The many meanings of collective action: lessons on enhancing gender inclusion and equity in watershed management

"Collective action in agriculture and natural resource management is all too often perceived of in terms of the mere number of participants, with little consideration given to who participates, why, and the outcomes of inequitable participation. The literature is replete with cases of how uncritical approaches to participation structure positions of privilege vis-à-vis project benefits and the natural resource base. Yet lessons on how to engage with local communities in ways that promote equitable participation of women, the poor and other stakeholders are only now coming to light. This paper focuses on approaches under development under the rubric of the African Highlands Initiative to bring collective action principles to bear on gender-equitable change processes in natural resource management. The paper utilizes a number of case studies to illustrate the relative strengths and weaknesses of different approaches for enhancing gender inclusion and equity throughout the stages of problem diagnosis, planning and monitoring. The analysis suggests that an arbitrary definition of collective action is insufficient for assessing the relative strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, and that method evaluation should consider the different forms that collective action can take. A typology of different forms of collective action is proposed, and then utilized to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of different approaches for fostering gender inclusion and equity in watershed management." Authors' AbstractNatural resource management, Gender, Water, Collective action, Community organizations, Community-based organizations, Women, Watershed management,

Systemic lean intervention: enhancing lean with community operational research

This paper discusses how the theory and methodology of Community OR can enhance Lean initiatives. We argue that Lean practice can benefit from going beyond just the involvement of organizational stakeholders: local communities can be swept into the process too, with the aim of achieving an environment that is (as far as possible) pollution-free, for the benefit of organizations and their local communities. Our only proviso is that, in the spirit of Community OR, such an initiative must facilitate the meaningful involvement of community representatives, so change is agreed through stakeholder engagements that respect the inputs and framings of these representatives. Organizations should not impose ‘solutions’ on communities. An example of an intervention with a food production company in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria is provided. The paper ends with some reflections on the added value that Community OR can offer Lean practitioners

What is Community Operational Research?

Community Operational Research (Community OR) has been an explicit sub-domain of OR for more than 30 years. In this paper, we tackle the controversial issue of how it can be differentiated from other forms of OR. While it has been persuasively argued that Community OR cannot be defined by its clients, practitioners or methods, we argue that the common concern of all Community OR practice is the meaningful engagement of communities, whatever form that may take – and the legitimacy of different forms of engagement may be open to debate. We then move on to discuss four other controversies that have implications for the future development of Community OR and its relationship with its parent discipline: the desire for Community OR to be more explicitly political; claims that it should be grounded in the theory, methodology and practice of systems thinking; the similarities and differences between the UK and US traditions; and the extent to which Community OR offers an enhanced understanding of practice that could be useful to OR more generally. Our positions on these controversies all follow from our identification of ‘meaningful engagement’ as a central feature of Community OR

Development Partner Group-Health Retreat

Following the publication of the draft Tanzanian Joint Assistance Strategy (JAS) in July 2005 which outlined a medium-term framework for enhancing aid effectiveness through the rationalisation and alignment of development partner approaches, a series of consultations on this draft strategy took place both within government agencies and among Development Partners. The Development Partner Group in Health (DPG-H) took this opportunity to hold a two-day workshop in late September with the first day devoted to discussing the implications of the JAS for Development Partners, Ministry of Health and President's Office Regional Administration and Local Government. The second day was used as a time to internally reflect on the present functioning of the DPG-H Group, identifying ways of enhancing the work of the group in response to the changing environment. Discussions on the first day of the Retreat were structured around the five key elements of the JAS, i.e., Sector Dialogue, Aid Modalities, TA and Capacity Building, Division of Labour and Monitoring & Evaluation. Presentations were made by Development Partners with input/comments and clarification given by the Ministry of Health, President's Office Regional Administration and Local Government; and Ministry of Finance. Group work was undertaken in the afternoon to further address pertinent issues that were raised from the plenary discussions in the morning session. This resulted in a number of recommendations that included the following: supporting an effective division of labour; harmonising support with government plans and priorities irrespective of the funding modality; complementarity and coordination enhanced between the various aid modalities; basket funding to continue as a transition towards General Budget Support (GBS); demand driven technical assistance; and over time developing an agreed competency/profile skills mix of health development partners. The second day was an opportunity for members of the DPG-H to come together and reflect on the work of the group - where it had come from, the current functioning of the group (strengths/challenges) and looking forward. A number of presentations were made that covered the background of the group; the history of the Sector Wide Approach (SWAp) and the role of development partners; the sector dialogue structures, the expectations and challenges with respect to communication; strengthening the ways of working as a group and the development of an activity plan for prioritising activities. During the plenary sessions a number of recommendations were agreed that included better structuring of the DPG-H meetings; regularity of meetings (once month but more frequently when required); enhancing the coherency and linkages with the overall Development Partner Group; developing and agreeing a work plan and communication strategy; re-visiting the division of labour in terms of roles and responsibilities; putting in place a fully staffed DPG-H Secretariat and organising a troika chairing structure for the group. Moreover, a number of critical suggestions and recommendations were made for further strengthening sector dialogue that centred around revising the structure of the SWAp. As they had implications beyond the mandate of the DPG-H, it was concluded that this would require further discussions, elaboration and agreement by the Ministry of Health/PORALG.\u

Public Participation in Resolving Environmental Disputes and the Problem of Representativeness

Dr. Allen, the symposium organizer, reviews recent .efforts to increase public involvement in environmental disputes

Knowledge and perceptions in participatory policy processes: lessons from the delta-region in the Netherlands

Water resources management issues tend to affect a variety of uses and users. Therefore, they often exhibit complex and unstructured problems. The complex, unstructured nature of these problems originates from uncertain knowledge and from the existence of divergent perceptions among various actors. Consequently, dealing with these problems is not just a knowledge problem; it is a problem of ambiguity too. This paper focuses on a complex, unstructured water resources management issue, the sustainable development—for ecology, economy and society—of the Delta-region of the Netherlands. In several areas in this region the ecological quality decreased due to hydraulic constructions for storm water safety, the Delta Works. To improve the ecological quality, the Dutch government regards the re-establishment of estuarine dynamics in the area as the most important solution. However, re-establishment of estuarine dynamics will affect other uses and other users. Among the affected users are farmers in the surrounding areas, who use freshwater from a lake for agricultural purposes. This problem has been addressed in a participatory decision-making process, which is used as a case study in this paper. We investigate how the dynamics in actors’ perceptions and the knowledge base contribute to the development of agreed upon and valid knowledge about the problem–solution combination, using our conceptual framework for problem structuring. We found that different knowledge sources—expert and practical knowledge—should be integrated to create a context-specific knowledge base, which is scientifically valid and socially robust. Furthermore, we conclude that for the convergence of actors’ perceptions, it is essential that actors learn about the content of the process (cognitive learning) and about the network in which they are involved (strategic learning). Our findings form a plea for practitioners in water resources management to adopt a problem structuring approach in order to deal explicitly with uncertainty and ambiguity

Evaluation of the Cross-Border EU Citizens’ Dialogue on May 17, 2019 in The Hague. The Citizens’ Dialogue was conducted by the European Commission in cooperation with the Bertelsmann Stiftung

In cooperation with the Bertelsmann Stiftung, the European Commission staged a cross-border EU Citizens’ Dialogue in The Hague on May 17, 2019. 120 citizens from the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, France and Ireland discussed the future of Europe, focusing mainly on Social, Digital and Global Europ