IDRC Workshop on Common Property

IDRC Workshop on Common Property ‘From Theory to Practice and Back Again’

Oaxaca, Mexico 14-15 August 2004

IDRC Workshop on Common Property ‘From Theory to Practice and Back Again’

Oaxaca, Mexico 14-15 August 2004

International Development Research Centre PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9

IDRC. 2004. ‘From Theory to Practice and Back Again’ Report on IDRC Workshop on Common Property. 14-15 August 2004: Oaxaca, Mexico.

Copyright © 2004 IDRC This publication may be downloaded, saved, printed and reproduced for education and research purposes. When used we would request inclusion of a note recognizing the authorship and the International Development Research Centre.

Please send inquiries and comments to [email protected]

Cover Image: Daniel Buckles, IDRC, 1999. Photos: Simon Carter, IDRC, 2004 and Laura German, AHI, 2004 Design & Layout: Richard Bruneau, IDRC, 2004.

Introduction In August 2004, IDRC gathered 26 researchers for ten days in Oaxaca, Mexico in order to assess the ‘state of the art’ in research on common property resources and identify priority areas for future work. On August 8, researchers rehearsed presentations of their individual research projects and enjoyed an evening welcome reception. These presentations contributed to seven panel sessions organized by IDRC on topics of: rangelands, fisheries governance, social capital and networks, policy reforms, and the role of indigenous groups in globalization. From August 9 to 13, researchers attended the tenth biennial congress of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP), an academic organization based in Indiana University, that fosters research on issues related to common property resources such as fisheries, communal land, water, and forest. IDRC supported the creation of IASCP in 1990 and has participated in multiple IASCP meetings in the past. In addition to the panel sessions organized by IDRC, the congress was an opportunity to share current research on both traditional common property, such as forests, wildlife and water, and emerging common property, such as genetic resources and digital information. This event was held at the historic Santo Domingo Cultural Centre and gathered over 700 participants from more than 80 countries. On August 14 and 15, IDRC invited 32 researchers to a two-day workshop following the IASCP Congress. Entitled “From Theory to Practice and Back Again”, this workshop was a collective analysis of what has been learned and what needs to be learned with respect to common property research. The workshop allowed participants to share their experiences in Latin America, Asia and Africa, and explore the potential for forming a Community of Practice for understanding how research can enhance common property management. This report describes the findings from these two days.

ii

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................ii Contents ....................................................................................iii Executive Summary ..................................................................iv Workshop Structure ..................................................................vi Emerging Themes................................................................... 1 Role of the State I ..................................................................... 1 Role of the State II .................................................................... 3 Diversity and Conflict ................................................................ 4 Principles and Practice.............................................................. 6 Defining Boundaries.................................................................. 7 Open Space ............................................................................. 9 Decentralization and NRM ........................................................ 9 Collective Action and Devolution ............................................ 11 Power Relationships ............................................................... 12 Role of Researchers as an Interest Group ............................. 13 Local Institutions and ‘Other Levels’ ....................................... 15 Peer Assist............................................................................. 16 Next Steps.............................................................................. 20 Evaluation................................................................................ 22 Participant List......................................................................... 24 Photos ..................................................................................... 25

iii

Executive Summary The “From Theory to Practice and Back Again” workshop was an experiment for the Environment and Natural Resource Management (ENRM) Program Area. Rather than establishing specific learning goals and objectives, this workshop was purposefully exploratory in nature and encouraged participants to determine the workshop outputs. Some participants were confused as to the workshop’s purpose, suggesting a need for improved communication beforehand, yet this event built upon participants’ interests and priorities. This report represents the added-value of gathering researchers together to share their individual experiences, and is thus a common intellectual property relevant both to participants for their own learning and for IDRC in suggesting future research needs. The workshop was divided into four sessions entitled: emerging themes, open space, peer assist and next steps. In the emerging themes session, participants divided themselves into five concurrent roundtable discussions according to topics identified by IDRC consultant, Deborah Sick, based on the experiences at the IASCP Congress. Two roundtables focused on the role of the state in common property research. The first explored the distinction between State and government, the interaction between decentralization and markets, and conflicts amongst different levels of government. The second identified the need for researchers to understand the relationships amongst the state, bureaucracy, and the people; how culture influence the definition of the state, and assess the effects of policy implementation. A third roundtable focused on diversity and conflict and identified the need to analyze local actors and power relations prior to intervention, unpacking definitions of ‘community’ and ‘stakeholders’, in order to manage elite capture of processes and institutions over time. A fourth roundtable focused on the gap between principles and practice and concluded that researchers need to identify local capacities and base participatory practices on local understanding and practice rather than on outside research agendas. A fifth roundtable tackled the issue of defining boundaries for research in order to identify contradictions that arise from using different sets of boundaries and list tools for establishing biophysical and social boundaries. In the open space session, participants were again divided into five roundtable discussions with the distinction these topics were identified by the participants themselves. Each roundtable was challenged to identify the three most important gaps between the theory and practice in their topic and describe the implications of these gaps. The first roundtable focused decentralization and natural resource management and highlighted the need for evidence to prove the assumption that local people are always better stewards of the environment that centralized government. This discussion also noted that the implementation of decentralization often appears partial. A second group discussed collective action and devolution and identified gaps related to how to reproduce collective action, assessing whether devolution creates an enabling environment for improved NRM, how to distinguish a regulated commons from a “tragedy of the commons”. Discussion on power relationships concluded that different understandings of power can lead to problems in implementing NRM policy, yet ignoring power relations in research can reinforce existing inequity and further disadvantage the poor. A fourth roundtable discussed the role of researchers as an interest group and identified gaps between theory and practice in action-research, between research incentives and community needs, and between these interests and the agenda of research funding agencies. Finally, a fifth roundtable focused on the relationships between local institutions

iv

and higher level organizations. This discussion identified gaps between the reality observed and the models used to describe these relationships, between the theory and politics of representation, and between the policies of multilateral and grassroots organizations. One of most popular activities at the workshop was the peer assist session where participants took turns giving brief on-the-spot presentations of their own research projects in order to describe a challenge that they face in their own research or a challenge faced by people involved in the common property system studied. After each presentation, other participants shared ideas for overcoming the described challenge based on their own experiences. This session proved to be an excellent way to foster networking and learning of each other’s work. The final session on next steps was a plenary discussion to reflect on what had been accomplished during the two days and which actions are needed following the workshop. A key challenge emerging from this discussion is how can IDRC and researchers simultaneously facilitate research and develop the research capacity with the people and communities they work with. Participants also proposed forming a community of practice and expressed a desire for IDRC to support their networking and sponsor similar meetings in future. In particular, it was suggested that this same group of researchers work towards meeting again prior to the 11th IASCP Congress in 2006.

v

Workshop Structure Time

Activity

Description

14 Aug AM

Emerging Themes

To encourage discussion on emerging themes in CPR theory and practice identified by IDRC. Participants explored how each theme relates to: (1) the gap between CPR theory and practice, (2) their own research experience, and (3) what they saw or learned during the IASCP congress.

14 Aug PM

Open Space

To encourage discussion on topics identified by the participants. Individual participants wrote proposed topics on cards and contributed these to a collective card sorting exercise that identified the areas of overlap. For each of the selected topics, participants were asked to identify three main gaps between theory and practice, and to describe the implications of these gaps.

15 Aug AM

Peer Assist

15 Aug PM

Next Steps

Participants took turns giving brief presentations of their own research project, describing a challenge that they face in their own research or a challenge faced by resource users involved. After each presentation, other participants shared ideas for overcoming the described challenge based on their own experiences. 20 minutes were allocated for each participant, five minutes to present their project and challenge, and 15 minutes for feedback from peers. Time to discuss IDRC future directions, workshop outputs, publication options, and evaluate the workshop and IASCP 2004.

vi

Small Group Discussions Role of the State Diversity and Conflict Principles and Practice Defining Boundaries Decentralization Power Relationships Role of Research Local Institutions

---

Emerging Themes Role of the State I Distinction between State and Government A critical issue for understanding decentralization is the separation between the State and the Government. A simple example refers the State to an enterprise comprising a given number of partners and the latter to the managers making management of such enterprise. Therefore, while the State is atemporal the government is temporal. Other lectures of the State refers that the State is a political project. Finally, it could also be mentioned that the State is the organization of the citizens to solve the public problems through the intervention of a Government, elected by such citizens. Decentralization refers to the recognition of multiple levels of government at the national, regional, and local. However, people engage in their daily life in interactions with other people by which develop a multitude of other forms of government. Consequently, there is more than only one form of government that it is decentralized. An open question is to what extent decentralization also creates different levels in the State. The model of the nation-state being developed in most of the developing countries is exclusive by nature. The state appears to be as an abstract entity representing only the interests of some elites. As an expression of such State some governments could be represented as “private goods” favouring only some small groups linked somehow to these political elites, such as through the political parties. Therefore, local groups are engaged in a dynamic, that in part is created by decentralization, conducive to change the “rules of the game” of the exclusive State in order to build up a more inclusive one, which really can represent them. To some extent the recognition of the local governments is used as a tool to develop a more inclusive relationship among countries’ citizenships.

Decentralization and the Market Economy The model of decentralization empowering local governments, which is democratic in nature, giving political rights to local citizens is carried out along a general approach, which it is that the market is the principal mechanisms for the distribution of the resources. Therefore, while some political and financial powers are devolved at the local levels pushing the democratization of the countries, common pool resources are being granted preferentially to groups that can extract an economic benefit from them. This creates other important contradiction in the process of decentralization, which is to what extent the processes of democratization would in the long-term takeover the new economic elites emerging in the decentralized countries. It is observed in the case of Venezuela that fisheries, and shrimps enterprises are monopolizing the water resources, which are public in nature. In general, decentralization is running along a scheme of privatization of the considered previously as common pool resources. It is evident that private actors, mainly benefiting to those more economically powerful, are monopolizing the common pool resources.

1

In general there is a lack of national dialogue regarding the strategic allocation of the natural resources either as public or private. There is not an allocation of common pool resources based on criteria of what are the better rights, responsibilities, and capabilities under each of these regimes, which hinder the comprehensive use of the natural resources.

Conflicts among Levels of Government The decentralization is creating changes in the administrative structures of the countries, mainly referred as an administrative decentralization or deconcentration. However, the new emerging structures are creating confuse, overlapping, and even contradictory mandates and responsibilities among the executive units of government. For example this is the case of Mexico and Brazil that there are contradictory and duplicate mandates among the Ministries at the national level. Also, a main contradiction arises in Ministries pushing simultaneously the generation of economic benefits from the natural resources and others favouring their conservation. Both goals are at the core of the agenda of the governments. The integration of these appears still to be highly contradictory. The contradictory, and overlapping definition of mandates is also creating confusion in the resource users that do not have a clear interlocutor, limiting the achievement of the benefits of decentralization. Also, decentralization through the establishment of mandates to local levels of government is delivering rights but without the sufficient financial resources, which are raising the importance of the private organizations, such as the NGOs, to offset the weaknesses of the local governments. While some governments are losing power other local governments though do not have the necessary resources to promote local development they have the capacity to coordinate the intervention of all the organizations working at the local level.

Failures of Decentralization One of the most important failures of decentralization is to reach coherently the trade off between the devolution of rights and responsibilities among different levels of governments such as the national, regional, and local. Since decentralization in most of the countries is maintaining key decisions at the central level of government the principal failure is to recognizing the diversity. Other problem of decentralization is that it is a top-down level of government that it is missing a social vision, missing a principal objective which is that local populations capture the process for the solution of the local problems. In addition, the devolution of powers and rights to the local levels not always is accompanied with process of training and development of skills of those responsible of administering the process, creating weak local governments.

2

Role of the State II Participants in this group shared experiences and examples from several countries in order to determine a list of factors that researchers must strive to understand better with respect to the role of the state in managing common property resources. In Cuba, socialism has not resulted in local autonomy at the community level. In the Philippines, decentralization is based in local government, but local government is very focused and lacks the “big picture “ of NRM. In Ethiopia, tenure policies result in conflicts between different resource users, for example between forest and non-forest dwellers. In India, the country’s complex geography and sizable population mean multiple NRM experiments occur simultaneously and there are many opportunities for corruption. In Cambodia, NGOs have become an “industry” yet need support from state. In Brazil, the institutional framework for local participation in NRM exists, yet not much is actually done, as government does not have the capacity to implement these policies. In Mongolia, herders and local citizens are reluctant to adopt community based or co-management policies due to negative past experiences under Soviet-era state policy promoting collectivization and communal development.

Researcher must seek to understand: • Local definitions of “civil society”. This term separates state and people, state and non-state actors. Where state cooperation implies co-management schemes, non-state cooperation does not. How to empower local communities? How do grassroots organization influence policy? Limited engagement with the state engagement can weaken civil society and disempower people. •

The relationship among the state, bureaucracy, and the people including the effect of country size in the success and efficacy of these relationships. Expectations of policy differ depending on whether the state or communities develop policy. What is the connection between center and state, and how does it influence the state’s capacity to accomplish its mandate? The relationship between resource users and the state determines whether “comanagement” actually occurs on the ground.

•

How culture influence the definition of the state. Different cultural backgrounds can give rise to have divergent policy objectives. To what extent history determines policy directions? Is policy driven by consumerism? Whose interests are served by policy and what role academics and research play in policy making? What is the role of cultural institutions, such as the church or military?

•

What are the effects of policy implementation, rather than initial intentions alone. There is often a disconnect between expectations of policy-makers and what happens when policy is implemented. What are the differences between policy-maker and public mindset? Policy failure results when policy statements are too general and insensitive to specific contexts. Implementing decentralization is difficult because the theory is too general and does not take into account the diversity of states that exist. Objectives can become unclear when too many parties are involved. In countries with complex geography and/or large populations, several different initiatives of collective action can occur simultaneously.

3

•

What is the state ideology, and how this ideology influences the types of polices that are pursued? By excluding certain parties, state policies may take away access to certain resources and cause conflict.

•

What role the government should have. Resources users do not necessarily wish for less government involvement, but rather more effective government actions. Whether researchers should engage communities or the state depends on who truly acts as a catalyst for change. The state may co-opt local movements to fulfil its objectives. What is the state’s role in serving and protecting the community interests?

Diversity and Conflict Defining “Community” The existence of an uncritical definition of “community” is due to lack of understanding as well as the time required to ensure different interests are brought on board. Lack of understanding of local diversity tends to privilege wealthier or more powerful groups during interventions. It is important to understand the degree to which different groups impact actual decision-making. Research must go deeper than existing local structures for decisionmaking, because these structures often do not represent interests of different resource users. This leads to a situation whereby rules are not followed because the resource users do not have ‘buyin’. For example, in Mongolia, ‘community’ refers to a geographical area containing a number of herder households, while ‘community organization’ refers to household participating in local institutions. Analyze local actors and power relations prior to intervention. For this, a triangulation of methods is necessary. The group raised two points in this respect: a) the need to go beyond participatory approaches at community level where sensitive issues may not emerge and more systematically capturing diverse interests, and b) the non-neutrality of methods and the need to understand the political/social implications of methods being used. The question was raised, “What do you do when you have not carried out this prior analysis and you find yourself in a difficult situation in terms of who is benefiting from processes you have enabled?” It is important to bring these issues to the attention of donors and practitioners so they may understand and manage these internal dynamics. It is important to capture failures as well as successes, which are often not written about due to the program’s stake in positive outcomes (personal achievement, future funding). This discussion raises the issue of ethics, which was not discussed in much detail. Defining “Stakeholders” The basic question raised by the group was, “who defines stakeholders, and how?” The following dimensions help to define ‘stakeholders’: (1) their relationship to the problem (if they influence it or are influenced by it), (2) whether their relationship to the problem is mediated by other actors or institutions, (3) levels of participation, and (4) stakeholders’ relationships to each other (as defined through ‘emic’/insider and ‘etic’/outsider perspectives, and by different local stakeholders). Determining how stakeholders' relate to one another requires a disaggregated approach to analysis that is later synthesized to get a broader picture of a “system” of interactions and perceptions. This helps to define an intervention strategy (who to assist and how), and to avoid any single local group from co-opting benefits from interactions with outsiders.

4

It is the role of the research team or practitioner to undertake a thorough stakeholder analysis prior to intervention, for which they need greater access to tools and approaches. It is also important to monitor the impact of the process on different stakeholder groups. Yet the popularization of “participatory approaches”, “stakeholder analysis” and other tools tends to weaken the tool either because the method comes without the conceptual background of why they’re needed, there is a lack understanding of the ultimate aim of their application, or lack of incentives to go deeper (no interest in empowering due to loss of political influence of the facilitator). The group raised the question, “How can such tools be popularized without losing their strength?” One idea is to inform local actors about the need for this particular tool, so they too can analyze its effectiveness in practice. It is important to keep in mind that defining the ultimate aim of the tool’s application is a political process. It is important to recognize that the definition of different stakeholders involved in a process may change over time (they are not static, and roles and interests may change). A question was raised, “How do you involve important stakeholders when they don’t want to be involved?” either due to lack of financial remuneration or fear of loss of authority/power.

Managing “elite capture” of processes and institutions over time There is a need to understand how different institutions mediate power and privilege, which enables more strategic interventions based on critical bottlenecks or barriers to more equitable processes. Also how do we get local conflict resolution and knowledge systems recognized (rather than eroded) by the government, religious institutions and other outside actors when they play a positive role. In cases where traditional beliefs (‘witchcraft’) or institutions have a negative influence on equity or participation, how do we manage this? A similar point was raised about the power dynamic involved in the validation of different knowledge systems, as mediated by religious institutions (influence on ideologies) and the State (influence on knowledge validity). It is important to recognize that some problems also need technical solutions in addition to institutional change, in particular where a resource is very limited (i.e. limited access to water resources) and conflict is a natural outcome. What institutional vision guides outside interventions? Given that outsiders have a particular idea in mind of what an effective local institution might look like, and therefore influence organizational outcomes (intentionally or otherwise), it is important to have a deeper understanding of the ideal characteristics of adaptive local institutions (their dynamics, nuances, complexities). It is important to take into account the temporal dynamics of local institutions and stakeholders throughout the implementation process. Understanding the true nature or ultimate cause of conflict. Unless the ultimate cause is understood (as seen in the example of economic competition being represented as inter-ethnic conflict), interventions will be poorly targeted. How do we sustain processes put into place during a project’s duration? What happens when a project ends? Mechanisms to sustain processes that have been put into place during a project’s duration to acknowledge / strengthen / support existing social capital (in cases where it is eroding), as well as to build capacity with new skills (leadership, competence with tools and processes, etc.), must be developed at an early stage. It is important that these mechanisms do not constrain adaptive capacity, but rather incorporate it (i.e. not ‘recipes’ but creative and adaptive

5

processes with guiding principles). An important part of the preliminary phase of any intervention should be the identification of existing human and social capital (knowledge, practices, beliefs, conflict resolution mechanisms, leadership practices, and capacities resulting from more modern influences such as formal education), so that project interventions don’t further erode existing capacity but build upon it. Reaching a common or multiple vision(s)? There was a discussion about whether there is a need for reaching a common vision of the goals and values of intervention processes. The consensus reached as that forcing multiple visions into a single perspective can actually marginalize some; and that therefore it is better to find ways to accommodate multiple visions about the way forward (goals and values on NRM, property rights, modernity vs. tradition, intergenerational or gender differences, etc.). Facilitating access to tools and knowledge Often the people who have greater understanding of the concepts and tools for managing diversity and conflict are different from the practitioners who need to access these tools on a daily basis. How do we enable greater access? In light of existing human and social capital, how do we enable awareness and capacity to build upon existing tools and knowledge for conflict resolution and diversity? Which methods, and for what (understanding vs. managing change)? • Participatory or non-participatory? (Extractive vs. interactive?) • Action vs. conventional/empirical research? • “Community” level vs. disaggregated? (i.e. problem diagnosis, monitoring) • Exogenous or “ethno”-methodologies?

Principles and Practice Each group member indicated their motivation for joining this group and these (after discussion) have been grouped below as key issues. The group concluded that there will always be gaps in the capacity of theory to explain reality; what is more important is to understand the different practices and discourses at different levels i.e. levels of policy, theory and community. What do we mean by principles? • Principles are informed by different things i.e. theories, concepts… • Principles act as guide posts • Principles and practice move back and forth in a dynamic manner What are some of the gaps between principles and practice? a) Equity and related concerns • Allocation of resources = better lives of users e.g. Lao case of land allocation • Differences in capacities of government and communities had different results in accessing land b) Participation and empowerment

6

•

Cambodia policies come from government while theories are introduced from/by outsiders (terms such as research, participation, etc are introduced; difficulty in “translating these terms/concepts in the Cambodian context; even more difficult for outsiders to understand the local meanings of these words that people share. c) Issues of actualization • Cambodian e.g. on crab fattening shows how participation of people was used to support an outsider’s idea. Is participation used driven by external actors or based on local understanding/practice? • Are outsiders explaining participation? • Are there enough opportunities for local people to articulate their own meanings of terms or concepts? • What should be the roles of communities in managing their resources? • How do we connect communities with government? How to recognize local capacities and local empowerment? • Do we know enough of people’s capacities? • Do communities have the capacity to articulate their views and tell their stories? Knowledge and Principles • Do we need to develop more knowledge? • Do we have enough theory to explain practice?

Defining Boundaries Gap between theory and practice Multiple theories influence how boundaries are defined (and are redefined through field research), including: • CPR theory: eg. inclusion – exclusion issues, multiple use • Systems theory: eg. interaction among resource type, nested hierarchies • Cultural identity theory: It is humans who define boundaries (incorporating various considerations, such as seasonality, overlap, entitlement which might vary as people belong to different groups and thus claim different entitlements) o BUT there is also biological mimicry, ie. animals also define boundaries, and in this concext are cyclical, experience conflict, etc. • Governance theory: eg. boundaries’ administration, artificial boundaries enforced by law; conflict (materialise at different levels (local to international), along ethnic lines, within a community, etc.), vertical and horizontal links among units defined by boundaries. Local elite can use laws to further its own interests. • Power theories, incl. Political economy: eg. interaction of different players in defining boundaries, size of community How does research help practice?

7

• • • •

• •

Help policy makers to recognise the complexity when defining boundaries. How do you overcome the policy makers’ reluctance to consider research findings? Understanding and documenting customary boundaries, classification of resources Document difference between customary use (reality on the ground) and government reported data (example of Laos land use) Facilitate community mapping of boundaries to see potential overlap (using participatory approaches) – this might be a new approach for researcher, policy maker or in the context. There is a need to combine tools to reflect the complexity of boundaries. Mapping and negotiation of boundaries between communities can help with conflict resolution. Here maps and mapping are understood in the broad sense. o Mapping for community development, reconciling generations, document different realities in countries. o Integration of different maps (types, scales). o Boundaries change, thus mapping can be a negotiation tool o This also means that maps should be updated on a regular basis to reflect the reality. o How to integrate static maps with dynamic natural resources?

How to define boundaries for research? Very practical tools include: • Talking to villagers • Oral history • Visualising with different maps • Transect walk (include GIS) • GPS • Participant observation • Process time intensive • Recognise that researcher comes with own agenda o Visioning with community to select focus can help reconcile potentially differing agendas. o Different circumstances (student with specific focus, donor agency funded that has to fit with the donor’s agenda as well, more established research organisation with broader agenda which leaves more room for negotiations, etc.) • GIS – the ownership of maps and data in it has to be clarified in advance o How to lie with maps? – selective mapping o Different levels of complexity can be built up and levels influence the type of use. o Beware of oversimplification in the maps that can lead to rigidity. • The needs of the stakeholders must be explored when using GIS in the communities. Learning from the Congress • Decentralisation and related power issues influence boundaries • Private management might help, but the right balance with communal management depends on the circumstances • Change over time in land use and rights influences boundaries, usually moving from flexible to more concrete/defined. Consider cyclical change (dynamics) in the boundaries. Boundaries define property rights so when property rights change they change

8

•

boundaries. Therefore must build flexibility into policy, but this introduces power relations. Missed from the conference: systems integration (different NR, local-national, etc)

Open Space Decentralization and NRM Theories What are the central theories/arguments in discussing decentralisation and natural resource management? •

•

People who live close to the resources are better resource managers and therefore natural resource management should be transferred from the state, private to the community. e.g. environmental stewardship debate (IUCN etc.), common property theory (Ostrom, Feeny, Bromely, etc.), community-based natural resource management (Korten, Uphoff etc.) Good or “accountable” governance/government, which distinguishes different levels of decentralisation, including: fiscal, administrative decentralisation and political or democratic decentralisation that involves transfer of decision making power. e.g. “decentralisation” theory from public administration point of view (Ribot, Dupar et al., Agrawal etc.)

Gaps in Theory and Practice 1) Are local people really the better environmental steward? • Traditional knowledge/practices have limitations adapting to the prevailing situations and changes (e.g. Traditional jhum or shifting cultivation practices in Northeast India became unsustainable due to changes in demographic, economic, social and environmental conditions.) • Resource boundaries and administrative/political boundaries do not complement with one another. (e.g. Aquatic resource use/management boundary is far more inclusive and extensive than administrative boundaries in the case of Cambodia.) • Local people and communities have different interests (e.g. Villagers as well as villages have different interest over forest and land in a Lao village.) • “Better” for whom and in what ways? “Better environment” in who’s perspective? 2) Is decentralisation ever complete in practice? Implementation of decentralisation often appears partial. • In many cases, decentralisation transfers administrative responsibilities to the local authorities/institutions but NO MONEY and POWER. • Even in cases where decentralisation has taken place (as a process), local institutions’ decisions can easily be overridden by central authorities’ (or more powerful group) decision. • Local institutions are often limited in social and human capital. • The current theory seems simplistic while the reality is more complex.

9

Implications of Gaps Towards research that improves natural resources management and understanding its complexities: • Gaps in theory and practice imply the need for good “evidence” based researches that show when and how decentralisation may or may not work. • Gaps imply the need to strengthen understanding of how local institution implement and understand decentralisation process. • Gaps also indicate the shortfalls of current decentralisation: Anti-poor outcomes by propoor policies. • Gradient/scale of decentralisation needs more investigation. Considering what institutional level and resources? What perspectives (i.e. resource economic perspective that focus on public goods, market failure and externalities or cultural/historical/political perspective?) will we consider decentralisation from? • Theory builds on averages in the costs and benefits of activities and actions, but in practice many marginalized communities the cost of achieving sustainable management are higher.

10

Collective Action and Devolution Definitions Collective action - group action towards a common objective Local institutions - Includes structures, rules and norms that regulate interactions between individuals / actors Devolution - Passing the management and/or use rights of the resources (from the government) to the users. Not decentralization because decentralization can be from government agency to other agency or local government Gaps 1. How to (re)enable collective action. How to apply those principles from functional cases of collective action • A-B • Difficulty of applying collective action theory in large/heterogeneous groups • Difficulty of applying collective action theory towards defining property rights by government • Difficulty of applying collective action theory from narrow to wide areas

Implications Difficult to influence institutions. Need more research.

2.

Will devolution create an enabling environment for proper NRM

3.

There is lack of theory to distinguish the “Tragedy of the Commons” and regulated commons but for some there is a theory in place to distinguish the “Tragedy of the Commons”, unpopular developments in theories

Unequal knowledge, misunderstanding Need more knowledge to advance understanding and application. Unequal knowledge, misunderstanding Customary and cultural needs of communities: for example, common pasture land for nomtaic herders in Mongolia.

11

policy,

Dimensions of Collective Action Undefined

PROPERTY RIGHTS

Defined Large

Wide

B

SPACE

Narrow

MEMBERSHIP

A Small Short-term

TIME

Long-term

Power Relationships Gaps and Questions • Talking about power is difficult even in small group settings. Talking about power requires recognizing the power we have (or do not have) in any given situation. • The exercise of power requires more than just legal rights. There is a relational aspect. For example, a provincial government employee in Cambodia might not want to exercise their legal power to implement Community Fisheries unless they are sure they have the backing of the Governor. • Exercising power requires capacity. Power transfer does require support for people exercising power for the first time. What kind of capacity is required? Again, in Cambodia context support in drafting bylaws, patrolling, enforcing. • Capacity is not just skills that can be built through training. The ability to exercise power needs to be internalized by individuals or groups. For example, in Canada a decision of the Supreme Court recognized aboriginal right to access the fishery on the Atlantic Coast. In theory, they have the right to make their own rules, set management framework. In practice, for the first few years they have been letting DFO set the rules. Now, some communities are ready to change this relationship, take on a leadership role. The have the confidence to exercise more of the power that the courts recognized a few years ago.

12

•

• •

We don’t know enough about the nuances of power and how the concept is translated and understood in different cultures, languages, and contexts. We also do not know what is meant by power by community members and other actors. When fisherfolk say they want more power? What do they mean? After decentralization, government agencies often say they have given power to the community. But if this does not include the kind of power and responsibility actually desired by the community, both sides are not using the word the same way. It might be more useful to ask “Power to do what? Power to carry out which task? By who and for who?” Why is it so difficult to talk about power?

Implications 1) Different understandings of desired outcomes of power lead to problems in implementation, i.e. conflicts as a result of decentralization laws. 2) Not taking into account power, power relations, power dynamics and how they can change as a result of CBNRM interventions will lead to more inequity. 3) Our very generalized understand on power and what power different people have can create negative social outcomes i.e. anti-poor outcomes from pro-poor policies.

Role of Researchers as an Interest Group Issues of interest to partners that were clustered in this group (cards): • CBCRM researchers and institutional affiliations (Institutional affiliation and the quality of research; incentive systems, institutions and CBCRM). • Sustainability of results • Links between research and rural poverty (Which are the real interests of the researchers on commons?) • Researchers as agents of change • New relations between technical-professional teams and local communities • Sustainability of action-research in natural resource management (Are international agencies going to continue to be the only funding sources? Alternatives?). • Assumptions in research work • How may communities use research results? • The roles of development agencies, academics and government in facilitating and financing the participation. • What is the role of research in addressing political dynamics and negative role played by institutions in (re)producing conditions of inequity? • Links between research and the national and local policies and programs

13

Gaps Gap between research incentives and what is required for communities to take control of the process of change

Implications • Low academic incentives for action-research versus pure research • Economic incentives undermine continuity of research

Gap between researchers interests and communities’ interests and between the agenda/interests of research funding agencies (including government) and communities’ interests and priorities. Gap between theory and practice in actionresearch

• Who pays for research? • What is the appropriate institutional base for action-research? • Differences in interests affect the quality of research. • Outcomes do not correspond to those suggested by theory. • Involuntary social change can occur as a result.

14

Local Institutions and ‘Other Levels’ GAPS

Implications for Implications for Research Implications for Action Communities 1. Models and Reality: Imposed policies fail to Dynamics between Local Public Policies need to fit realities and cause Institutions and be less general and Theoretical models problems Government is not taken devolve more power to simplify reality. into account lower levels There are many Recognise Cost Build in feedback so models and they are Differences to members communities can not all compatible. Social science of diverse communities influence policies (and models ignore theories?) Integrate theories and political economic models and adopt theory multidisciplinary Economic models approaches tend to prevail over Build in feedback social science mechanisms so realities models in policyreinform theories and making models 2. Theory and Politics Mismatch between More research needed of Representation: laws and local practice: on local systems of Theories and ideals usually one or the other decision-making, of representation, gets ignored democracy and Local institutions not democracy and accountability Better appreciation of the recognised as having equity fail to realities, strengths and legal personality and accommodate weaknesses of local have to distort realities institutions themselves to fit the law Creation/ strengthening of local elites 3. Decentralization with The Government fills Strengthen the State to Weak Local the political space ensure effective Institutions designed for democratic Policies of communities and decentralisation decentralization/ Build up capacity of expands into lower devolution maybe local institutions: levels designed to This may occlude local communications, promote CBNRM actors or create conflict leadership, and equity but fail to and competition understanding, take account of the confidence, economy, institutional political capacity, weakness of local financial skills institutions Build up win-win options with shared agreements and clarity about roles and responsibilities 4. Multilateral Policies and Grassroots (ran out of time)

15

Peer Assist One of most popular activities at the workshop was the ‘peer assist’ session. In ‘peer assist’ participants take turns giving brief on-the-spot presentations of their own research project, describing a challenge that they face in their own research or a challenge faced by people involved in the common property system studied. After each presentation, other participants share ideas for overcoming the described challenge based on their own experiences. As such, this session is an excellent way to build contacts and learn of each other’s work. Below are summaries of some of the peer assist sessions. Challenge: How do I change the focus of my research program?

How do I improve the quality of report writing among network of university teachers?

How do I access donor funding for research and overcome bias that values external consultants more highly than local researchers? How can I define ‘community’ boundaries and promote collective action in a fragmented community experiencing conflict? How can I analyze institutional change associated with shift from subsistence to market production?

Suggestions: • Use participatory methods with the community to define the research program and identify problems • Scope the audience for the research results, Have a clear idea of how research is supposed to affect change (i.e. changes in policy to improve forest management options for local people) • Do a field workshop over at least a few days to show teachers how to work with communities and how to use participatory techniques. • Understand or create an incentive for teachers to do this type of research and write reports. • Organizing a writing workshop where teachers can revise their reports together and offer each other suggestions. • Work around the bureaucracy, contact directly with donor to changing funding mechanism. • Have clear research grant budget such that it is easier to claim individual expenses against line items in the budget. • The concept of ‘community’ may need to be unpacked, context described seems to require stakeholder analysis as resource users are organized into different groups and are embedded in wider community that affects the options available for fisheries management. • Use a mixture of participatory techniques to engage stakeholders on both an individual and a collective basis. • Use multiple levels of analysis, including household. • Consider using Ostrom et al. ‘institutional analysis’ framework. • Across the different time periods identified, compare different factors (such as legislation, property rights, market linkage, etc.).

16

Challenge: How can I promote lowcost and continuous dialogue and encourage people to speak honestly?

How do I establish my research area?

How can I promote networking amongst partners and projects?

How can I harmonize the goals among different partners? How do I work in communities with large power imbalances?

How can I scale up comanagement to include a wide variety of governmental institutions?

Suggestions: • 25-35 people involved in sample source • Find nearby internet facilities • Get people involved within the process • Use photography or video • Incentives to acquire research results? (will this actually act as divisive or what?) • Empower the community to do the research themselves • Choose the area that is most critical • Pay attention to what the different cultural context is • Initially, contacts are made informally, and then over time things get more focused, people suggest things, it grows • Communities eventually begin to get involved and begin to desire the research • Farmers actually ask • Make sure you actually enjoy it! • Look around at some of the problems and then decide • Where can you get support (i.e. universities, other orgs) • Emotional analysis…why do you like this place so much? • You should initially be more familiar with the area that you are interested in • Make sure all parties are clear as to what the data is being used for • Farmer to farmer visits • Do more preparation work…what do you want to show to others? • Use the media as a tool for communication • Has the internet been successful (i.e. d-groups) • How can you establish that the problem is actually something that people are interested in? • Recognize the fact that power is unequally shared; try to give more emphasis on the people themselves • Build capacity first among the relatively poor in order to allow them to engage with government more effectively (strategic choice involved in choosing who to work with) • Build a strong base of interested parties • You need to categorize stakeholders (i.e. primary, secondary) • Similarly, you need to categorize levels of government • Try to establish a relationship with local levels of government first • Provide evidence to these institutions to make them aware of when is good to fish, and when not to fish, based on local knowledge as well as more technical knowledge (i.e. biophysical vs. social understanding) • Establish first what is common ground shared by all • Develop, over time, stronger local institutions and local relationships • Even if people accuse you of linking with the state and being biased, you must continue

17

Challenge: How can I move from descriptive analysis from partners to larger scale analysis? How can I scale up dissemination without alienating those who have the stories to tell? How can I do participatory research and capacity building within indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities with very decentralized power structures?

Are there simple experiments that can make research projects more relevant/related to community concerns?

Suggestions: • Establish how this information is being captured? • Try to disseminate case studies • Make brochures on what the parameters of progress are • Determine the levels of feedback based on various mediums • There is much diversity in experiences; how can you consolidate them without rendering the experiences homogenous? • This problem is widespread being prominent in the Andes and even in relatively hierarchical societies like rural Vietnam. • Under such circumstances capacity building needs to be highly inclusive and take a long time– say 15 years. • In urgent situations it may be appropriate to work through the urbanized indigenous leadership, which is able to speak out on behalf of the community without the same social constraints as those in more traditional rural settings. • Imposed time frames are an imposition and not with the peoples’ traditions, but the mismatch between the exigencies of imposed ‘development’ planning and local community decision-making norms is a real one. • In Venezuela, community and the researchers designed together variuos elements of cooperative experiments to study when, how, what quantity of shrimp enters into the lagoon. of the experiment. Through informal discussions with the community, information was brought out on which material to use to build the nets and when to conduct the experiments, etc. Working with the community also led to actual reduction of the costs of the experiment. • In the Philippines, role play was used where the community members actually played out the different roles that exist on both side of the table. The research team builds a relationshiop with the community over time by encouraging the community to define the objectives. The community participates in the data gathering and analysis of data is done jointly with the research team. • These approaches are very time intensive (length needed depends on the circumstances).

18

Challenge: How can I mobilize a community where there is no history of collective action?

What do I do when external actors intervene in the community to block collective action?

How to handle the tension between research and community’s development expectations?

Suggestions: • In Brazil, new roads have given previously isolated communities access to markets and new technologies causing rapid change in fishing practices. Previous military government limited rights of association and congregation resulting in a weakening of the informal institutions that ruled ENRM. • Peer pressure for adherence to the rules and graduated enforcement mechanisms. For example, in the Philippines lobster fishermen tie a ribbon to misplaced net to indicate that mistake is noticed. The second time the net is found, the net is damaged. The third time the fisherman is warned and the next time their boat is destroyed. • In Burkina Faso, members of the community helped the research team maintain links with the community throughout the project. These ‘embedded’ champions started informal discussions within the communities months before each research step. • In Burkina Faso, community members recognised that participating in the research team could enhance their position within the community and provide training useful for finding employment. • The experience of the Equator Initiative is that communities mobilize when they perceive that their livelihoods are threatened. If alternative livelihoods exist, then there is little motivation even as the resource base is depleted. • Research team consciously supports the disempowered to equalise power structure in the community and build an opposition to the current power elite. • Do not look at the relationship between the community and the researchers from the cost-benefit perspective, respect the value the community puts on friendship. In the Philippines, on the basis of friendship with the researchers, a community resisted monetary offers by a third party to kick out the project. • Identify ideas for change originating with community members, linking to these ideas can encourage participation. • Researchers must have a genuine concern for the betterment of the community. • Build flexibility into your project design (including the budget) to allow the community’s view to come in. Be creative in framing your project. • Introduce long-term planning (e.g. for land use) in the project that gives room for the inclusion of the community’s vision. • Emphasise the capacity of the research to change the existing political imbalance (knowledge is power). This has to be done repeatedly throughout the project.

19

Next Steps Part of the afternoon session on August 15th was dedicated to a plenary discussion including all participants. In this session participants share their reflections on what had been accomplished in the workshop and what actions are needed following the workshop. A key challenge emerging from this discussion is how can IDRC and researchers simultaneously facilitate research and develop the research capacity with the people and communities they work with? What are your reflections on the workshop sessions? Participants identified that the experiences shared have been rich, including a diversity of people, disciplines, and contexts. In particular it was felt that the institutional diversity within these discussions led to a really rich discussion. Participants expressed that they have encountered frustration in working with local institutions when they attempting to achieve capacity building or when there are problems of representation within these institutions. Dissemination of research results was identified as a bottleneck and significant effort is needed to make sure that the results are shared. The relationship between researchers and communities is increasingly complex. Researchers must be aware of the complexity of each situation and the relationships, both formal and informal, between people and institutions. The pressures to do research often originate outside the community, yet such research is seldom sustainable once funding ends as communities cannot really choose when they are dependent on outside research. There is a need to be aware of who is setting the research agenda and setting the questions. Research that originates outside the community pressures to accelerate the process to get the results, yet such shorter research timeframes limit opportunities to understand the “big picture”. There are, however, benefits to having outside funds and researchers as when people may not necessarily give the most honest replies when they are dependent on internal resources. It is also valuable to have results in the shorter timeframe in order to avoid people get bored and lose faith in the research. The discussion produced a number of new questions that reveal the need to better understand the role of researchers in the systems they study and the role of different institutions, including market, state and communities, in common property governance. Specific questions posed include: •

Is participation always desirable (i.e. if it is not professional)? Is the intensive process of participation worthwhile in terms of the representation of the communities? How do you fit egalitarian and diffuse systems of power where there are systems of power that do not easily allow for this? How can you do participatory research when that culture is not there (i.e. joint decision making systems)?

•

How can researchers get government involved within the process of problem solving?

•

Will globalization support collective action at the global or local level? development paradigms allow for this?

•

Given that societal changes may be eroding the capacity of communities to react, do outside researcher exacerbate this process, or can they mitigate it? To what extent can outside researchers erode the potential for more robust local leadership systems?

20

Do current

•

How much time is required to get research results? Are we pushing people forward by demanding quick solutions? How are communities responding to these pressures to “perform”?

•

How can we proceed with our research over the next five years? How can research programs be scaled up without diluting the results? How to internalize the funding process involved in research (i.e. to move away from donors)?

What concrete outputs would be useful to have from this workshop? Participants would like more comparative and theoretical analyses between common property theory and the reality encountered in the practice of field-based research. In particular, participants want to outputs that identify the major problems that people have faced in their research (see Peer Assist below) and identify the common grounds of understanding (i.e. what is the ‘state of the art” in common property research and what theory is generally accepted as given). There is also desire to learn more about how they can circulate research results to a broader audience. Participants also requested a video of the workshop and suggested that a CDROM be prepared including the digital video filmed during the workshop along with the individual research papers presented by each of the participants. Finally, the following specific outputs were requested: a contact list of all the participants, summaries of the workshop sessions, and a group picture.

What practical things need to happen next? A common goal of many participants is to connect different communities. Participants felt that community representatives need to be included in the workshop. In particular, it was proposed that future workshops be held in local communities and seek to encourage researchers to interact with local knowledge holders, in other words, an exchange between the investigators and the “investigatees”. Participants expressed a desire to prepare a series of publications to illustrate their findings and to invest time in establishing a correct methodology for common property research. One method suggested is “a learning route”, to ensure that the interests of all parties involved are relatively harmonized (i.e. farmers/indigenous peoples and researchers). Participants also want to know how to engage with larger organizations (i.e. World Bank) that may subvert the agenda of local communities.

21

Evaluation The following is a summary of the 29 responses received from the evaluations forms distributed at the end of the IDRC Workshop “From Theory to Practice and Back Again” following the IASCP 2004 Congress in Oaxaca, Mexico. (1) In terms of usefulness to you, please rank the following: None USEFULNESS 1 2 3 4 3 8 Pre-Congress Rehearsal IASCP Congress 1 5 13 Workshop – Emerging Themes (Sat AM) 2 7 10 2 7 11 Workshop – Open Space (Sat PM) 1 12 Workshop – Peer Assist (Sun AM) Workshop – Next Steps (Sun AM/PM) 6 11

Very 5 13 9 11 8 16 12

N/A 3 1

Answer the following questions (with specific examples where possible): (2) How many people did you meet that you intend to have further contact? Participants described their motivation to make contacts as to link with people to share experiences, learn from, and do comparative work with in the future. Most participants referred to fellow researchers, though one mentioned a mixture of donors, researchers, and activists. Numeric answers varied between two to 50 people met with which they will maintain contact, with the majority of participants stating ten or less. Participants distinguished between a smaller number of colleagues active in same country or resource area, and a larger number of CBNRM researchers with who they wish to exchange experiences and work toward comparative studies.

(3) Please explain how your expectations of the IASCP congress and IDRC events were met or not. Both the IASCP Congress and the IDRC events met participants’ expectations of meeting colleagues from other regions and learning about current common property research. Many expressed an appreciation of IDRC support to attend these events, and one participant mentioned that support to attend such events is simply unavailable through academia and government in their home country. Through the IASCP Congress participants expected to gain a better understanding of the current issues and concepts in common research and learn of other contexts and experiences outside the country where they work. Participants appreciated the diversity of issues presented at the IASCP Congress, but were critical of its organization. Participants stated that there were too many research papers, that the quality of papers presented was generally weaker than expected, and that the large number of simultaneous sessions forced them to miss sessions that were of interest to them. Many participants were disappointed with the lack of discussion and roundtables during the IASCP Congress. One participant expressed that they expected more feedback on own research, while another stated that discussants failed to connect papers and highlight emerging themes.

22

Participants felt the IDRC rehearsal of panel sessions was worthwhile as it helped to build their confidence prior to their presentation and allowed them to meet fellow panelists. With respect to the IDRC Workshop, participants expressed that it was a good bridge between large scale IASCP congress and their own experience in field-based research. Participants appreciated the workshop’s participatory nature and the opportunity to meet and share with each other in a more intimate setting. Many mentioned that the workshop help build relationships among participants, and one participant recommended that the workshop be held prior to the IASCP Congress. Participants were critical of the workshop structure, many stated that the the workshop goals and objectives were unclear, while a few stated that they expected more leadership from IDRC staff. Many participants wanted more time at the workshop to discuss how to network with each other, while one participant specifically expressed that they wanted more time for discussion with coastal researchers.

(4) Do you have any other comments or suggestions? Many participants expressed a desire to continue in contact with each other and perhaps form a Community of Practice to reinforce networking between CBNRM researchers. Options proposed include IDRC support for electronic meetings over Internet (starting with sharing this evaluation), IDRC support with methods and in producing papers, and a new in-person meeting within 2 to 5 years. Participants expressed a desire for future, comparative research across different case studies (including different contexts and different resources) using the same methods. Such research could distinguish between findings that are only relevant in specific contexts and findings that can contribute to theory building and validation. With respect to the IDRC workshop, participants suggested that the session on emerging themes could be stimulated by a paper summarizing the state of the art in common research. This paper could be circulated prior to the workshop and could be the focus for workshop discussion. It was also suggested that the workshop make more use of the participants’ research papers. For future planning, participants recommend that IDRC continue to support smaller workshops around larger conferences. One participant suggested in addition to the workshop for recipients, that IDRC could have supported roundtable side-events during the IASCP Congress to connect with other people and provide an opportunity to discuss emerging themes. Prior to such conferences, participants would like greater access to IDRC experts and an opportunity to share their research papers with each other. Finally, a few participants stated that they would like to meet for less time and found the 10-day stay in Oaxaca to be excessively long.

23

Participant List

Dejene Aredo Addis Ababa University - Ethiopia Ayalneh Bogale Alemaya University - Ethiopia Simon Carter IDRC - Canada Marcus Colchester Forest Peoples Programme - United Kingdom Camilo Coral Oxfam-Quebec - Bolivia Bruce Currie-Alder IDRC - Canada Brian Davy IDRC -Canada Sabrina Doyon Universite Laval - Canada Merle Faminow IDRC - Uruguay Elmer Ferrer CBCRM Resource Center - Philippines Julia Elena Fraga Berdugo CINVESTAV - Mexico Yayoi Fujita National University - Laos Laura German African Highlands Initiative - Uganda Rana Ghose IDRC -Canada Ana Paula Glinfskoi Thé UFSCarlos - Brazil Jennifer Graham Dalhousie University - Canada Sandra Grant University of Manitoba - Jamaica Roberto Haudry de Soucy IFAD - Peru Ykhanbai Hijaba Ministry of the Environment - Mongolia

John Kearney St. Francis Xavier University - Canada Nlombi Kibi University of Ottawa – Burkina Faso Nong Kim Ministry of the Environment - Cambodia Hue Le National University - Vietnam L. Ciro Marcano Reyes Clark University - Venezuela Melissa Marschke University of Manitoba - Canada Tendayi Mutimukuru CIFOR - Zimbabwe Zsofia Orosz IDRC - Canada Diego Pacheco Balanza CERES - Bolivia José Peña Dávila Universidad Nacional de San Agustin - Peru Khamla Phanvilay National University - Laos Saudiel Ramírez Sanchez Simon Fraser University - Canada Becky Rivera-Guieb Department of Fisheries - Philippines Pascal Cigoho Sanginga CIAT - Uganda Cristiana Seixas Equator Initiative - Brazil Deborah Sick University of Ottawa - Canada Jaime Soto Navarro Universidad de la Frontera - Chile Stephen Tyler IDRC - Canada Allan Vera CBCRM Resource Center - Philippines

24

Photos

25

26

Postal Address: PO Box 8500 Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9 Street Address: 250 Albert Street Ottawa, ON, Canada K1P 6M1 Tel: (+1-613) 236-6163 Fax: (+1-613) 238-7230 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.idrc.ca