As mentioned earlier, the objective of the evaluation discussion was to analyze the outcomes of the e-forum and to identify directions and priorities actions for the work in CNRM. A list of six guiding questions was prepared for the restricted group of participants to guide their contributions. The views of the fourtheen participants of the evaluation on these issues are reflected in the conlusions presented in Chapter 4, while the full text of their contributions is presented in Chapter 5. Below is a syntesis of the contributions organized according the questions used to structure the evaluation process.
1. What are the most urgent needs that emerged for you during the e-forum in relation to information sharing and learning processes?
People need time to participate and in order to make time the discussions need to be relevant. On-line discussions require fairly good connectivity because quick response and feedback is important. Discussions should be facilitated well to synthesise, draw out lessons and build on the points raised.
Building a common language or vocabulary will help us to communicate more effectively.
We need information sharing mechanisms to strengthen NRM field programmes, to provide support to ongoing projects, to provide timely information and reflections on ongoing CNRM initiatives as well as on the methods and tools that can make a difference.
We need mechanisms to help practitioners learn their way into the field and complementary mechanisms to inform decision makers about the importance of the profession and the unique features of practice.
Training and capacity building for professional communicators at all levels and we need to learn more about what opportunities exist.
Facilitation is important to keep focus and organize ideas into a framework. In future, it will be important to identify themes and emerging trends (an observatory group?). These can be presented for discussion using a pre-established framework possibly moderated by a specialist. Themes and agendas could be agreed on by the group to discuss at intervals (4 times a year?) which would provide each member time to think, do research, or try things out. Outcomes from these processes would need to be shared beyond the group - e-mail newsletters or ‘media releases’.
We need to define an understanding of CNRM, to stimulate more debate and distil learning and to find ways to communicate with each other more often - possibly through a contact group for CNRM.
We need to share and exchange more lessons learned and steps for undertaking CNRM initiatives - especially at the policy level.
We need to couple theoretical and practical training with apprenticeship either face to face or on-line, to work more with the commercial sector, to improve interactive sharing with communities, and to find mechanisms to share information among policy makers and also between policy makers and communities as well as the middle managers implementing programmes.
We need a journal that is accessible.
Discussion forums need to be focused and short to deal with people’s time constraints. Having people sign up for a discussion timed after consultation could be one way to increase participation. Discussions should be action oriented and specific. We need better case studies that involve practitioners in honest reflections on their own practises.
We need to find a balance between universal theoretical principles and the need to contextualise these for local application. We need to develop guidelines to combine these 2 dimensions.
A more systemized way of forming synthesis is needed, otherwise it is largely based on the perception and understanding of the person doing it. One way could be to create a checklist or table prior to the discussion of anticipated possible issues that people could discuss, and then classifying where messages will fall on such typology.
The most urgent need seems to be better prepared human resources for communication for development and social change. We know universities are not offering the profile of development communicator that is needed. Many projects fail to deliver because of poor strategic thinking in communication. And it is definitely not enough to do some patchwork and train practitioners during a couple of weeks or a couple of months. There is a discipline to be taken seriously. No more improvisations.
2. Who do you think are the main actors interested in sharing methods and principles of work to increase the impact and of communication in natural resource management initiatives?
Practitioners in the field, academics and consultants.
Natural resource policy makers and managers without understanding of communication; those who are aware but need more evidence to convince others; and the managers, practitioners, and field staff who need case studies, methods, and critical reflection on practice.
Policy makers and children should be the main audiences beyond the core group of practitioners, researchers, etc.
Development workers and people in policy, politics, business, media, art, INGO’s, CBO’s etc.
Communication practitioners and academic professionals.
In Zimbabwe there is Campfire but there are also CBO’s, local and international NGO staff, line ministries, nature and wildlife societies, private operators in tourism and NRM, local and national leaders, regional authorities and media.
Communication scholars (an audience to be cultivated), managers and decision makers of international organisations should be the primary audience.
Practitioners using development communication.
Policy-makers, scholars, consultants, managers and practitioners are main actors but we can also devise venues to engage community stakeholders - village officials, leaders, elders, teachers, parents - in our dialogue and exchanges.
Communicators themselves and development organisations that lack understanding about the role of communication in natural resource management.
3. Can you make more suggestions as to how we can share experiences and lessons in CNRM more effectively?
Having a framework with which to organize the information and views shared would be useful.
Creating updated lists across agencies of CNRM project activities and contacts on a country-by-country basis will help avoid duplication and provide information for policy makers, managers and field practitioners. Similar lists could be built across sectors of CNRM activity (water, extension, health etc).
We need different mechanisms for different groups of actors. Openended discussion forums are fatiguing. An idea might be to start with a network of practitioners at field level and make use of existing initiatives. The results from this could be shared via global networks (such as The Communication Initiative).
Decision makers and those wishing to advocate with policy makers will need hard evidence of successful initiatives, impact and lessons learned.
Taking the lists of guidelines, principles, and fundamental essentials and turning these into a useful handbook of some sort. Using the journal mentioned by Jan Servaes to exchange ideas is also important.
By providing a sustainable platform for participants - an interest group, roundtable, union or CNRM network focusing on both theory and practise at the field level.
Holding discussion forums, e-mail newsletters, circulating reports, case studies, news articles and references on CNRM, holding bi-annual conferences, conducting exchange visits, developing links with and between other CNRM networks.
We should be using principles of interpersonal communication from Participatory Rural Appraisal, Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal, and Stakeholder Analysis, as well as Publications, Information Communication Technologies, Share Fares and Conferences.
There are fundamental principles that have to be reflected in participatory communication. Having a better idea of these would help to cull useful from non-useful theoretical models. Focusing on the kind of communication work we want to do - advocacy, participatory communication, awareness raising, community media etc could help to focus on the principles and experiences more precisely.
It would be very useful to have each organisation share what it is doing so we could learn, from a broad range of programmes, the lessons to be drawn, and the theory behind different forms of practise. If this was done in a discussion forum we would need good facilitation and also knowledge of the other participants in terms of their experience and background.
It would be useful to take the workbook format using the framework of themes, learning objectives etc to create a structure through which other practitioners could share their projects and lessons about what has worked or not, what theoretical models were used and why. It would also be useful to have links to further case studies, research and individuals that might be helpful and will allow us to draw on various disciplines work and experience. Country or culture specific information could also be helpful along with sources that allow us to tap into the perspectives of policy makers, potential donors along with a listing of communication theories and case studies in which these have been put into practise would also be helpful. If we can make this an on-line workbook it would be useful with or without accompanying discussion forums.
Creating networks to facilitate the flow of information is not enough we must also ‘package’ the information in useable forms such as case studies, reports on specific issues concerning NRM or specific phases of NRM projects (research, planning, evaluation etc) in addition to other informal and structured exchanges (such dialogue via the internet and face to face meetings).
A framework for discussion can be useful where participants agree on key issues to be aware of and concentrate on during the discussion to facilitate synthesis and meta data leading to theory building. Discussions should be based on experiences. If different programs are being simultaneously implemented around the world, then the focus should be on learning from these experiences. This would be an incentive for the practitioners to document and share what they learn. Programs and projects should be grouped for comparability purposes, so for example, a number of initiatives can be looking at giving voice to the marginalized, others to mobilizing community action, etc
Meeting in cyberspace for online forums such as this discussion on CNRM has proved to be very useful. However, it may be good to also meet in "meat space", particularly if it can be done close to a real, concrete programme or project that illustrates an interesting approach to communication. Real meetings, case studies, should be the initiative of development agencies that want to show their commitment to communication issues. South-to-South exchanges between Africa, Asia and Latin America should take place more often in the Third World. But also, within countries and regions, which often seem to be a world apart.
4. Are you aware of other initiatives to facilitate information sharing about CNRM? If yes, please list them and comment on what you see as their main strengths and weaknesses.
IDRC’s Isang Bagsak which is linked with South-East Asia at the College of Development Communication of the University of the Philippines, and East and Austral Africa at the SADC Centre for Communication and Development. A third implementation effort is being prepared in the Sahel with the regional office of ICRAF. It works with teams (not individuals) of researchers and practitioners involved in NRM and to organize a learning experience on participatory development communication based on each team’s experience and contributions.
It is important to focus on what the networking is for and it is more useful if focused on concrete products and activities instead of openended network communication.
The Rockefeller Foundation work on Communication for Social Change and communication programmes at Universities like Australia’s’ Queensland University. Universities and academic institutions have a role to play in action research and systematizing lessons learned.
At the World Parks Conference in Durban, a number of organisations with global reach working on natural resource and environment issues agreed in principle to begin cooperating on issues of common interest.
Not specifically for NRM but The Communication Initiative is a platform for exchanging and accessing information on any issue relevant to communication for development and social change.
5. What, in your opinion are the main things to be gained from improving the flow and sharing of CNRM information and experiences?
Theory building and research
Creating communities of practise around concrete and shared objectives.
Finding ways to alleviate the problem of time constraints to allow at least core group participants more time to reflect on the issues and themes.
Ability to theorize, improved work quality, more opportunities for joint work and activities, better utilisation of field practitioners, identification of research topics and programme ideas.
Poverty alleviation, Containing desertification, Preserving endangered species, Sustainable environments, Attitude and behaviour change in interfacing with natural resources.
Increasing knowledge of CNRM among all actors and facilitating the establishment of a common language or understanding. Improving the flow of information about experiences (including success stories) could also help promote CNRM.
Concretizing the idea of development communication and making it a conscious effort.
Making the most of the information already available would help to better design, plan, implement and monitor CNRM programmes. A lot can be gained from organized case studies and strategic thinking. The question is do we time to pull these out ourselves or should we try to identify ways to have this information collected and ‘pushed’ at us?
6. What specific things do you think can be done to improve the flow of information and experience sharing?
Developing specific research problems and to frame a research agenda in CNRM. Specific groups can be involved depending on their interest in and ability to contribute the research theme being addressed.
Develop an Internet based information mechanism that focuses on examples and encourages collaboration between projects centres and specialists.
More face-to-face meetings and honest peer review.
Face-to-face meeting must supplement networking and on-line communication.
An international conference or regional meetings and visits to success stories.
Hold discussion forums on a periodic basis; establish a system for practitioners to share their experiences.
Given the weak contemporary communications infrastructure in many countries we should use less ambitious forms such as word of mouth, school, oral culture, local meetings and working to embed CNRM into other ongoing development activities such as extension work. These field level forms can then be ‘repackaged and shared with middle managers or policy makers using TV, ICT’s etc.
Information must not just flow; it must flow in a useable manner. We need more communication-oriented products and we need to provide guidelines for designing communication strategies. We have to develop mechanisms for a continuous flow of information and exchange of experiences. We should be drawing out the lessons from new methodologies such as that developed in the FAO project in Southern Africa: Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal.
Face-to-face interaction coupled with online communication and perhaps a series of study tours.
Better linkages at the country level and at regional level.
The key areas of need that the evaluation identified as critical to moving the field of CNRM forward were:
Many participants pointed to the importance of starting with examples from regional or local networks and experiences because that’s where the experience is gained, they have much to teach and they are close to the ground. However, many of the issues raised above require a global platform/network through which local experiences can be shared, discussed and distilled into a ‘common language’ or set of fundamental principles.
Practically, this distillation will be more of an ongoing dialogue than an objective with a conclusion. As such, it can be facilitated by an on-line platform with centrally but locally submitted information organized in whatever fashion is most useful and open to interactive processes such as peer review, discussion forums, e-mail newsletters etc. Face-to-face meetings, visits to specific projects, regional networking etc can also be facilitated by on-line platforms but of course not replaced by them.
