The Organizational Process:

1. COMPARING PROCESSES OF STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY-BASED WATERSHED PROGRAMS: THE LITTLE BEAR RIVER, UTAH, USA, AND RIVER NJORO, RIFT VALLEY, KENYA Steven Huckett1, D. Layne Coppock1, William A. Shivoga2, Francis Lelo2, and Scott N. Miller31Utah State University, Environment & Society, Logan, Utah 84322-5230, USA. E-mail: shuckett@cc.usu.edu1Utah State University, Environment & Society, Logan, Utah 84322-5230, USA. E-mail: lcoppock@cc.usu.edu²Egerton University, SUMAWA-CRSP, P.O. Box 536, Njoro, Kenya. E-mail: sumawa-crsp@africaonline.co.ke²Egerton University, SUMAWA-CRSP, P.O. Box 536, Njoro, Kenya. E-mail: lelo@africaonline.co.ke3University of Wyoming, Rangeland Ecology and Watershed Management, Laramie, WY 82070-3354, asmiller@uwyo.edu INTRODUCTION Objectives of Research – cont. Little Bear River Watershed Sustainable management of watersheds to enhance the quantity and quality of water supplies is increasingly important for communities worldwide (UNEP, 1991). The continued expansion of human populations has resulted in changes in land use, and an ever-increasing demand for resources, further degrading land and water resources (Brooks et al. 1991, Turner, Moss & Skole 1993). Despite pressing needs to address watershed management, there remains a critical need for the establishment of functional community-based approaches. Effective widespread efforts to better manage watersheds will depend on integration of the ecological and social sciences to develop a sense of value,adaptive capabilities, and ecological knowledge of local stakeholders to set goals, identify problems, and organize sustainable solutions for their own projects (Berkes & Folke 1998, Walker & Abel 2002). It is hypothesized that two overarching factors largely influence the likelihood of success for community-based watershed management projects (Steven Huckett, personal experience, Kenney et al. 2000, Snow 2001). These are: (1) the inclusiveness and effectiveness of the process by which resource problems are identified and stakeholders are organized; and (2) the compatibility (relationships) among stakeholders. In contrast, provision of solid scientific research—or even demonstrable proof of community “need” for improved water quality or quantity—appear to only have a marginal bearing on project outcome (IES 1968, Kenney et al 2000). • Determine whether the original project is still ongoing, and if so, what form(s) does it currently take? Are the original stakeholders still actively involved or not, and why? • Did the project meet all of the original goals? • If some goals have not been met, is this attributable to problems with process, stakeholder compatibility, adaptive capacity, or some other factor? • The main objectives for the River Njoro will include: • Determine the process of watershed problem identification in the context of general environmental issues (social, economic, ecological, institutional, and policy); • Determine project design and organization, how stakeholders are identified and recruited, and which stakeholders, if any, are excluded from the process and why; • Profile stakeholders in terms of their compatibility; • Describe the recent history of the project, i.e., goals, organization, communication, monitoring, and evaluation? Compatibility among Stakeholders: • Stakeholders need to share a common, integrated vision, and an understanding of, and possible solutions to natural resource problems if stakeholder involvement is to be sustained (Brick 2001, Wise 2001, Lee 1993); • Stakeholder perception of how they contribute to the perceived problem and in the degree to which they could benefit from the implementation of solutions may vary (Berkes & Folke 1998). In essence, stakeholder sensitivities vary in terms of how watershed problem(s) rank in their spectrum of “needs.”; • Wide variation in net benefits among stakeholders may contribute to an atmosphere of mistrust. The more pervasive and important the problem is perceived to be, the greater the net benefits to more stakeholders; • Stakeholder values may vary in terms of their ecological knowledge and their role in their watershed (Francis & Reiger 1995, Snow 2001); • Better understanding of the relationship among stakeholders will help define degree of compatibility and therefore degree of success (Lee 1995, Snow 2001); and • Stakeholders vary in terms of their perceived or actual ability to control or gain access to resources that affect watershed values (Berkes & Folke 1998, Lee 1995, Snow 2001). The Organizational Process: The ideal situation seems to be when problem recognition is initiated by residents of the watershed, and not by regulatory agencies (Steven Huckett, personal observation). In this case, residents actively seek technical, organizational, or financial assistance to address specific issues. This scenario encourages watershed users to become proactive and to sustain their involvement in correcting the problem(s). One downside of this perspective, however, is that residents may only respond to problems that have grown to become acute, and thus possible solutions may be late in coming and hence expensive or very difficult to implement. In such cases, problems could be merely ignored as residents cope with a declining condition in water resources. Other factors which may prove problematic include a lack of ecological knowledge, training, and education, limiting a community’s vision and adaptive capacities. The more inclusive the process of stakeholder involvement at the start of a project, the better. If all key stakeholders have voice in problem identification and formulation of possible solutions, the more likely important insights may be discovered and the less likely distrust will develop(Endter-Wada et al. 1998, Steven Huckett, personal observation). One downside of this perspective is that as the numbers and diversity of stakeholders increases, assembly of participants and finding agreement on key issues becomes more difficult. The processes used in watershed programs should involve two-way communication between “the organizers” and “the organized.” Identifying appropriate stakeholders however can be problematic as numbers and diversity of values increase (Lee 1993, Snow 2001). Often the perspective and self-interests of “key” stakeholders bring to bear a disproportionate amount of power and dominate the discourse, leading to a decline in stakeholder diversity and participation. REFERENCES Berkes F & Folke C 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Brick P 2001. Will the rain follow the plow? In: Brick P, Snow D & van de Wetering S (eds.). Across the Great Divide. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Brooks KN, Ffolliott PF, Gregersen HM & Thames JL 1991. Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. Endter-Wada J, Blahna D, Krannich R & Brunson M 1998. A framework for understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 8(3): 891-904. Francis GR & Reiger HA 1995. Restoration of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS & Light SS (eds.). Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York. IES (Institute for Environmental Studies) 1968. The Plan and Program for the Brandywine. Regional Science Research Institute, U.S. Geological Survey. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Kenney DS, McAllister ST, Caile WH & Peckman JS (eds.) 2000. The New Watershed Source Handbook. Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado, Boulder. Kenney DS 2001. Are community-based watershed groups really effective? In: Brick P, Snow D & van de Wetering S (eds.). Across the Great Divide. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Lee KN 1993. Compass and Gyroscope. Island press, Washington D.C. Lee KN 1995. Deliberately seeking sustainability in the Columbia River Basin. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS & Light SS (eds.). Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York. Snow D 2001. Coming home: An introduction to collaborative conservation. In: Brick P, Snow D & van de Wetering S (eds.). Across the Great Divide. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Turner BL, Moss RH & Skole DL (eds.) 1993. Relating land use and global land-cover change. Report No. 24/5. IGBP/HDP (International Geosphere-Biosphere Program/Human Dimension Program), Stockholm. UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) 1991. The State of the World Report. Number 16. UNEP, Nairobi. Walker B & Abel N 2002. Resilient Rangelands: Adaptation in Complex Systems. In: Gunderson LH & Holling CS (eds.). Panarchy – Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Wise, T.A. 2001. Economics of sustainability: The social dimension. In: Harris, J.M., Wise, T.A., Gallager, K.P., and Goodwin, N.R. (eds.). The Survey of Sustainable Development. Island Press, Washington, D.C. RESEARCH APPROACH The primary investigation will utilize intensive interviews and questionnaires within two very different settings in which community-based watershed management projects have been initiated. The Little Bear River (LBR) watershed in northern Utah is approximately 795km² in size with 197km of perennial stream and 369km of intermittent stream, and three reservoirs. Land use is reported as approximately 70% rangeland/forest, 19% irrigated agricultural lands, 7% dry-land agriculture, and about 4% other uses, presumably urban. Land ownership patterns are described as 85% private, 11% federal, and 4% state lands. Approximately 12,000 persons live in the watershed, with about 8,200 living in urban areas (Allred, Jorgenson & Clark, unpublished data). The River Njoro watershed in the Rift Valley of Kenya is approximately 250 km2 in area with the main-stem river being 50 km in length. The headwaters originate at over 3,200 m in elevation on the east face of the Mau escarpment, encompassing forested and agricultural lands as well as many small villages and the towns of Njoro and Nakuru—the latter is one of the largest urban areas in Kenya. The drainage terminates at the saline Lake Nakuru at about 1,000 m elevation, within Lake Nakuru National Park. There are over 300,000 persons residing in the Njoro River watershed (Shivoga et al., unpublished data). River Njoro Watershed Objectives of Research • The main objectives for the LBR will include: • Determine the process of watershed problem identification in the context of general environmental issues (ecological,social, economic, and institutional); • Determine how the project was designed and organized; • Determine how stakeholders were identified and recruited, and who potential stakeholders were, if any, that were excluded from the process and why; • Profile stakeholders in terms of their compatibility, i.e., commonality of vision, perceived net benefits, watershed (ecological) knowledge, and control of resources; • Describe the history of the project; ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This publication was made possible through support provided in part by US Universities, host country institutions, and the Office of Agriculture and Food Security, Global Bureau, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), under Grant no. PCE G-98-00036-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID. Sincere gratitude to Layne Coppock, Scott Miller, William Shivoga and Francis Lelo whose support is greatly appreciated, and the US Agency for International Development and Utah Agricultural Experiment Station for making this research opportunity possible.