Evolution of water users’ knowledge to assess effects of a participatory approach v3 in Boura dam

Evolution of water users’ knowledge to assess effects of a participatory approach:

V3 in Boura dam

Daré W., Napon K., Jankowski F., Kaboré M., Medah I.

Final Science Meeting, CPWF, Ouagadougou, 17-19 september 2013

Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta

Difficulties to assess the effects of participatory approaches (PA) “Every evaluation situation is

unique” (Patton, 2010, 257)• Variety of participatory approaches • Variety of elements to assess (social

context, quality of participation process, objectives v/v results)

Rare interested in the effects (Guérin-Schneider et al., 2010)• Tangible artifacts, • Side-effects (behaviour, attitude,

knwoledge) Multiple dimensions of learning Time and scale frame specially

with adaptive PA?

OBJ

PART. PROCESS

RES

PART. PROCESS


Focus assessment of PA on knowledge

Why Knowledge?• First step of a learning process

(Charlot, 1997)• Knowledge are dynamic

(circulation & exchange) Analysis framework

Information

Knowledge

Individual Learning

Collective Learning

K. about Management of

SR

Social K.

Economical k.Political K.

Technical K.

K. about the PA

Medah, Daré, 2012

Local perceptions elicited


Methodology and data collected

Elements of the method: field visit, observation of workshop, sociological interviews (t0, t+2months, t+12)

Data collected• Mostly discourse + situated observation • Interviews conducted: 54 x 3 series, users, non users & researchers• Corikab, Tomhositi, Piame, Akaweri, Djamnadi, women groups


Results Technical knowledge

• Context - overgrazing of project activities

(development & research)- Access to a lot of trainees <= DPA(H) and

NGOs• New K about ecology

- Link with PA artifacts: water level, red beacon

- Ecology of some algae (« Azola »)- Mesh size (1/4 => 4,5 fingers)

• New K about « Bad practices »- Cleaning of inputs tins near of the dam- Fertilizers (NPK => urea)- Cultural calendar


Results

Social and political knowledge• Few• Already organized in farming groups

interacting together ( several memberships)

• No new K in terms of conflict of uses (farmers vs livestock breeders)

• Weak of reporting of representatives to members.

Economical K. : • No effects• Only 1 mention of the Household’s

account study (Fusillier)


Results K. About the participatory approach

• Engagement of participants?- Only the few people directly engaged

in the activities know the project- Circulation of knowledge outside of

this first circle is weak- Importance of intermediary tools to

formalize knowledge ( beacon, ppt, piezometer)

• Adaptiveness of the process?- A clear message about the objectives

of the V3 but still expectations- Further investigations are needed (last

round of researchers interviews tbd)


Conclusion/discussion

Interest and limits of the analysis framework• Some knowledge seems already translated into practices (mesh size,

collective cleaning of infrastructure,…)• Some heuristic interest despite the simplification• Only 1 year results => first one should be improved by more long data

collection Issues at stake

• Scaling up of the results outside the 1st circle?• Answer to local expectations in terms of development issues ?


Thank you

Business

Evolution of water users’ knowledge to assess effects of a participatory approach v3 in Boura dam