1
Needs, barriers and opportunities fordeveloping policy and community-relevant
research
Robin Reid and Batkhishig BaivalColorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Overview
• Over-arching entry points for policy to affectmanagement
• How difficult creating information that is useful tocommunities and policy makers is
• Different models of interaction among stakeholders
• Planning backwards as one approach
• Participatory ways to co-create knowledge together
• Working to continually span boundaries among policy-makers, communities and researchers
• Potential needs and opportunities for creating relevantresearch
Rangelandchange
Ecol. change+/- Biodiversity+/- Soil fertility+/- Rainfall
Social change+/- Migration+/- Poverty+/- Equity
History & social contextBio-physical constraints
Underlying causes of change
Proximate causes of changeCropland and settlement expansion,
overstocking, sedentarisation, fencing
Institutions, economic development, climate,livestock and human pop change, governance,
policy
Rainfall /snow, soil fertility,biodiversity, hydrology
Land-use history, currentland tenure, governance
Positive feedback that accelerates
degradation
Negative feedback that slows/stops
degradation
Reid et al. 2006
Problems with linking science with policyand community needs
• Herders, policy makers and scientists have different needs andincentives
• Scientists often focus on what is interesting to discover, not whatwould be useful to communities and policy makers
• We often miss an opportunity make use of all knowledge(herders, policy makers, scientists) and focus only on one type ofknowledge (scientific)
• The products scientists think are useful (e.g., complex models)make scientists the only ‘experts’ and are too abstract to beuseful initially.
• Scientists often need a lot of time to produce reliable information,making information out-of-date for community / policy needs
• Communities often do not value their own knowledge stronglyand do not criticise ideas from scientists enough
Different models for linking research with policy andcommunities
Social / ecological scientistsHerders, NGO’s, policy makers
Model 1: No interaction
Time
Model 2: Science has the answer to theproblem and delivers it when it is ready
Model 3: Initial consultation amongscientists, policy-makers and / or herders,but no follow up
Model 4: Herders, policy makers, andscientists consult initially and thendiscuss results at the end
Model 5: Constant engagement amongherders, communities, NGO’s, gov’t andscientists
Making science relevant:Key questions to ask to plan backwards to link needs with
knowledge
• What are the critical issues that communities / policymakers are now struggling to resolve?
• Of these issues, which ones lack critical information thatnew knowledge can provide?
• What local, scientific and policy knowledge is needed tofill this gap in our understanding of this issue?
• Then, working backwards: What map, model, analysiscan we produce together that will most effectively supportaction by herders, NGO’s, communities on the ground?Or will best inform current critical policy debates?
2
The core research team can span boundaries among differentstakeholders at local, national and international levels. Forexample, Mongolian scientists can bring the best of their
science to herders, local NGO’s and government organisations.
Local herders,and community
andconservationorganisations
Nationalgovernmentinstitutions
International andnational
conservation anddevelopment
agencies
Integrated trans-disciplinary
scientific team
Local, nationaland international
NGO’s anddonors
Reid (2008)
Scale Major actors What issue they influenceGlobal
National
Landscape /local
National bodies of 2or more countries,regional body if it
exists
Trans-national flows ofpeople, animals, resources;
security, harmonisingpolicies
This boundary spanning is particularly effective if we do itat different levels of scale
National agencies /ministries, non-profits
/ NGO’s, religiousgroups
Communityorganisations, local
resource managementauthorities; individualherders and state land
managers, local leaders
Development of newnational policy and
enforcement of existingpolicy / management
Development of new localpolicy, implementation of
local policy andmanagement, strengthening
local institutions
Increasing scale / extent of influence
Increasing involvement in im
plementation
Reid (2008)
One approach to doing participatory research with herders
Herderroles
Scientistroles
Co-creationroles
Co-develophypotheses
Design datacollection, train
team
Summarize localknowledge
about problem
Summarizescientific
knowledge aboutproblem
Buildcommunity team
and support
Co-collect data, co-create boundary
objects
Co-interpretresults, co-create
lay-personcommunications
Discuss resultswith policy
makers, privatesector, others
Analyze data,make analysis
accessible
Interview long-term residentsabout results
Discuss resultswith scientists
and others
Discuss resultswith communities
and others
One example: Making science work for communities in AfricaKnowledgegenerated:Ecological and socialstates and processes,cost-benefit analyses,mapping land use
Changing mindsets: Promoted morediscussion and ‘buzz’; acceptance that wildlifeloss is occurring, the need for action, andpastoralism is not usually the cause of loss
Catalyzing better planning and implementation:faster, more effective land-use planning,enforcement of regulations, conservation goalsincluded in agricultural policyKnowledge
exchangemechanisms:Over 250meetings, 6 radioprograms, 10policy briefs, and30 trainingsessions by coreteam with localand nationalmanagers, policymakers, NGO’s
Strengthening local institutions: broughtcommunity concerns to national attention;community members have more confident voice;supported office as community nerve centre; newinformation closes information and power gap
Empowering community members:increased skills and pride, better leadershipskills and thus more effective action
Action
Actio
nAc
tion
Action
Revising policy to address sustainabilityissues: More forward-looking policy thataddresses both livelihoods and conservation,providing incentives to improve both.
Action
Potential needs & opportunities for creating researchrelevant for policy makers and community members in
Mongolia
• Two way relationshipbetween the research andpolicy development
• Recognition of CBNRM asa scientific subject
• Recognition of importanceof CBNRM as naturalresource policy direction
• Experimenting withevaluating long-term socialand ecological outcomes
• Examine more specific phenomenawhere social and ecological systemsare integrated in a common propertymanagement system
• Opportunity to scale-up andcompare with otherinitiatives/projects within the country
• Opportunity to compare with othercountries’ initiatives/projects
• Resilience assessment for the semi-arid and arid ecological zones
Potential needs & opportunities for creating researchrelevant for policy makers and community members in
Mongolia
3
Discussion questions
• Is there a gap between research and policymakers and communities?
• What are some ways we can make sureresearch is relevant to the needs of policy
makers and communities?
• What are the big concerns from the perspectiveof policy makers and the perspective of
herders?