3. Innovation: Priming the Demand for Communication

The error to which the concept of extension can lead is clear. It is one of "extending" technical knowledge to the peasants, instead of making (by efficient communication) the concrete fact to which the knowledge refers (expressed by linguistic signs) the object of the mutual comprehension of peasants and agronomists alike. It is only with the co-participation of the peasants that communication can work efficiently, and only by means of this communication can agronomists successfully carry out their work."

Paolo Freire, 1973. ¿Extensión o Comunicación?

All areas of development work (natural resource management, environment, health, water and sanitation...) now call for participation. Take the example of collaborative management (CM), a process that engages stakeholders in agreeing on how to manage a resource.

Collaborative management begins with stake-holder analysis and participatory appraisal activities, followed by a series of negotiation and planning meetings to reach a basic consensus. Agreed language (concepts, frames of reference, points of departure) is essential to bridge differences and find perspectives. This process may require extensive negotiation using a variety of planning tools. Finally the agreement is applied through the necessary institutional arrangements, and tested to gather system feedback and adjust the strategies and procedures. Being in a position to play a role depends on the actors’ power to become involved, to be heard and seen; on their readiness to learn; and on legal, political, institutional, economic and socio-cultural questions of feasibility (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996: 34-35).

Communication thus becomes central to the negotiation process, but it is not a silver bullet. The above reference to collaborative management shows that other indispensable ingredients must be brought into play: reduced power differences, a procedure of engagement that all parties perceive as fair, a convener who is trusted by all parties, methods of negotiation, and institutional and policy commitment to consultation and learning. Without the latter, it is unlikely that a communication component will ever thrive.

One of the innovative aspects of the approach emphasizes that the participation and leadership of local people is essential to co-management. In other words, innovation must be built on existing local knowledge and practice, rather than imposed from outside.

If we ask ourselves how to actually do that, we come to realize that new methodologies and processes must be found for:

• resource planning with the engagement of multiple stakeholders;

• accessing local knowledge and information;

• co-management and ongoing adaptation; and

• policy interaction between local communities and various levels of government.

Co-management requires a move away from telling people what to do or extracting information to a more sharing and participatory approach that emphasizes interaction between groups.

Experience shows that:

• Doing this is not simple; in fact it can often lead to conflict;

• None of this can be done without communication.

The Mexican and Tanzanian examples, and the Canadian one below, are similar in that managers have realized the importance of communication. They differ in that communication was used to address different natural resource management needs. In Mexico, communication activities were about engaging communities in the planning and training process. In Tanzania the intervention focused on communicating a change in policy and making new procedures relevant to many stakeholders. In the Canadian example we see yet another type of communication intervention: one where power differences needed attention before the different stakeholders could agree to collaborate. These different experiences fall under the umbrella of ‘communication for development’.

THE KAMINURIAK CARIBOU HERD¹
A classic tale of cultural, social and economic disagreement between traditional users of resources and government officials

For centuries, caribou have provided several groups of Inuit in the Canadian Arctic with food, clothing and shelter. But the caribou hunt has been of more than merely material significance to the Inuit. Success as a hunter has meant recognition as a man. Indeed, the caribou have become central to the Inuit’s cultural identity.

A potentially serious threat to that identity emerged in the 1970s, as extensive mining exploration began in the Keewatin District of the North West Territories, bringing with it people, equipment, aircraft and noise. The Inuit became alarmed that the noise was driving the caribou from their traditional feeding areas. The miners thought otherwise. So, for the most part, did biologists from southern Canada, who had been monitoring the state of the herd for two decades, without, however, reporting their findings to the Inuit in non-technical language they could understand.

Public hearings took place, with the Inuit filing lawsuits seeking to stop the mining. While the hearings did result in some restrictions on mining activity, information given by the biologists also led the government to impose strict quotas on the hunting of the Kaminuriak herd. Tensions quickly rose, and an angry impasse was soon reached, with an Inuit leader declaring a state of war between his people and the biologists and game wardens and calling on the Inuit to defy the new hunting quotas.

A concerned government official called in Donald Snowden, who had pioneered the use of portable video as a tool to improve communication among conflicting groups. Snowden proposed that each group be videotaped in its own domain and that each be able to express itself fully in its own language. He also proposed that every tape produced be made available to all groups, and that editing rights be vested solely in those appearing on tape - not in Inuit organizations nor with senior government officials.

Two production crews were assembled - one Inuit and one non-Inuit - and provided with appropriate training. Spokespeople were selected from each of the Inuit communities, and four biologists were chosen to speak on behalf of the scientific community. Following production, all videotapes were translated into the second language for playback. The tapes were then collected and played back to separate discussion groups of Inuit and government officials. Each group could hear the tapes in its own language.

So rich was the material on the tapes that they were taken back to the communities for screening and discussion. People met in homes, schools, and community halls and at social gatherings to watch, learn, and comment. The experience of viewing the tapes led to major changes in attitude, with the Inuit expressing a willingness to work together with government to resolve the problems of the Kaminuriak herd. Likewise, biologists who viewed the tapes were so impressed by the extent of the Inuit’s knowledge that they too felt the two groups could work together.

Inuit leaders rejected the government’s invitation to sit on its existing committee. Instead, they formed their own committee and invited government to sit with them. Realizing that an important turning point had been reached in the debate, government soon accepted. Today, more than twenty years after that first initiative, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq (Kaminuriak) Caribou Management Board is still operational. Its website’s (www.arctic-caribou.com) opening note is a testament to the spirit of cooperation established at that time.

‘‘Welcome to the Beverly and Quamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, a group of hunters, biologists and wildlife managers working together to conserve Canada’s vast Beverly and Qamanirjuaq caribou herds for the welfare of traditional caribou-using communities and others.’’