20 Does the Use of Local Knowledge in Complex Systems …
479
participate; we also observed that the demographics of the spokespersons and representatives (e.g., age, gender, social capital, socio-cultural identity, and interests) also
influences the type of knowledge being communicated.
At the group level, management outcomes are determined by the capacity to
organize, to make decisions internally, to build partnerships, and to negotiate. This
is particularly true for local groups which find themselves facing national and international institutions which are often the official owners and/or promoters of projects
such as multi-purpose dams (Boelens et al. 2016). Also important is the arbiter of
knowledge exchange between groups, who understands the system differently and
uses different vocabularies to describe it (Berkes 2000; Thomas et al. 2005; Agrawal
2010).
Vulnerability is perceived in concrete terms by local stakeholders. Displaced populations reported difficulty in accessing drinking water after displacement, which
mainly affected women. In addition, due to concurrent climatic conditions, unexpected floods and dry spells in Kandadji directly impacted food availability for the
populations displaced from their farmland. In an area that increasingly experiences
food insecurity, in part due to climate change, it is all the more important to put
safeguards in place to ensure that food needs are met; this effects the trust of the
population in the authorities managing the dam project.
The result of the overall under-inclusion of local knowledge is a potential and,
in the case of Kandadji, established increase in vulnerability. This vulnerability is
directly related to the underdeveloped potential of capacity across stakeholders at
different levels. This dynamic can be most effectively addressed, we believe, through
more autonomous organization and agency of civil society, instead of using a topdown approach driven by central governments. There is potentially a significant role
for donors and technical cooperation partners in accompanying local stakeholders,
while keeping in mind the risks of over-formalization and of changing the nature of
the coordination-type institutions themselves. There may be a research gap here to
be filled—how best to support civil society while allowing it to maintain its status as
independent representatives of under-represented, and often vulnerable, groups.
The cases presented confirm the complexity involved in the multisectoral, nexus
management of water resources in contexts of vulnerability, limited capacities, and
highly different scales and stakeholders. Capacities remain the main obstacle to
deeper proactive participation of users to higher level decision-making. Indeed, mobilizing constituencies, obtaining financing, managing transport, formulating interests,
pooling resources, and organizing collective action are capacity-intensive activities.
But these are exactly the activities that translate into adaptation capacities and reduce
vulnerability to climate change and unsustainable management of natural resources
(Walker et al. 2004; Agrawal 2010; Lebel 2013).
479
participate; we also observed that the demographics of the spokespersons and representatives (e.g., age, gender, social capital, socio-cultural identity, and interests) also
influences the type of knowledge being communicated.
At the group level, management outcomes are determined by the capacity to
organize, to make decisions internally, to build partnerships, and to negotiate. This
is particularly true for local groups which find themselves facing national and international institutions which are often the official owners and/or promoters of projects
such as multi-purpose dams (Boelens et al. 2016). Also important is the arbiter of
knowledge exchange between groups, who understands the system differently and
uses different vocabularies to describe it (Berkes 2000; Thomas et al. 2005; Agrawal
2010).
Vulnerability is perceived in concrete terms by local stakeholders. Displaced populations reported difficulty in accessing drinking water after displacement, which
mainly affected women. In addition, due to concurrent climatic conditions, unexpected floods and dry spells in Kandadji directly impacted food availability for the
populations displaced from their farmland. In an area that increasingly experiences
food insecurity, in part due to climate change, it is all the more important to put
safeguards in place to ensure that food needs are met; this effects the trust of the
population in the authorities managing the dam project.
The result of the overall under-inclusion of local knowledge is a potential and,
in the case of Kandadji, established increase in vulnerability. This vulnerability is
directly related to the underdeveloped potential of capacity across stakeholders at
different levels. This dynamic can be most effectively addressed, we believe, through
more autonomous organization and agency of civil society, instead of using a topdown approach driven by central governments. There is potentially a significant role
for donors and technical cooperation partners in accompanying local stakeholders,
while keeping in mind the risks of over-formalization and of changing the nature of
the coordination-type institutions themselves. There may be a research gap here to
be filled—how best to support civil society while allowing it to maintain its status as
independent representatives of under-represented, and often vulnerable, groups.
The cases presented confirm the complexity involved in the multisectoral, nexus
management of water resources in contexts of vulnerability, limited capacities, and
highly different scales and stakeholders. Capacities remain the main obstacle to
deeper proactive participation of users to higher level decision-making. Indeed, mobilizing constituencies, obtaining financing, managing transport, formulating interests,
pooling resources, and organizing collective action are capacity-intensive activities.
But these are exactly the activities that translate into adaptation capacities and reduce
vulnerability to climate change and unsustainable management of natural resources
(Walker et al. 2004; Agrawal 2010; Lebel 2013).