insect-pests are part of nature“. One can not put market value of son or girl in case of marriage, to implement it family does not accept any bride price and encourage others to do it.

Money saved from seasonal migration, wages earned during check-dam construction and selling Nilgiri trees as timber was successfully invested in tomato cash-crop technology. It was also used for mortgaging land for production purposes, which any other family had not ventured in the village. The market forces also governed the new crop adoption and he had to react to these forces even though he was illiterate and ignorant at once. Kanubhai would not have undertaken tomato cultivation, in case of an absence of a nearby market.  He discontinued soybeans, as there was no market for the produce.  Availability of agriculture inputs like credit from LAMPS and water through the lift irrigation society was also instrumental in the shift. 

In comparing the returns from tomato crop with other crops like maize or paddy, he mentioned that tomatoes give more profit than the other crops.  The proceeds of sale from tomatoes can be used for other purposes. Yet, he has no intention to stop growing local maize and shift entirely to tomatoes as his family is fond of local maize for their consumption.

11. Issues that support or hinder "knowledge management"

Discussion and findings: Having discussed various dimensions of knowledge management, the Working Group then embarked on a general brainstorming on issues that support, or hinder, improved knowledge management. In this, the Group addressed specifically the interaction between local resource users and agents of development (again because of the Friday event).  Improved knowledge management here meant specifically an improved culture of interaction and exchange  regarding "learning" between the involved actors. Three questions were addressed in the brainstorming :

• What are issues that can support and facilitate improved knowledge management?
• What are issues that hinders this?
• And: how could these hindering issues be overcome?

The results of the brainstorming were later grouped into statements of similar nature (Fig. 14).

Presentation on Friday: The brainstorming on supporting and hindering issues presented an effort by the Working Group – and thus by the "researchers" – to reflect on possible ways of "intervening positively" into knowledge systems. The Group's reflections were to be presented on a poster as entry points for an exchange with the development practitioners. The poster is shown in Fig. 15  and includes, among others, the following issues:

• The Group identified relatives and inmigrants as important sources for new knowledge. Details, though, were not further discussed in the Group. The Group did also not discuss the relationship between inmigrants and relatives, and the agents of development.
• More details were elaborated regarding the relationship between agents of development, and local resource users.
• Here, general principles such as empathy and brokering are suggested to guide interaction.
• Of special concern – and often neglected in development contexts – is the concern of agents of development for their own livelihood security. Often low paid, they have to arrange "multiple livelihoods" too, within which their mandate to "support" local resource users, is only one field of activities.
• Further details are suggested regarding communication, strategic knowledge, technical knowledge, and awareness (see the poster).

Feedback in the Friday workshop: To stimulate feedback, some initial questions were posed:

• How to create an enabling environment for better knowledge management?
• Who can do what to
  • better appreciate local knowledge
  • bring in external knowledge smoothly (avoiding imposition)
  • develop innovations from local and external knowledge

Some of the feedbacks obtained were:

• It is not only the agents of development that "want to go fast"; also local responsible want.
• There is a need to move from a donors attitude to real partnership.
• Create space and framework.
• Facilitate the access to knowledge.
• Create platforms for discussion (all concerned actors).
• Donors need a long term vision.
• Platforms are required at different levels (local, regional, global).
• Go to the site; investigate to know what has to be added.
• Interaction between different levels and coordination is required.
• Not knowing others' knowledge leads to imposition.
• Put people into contact, personally, not by reports only.
• Allocate funds to enable knowledge management.
• Long term involvement in exchange, platforms is required.
• Let the users choose the technology.
• Try to hit the limiting factors.
• The level of contact between donors and the local context often defines projects; i.e. different things emerge when donors contact state, or NGOs, or others.

Please note: A separate note on the workshop findings is being prepared for distribution among development practitioners.

Fig. 14: Brainstorming (grouped) on supporting and hindering issues

Fostering /supporting	Hindering / obstacles
Attitude Respect for the knowledge of local people Local people should not be treated like objects:  rather equal partners Take responsibility for the process and give responsibility to the farmer Willingness for genuine participation no "campaigning"; demand --> advice to combine advise with empathy brokering interaction release adoption pressure from extensionists demand driven: farmer apply for financial of extension and hire extension (Peru)
Approach: recognise power relations (household, community, state) state own priority and interest continuity; long-term relationship no prefabrication of projects; operationalisation in concrete local contexts transparent goals, communication to look for common ground shared understanding of needs, problems	Hidden agendas: focus on channel and not on message insecurity in job/survival power relations; pressure for quick successful project lack of participation approaches social, cultural "barriers" lack of willingness, understanding conflict of interests focus on concepts of paradigms of donors instead on the needs of clients (land users)administrative procedures; bureaucratic set-up the self-image of being THE expert focusing on quick material results
Steps required: define problem with farmers (farm women) inquire on farmers needs discuss and elaborate (develop) priorities and solutions build up new knowledge (techniques) on local knowledge Innovations based on internal knowledge, supplemented by external  knowledge to get an idea on how people learn clear understanding of local culture and values	Obstacles: lacks of skills, experience, motivation extension not trained in gender inadequate trainings in communication skills resources: financial, material, to visit farmers regularly facilitating participation; recognizing power issues financial constraints time (opportunity costs)

(Click on image to view the poster)

Fig. 15: Poster "Towards recommendations"

12. Final remarks

These minutes document the procedures and findings of the Working Group on Knowledge Management. The Working Group was able to base the discussions on the case study findings, and to compare these findings with regards to issues such as

• the reality of livelihoods, livelihood changes, the relative role of natural resource use within such livelihoods;
• the types and sources of knowledge in such changing livelihoods;
• a rough typology of components in a knowledge system (or learning culture);
• details of interaction – within a learning culture – between certain groups of actors (here: local resource users and agents of development);
• issues that support or hinder improvements in learning cultures.

With this, the Working Group was able to enter into a lively debate with development practitioners as well as other researchers.

Less attention was given in the Working Group to theoretical issues around the conceptualisation of knowledge systems/learning cultures (e.g. differences in theoretical approaches; perceptions of societal realities in the different theoretical approaches; etc.), and related methodological and methodical issues of empirical analysis.

Please note: For the envisaged follow-up from the workshop (including formal publication of case studies), please refer to the information provided by the Discussion Forum North-South.

Interfakultäre Koordinationsstelle für Allgemeine Ökologie (IKAÖ) der Universität Bern (1988-2013)