Community Action: Framework for Assessing Feasibility and Constraints Across Different Systems

819 views
694 views

Published on

Stakeholder Identification
Stakeholder Assessment
Existing property rights claims over land, water, fisheries resources
Existing livelihood strategies
Objectives, attitudes/perceptions toward project
Community-level relations
Interactions within and outside the group/local organizations
Stakeholder meetings, negotiations, using WorldFish methods

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
819
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Community Action: Framework for Assessing Feasibility and Constraints Across Different Systems

  1. 1. Community Action: Framework for Assessing Feasibility and Constraints Across Different Systems Ruth Meinzen-Dick and Rowena Valmonte-Santos INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  2. 2. Framework <ul><li>Stakeholder Identification </li></ul><ul><li>Stakeholder Assessment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing property rights claims over land, water, fisheries resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing livelihood strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Objectives, attitudes/perceptions toward project </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Community-level relations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interactions within and outside the group/local organizations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Stakeholder meetings, negotiations, using WorldFish methods </li></ul>
  3. 3. Stakeholder Identification (from village reconnaissance) <ul><li>Resource users, e.g. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Owners/users of underlying land </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fishers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Farmers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Others? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Authorities, e.g. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Customary or traditional authorities who allocate resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Village councils </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Others with livelihood stake, e.g. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Farmers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fishers - fry breeders, fingerling growers, traders </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Institutional Stakeholders <ul><li>Farmers’, fishers’ and other associations </li></ul><ul><li>Government agencies for each sector (agriculture, environment, fisheries, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Local government </li></ul><ul><li>NGOs, other organizations </li></ul>
  5. 5. Stakeholder Assessment - Rights (from focus group discussion, to be done separately for each type) <ul><li>What rights do each claim over resources (including land, water, fish, other aquatic resources) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rights of access, use, exclusion, management, alienation, earn income </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vary by season? (irrigation systems, seasonally flooded) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On what basis are claims? (e.g. government or customary law, investment, inheritance, permit) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What conditionalities? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>With whom must one negotiate for permission? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Likely to be overlapping (e.g. village authorities claim rights to allocate, farmers to grow crop, others to graze on fallow, others to fish in floods) </li></ul><ul><li>Ask about “who can”, etc., not using confrontational “rights” language </li></ul>
  6. 6. Stakeholder Assessment <ul><li>Sources of food, income, livelihoods </li></ul><ul><li>Major assets </li></ul><ul><li>Differences by gender, generation </li></ul><ul><li>Networks within group and to other groups (e.g. patron-client links, work with NGOs) </li></ul><ul><li>Standing in community </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to speak out on their interests </li></ul><ul><li>Attitudes toward fishing and farming </li></ul>
  7. 7. Community-level relations (key informant interviews) <ul><li>Sketch map of village resources </li></ul><ul><li>History of major conflicts within community </li></ul><ul><li>Power relations in village (who are the gatekeepers) </li></ul><ul><li>History of working with projects </li></ul><ul><li>Distance to markets, experience with fishing, fish marketing, marketing channels </li></ul>
  8. 8. Possible Method: Power Game or Visualizing Property Rights Claim Game <ul><li>Visualization tool to identify how different groups understand the relations between groups </li></ul><ul><li>Eva Schiffer – power game for wildlife in Namibia; water governance in Ghana </li></ul><ul><li>Somewhat richer than “chapatti diagrams” often used in PRA </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced Venn Diagram </li></ul>
  9. 9. The Power Game Provides... <ul><li>“ Maps” of local resource governance </li></ul><ul><li>Perceived distribution of rights, access, power according to stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Quantitative data (e.g. height of towers etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative data (discussion about power set-up, accessibility, rights, conflicts etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Tool for presentation </li></ul><ul><li>Tool for group discussion </li></ul>Eva Schiffer ---- 04 November 2004 ---- IFPRI
  10. 10. Playing the Power Game: <ul><li>list stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>chose figures (playing pieces; e.g. tower) </li></ul><ul><li>arrange figures on “local governance map” </li></ul><ul><li>add “range of action cards” to each </li></ul><ul><ul><li>eye (observing); lips (giving advise); person with voting hand (decision-making); money icon (receive/give payment) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>define power </li></ul><ul><li>put figures on “power towers” (chips) </li></ul><ul><li>review set-up </li></ul><ul><li>discuss: Why? How? </li></ul>Eva Schiffer ---- 04 November 2004 ---- IFPRI Separately with each stakeholder (individual or group)
  11. 11. The Power Game Foto 1 (Spieldetails) Eva Schiffer ---- 04 November 2004 ---- IFPRI
  12. 12. The Power Game Eva Schiffer ---- 04 November 2004 ---- IFPRI

×