Sharing and sustaining change in socio-hydrological

systems with

Dr. Nils Ferrand , Delphine L’Aot
& Wanda Aquae-Gaudi, Géraldine Abrami, Bruno Bonté, Emeline Hassenforder, Benjamin Noury, Sylvie Morardet, Raphaële Ducrot, Stefano Farolfi, Sophie Richard, Patrice Garin, Olivier Barreteau, Sami Bouarfa, Sarah Loudin, Laetitia Guerin-Schneider

UMR/JRU G-EAU Managing Water, Stakeholders & Uses

IRSTEA : French National Institute for Research and Technology on Environment and Agriculture - Montpellier, FRANCE

www.irstea.fr

Pour mieux affirmer
ses missions,
le Cemagref devient Irstea

Content of this session

  • Introduce the principle of « sharing change »
    and the use of coupled participatory methods (preparation, framing, modeling, simulation, planning, implementation, evaluation) for decision & action stages

with international samples

  • Present the set of CoOPLAaGE tools

  • Discuss projects and future developments

2

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

3

3

UMR Gestion de l’Eau, Acteurs et Usages (G-EAU)

Our roots

  • From IWRM within multi-scaled irrigated systems to Adaptive Water Management in Socio-Hydrological Systems

  • Strong ambition on interdisciplinarity

  • Finalized research for public policy support, in Europe and developping countries

  • Trans-disciplinary research (co-design with and for stakeholders)

4

4

Inter-disciplinary skills

  • 75 permanent staff + 40 PhD

  • 25 staff outposted in partner institutions in developping countries (Tunisia, Morocco, Senegal, Mozambique, South-Africa, Thailand, Laos)

  • Full range of disciplines
    • Economics, sociology, anthropology and policy analysis
    • Hydro(geo)logy and hydraulics
    • Agronomy
    • Geography
    • Method for inter-trans-disciplinarity: complex system modelling and simulation, integrated assessment, participatory research

5

Common focus:
Adaptative Management of Social Hydrological Systems

  • Identification of dynamics driving social hydrological systems’ evolution

  • Simulation of possible pathways

  • Soft and hard infrastructures to drive changes

G-EAU :
an inter/trans disciplinary research group to understand and improve adaptation capacities in social hydrological systems

  • Plurality of viewpoints
    • In terms of discipline, objective in relation to water…
    • Investigations all across the world

  • Consistency in research object
    • Time horizon: management
    • Spatial scale: managed area

  • Consistency in methods
    • Rooted in field work
    • Use of modelling
    • Integration of heterogeneous sources of knowledge

  • Consistency of analysis
    • Justice and resilience issues
    • Contribution of water to meet a set of needs within a community
    • A REAL stakeholders’ driven & respectful approach

  • Towards new knowledge, new methods AND decision support

Toward integrated change

(c) nils.ferrand@cemagref.fr, 2009

8

Firms

Industry

Services

Regulations

Lobbying

Resources

Labor & Demand

Goods / Services

8

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

« Sharing Change » with : principles

  • (re-)Coupling and engaging all levels of stakeholders
  • « Let them » manage their own transformative process (Transfer, autonomy and minimal intervention)
  • Coupling methods / tools / knowledge relevant for each decision or implementation need
  • A transversal participatory modeling paradigm:
    « 
    Yes, they can model », explore and change their own pathway in a complex environment
  • (Self-)Evaluation as a driver, not a burden
  • Low-tech, low-cost

9

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Why ?

  • Supporting all stakeholders, from communities’ members (smallholders) to the “top” policy makers in discussing and engaging together into change strategies in and for their socio-hydrological systems
  • Improving sustainability of the change pathway (decision and action) by reducing external interventions and incentives, and fostering self-conduct, social norming and local institutionalization → Autonomy
  • Developing a science, engineering capacity and a toolkit for “recoupling” levels, stakes, sectors, actors, methods
  • Monitoring and evaluating processes and socio-political impacts

10

10

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

What ?

An integrated set (suite) of participatory methods, tools and protocols, to let all stakeholders :

  • co-design an acceptable decision procedure
  • co-model the hydrosocial situation, options & policies
  • discuss, frame and share social justice principles
  • simulate & explore (by multi-level role playing game) change’ pathways with individual and collective choices
  • build coherent, feasible and efficient action plans
  • evaluate the process and outcomes
  • implement and adapt

11

11

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

12

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Background & History (1993-…)

  • Companion Modeling (Bouquet, Barreteau, D’Aquino, Etienne, … - 1998)
    = participatory modeling + role-playing game & computer simulations (multi-agent) to co-explore and endorse change conditions
  • Development of the Wat-A-Game principle and kits (2004-)

  • Engineering participatory processes (+ K Daniell)
  • Multi-level adaptation processes (inclusion, coherency)
  • Participatory planning (technical & non technical integration)
  • Social Justice Research (+ Syme & Nancarrow)
  • Social & Political impact evaluation
  • Knowledge Engineering for SD policies (cf. UN-OSD expertise)

13

www.commod.org

13

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

International experience

  • Europe: Several European projects
    on Water Framework implementation,
    climate change adaptation, IWRM
  • Africa : Moz (irrigation), SA (Catchmnt
    strat. Inkomati), Mali (IND, ODN),
    Niger (ABN) BF (training), Eth (mng land Degrad. Tana), Ug (Rwenzori INRM), Ke (East-Mt Kenya NRM), Sn (training, strat recess. Agri), Tn (Ichkeul, training), Ma (training)
  • America : USA (training), Ca (training), CR & Nic (ES policy adaptation)
  • Pacifics : Au (social justice, training), NC (IWRM)

→ 3000 users worldwide, 350 trainees in 2015

14

14

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

3 exemplary projects

15

European IP FP6 (WB coord) – 2004-2008

  • Integrating technical and
    non technical solutions to cope with water stress

! participatory planning to

Co-manage floods and droughts in Bulgaria (multi-level participation ~120 px)

! engineering participation

European project FP7 (WP coord)– 2011-2014

  • Toward Integrated Natural Resource Management toolbox

! 5 similar cases in Africa

! large scale participation with coupled methods (Uganda, Ethiopia)

! Assessing Institutional transformation induced

IFAD – IWMI
(sub-contract 2014)

  • Supporting water and soil management in East Mt Kenya

! 2nd order transfer & network setting

! Fast-track / low-cost process

! Multi-scale approach

15

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

e.g. Natural Resource Management
in Africa (FP7 Afromaison)

16

Co-design the process itself

Share equity preferences

Propose actions
Build and assess integrated strategies

Build own model
Simulate new actions and norms

Agriculture intensification and soil degradation in uncertain land tenure context

Proposal and validation of INRM plan in context of overexploitation of land and resources

Source: E. Hassenforder, 2015

16

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

A multi-level process, coupling tools (Uganda)

Source: E. Hassenforder 2015

17

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

The CoOPLAaGE components

18

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

« Sharing Change » : engineering participation to improve conjunct change in actions & policies

  • An integrative, intensive, engineered approach of multi-level participation → the « shared room principle »

i.e. How to get all-levels stakeholders to actually engage and collaborate in the same process

    • 2-level processes
    • Parallel training
    • Mutual recognition

+ procedural design (PRE-PAR)

  • Research on the process design
    • Aquastress, Peer, Afromaison,
      SPARE projects

!!! Up to 3000 participants (non-internet-based)

19

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

From the classical approach…

20

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

… to multi-level participation

21

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

22

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Wat-A-Game (WAG)
A toolkit for participatory modeling
& role-playing games

  • « Let-them » model their own catchment on the table
  • Include their own roles, resources, activities, events

!!! Get a shared model (playable) of their hydrosocial system

  • INIWAG : introduction / discovery kit-bag
  • CREA-WAG : creative process, step by step
  • WAG-LIB : a library of past case studies (> 80)
  • INFO-WAG : knowledge management
  • INTER-WAG : computer support for edition

23

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Typical use case in transfer mode
in East Mt Kenya (IMAWESA project)

A 3 stages process :

  • Initial workshop
    & selection
  • Advanced training
    workshop
    & x-scale modeling
  • Transfer and test in
    community

➔ Installing a local group of WAG process managers

24

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

IMAWESA Kenya cont’d

25

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Videos

26

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

2013 : Kenya

27

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

28

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

29

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

30

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

31

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

32

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

33

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

34

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

35

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

36

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

37

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

38

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

One process, 5 cases
& their models…

MALI - DIN

Tunisie – Oum Zessar

S.A. Drakkensberg

Eth. Fogera

Ug. Mpanga

39

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

40

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

COOPLAN :discussing actions and strategies at all levels

41

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

« Let-them » elicit and integrate their best proposals, for all scales

  • All participants elicit any idea / requests they wish, using a common « action model », qualitative, for any scale, any target, with needs, expectations and risks
  • They share and compile all their proposals
  • Market-Place : they rediscuss, confront, enrich actions
  • COOPLAN-integrator : on giant matrices, they select and join actions in time, scale and space
  • Critical dialogue on coherency,
    efficiency and feasibility,
    based on the action model
  • Strategies’ reintegration and
    selection

42

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

COOPLAN ←→ Wat-A-Game
Sharing benefits between planning, modeling and simulation

  • 2 alternative methods for joining benefits :
    • COOPLAN → WAG : strategic dialogue then test
    • WAG → COOPLAN : social simulation induces thinking and structuring of the « change strategies »
  • A common framework to share knowledge and « action cards », even in databases

→ Combines social relevance,
complexity management and
feasibility

43

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Uganda– 2013

27 communities strategies

3 meso-level strategies

+

Proposed regional INRM strategy

44

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Just-A-Grid (JAG) : sharing principles for sharing resources

  • A simple, adaptable method for eliciting and confronting distributive justice preferences, i.e. allocation principles
    • Based on previous use of role playing game (+ Syme, Nancarrow)

45

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

From diverse justice preferences to action

AITF – novembre 2007

46

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

JAG example

East Mt-Kenya : extending
methods for autonomous
INRM → framing allocs

  • Choosing key resources
    Water & Devt Money
  • Choosing key target
    Comm & Subsist Farm, Town, Industries, Ecosystems
  • Individual allocation for W & M
  • Aggregating allocations
  • Discussing common choice

+++ working on strategies and testing them in self-made games (WAG)

47

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Just-A-Grid as a normative framework

  • JAG brings discussion on equity principles, not functionings
  • Reduces binding on individual situations (« veil of ignorance »)
  • A starter before WAG and COOPLAN + classical issue formulation
  • Used a posteriori for checking self- normative coherency

JAG framing

WAG exploration

48

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Pre-Participation
Let-them decide their participation

  • Participation / decision procedures are usually decided « from the top » and imposed (tentatively) to participants

→ A deliberation on decision process, roles and rules

49

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Deciding roles and methods for the participatory process

  • (participatory) stakeholders analysis : who ?
  • Deciding procedural needs (steps, stages, …)
  • Discussing roles and engagement
  • Choosing (participatory) methods for each step : how ?
  • Discussing regulation, litigation, risks
  • Commitment

Or ?

 

50

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Exploring decision needs

  • Giving a reference decision framework to foster early-stage discussion on (future) procedural needs

51

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Exploring decision / participation roles and methods

  • Discussing possible roles of the various participant’ types
  • Discussing and selecting action in participation (e.g. modeling, visioning, budgeting, voting,…)
  • Choosing methods
    • N.B. a knowledge base currently updated (SPARE)

52

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Discussing and evaluating social and political impacts

  • Using the ENCORE framework : External / Normative / Cognitive / Operational / Relationnal / Equity (Ferrand, Le Bars, 2004)
  • Coupling different monitoring and evaluation methods

Source: E. Hassenforder 2015

53

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

54

Q1

An overall approach of M&E

CONTEXT

Descriptive

Analytical

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING PROCESS

Descriptive

Analytical

OUTPUTS / OUTCOMES

Descriptive

Analytical

MONITORING & EVALUATION

VIEWPOINTS

(Based on Ferrand & Daniell, 2006; Beierle & Cayford, 2002; Midgley et al., 2013; Ostrom, 2005; Sabatier, 1988)

Difficulty in the M&E of participatory processes = each case comes with a different context, a different process and different M&E objectives. > any suggested M&E framework destined to be applicable across a variety of cases will require more resources and involvement of evaluators than just following a guidebook “off-the-shelf”. Therefore, efforts made in the literature are often confronted with reluctance from practitioners who are repelled by the magnitude of the task. My contribution to bridge this gap are combined descriptive and analytical frameworks to monitor and evaluate participatory processes. Both frameworks are complementary and destined for different uses:

 

COPP framework

Main use = descriptive: description and comparative analysis of participatory processes. The purpose of this cross-comparison is to analyse the effectiveness of participatory processes and their elements.

Can also be used to point out critical elements that should be considered in the design of participatory processes

Advantages = Can be used with any participatory process (not necessarily planning) + Easy to use (questionnaire-type)

Limitation = Not intended as a device to conduct a detailed analysis of specific processes (for this the MEPPP framework can be used).

MEPPP framework

Main use = analytical: monitoring and evaluation of specific participatory planning processes

Advantages =Adapted to the plurality of objectives, contexts, viewpoints and able to capture unintended outcomes

Limitation = Requires more resources and involvement of the evaluators than just following an off-the-shelf guidebook.

M&E Frameworks
(phd E Hassenforder, 2015)

55

Q1

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

MEPPP = M&E of Participatory Planning Processes

DESCRIPTIVE FRAMEWORK

COPP = Comparison of Participatory Processes

A coupled approach of M&E

  • Joining perspectives to improve social impact assessment

56

Q1

56

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Difficulty in the M&E of participatory processes = each case comes with a different context, a different process and different M&E objectives. > any suggested M&E framework destined to be applicable across a variety of cases will require more resources and involvement of evaluators than just following a guidebook “off-the-shelf”. Therefore, efforts made in the literature are often confronted with reluctance from practitioners who are repelled by the magnitude of the task. My contribution to bridge this gap are combined descriptive and analytical frameworks to monitor and evaluate participatory processes. Both frameworks are complementary and destined for different uses:

 

COPP framework

Main use = descriptive: description and comparative analysis of participatory processes. The purpose of this cross-comparison is to analyse the effectiveness of participatory processes and their elements.

Can also be used to point out critical elements that should be considered in the design of participatory processes

Advantages = Can be used with any participatory process (not necessarily planning) + Easy to use (questionnaire-type)

Limitation = Not intended as a device to conduct a detailed analysis of specific processes (for this the MEPPP framework can be used).

MEPPP framework

Main use = analytical: monitoring and evaluation of specific participatory planning processes

Advantages =Adapted to the plurality of objectives, contexts, viewpoints and able to capture unintended outcomes

Limitation = Requires more resources and involvement of the evaluators than just following an off-the-shelf guidebook.

M&E methods

Q1

Part 1 • METHODOLOGY

APPROACH

Chap.1

DESCRIPTIVE FRAMEWORK

Chap. 2

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

Chap. 3

METHODS

Chap.4

Workshop 1

April 2012

Baseline studies

Document review

Stakeholder analysis

Interviews

EX-ANTE

PERMANENT

Logbook

Interviews

EX-POST

Attendance lists

Pictures and videos

Interviews

Expectations

Participant observation

Questionnaires

PUNCTUAL

Workshop 2

August 2012

Workshop 3

January 2013

Workshop 4

July 2013

Regular contacts with the team and key stakeholders

LONG TERM

57

A global M&E approach

58

Q1

58

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Difficulty in the M&E of participatory processes = each case comes with a different context, a different process and different M&E objectives. > any suggested M&E framework destined to be applicable across a variety of cases will require more resources and involvement of evaluators than just following a guidebook “off-the-shelf”. Therefore, efforts made in the literature are often confronted with reluctance from practitioners who are repelled by the magnitude of the task. My contribution to bridge this gap are combined descriptive and analytical frameworks to monitor and evaluate participatory processes. Both frameworks are complementary and destined for different uses:

 

COPP framework

Main use = descriptive: description and comparative analysis of participatory processes. The purpose of this cross-comparison is to analyse the effectiveness of participatory processes and their elements.

Can also be used to point out critical elements that should be considered in the design of participatory processes

Advantages = Can be used with any participatory process (not necessarily planning) + Easy to use (questionnaire-type)

Limitation = Not intended as a device to conduct a detailed analysis of specific processes (for this the MEPPP framework can be used).

MEPPP framework

Main use = analytical: monitoring and evaluation of specific participatory planning processes

Advantages =Adapted to the plurality of objectives, contexts, viewpoints and able to capture unintended outcomes

Limitation = Requires more resources and involvement of the evaluators than just following an off-the-shelf guidebook.

59

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

60

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

61

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

62

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

63

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

64

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

2d order outscaling by training facilitators and full transfer

  • A wide international multi-level training program (2015: 350)
  • Training trainers by letting them « do » CoOPLAaGE on their own case study AND directly test it with a test group

65

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Training to set a « change network »

  • Since 2008, several sessions yearly to establish « champions » able locally to steer CoOPLAaGE processes
  • Inside operational projects + Exec & MSc courses
  • Online course support (when possible)
  • Inserted in operational projects to set capacity in the management / institutional structures
  • Most methods / tools fully transferred (Creative Commons)

+ A digital strategy (MOOC & common knowledge management

66

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

SCoOlPLAage digital strategy

Development of a data base on exemplary cases with a given scenario >80 cases logged

An active user community ~300 active members

An online module developed under Agreencamp project to train stakeholders to facilitate participative modeling processes (released in 2017) → 25h package including filmed experts’ interviews, animated videos, practical exercises, discussion platform and evaluation protocol.

A multi-agent simulation → Internal research version available since 2012. Related serious game to be developed in 2017

67

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Summary : coupling tools to foster and manage change

Typical protocol :

SCOOPLAAGE (training) → PREPAR (pre-participation)
→ JAG (framing principles)
→ WAG (modeling & simulation) ←→ COOPLAN (planning)

+ ENCORE-ME (evaluation)

An adaptable and open set based on:

- participatory modeling

- reasoned and inclusive participation

- autonomy and transfer

- research based

68

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Ongoing projects and developments

  • Structuring the online apparatus for training and policy

+ APSS Action & Policy Support System

  • Experiments (formal) on knowledge and tools
  • Developing 2 new methods
    • SMAG : self-modeling for assessing governance
    • An method for self-evaluation of capability (Sen) distribution in groups
  • International CoOPLAaGE « champion » network
  • European extension (SPARE)
  • Research on implementation support

69

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

Proposed actions / projects
with / for IFAD

  • Transfering methods in the context of FAO / IFAD projects = training IFAD projects / process
  • Supporting the global network of local CoOPLAaGE facilitators → facilitate their action country by country

  • Shared development with the European prj SPARE: developing a multi-level policy support strategy
  • Other responses on knowledge use experiments / research

70

http://watagame.info

© Nils.Ferrand@IRSTEA.fr , 2016

FIDA

2016

FAOFIDA-cooplaage-small.pptx - Google Slides