Document(s) 7 de 15

Introduction

This chapter starts with the premise that fostering ownership during the natural resource research process is good practice. Fostering ownership requires time and resources. Moreover, it becomes increasingly complex and challenging as the scale of research moves from farm to landscape levels, and research moves beyond the analysis of situations and into the implementation, evaluation and uptake stages. Conflicts of interest may arise at various levels, as each of the stakeholders has a particular perspective, time horizon and expectation about outcomes. The focus of this chapter is on the factors that influence the ownership of research processes; from the identification of the problems and setting of the research agenda through to the ownership and direction of research implementation, evaluation and dissemination. We use the term ‘research’ liberally, to include situational analysis, participatory learning and planning and the investigation of the constraints to and opportunities for uptake of natural resource management (NRM) strategies and technologies. Three levels of ownership are addressed:

1. Ownership at the macro (national and global) level, by policy- and decision-makers in national governments, donor organizations and international research organizations.
2. Ownership at the meso/district level, by administrators, technical experts, politicians and private sector players.
3. Local ownership, involving communities, households and individual farmers.

We begin with a short discussion of ownership at the macro level and then move on to examine a case of a project fostering ownership at a district level. The cases illustrate some of the different institutional contexts and participatory

approaches used and bring out important general principles relating to ownership of the process. We then focus in more detail on the local level, through a series of case studies which document interventions in communities covering different aspects of ownership of natural resource research and management processes. These cases describe the involvement of communities and other stakeholders during agenda setting and problem identification, research implementation, review and evaluation. The final section discusses some of the critical issues and factors in encouraging broader ownership of research, the benefits of this sharing and the implications for researcher roles and institutional relationships.

Ownership at the macro level

The cases presented at the Chatham workshop focused mainly on implementation issues and good practice at field level. Ownership at the meso and macro levels did not feature strongly in the cases, but was raised during discussions. Aspects of ownership at the macro level relate to the community of researchers, national governments, donors and multinational companies.

The benefits of research practitioners engaging more robustly with the wider community, including the research community, is increasingly recognized as an aspect of more macro-level ownership. This applies to links between researchers within research institutions and across institutions: national, international and advanced. Often, research institutions have fragmented programmes organized along disciplinary or commodity lines, with focused technical research efforts under the control of individuals who may have very limited knowledge of and interest in the activities of their colleagues. Such conditions offer limited incentives for forging links that address key NRM issues from a more holistic perspective. Such fragmentation brings with it the risk of different researchers separately undertaking participatory needs assessment with similar communities as part of a project requirement, but not sharing the results, nor working towards the development of collaborative programmes.

Sustaining the interest of national governments in natural resource research, both in developing and developed countries, may require constant lobbying from the research and development (R&D) community. The privatization trend in research and extension services, and the contracting out of these services, poses a major threat to sustained interest in and commitment to NRM research, particularly the R&D activities that are of marginal interest to the private sector. This threat was not addressed in the cases, although initiatives such as the formation of the Participatory NRM group within Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) and policy-oriented publications provide a means for lobbying governments and the donor community (PRGA, 2000).

The way that research is funded and managed is also linked to the above aspects of macro-level ownership. Public research funds are frequently managed by disciplinary-based groups of scientists, who are likely to be more inclined towards promoting disciplinary excellence than with cross-cutting environmental issues and with short-term developmental impact. Private sector

funding for research, while targeted to address commercial concerns/opportunities, and perhaps sensitive to environmental legislation, is often driven largely by a commodity or a product focus that mitigates against a more holistic view of NRM and a concern to provide services to poorer farmers.

International donors contributing technical assistance and guidance to research are key players at the macro level. They have a focus on the impacts of poverty and environmental sustainability and employ technical advisers who have a policy orientation and mandate, along with a perspective on development, which is broader than that of most research scientists. While donor organizations are very image conscious, are sensitive to the sometimes rapidly changing formulations of development approaches and want quick and visible results, they also attach importance to natural resource sustainability, equity and participation. One of the main concerns of the donor community is how to bring the results of previously funded research in NRM to bear on the massive task of addressing a widening poverty gap.

Building ownership at the meso level: ownership and governance of communal resources

Scaling-up successful research initiatives requires that ownership be built among key stakeholders, operating in between the local community and the national government – at the ‘meso’ level. Challenges of developing participation among different stakeholders for NRM at the meso level include the need to develop a shared vision and to build confidence and capacity among less powerful stakeholders. This can perhaps be done by overcoming communication barriers, engaging in dialogue and discussion over different perspectives and authority structures, negotiating proposals for implementation and monitoring the results.

A participatory research project on NRM systems in Chivi District, Zimbabwe is presented in Box 3.1. It describes a process undertaken to facilitate direct communication from villagers to district officials, avoiding hierarchical transmission through layers of committees. Visions of the future governance of natural resource use were developed and presented by stakeholder groups, including a group of district officials, leading to proposals for a pilot study.

The Zimbabwe case presents a vivid example of how community participation in a process of vision building can lead to re-negotiation of governance roles in NRM. The visions of the future helped to construct alternatives to the current unsatisfactory situation, specifically, the need for greater devolution of decision-making powers to community level. The vision proposed greater community participation in developing regulations and sanctions, monitoring and enforcement, distribution of revenue, identifying development projects, maintaining boreholes and tanks and land use planning.

It is unsurprising that the initial visions developed by the communities were very pessimistic, since it is difficult to develop scenarios when there is no basis in experience for envisioning their acceptance or implementation. This envisioning was developed through the learning process and interaction in the workshops

and district meeting. The threats to the visioning process – local politics, dominant personalities, assertive ‘experts’ – that can derail such processes were effectively managed. The methods used in the visioning process allowed the voices of different stakeholders – young men and women – to be heard.

The case study identifies some of the key features that led to this progressive vision and that are relevant to other projects trying to negotiate for greater community participation in meso-level NRM. A concern of the project was to develop a more democratic process. Close examination is required to see the extent to which participation was encouraged among different sections of the community, including youth, women and the poor, or consolidated the traditional male gerontocracy (Hagmann et al, 1999).

Ownership over the research process at the community level

Building ownership in agenda setting and problem identification – examples from villages in India and Uganda

There are many influences determining who defines the research agenda and the specific research focus. Underlying these decisions are the institutional structures, donor and programme priorities and assumptions about who should be involved in the research and whom it is intended to benefit.

The Conroy and Rangnekar case study describes how the community influenced the agenda of a research project focused on finding ways to overcome seasonal fodder scarcity for small ruminants in Gujarat, India. Participatory methods were used to explore problems and priorities of different stakeholder groups and to create ownership of the research from the early stages of the project. Stakeholder participation in identifying priorities led to a specific recommendation that was not part of the original project plan or focus.

The Borrini-Feyerabend case study is highlighted in Box 3.3. It describes a participatory approach to a community articulation of priorities and plans for improved wetland management in Uganda. A process is described of building stakeholder ownership in collaborative NRM through an on-site, joint discussion of relevant problems and opportunities, followed by a ‘vision building’ session facilitated by external professionals. An increase in rice cultivation had caused a reduction in the area of wetlands, with associated localized flooding, water scarcity in the dry season and the disappearance of wetland resources and biodiversity. Three key elements or phases in the participatory management process were defined:

1. preparing the partnership;
2. developing the agreements; and
3. implementing and reviewing the agreements or ‘learning by doing’.

These two case studies illustrate how stakeholder participation at the community level can inform and influence the focus of natural resources research and management. Participation at the early stages of exploring NRM can help to ensure the relevance of the research agenda, and hence engender a sense of ownership.

The preliminary stages are conerned with identifying the main stakeholders within communities and developing communication and a working partnership between them (Grimble, 1998). NRM problems were discussed by different stakeholders together with researchers, to identify their principal concerns and to reach a deeper understanding of the problem. In the first case, the livestock owners perceived a need for a water trough to overcome seasonal water scarcity. Dialogue helped to expose the different interests of the researchers, compared to the livestock owners (eg, an emphasis on the water/feed scarcity relationship and the requirements for monitoring data). In both cases, community-level discussion drew out detail on the benefits perceived by different stakeholders, both immediate impacts and indirect effects on various social groups (eg, the effects of the water trough on people in the next village and on the well owner in India and the different consequences of continuing privatization or community management of wetland in Uganda).

In both cases, the problems and issues in NRM were explored through group activities. In the Indian example, semi-structured interviews with the main stakeholder groups were conducted and then refined through problem tree analysis. This helped to identify different perspectives and the probable technology impacts on other social groups. In both cases, researchers played an important role as facilitators of the discussion and of the process of determining the direction of action. The process of adding a water component into the livestock feed project reflects the value of effective interdisciplinary facilitation and support during the participatory management process.

Sustaining ownership throughout the research process

We now discuss and illustrate factors influencing ownership at more advanced stages of the research process. Three other cases further illustrate the establishment of local research management structures, the interaction between local knowledge and the technologies proposed, efforts to include women stakeholders and the review of technology testing and dissemination efforts. Some of the important issues in generating ownership of the research process highlighted in these cases from Nepal (see Box 3.4), Peru (Nelson case study, in this volume) and Malawi (see Box 3.5) concern the ownership of knowledge, providing adequate support and facilitation, building on existing cohesive social relationships and encouraging motivation by ensuring that research is relevant to stakeholders’ priorities and roles.

Ownership and sharing knowledge

Ownership of the research process closely relates to the nature of the problem, the extent of farmers’ knowledge, and the process of knowledge sharing. In the next two cases, participation in the research process is based on farmers’ interest in learning as a solution to a serious problem. The Pound case study from Nepal illustrates the importance of sharing knowledge and establishing cooperation for community-based disease management. It draws on the experience of researchers, extensionists and farmers in developing an innovative community approach to the control of bacterial wilt (Pseudomonas solanacearum) of potatoes. The approach was developed in 1990 by a multidisciplinary team from Lumle Agricultural Research Centre (Pradhanang and Elphinstone, 1997).

The status of knowledge about the problem and provisions made for sharing knowledge are significant. In the Nepal case, developing control strategies for potato bacterial wilt, sharing knowledge of disease symptoms, the factors influencing the spread of the disease and the recommended control measures, was vital in combating the disease. Meetings were held with villagers and training was given through workshops and exchange visits.

The challenges of developing ownership of the research process are much greater the more remote the problem and its causes are from farmers’ existing knowledge (Warburton and Martin, 1999). In these circumstances, knowledge-intensive approaches are required, with an emphasis on training and information sharing. The varied response of villages in the Nepal case suggests that the proposed solution is only likely to be acceptable to farmers where the problem is perceived as acute. In the Nelson case study (this volume) farmer field schools in Latin America provided a learning process which included participatory evaluation of resistant lines, but the interest in learning differed between men and women in the participating communities.

Gender and stakeholder involvement

It is apparent that active stakeholder participation in research is more likely to occur when the focus of the research is relevant to their priorities and roles. Consider the Nelson case study from Peru (this volume) that discusses farmers’ involvement in participatory research addressing potato late blight through training and local research committees facilitated by farmer field schools (FFS). The approach addressed improved management of this particularly devastating plant disease that often causes complete loss of the potato crop. Resource-poor farmers have little knowledge of the disease. Nelson discusses the role of farmer field schools (held in Peru and other Latin American countries) in increasing farmers’ knowledge and raises questions concerning appropriate strategies for increasing women’s involvement.

The Peru case study by Nelson highlights the important role of gender analysis in planning and reviewing ownership of knowledge by types of stakeholder. It is unclear whether it was the time-demanding features of FFS

that discouraged women (context, formality, the demands on time, literacy, etc) or whether their lack of ownership was simply because women do not play a major role in many of the stages of potato production. Either possibility requires that the content or context of any proposed training be based on adequate gender analysis. In this case, the analysis might look at women’s concerns and responsibilities, including relevant roles not immediately connected with the field production of potatoes (eg, the purchase and storage of fungicide, varietal selection, potato seed management and participation in informal seed systems).

Motivation and ownership of technical innovation

In addition to training, other motivations may be provided to foster the ownership of new knowledge. In the next case study from Malawi (see Box 3.5), project management had concerns about the effectiveness of local soil conservation management committees, particularly in terms of promoting knowledge and technology dissemination beyond the participating communities. Participatory methods were used to encourage the exchange of knowledge and views about technology adoption and dissemination, which could form the basis for improving ownership and participation in planning in the future. Timelines were used in helping to gain a historical perspective. This case explores the important relationship between approaches to technology testing and demonstration and the extent to which the approach used creates a sense of ownership and motivation for sharing results.

Managing a complex process

The above cases suggest that the process of moving from problem exploration and setting the research agenda to fostering ownership throughout the research process is complex to manage. Factors critical to fostering ownership of the research process relate to relevance, perceptions of benefits, support and training provided and participation in the technology development process.

The case studies suggest that motivation and participation is strongly influenced by the relevance of the research focus and intervention strategy to stakeholders’ priorities, roles and their expectations of benefit. The Malawi experience is interesting in that the approach reflected the project’s concern with two objectives, reflecting different time scales and levels of interest from farmers – poverty alleviation (in the short term) and participatory and sustainable soil and water conservation (a longer-term objective). Project experience suggests an incompatibility between donors’ concern to tackle poverty by directing project resources to the community through incentives, and the wish to stimulate soil and water conservation in a participatory and sustainable manner. There were indications that soil conservation was seen as a response to external pressures and incentives, as opposed to a local effort to improve productivity and conserve soil for the future. The provision of

incentives to target groups may discourage technology uptake by a wider group of farmers over a larger geographical area.

The extent of professional support and facilitation given to farmers’ research is important, particularly in cases of complex and little-known biophysical processes such as new diseases. Multidisciplinary support from technical and social scientists and extensionists and good quality facilitation are often success factors. In the Nepal example, support went beyond information

and training and included the identification of, and support to, alternative NRM options. However, it was noted that scaling up from the pilot project to a wider application would make heavy demands on resources for information gathering, awareness creation, training and support (Gündel et al, 2001; and see Chapter 4, this volume). Similarly, in the Malawi case study, extension officers were concerned that their area of operation was too large to manage intensive extension approaches.

Ownership through participation in a process of technology development and adaptation was lacking in the Malawi case. Although the project later involved farmers in reviewing progress, at the start no structure was put in place for incorporating farmer feedback or generating a participatory research approach. Local perceptions of soil and water technologies focused on externally introduced features, in the absence of an attempt to foster local research capacity or innovation.

The value of building on local social relationships and institutions is evident in several of the case studies. The Samuhik Bhraman described in the Nepal case, used interactive and participatory methods not only to identify the reasons for the fast spread of the disease, but also to show that disease control at individual or small crop level would not be effective. Through an understanding of social and ethnic structures and cultural practices, it led to the development of appropriate institutions for control of the disease in the shape of village-level committees. These were crucial to the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the programme. The project results demonstrated the importance of community relationships in effective disease management. Communities varied greatly in their levels of cohesion or ‘social capital’; where this was strong, the programme achieved greater success in eliminating the disease. The project also recognized the importance of targeting and understanding the grievances of non-cooperating members. The Malawi case further illustrates how institutional structures set up to mediate project activities are inextricably bound up with local social and political relationships and processes. Committees functioned most positively when they had effectively incorporated local village leadership and where the village headship was not being contested.

Conclusions

The benefits of fostering shared ownership through dialogue between stakeholders during the research process have been clearly demonstrated in the cases above. Participation during the earliest stages of exploring NRM problems helps to ensure the relevance of the research agenda, engendering a sense of ownership. The sharing of ownership needs careful management if it is to be sustained through the process of implementation and evaluation. Effective management of the process of sharing ownership contributes to local institutional development, encourages more equitable participation by different stakeholders and increases the effectiveness of research at different scales. It also supports capacity building and the development of skills and knowledge,

democratic governance and the spread and uptake of innovations. We conclude by highlighting aspects that are important to fostering ownership in natural resources research and management.

Appropriate institutional structures

In practice, natural resources research is undertaken within the context of NRM. Thus, a commitment to applying new knowledge and technology to community-based NRM brings with it the need for appropriate structures to manage resources. This need emerges from the case studies. The structures appear to be more successful when they build on local social relationships and institutions, for example a particular kin or interest group, community committees, local associations or traditional leadership. Communities vary in their levels of cohesion or ‘social capital’. Where this is strong, successful cooperation and joint decision-making are more likely.

The impact of strong local, social capital can also be seen in an improved exchange of information, higher participation in the design, implementation and monitoring of service delivery systems and more effective collective action (Grootaert and van Bastelaer, 2001). The importance of social capital in the livelihood strategies of the poor is becoming well known (Narayan, 1997), however, it appears that the poorest communities are those most lacking in a capacity for joint action. Projects and programmes looking for relative ease of entrance and measurable achievement of results in a limited time frame, may well choose to avoid communities that are lacking cohesion or disrupted by conflict. This may be justified in a participatory research phase where technologies and approaches are being developed, but in NRM beyond the village these issues will have to be addressed. It is important to anticipate the greater requirements for social analysis and facilitation in such communities and the need for a longer time frame.

Where the selected structures are representative and legitimate they can enhance the sense of ownership. In the Indian case, livestock-keepers agreed to form a management committee for the future maintenance of the water trough. In the Ugandan case, a positive factor was the existence of an effective local association. The management of wetlands would draw on management skills and structures already present in the community, but would broaden these to be more representative of the range of stakeholders. Research activities and steps towards developing a management plan and basic rules for resource use were proposed, debated and agreed by the stakeholders themselves.

Acknowledging local belief systems and values

Natural resource management has significance for communities beyond the merely technical. There is an important relationship between NRM systems and institutions and the value and belief systems of communities. In the Zimbabwe case, the legitimacy of traditional authorities’ control over natural resources is underpinned by belief systems. In the Ugandan case, there was to be a ritual legitimization of the community vision by clan elders. Furthermore, the

negotiation of the benefits and responsibilities in NRM was integrated with community values of equity and benefit sharing, in particular the question of whether the wetland could be managed to enhance the wealth of the whole community or for individual exploitation.

Political processes

Natural resource management is tied into political processes. The ability of project teams to understand micro-political processes, and counter attempts by powerful interest groups to undermine consensus is important. R&D initiatives working towards shared ownership can be thrown off course by local politics, dominant personalities, traditional leadership or experts. Early awareness, discussion and negotiation of management responsibilities and rules for the use of natural resources can help to prevent social conflicts and problems becoming acute. It also helps to ensure sustainability if participants agree on commitments (eg, the water trough maintenance agreement in Case Study 3.2). In-depth institutional analysis provides insights as to possible intervention points and alternative routes to promote change, as shown in Zimbabwe in Case Study 3.1. This case also points to the importance of maintaining a critical perspective in assessing the implications of decentralizing decision-making to community level. In some cases, agreements to devolve responsibility and decision-making power might be viewed as establishing mechanisms through which district authorities increase their control of outcomes, through their retained functions of coordination, arbitration, approval, monitoring and evaluation. In practice, decentralization could function as a means for extending state influence rather than supporting local autonomy and ownership.

Learning, knowledge exchange and methods used

Learning processes are vital in engendering a sense of ownership, as the cases illustrate, particularly in terms of collective learning and interaction between stakeholder groups and researchers. The process outlined for wetlands management in Kapuwai, Uganda, was designed to increase local awareness of problems and opportunities and to enhance the local capacity for sustainable use of the wetland and protection of its biodiversity. It was planned to hold regular reviews and discussions of management results among the entire community.

Researchers and community members may have different perspectives on learning. In the Indian case, while researchers and livestock owners met monthly to share their observations and to discuss management issues, they had different levels of interest in the monitoring data, and the monitoring data itself were not available for feedback and discussion until later. The effectiveness of such meetings depends on sharing knowledge around agreed common interests. Where there are differences in the agenda of communities and researchers that are not made explicit, there is a risk of an inefficient use of research time, of misunderstanding or even conflict. A sense of ownership of the research agenda is one of the early building blocks on which communities can increase their sense of empowerment in managing their resources and their livelihoods.

A joint learning process empowers and challenges both researchers and farmers to extend their knowledge and action into new areas (Hagmann et al, 1999). This is particularly important for the understanding of complex social processes, for highly specialized technical knowledge not available within the farming community and for technology which requires changes in behaviour and management practices, rather than the adoption of discrete technologies. The case studies from Nepal (see Box 3.4) and Peru (Nelson, in this volume) provided examples of learning processes established with farmers, which helped to create a sense of ownership and provide the basis for cooperation.

Knowledge exchanged with farmers is not merely technical knowledge. Technology is socially embedded; its meaning and significance is interpreted and integrated within existing belief and knowledge systems. The technical boundaries of a problem as perceived by researchers do not necessarily have significance for local people. As outlined in the example from Uganda, the exploration of existing knowledge within the local cultural, linguistic and social context is vital, followed by a joint learning process and discussion of management strategies compatible with local norms and institutions. The content and context of the learning process needs to be based on stakeholders’ concerns and responsibilities, although it can be helpful to draw on experiences from elsewhere to identify strategies.

There were many methods and tools used in the cases for joint learning about research problems, such as problem trees, Samuhik Bhraman, timelines and ‘visioning’. These cannot be covered in detail here; we note, however, that each tool has its limitations and is only effective as part of a wider process of learning and consultation.

Motives and perceptions of benefits

The case studies indicate the importance of exploring motives and the benefits perceived by different stakeholders, both in terms of immediate impacts and the indirect effects on various social groups. It also allows interventions to be targeted to specific groups for whom the problem is most acute (livestock owners and herders in Gujarat in Case 3.2, and potato producers in Nepal in Case 3.4). Motivation for participation is strongly influenced by the relevance of the research focus and intervention strategy to stakeholders’ priorities, roles and expectations of benefit. A more explicit understanding of this relationship has the potential to encourage the greater involvement of specific groups in monitoring and evaluation. Stakeholders’ own criteria of achievement could be the basis for participatory monitoring and evaluation.

Interdisciplinary facilitation and support

Another important lesson emerging from the case studies is the importance of effective interdisciplinary facilitation and support. The extent of professional support and facilitation given to farmers’ research is particularly important in cases where farmers have limited knowledge. Knowledge-intensive approaches are very demanding in time and resources and consequently pose a management

dilemma when planning for the scaling up of programmes, as discussed in the Sutherland case study from Malawi.

Operating at different scales

The case studies cover different dimensions of scale, ranging from specific crop or livestock-related interventions to the research and development of holistic management strategies. Organizational scales range from individual learning and adoption, to community-level ownership, to ownership at the district or meso level. The scale of the technology and the different levels of stakeholders involved have implications for ownership and control of the research process. The larger the technology scale, the more difficult it may be to develop a community consensus in determining the research agenda or ownership of the research process since there are more complex patterns of institutional interaction. Generating ownership of individually applied relevant technologies is usually more straightforward than those which require community coordination and joint action. Different institutional stakeholders (researchers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local government, private sector) have diverse mandates, financial structures and staffing profiles, which pose challenges for agreeing common ground and establishing communication mechanisms (Sutherland et al, 2001). Decentralized approaches require more inter-sectoral awareness and linkage between institutions. Negotiation processes to establish mechanisms for linkages between community and district level, as described in the Zimbabwe case study, are vital.

Time scale, urgency and the impact of problems on livelihoods, all influence the level of interest and ownership of different stakeholders. Farmers and NRM users may place a lower priority for R&D on problems that threaten longer-term sustainability, as compared with those that threaten their current livelihoods. This may be in contrast to the perspectives of researchers and NRM policy-makers. For interventions that do address problems of immediate concern, their longer-term ownership and maintenance are important if there are to be sustainable benefits. A lesson from the Malawi case study is that incentives may encourage initial interest by the contact group, but they are likely to discourage a wider uptake of the technology and also to be unsustainable. There is a need for realistic time frames for interventions, such as soil and water conservation measures, which are necessarily longer term in their impact.

Implications for changing roles

Clearly, shared ownership has implications for the roles of researchers, extensionists and farmers. In the case studies included here, the power of researchers to direct and decide, based on their control of research funds and their technical skills, is modified to operate in collaborative mode or, in one case, to act in an advisory capacity, supporting community initiatives. Current trends towards the devolution of financial resources and responsibility to district and community level for the commissioning of research and extension are likely to bring fresh challenges and a more radical shift in how research is initiated and owned.

One of the changes in orientation required by this approach is the ability to work more with group-based activities rather than with single individuals. Group activities may involve different combinations of stakeholders than are usually encountered by research and extension personnel. New skills are required, such as the management of meetings in a participatory and democratic way, the ability to explain technical issues in the local language, open-mindedness about different worldviews and explanations. Shared ownership is built through processes of participatory technology development and adaptation.

In addition to new roles and skills, there is also a power-sharing dimension. Participatory approaches to NRM require a shift in power and decision-making from district-level bodies, to community institutions. Complex relationships around governance and the negotiation of equitable outcomes require a high degree of flexibility in approach and methods, and a willingness to accept the need for accountability and transparency. It is recognized that such a shift in power has to be supported with capacity building, for example through a process of confidence building in the community and familiarization and discussion at district management level.

References

Campbell, B, Mandondo, A, Nemarundwe, N, Sithole, B, De Jong, W, Luckert, M and Frank, M (2001) ‘Challenges to Proponents of Common Property Resource Systems: Despairing Voices from the Social Forests of Zimbabwe’, World Development 29(4):589–600.

Grimble, R (1998) Stakeholder Methodologies in Natural Resource Management – Socio Economic Methodologies for Natural Resources Research, Best Practice Guidelines, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK

Grootaert, C and van Bastelaer, T (2001) Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations from the Social Capital Initiative, Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No 24, The World Bank, Social Development Department

Gündel, S, Hancock, J and Anderson, S (2001) Scaling-up Strategies for Research in Natural Resources Management: A Comparative Review, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK

Hagmann, J, Chuma, E, Murwira, K, and Connolly, M (1999) ‘Putting Process into Practice: Operationalising Participatory Extension’ in ODI Agricultural Research and Extension (AGREN) Network Paper No. 94, www.odi.org.uk/agren/papers/agrenpaper_94.pdf or as a booklet

Narayan, D (1997) Voices of the Poor: Poverty and Social Capital in Tanzania. Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network, Studies and Monograph Series No 20, World Bank, Washington, DC

Pradhanang, P M and Elphinstone, J G (eds) (1997) Integrated Management of Bacterial Wilt of Potato: Lessons from the Hills of Nepal, Proceedings of a national workshop held at Lumle Agricultural Research Centre, Pokhara, Nepal, 4–5 November 1996

PRGA Program (2000) Equity, Well-Being, and Ecosystem Health. Participatory Research for Natural Resource Management, PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia

Sutherland, A, Martin, A, and Rider Smith, D (2001) Dimensions of Participation. Experiences, Lessons and Tips from Agricultural Research Practitioners in Sub Saharan Africa, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK

Warburton, H and Martin, A (1999) ‘Local People’s Knowledge and its Contribution to Natural Resources Research and Development’, in Decision Tools for Sustainable Development, Grant, I F and Sear, C (eds), Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK.

Document(s) 7 de 15