Companion modelling for multi- stakeholders dialogs in natural ressources management

F. Bousquet, Rural'Est, Crisan 2013

Companion modelling for multi-stakeholders dialogs in natural ressources management

F.BousquetCIRAD


Organisation and networks

• Green research team at Cirad, Agropolis• Resilience alliance node• Companion modelling association


Social Dynamics

Ecological Dynamics

Interactions & points of views

The decision-making process: Interaction process among stakeholders

with different weights and representations

$


General methodology

?

Identifying the points of view specific to the different stakeholdersand collectively building a shared representation of the

system

society

environmentresource

A shared representationOf the system


• The creation of an interaction arena• The use of artefacts (role-playing games,

agent-based modelling, maps, sets of data….) to facilitate dialog among stakeholders

• A mutual understanding of the different points of views, and an exploration of scenarios of change

Methodology


Companion modelling (ComMod)


Inside ComMod methodology

Model

Field

Simulations

Analysis of the situation

Conceptual modelling

Role-playing game sessions

Interactive agent-based simulations

Initiation of the process


The dynamics of collective decision processes

about renewable resources management

Model

Field

Simulations

Model

Field

Simulations

Model

Field

Simulations


Experiences

Irrigated schemes in Senegal

Land allocation between grazing and rice cropping activities in SenegalNegotiations between a shepherd

and a forester in Mediterranean forestsDiscussions between foresters, shepherds and a national park in an ecosystem facing pine encroachment (South of France),Environmental mediation about phytogenetics resources management in Madagascar

…


Land use in Senegal delta


Land use in Senegal delta• Decentralisation -> Rural

Councils have to manage the resources

• Problems of allocation of space : multiple uses of the same space (agriculture-grazing)

• Two years process (GIS, workshops,etc.)

• A MAS to facilitate discussions

12

Context : Land use in Senegal• The valley of the Senegal river,

– deeply modified by hydraulic buildings– disturbed by the dryness's

• A strictly hydro-agricultural policy always operating (no complementarity between the various activities).

• A theoretically complete but not very effective decentralization (assimilation; transfer of competence; supports for communities)

• A confusion of the roles between institutions (technical services, local councils, civil company, NGO)

13

Stakes• Provide to the Local Communities the knowledge and

the capacity to act.• Obtain the support of all institutional actors for the

actions of the Rural Councils.• Facilitate for the populations, the knowledge, the

follow-up and the control of this management.• Build a reproducible method to introduce a real

transfer of competence for the management of territory.


Land use in Senegal delta

• The objective of this past intervention was to empower rural councils

• (i) to design then manage a local land uses planning, (ii) to oppose to higher powers (specially centralized State agencies); (iii) to embed their local voices into national policy frameworks.


Land-use workshops

•Day 2 –Role game–Problems and scenarios

•Day 3 –Simulations

•Day 1Definition of resources and space, rules


Agents’ behaviour

Farmer : - raining season crops on - dry season crops near permanent water

Herder: - distance to water < 5km- does not cross the crops - better grazing areas = crops residuals and


Basic simulation


Channels


Channels and access rules


Outputs

• Facilitate discussions on :– Ngnith village : new water points or new channels,

access rules to the water– Nboudoum village : necessity of grazing

management (technical expertise), access to a park

– Ndiaye village : positive impact of agricultural diversification


Assessment 2012

• Between April and July 2012, IFAD has supported the evaluation


Evaluation shows sustainable local impacts,

• In short term (e.g. after three 2 days-workshops, the district council has designed and implemented his own planning to deal with the key issues he has himself chosen),

• or in medium term (e.g. after the end of the support, the district council found alone the means for infrastructures, for an internal organization managing the issue, and even to efficiently oppose local needs to top-down programs and behaviors),

• and in long term (e.g. 12 years after, some local councils still use outputs to oppose to land grabbing).


Evaluation shows also national impact

• 2 years after the end of the support, a council of ministers council stipulates the method must be spread out to the whole country,

• or in midterm (e.g. every regional plan takes into account the advocacy infrastructures previously identified during the local ComMod experiment),

• 12 years after, the methodology designed by the local council during the ComMod experiment is acknowledged in the whole country, but also in some bordering countries, to set district land uses planning.


weakness

• Appropriation of the process by state agencies• But not support for local animation


Discusion on Commod


History

• Need of sharing experiences -> creation of the COMMOD group in 1999

• Writing of some common papers, special issues of journals, organisation of workshops

• Writing of a charter, 2 types of uses of companion modelling approach


2 types of situations for ComMod users• 1st situation: Understanding complex systems

– Systems research with specific tools & relation to the field– Structure of exchanges: Preliminary researcher model -> Validation

with actors -> New model, more adapted to actors’ concerns -> Validation -> Simulations of stakeholders’ scenarios -> New questions, etc.

– Production of new knowledge on the problem & relevant processes dominates

– Mutual recognition of knowledge & representations– A learning process through interactions among actors


2 types of situations for ComMod users (2)

• 2nd situation: To support & improve collective decision-making regarding a key NRM problem

– Methodological research to facilitate/accompany concerted (evolving, iterative, continuous) processes

– Particular relationship to field work– Make the diversity of points of view explicit– Quality of the decision-making process is important /

« Imperfect decisions » in uncertain environments

• A joint use is advocated


Support for collective decision-making processes

When facing a complex situation, the decision-making process is evolutive, iterative, and continuous. This means that the process always produces imperfect “decisions”, but following each iteration they are less imperfect and more widely shared

Companion modelling comes into play upstream of the technical decision. It guides the discussions of the various

stakeholders involved, with a view to producing a shared representation of the problem, and identifying effective ways of dealing with it.

The question is not the quality of the choice, but the quality of the process leading up to it. It is not about finding the best solution, but about examining the uncertainties of the situation with as much clarity as possible


Stakeholders learn collectively by creating, modifying, and observing simulations because simulation provides a mean to act on the decision-making process by creating

or modifying representations More effective dialogue among stakeholders (including

experts) through a framework for discussion and information sharing, an exchange of viewpoints, knowledge, and beliefs

Identifying the various viewpoints and subjective criteria to which the different stakeholders refer implicitly or even unconsciously

Support for collective decision-making processes

Companion modelling for multi- stakeholders dialogs in natural ressources management

Documents

Transcript of Companion modelling for multi- stakeholders dialogs in natural ressources management