A framework for evaluating effectiveness and inclusiveness of collective action in watershed management

Abstract

Collective action in agriculture and natural resource management (NRM) is all too often conceptualised in terms of the mere number of participants, with little consideration given to who participates, why and the outcomes of inequitable participation. This paper focuses on approaches under development under the African Highlands Initiative to bring collective action principles to bear on gender-equitable change processes in NRM. A framework for assisting research and development organisations to evaluate the effectiveness of collective action processes in watershed management is proposed. The authors then use a set of case studies to illustrate the relative strengths and weaknesses of different approaches for enhancing gender-inclusive and equitable collective action processes for activities common to multiple stages of watershed management: structuring the community interface, eliciting views and governing benefits capture. Use of the framework to analyse these cases demonstrates the utility of breaking collective action down into its component dimensions when assessing the relative strengths and weaknesses of different approaches. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Managing international river basins: reviewing India–Bangladesh transboundary water issues

“…Watershed management, as a holistic approach, can be used to develop sustainable livelihoods (Pandit et al 2007, Alemayehu et al 2009), reduce gender inequality (since women are responsible to provide drinking water for the family) (German et al 2006, German andTaye 2008), reduce inter-community conflicts, provide renewable sources of energy (e.g. micro-hydro projects, biofuels) and improve the health of the community (by providing safe drinking water) (Molle et al 2009, Wilcox 2010.…”

Reforestation at a Landscape Scale

“…Such representatives should be able to attend successive meetings so that some continuity is maintained between meetings. Local participation and multi-stakeholder engagement is often easier said than done and Hobley (1996), German and Taye (2008) and Sayer et al (2008) describes some methods that have been used to achieve representative participation and manage meetings.…”

Participatory Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation of Multi-Stakeholder Platforms in Integrated Landscape Initiatives

“…In the context of landscape approaches, good governance principles relate, amongst others, to participation of weaker actors, so that they can meaningfully engage in discussions (Kozar et al 2014; Minang et al 2015). We identified the following three good governance principles as particularly relevant for multi-stakeholder platforms that are part of ILIs:Representation: The platform would have to represent the relevant stakeholders in the landscape, which will depend on the objective of the platform and the specific context.Participation & equity: Participation is often only perceived in terms of the number of attendants in meetings, and not in terms of who is heard (see, e.g., German and Taye 2008). Participation can have various intensities, from passive listening to active decision-making.…”

“…Participation & equity: Participation is often only perceived in terms of the number of attendants in meetings, and not in terms of who is heard (see, e.g., German and Taye 2008). Participation can have various intensities, from passive listening to active decision-making.…”