Participatory Resilience in Rural Manitoba

1
Participatory Resilience in Rural Manitoba

• Cynthia Neudoerffer
• PhD Candidate, Rural Studies
• School of Environmental Design Rural
  Development
• University of Guelph
• Livelihoods Ecosystems
• Dealing with Complexity in Rural Development
  Agriculture
• 5 June 2006

2
Sustainable Livelihoods Ecosystem Health 2005
WorkshopsA story from Antigonish, Nova Scotia
3
Presenting Situation the Entry Point
Analysis of
Stakeholders the research team, community,
others. Whose issues are they?
Presenting Issues complaints and/or research /
agency agenda
Issues ecological, social, and health
Policy, Politics, Governance Who decides?
The Given History ecological, physical, social,
economic, political, governance
Multiple socio-ecological stories, pictures,
and system descriptions
People and Their Stories
4
Presenting Problem Degraded Watershed

• Community
• Analysis of
• ecological / social /
• health issues
• policies politics
• stakeholders

• Systems
• Descriptions
• Narratives
• qualitative
• quantitative

People their stories
Collaborative Learning Action
5
Participation

• Originally a radical connotation
• Power unsettling oppressive power relations
• Engage the marginalized in a process of
  empowerment that would enhance the capacity of
  individuals to improve or change their lives

6
Arnsteins Ladder of Participation

• Participation without redistribution of power is
  an empty frustrating process for the powerless.
  It allows power-holders to claim that all sides
  were considered, but make it possible for only
  some of those sides to benefit. It maintains the
  status quo.
• Its all about POWER

7
Arnsteins Ladder of Participation (1969)
Citizen Control

• power guarantees citizens govern institution,
• full charge of policy managerial aspects,
• negotiate conditions under which outsiders may
• change them

Delegated Power

• dominant decision-making authority
• hold power to ensure accountability

Partnership

• power redistributed through negotiation,
• share planning decision-making

Placation

• some influence but still tokenism, e.g. few
• worthy poor hand-picked for committee

Consultation

• sham if offers no assurance
• that concerns ideas taken into
• account

Informing

• one-way info flow, no feedback,
• no power for negotiation

Therapy
- cure citizens of pathology
Manipulation
- info gathering, public relations
8
Some critiques of Participation

• Participation is intrinsically a good thing
• A focus on getting the techniques right is the
  principle way of determining success
• Considerations of power and politics on the whole
  should be avoided as divisive and obstructionist
• Empowerment is a buzzword
• Efficiency greater productivity at lower
  cost
• Tool for achieving better project outcomes

9
Participation Power

• PRA frameworks set up - micro v.s macro, margins
  v.s centre, local v.s elite, powerless v.s
  powerful
• Power NOT monolithic system v.s those people
• Myth of community - assume commonality of
  interest but more realistically site of both
  solidarity conflict, shifting alliances, power
  social structures
• Need to explore micro points of power
• Power is EVERYWHERE, analyzed through creation of
  social norms customs practices throughout
  society, informal interactions carried out in
  daily life

10
Participation knowledge

• local knowledge is itself constructed as part
  of PRA process, reflects social relationships of
  process
• local knowledge shaped by local relationships
  of power, authority gender - public nature of
  PRA often conceals these relationships
• When defn of needs, project activities,
  target groups are open, much is at stake to
  control
• Local knowledge shaped by dominant groups
• Often mirrors priorities abilities of outsiders
• Myth of local culture - constraint, glue or
  resource to be tapped - what about when local
  culture / knowledge is oppressive to certain
  groups / people?

11
Participation tyranny of tools

• Success is defined by getting the tools right -
  doing the tools done participation
• CONTRAST review of prominent South Asian NGOs
  e.g. BRAC, Sadguru, AKRSP
• Informal, personal interaction important
• Dialogue
• Listening learning to stories
• Building networks of trusting relationships
  building credibility, trust, respect, shared
  understanding

12
Researching Participatory Resilience - a story
from Rural Manitoba
13
The story of the past
The story of the present
People Landscapes Their Stories
The story of the future
14
Presenting Situation the Entry Point
Analysis of
Stakeholders the research team, community,
others. Whose issues are they?
Presenting Issues complaints and/or research /
agency agenda
Issues ecological, social, and health
Policy, Politics, Governance Who decides?
The Given History ecological, physical, social,
economic, political, governance
Multiple socio-ecological stories, pictures,
and system descriptions
People and Their Stories
15
Questions for Discussion

• Is this re-casting of AMESH helpful, both for
  thinking and communicating about Ecosystem
  Health?
• Who has the power to select different narratives?
  Whose stories to we listen to? What do we do when
  we are faced with incommensurate stories?
• How do we take advantage of emerging windows of
  opportunity when there might be space for an
  alternative narrative to gain prominence?