Document(s) 4 of 24

Global agendas and local change

At the beginning of the 21st century, it is evident that that the destinies of our planet's diverse peoples are closely intertwined. This realization has driven an unprecedented set of international commitments during the past decade. Nations of all political hues have committed to reforms on a broad range of global issues: trade policy, biodiversity conservation, land mines, greenhouse gas emissions, peacekeeping, security and others. However, if these issues are increasingly recognized, defined and framed as being global, the actions to address and implement them mostly fall to local decisions made by governments, individuals, businesses and other organizations. It is precisely when it comes to local action that so many well-intended global efforts fail. This volume offers examples of how to build successful local innovation and action on difficult global issues of poverty and environment.

The actions described in this book respond specifically to the question of how poor rural people can improve their living conditions and the productivity of their resource base through local interventions in natural resource management. As a compendium of research and learning results, the book describes and analyses processes and outcomes from a set of action research projects in Asia. The research cases reported here have all grappled with the difficult issues of how to implement practical and effective development in marginalized, rural areas of poor countries. They were designed to respond directly to the global issues of poverty reduction, environmental and resource degradation, and governance reform.

Because they define quantitative targets across a limited set of indicators, the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) focus attention and effort on global poverty reduction outcomes. National Poverty Reduction Strategy Plans (PRSPs), which are required by international financial institutions as prerequisites for concessionary loans, are also aimed at poverty outcomes and used by bilateral donors to guide aid priorities. But these large-scale targets and national policy commitments have little to say about what needs to happen at the level of the village – or between village and state levels – in order to reduce poverty. Nor do they offer advice in practice about how to create and gain from opportunities to increase income, spread benefits, reduce risk and secure rights for the poorest of the poor.

Environmental and resource degradation has been widely recognized as a crucial constraint to reducing poverty among the most disadvantaged and marginalized populations in the world, who remain largely rural (UN Millennium Project, 2005). International commitments to rural development and to addressing environmental and resource degradation increasingly identify the need for innovative approaches. Such approaches must focus holistically on diverse ecological and social contexts, and emphasize the meaningful participation of local people in their planning and implementation (Sayer and Campbell, 2004). However, practitioners find this a challenging task, not least because it inevitably involves the engagement of many actors with divergent interests in a process of learning and adaptation. Particularly when faced with the management of common property resources such as water, forests, pasture or fisheries, market-based incentives generate perverse outcomes. Moreover, special forms of collective action are required (Ostrom, 1990; Knox, Meinzen-Dick and Hazell, 1998; Agrawal, 2001).

Recent global studies have also emphasized the need for governance reforms to improve decision-making in rural development. These focus on decentralization of authority for managing resources and delivering services in rural areas (World Bank, 2003). However, experience with decentralization has been at best mixed: administrative deconcentration has often not been accompanied by devolution of authority; local mechanisms are not responsive to policy objectives; and there are risks of replacing ineffective central administration with inequitable local control (Edmunds and Wollenberg, 2003; Ribot, 2003). Practitioners are caught between the exhortations of well-intentioned policies and the complexity of local change in a dynamic political and institutional environment.

Poverty, environmental degradation and governance issues tend to converge in the so-called least favoured areas: zones of marginal agricultural production which have the weakest natural resource endowments, the least political power, and are the most remote from markets. These are areas at risk of getting stuck in a poverty trap which prevents them taking advantage of emerging opportunities (UN Millennium Project, 2005). Conventional approaches argue for more funding to address these interlocking constraints, yet they provide few practical examples of what kinds of investments will address all these concerns.

Cases of local research and action

This volume of case studies showcases research projects in the poorest parts of Asia. The cases represent areas where researchers and their organizations are rarely found and if present, are under-resourced. Research organizations in these areas have had limited formal connections to the networks or incentives of international academic publishing. These case stories are presented by the local researchers who undertook the work. Some of them may have had little formal training in research. Some lack advanced academic degrees. Yet these cases provide insights on a range of new lessons and show positive impacts on poverty, resource sustainability and governance, from the community up to the national policy level.

The emphasis in these cases is not on the analysis of research results. All of the case authors have written research reports (some published) that cover specific data and results in greater detail. The importance of these cases is that they describe what happened and what changed as a result of research interventions. These lessons are primarily lessons of development practice, instead of theory. They speak to rural development practitioners who seek to strengthen rural livelihoods, improve resource management and reduce poverty. The main reason for presenting them in this narrative format is to help practitioners to use the lessons of these innovative projects to undertake effective local action themselves.

These are case stories about research and about action. What is unusual is that the process of research was deliberately structured to encourage collaborative learning with other social actors. This is research in which many people learn often different lessons. Another unusual feature is that the research or learning directly led to local development actions which were facilitated by innovation and evidence. This was not research for academic purposes, but for changing peoples' lives. Finally, this was research which transformed policy from the experience of local innovation and learning.

Just as with the communities we studied, it is a challenge to describe simply what this modest volume is about. Both the story and its message depend on where you stand. Research, local action, policy change: these are the core elements of the cases in this volume. But they pay particular attention to the messy dynamics around how these different processes intersect in practice. These narratives are about building the confidence of social actors who are far removed from power, introducing evidence from scientific analysis and from shared experience, identifying inequities, and engaging practical and positive measures to address complex problems.

Therefore, the narratives are particularly instructive to rural development practitioners who rely on evidence and experience to analyse problems and take actions which will lead to sustainable local change.

Origins of the cases

The 11 cases in this volume are selected from among over 75 research projects supported by Canada's International Development Research Centre (IDRC) programme on Community-based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) during the period 1997–2004. In most cases, the work described here is the result of several years of site-based fieldwork by multidisciplinary local research teams whose members frequently came from several different organizations. The research work may have covered several successive phases of multiyear project funding, each phase evolving in focus and emphasis from the previous work.

To a large degree, the characteristics of these research cases reflect the particular nature of IDRC's mandate. The centre was created by the government of Canada to build research capacity and to improve development outcomes through support to applied research in developing countries. The centre responds to the priorities of its developing-country partners and directs its financial support and the advisory capacities of its specialist technical staff towards local researchers, with a strategic emphasis on building local expertise. Therefore, these products reflect research not merely located in the South, but research that is led by Southern researchers and their organizations.

Because it is principally a development organization which adopts knowledge generation as a mechanism for achieving development outcomes (rather than a research donor whose objective is mainly academic excellence), the chief measure of success for the centre's work is the adoption of research lessons in practice. Therefore, the links between learning and application attract significant attention as a key element of the centre's task.¹

IDRC's CBNRM research programme developed a conceptual framework, criteria for evaluating research proposals and a programming strategy for its work in Asia. But the research work in the field was conducted by local partners, and they were responsible for interpreting, adapting, and making sense of the range of methods and tools available. With time and experience, the research teams took the initiative in elaborating and refining the conceptual framework for their work (see Chapter 2). The key starting point was always that their research should address problems of natural resource degradation and local livelihoods through meaningful participation of local men and women in the research process. The centre's strategy for programming in Asia emphasized support to those countries with the weakest research infrastructure, or the least access to external academic networks. These were typically the poorest countries (or the poorest regions of large countries) and those transitional economies that were only just emerging from decades of ideological and political isolation. Not coincidentally, these were also the ones with the most limited international language skills and least access to Western academic literature.

Therefore, early research efforts focused on building capacity through learning by doing, with limited introduction to the integrated, multidisciplinary and participatory research concepts and tools needed for this work. Long-term site-based research was seen as important not only for gaining insight through practice but also for building and monitoring impacts in complex biological and socio-economic systems, and for building relationships between people and organizations not accustomed to working together. Many researchers were field-oriented natural scientists in applied disciplines such as agronomy or forestry, reflecting the prevailing strengths of local research establishments. Particular emphasis was placed on building practical social science research skills to integrate with these backgrounds.²

CBNRM researchers worked under difficult field conditions. The programme targeted the poorest and most marginal areas of Asia, usually remote and sometimes seasonally inaccessible. Even for locally based research teams, the working conditions in the field were challenging. And the nature of the research demanded extended periods of fieldwork. The work was not only physically but intellectually challenging: the research teams were pushing the envelope of conventional research practices. In most cases, they were undertaking work which was so different from what their peers and their institute recognized that at the outset they had difficulty even finding the terminology and language to share it. So the cases in this volume represent more than just one-off academic ventures. They are efforts by their authors to distil and communicate the outcomes of many years of challenges, in the field and in their own institutes, and they are products of determination, commitment and integrity as much as of documentation and analysis.

Why this book?

In recent years, a number of concerted efforts by research groups have drawn attention to CBNRM. Some of this literature is addressed in the next chapter in order to situate the work of the cases which follow. Yet, as successful as this work has been in defining a theoretical framework and providing a much richer understanding of participatory research approaches and of collective action in rural development, much of it reports on analytical conclusions and theoretical implications, rather than guides to practice. In particular, it remains challenging to find good first-hand reports on innovative, participatory local research and resource management interventions which would provide procedural insights to practitioners in the field.

We also found that much of the academic literature is relatively inaccessible to practitioners, particularly in rural Asia. This situation is changing as foreign-language capabilities improve among rural research organizations, and as new electronic media provide low-cost access to resource materials. However, there is still a significant digital divide in terms of internet access in these countries, and even when high-quality web access is technically available, internal policies at many local organizations restrict access to the necessary equipment. There is a strong need for local-language content and supporting materials in both electronic and print formats.

So while our local research partners have undertaken a variety of efforts to promote and publish their research results in national languages, they also felt it would be beneficial to present them regionally in an international language, so that they would be more accessible to a broader range of practitioners and peers. The exercise of synthesizing work they had undertaken over a lengthy period also proved valuable for the researchers, who were developing a deeper and more critical appreciation of its strengths and weaknesses. In many cases, the products forming the cases in this volume are also being reproduced by their authors in a variety of local formats and languages for other applications.

As the international scientific community has been forced to direct its efforts more and more to complex problems of resource degradation and poverty reduction, it has also had to focus increasingly on participatory approaches to research (Pound et al., 2003; Sayer and Campbell, 2004). Yet the consensus on what constitutes effective field practice in participatory research is still evolving (Vernooy and McDougall, 2003). Such consensus breaks down even further when it comes to development programme implementation. Despite the commitments of almost all international agencies and rural development programmes to the participation of those most affected in programme implementation, there is a wide range of interpretation of what this actually means in practice (Blackburn et al., 1998). Examples of good practice which emphasize field processes, learning, and outcomes in participatory research and action are, therefore, both timely and provocative.

With good reason, those governments faced with the challenges of decentralizing and implementing participatory natural resource management often claim to need additional resources – both in expertise and funding. Donors may be led to believe that solutions to these complex local poverty and environment issues can be achieved by throwing sufficient money and expertise at them. In fact, in many cases, the solutions are known, they require support for local capacity-building, leadership, initiative and learning. Donors, development agencies and national governments are not adept at facilitating local initiative. It is difficult to balance the patience required for local learning and experience so as to build confidence and initiative, with the real possibilities for sharing lessons and principles. It is challenging to recognize and respect local knowledge while still engaging the benefits of scientific enquiry and accumulated technical expertise.

In these areas, the cases presented in this book showcase helpful experiences in extremely challenging contexts. They suggest ways in which CBNRM processes can respond to these development challenges, providing a coherent approach to rural development practice that is especially well-suited to poor, unproductive and marginalized areas. They illustrate how local learning can have a broader influence on framing and implementing policies to better enable the expansion of local livelihoods and the sustainability of natural resource use. Moreover, they demonstrate the importance of local actors – particularly collective actors such as user groups, committees and local government – in generating change through networks of information and influence that extend far beyond a community's territorial boundaries.

At a time when global agendas require concerted local action, we expect that the experiences in this book will find a wide audience.

Producing this book

There are many reasons why local researchers in this field have not been published much – reasons that extend far beyond difficulties of language. Researchers may have little incentive to publish internationally in an environment where such publications play a limited role in their personal career paths. They may be too busy engaging in challenging fieldwork and practice. In addition, their organizations may have such limited funding that writing has been largely unaffordable and devoted to essential reporting and donor interactions. Despite these very real barriers, there is a slowly growing body of literature written by local scholars. The cases published here represent a special effort to bring these voices to a wider international audience.

The book has come together through both individual and collaborative effort at several levels. At the outset, the task was conceived as a series of syntheses of a large body of research activity. Most of the authors of these case studies synthesized the work of their research teams, often involving several other colleagues in their drafting and revision. This process commenced in early 2004, with invitations to the research teams to explore themes for their own work. Participants agreed on a general approach to their cases which would direct attention to the practice of participatory action research, and their reflections on what happened as a result. The drafts of these cases took shape iteratively, through interaction in the teams and with external reviewers, including IDRC professional staff.

All of the cases were presented by their authors at a regional writeshop, held in Tagaytay City, Philippines, 17–26 May 2004. External reviewers (researchers and practitioners) from the Philippines and from Canada, along with IDRC staff, provided comments and feedback to the authors. The writeshop facilities offered editorial and research support to the authors, who then revised their work, and each case underwent extensive discussion and editorial revision through one-on-one coaching, group presentations and feedback sessions, and technical editing. The final editorial content was the responsibility of chapter authors, but they were expected to respond to a wide range of review comments, and were provided with support to facilitate their work. At the end of the writeshop, a weary group of researchers had learned that writing case stories was very different from writing technical research reports for project donors.

In addition to the external reviewers, the authors of the four thematic chapters in this volume also participated in the writeshop. Their task was to synthesize across the various cases around more general themes relevant to the field of CBNRM. The topics of their synthesis chapters only took shape during the course of the writeshop, and were introduced in outline form at its conclusion.

The concentrated and focused time of the writeshop was essential to getting these products completed. Without a committed period of time away from their regular responsibilities, most authors would have been unable to complete the intense writing required. Likewise, editorial review and feedback were concentrated in a short period of time to greatly increase the quality of the raw materials. After the writeshop, authors were able to devote efforts to further revisions and refinement of their essential arguments, and to respond as the manuscript editor pursued editorial questions and revisions. All of the revised cases were circulated, and the thematic chapter authors used these to craft their own chapters, which were further circulated for comment among all the participants and substantively revised before final editing.

Organization of the cases

The cases in this volume are presented in two groups. The first group of five cases from Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Mongolia demonstrate how the application of participatory action research in specific sites led to changes in resource management planning and practices. In some cases, the principal effects were on resource tenure, while in others the main interventions involved new applications for increasing the productivity of common and private resources through community organization. But both productivity enhancement and tenure were important elements in all these cases. Especially in terms of tenure, this led many of the cases to address policy issues from the field. The first group of cases (Chapters 3–7) are all based on long-term, site-based fieldwork which provided a grounding for interventions combining local and scientific knowledge.

The second group of cases are similarly grounded in fieldwork, often stretching over many years in several linked sites. However, these cases particularly reflect on the external linkages of the projects and of community organizations. Specifically, they address the ways that field experience and community organizations have been scaled up to new sites, transferred to government agencies or linked to ongoing processes of formal policy change. In the Bhutan case, the authors are explicit about how the research experience has led to significant changes in the natural resource research system there. Therefore, these cases elaborate a bit more on the external and policy implications of the CBNRM action research experience.

All of the cases are oriented to improving the access of marginalized groups to the resource base and helping them to introduce strategies for increasing productivity while conserving ecological integrity. All of them pay attention to the political and social context of this work. All of them are sensitive to the local dynamics introduced by the research project, and attempt to reflect on how those dynamics have played out for different actors involved. One of the important elements which many of the cases address is how the roles of various actors – farmers, local leaders, government officials, researchers – have changed through the process of shared learning by doing.

Synthesizing project results and exploring gaps

The four thematic chapters which follow the cases synthesize the various case experiences and draw conclusions about key CBNRM issues. These chapters distance themselves from the specific projects and cases, and reflect on the development context and the outcomes reported in light of some important debates in the literature related to CBNRM.

In their chapter on pro-poor research, Gonsalves and Mendoza argue that the cases present a number of important characteristics which will be increasingly essential to ensure that international or national research systems continue to generate public goods for development priorities. In response to criticism of research systems for the lack of impact their work has had on poverty reduction, many of these organizations are adopting pro-poor research strategies.

But what does pro-poor research really mean? What would a pro-poor research agenda look like? And how might one assess its effectiveness? Gonsalves and Mendoza argue that these cases model many of the features of pro-poor research. They say it should be pragmatic, participatory and transformative. An important enabling element is the research's ability to utilize local knowledge while addressing complex interactions with physical landscapes. However, they also point to areas which need strengthening. They draw on good practices as described in these cases, which sustain livelihoods while introducing better conflict management measures and which strengthen social science analysis on multidisciplinary teams. This is especially relevant to gender issues associated with resource management, and in reforming research organizations to better enable and foster these practices.

CBNRM interventions are most commonly defined in relation to external issues: resource appropriation, conflict, and tenure rights of local vis-à-vis external agents. In their chapter Beck and Fajber turn the spotlight on to difficult and persistent issues of intra-community inequity. They point to the challenges of addressing the subtle and complex social, gender, and power relations in any community. They remind us of the experience of well-intentioned rural development interventions, both top-down and bottom-up, which have exacerbated local inequities through interventions which are captured by local elites. They point to illustrations of the problems in these cases, and some examples of how researchers have attempted to deal with them. They note some significant successes in addressing these persistent challenges, but also argue for strengthening the analysis and interventions of action research projects. Rather than attempt to be neutral in their orientation, Beck and Fajber argue that CBNRM interventions should be explicitly structured to favour the most marginalized members of the community.

In his synthesis chapter, Vandergeest argues that these cases demonstrate ways in which external CBNRM interventions build communities or modify the nature of pre-existing ones. The resulting 'CBNRM communities' in these cases are typically translocal, because they are connected to other communities and to policy-makers in networks of influence and information exchange. These cases also describe collective local actors, who possess characteristics that are quite different from other collectivities or individual actors, who are capable of intervening in a variety of ways, all of which build from natural resource management into other realms of development. In contrast to the somewhat stylized depictions of the critical literature, Vandergeest sees the CBNRM communities in these cases as seeking strategic opportunities with, rather than opposing, both the state and market forces. While he emphasizes that the communities constructed through the actions described in these cases are contingent results requiring continued effort by many actors, Vandergeest also sees them as promising examples of new approaches to collective action for development.

One of the more consistent – and perhaps more surprising – conclusions from a comparison of these cases is that most have specifically addressed policy issues. In their synthesis chapter, Tyler and Mallee dissect the ways in which the policy influence of these cases has been aided by the context of ongoing – and contested – decentralization processes in most of these countries. This context provided a window of policy flux and an opportunity for local evidence from field experience to affect policy content and implementation. Researchers have proved strategically adept at reaching for these opportunities, using a variety of methods and approaches, sometimes in partnership with local communities themselves or with external advocates. The effectiveness of the policy and policy implementation interventions appears to be related to the transformative effects of engaging key actors in the participatory action research process. As a result, there are significant implications for both policy and research in CBNRM.

Ultimately, this volume demonstrates that the CBNRM research reported in these case studies has had some significant successes in marginal areas of Asia. The work has been transformative in several important senses: the perceptions of problems, recognition of processes and causal links, exposure of power relations, social roles of key actors and utilization of productive resources have all been fundamentally changed through the learning processes described here. These transformations create new social meaning and enable creative responses to difficult problems. CBNRM requires collective local action, but also enables policy action, facilitative support of government agencies and positive individual responses. Transformative learning helps actors align these different kinds of effective action.

Above all, these cases demonstrate how researchers, men and women who rely on resources for their livelihoods, local governments and policy-makers have expanded the possibilities and practices of resource planning and management through processes of shared learning.

Document(s) 4 of 24