Reflective summary by Both ENDS
Sustainable, participatory IWRM Capacity Building Workshop
5-8 November 2012, Cotonou Benin
Background
During the third quarter of 2012, Jeunes Volontaires pour L’Environnement (JVE) and
Both ENDS collaborated to organise a capacity building workshop on participatory and
sustainable IWRM, as part of the Dutch Ecosystem Alliance Programme. This meeting
brought together organisations from all over Africa whose shared goal is to promote
citizen participation and sustainability in river basin management.
One year earlier, in November 2011, Both ENDS had introduced the so called ‘Negotiated
Approach’ (NA) to Integrated Water Resources Management to 6 partner organisations in
Africa (ELCI (Kenya), NAPE (Uganda), Development Institute (Ghana), JVE (Togo/Benin),
Nile Basin Discourse, Friends of Lake Turkana (Kenya)1.
At that time all of the organisations present felt the NA could be an added value to their
ongoing work on sustainable water resources/ river basin management, and expressed
interest to take up the approach. At an informal meeting at the 6th World Water Forum
held in Marseille in March 2012, the group decided to all engage in a similar process to
initiate the NA process through the development of an inception report 2.
Meanwhile an official commitment was presented in Marseille by a broader alliance of 21
NGO's, including most present in Entebbe, to implement participatory IWRM in 15 River
Basins in the world3.
Goals of the meeting in Benin
The aim of the workshop in Benin was to:
1) Share and discuss the outcomes of the respective inception studies and each
participants’ specific experiences with sustainable, participatory IWRM, with the
‘Entebbe group’ as well as other (West-African) CSOs working on IWRM
2) Obtain tailored advice from experts and peers: specifically related to 1) local
participation, empowerment and institution building, and 2) integration of
ecosystem restoration and conservation in water management planning. Three
experts were invited for this purpose, of which two have extensive experience of
implementing participatory IWRM on the African continent.
1
The NA is an approach to participatory IWRM, developed by, and based on the concrete experiences of, a
number of civil society organisations in India, Costa Rica, Peru, Brazil and Indonesia. The NA shifts the
initiative for the development and implementation of river basin plans from the state to actors in civil society.
It is an approach aimed at empowering civil society to sustainably manage their own resources, by enabling
them to protect and fulfil their rights, and propose and negotiate viable long term strategies to alleviate
poverty and ensure healthy ecosystem. See for more information:
http://www.bothends.org/en/Publications/document/49/Involving-Communities-A-Guide-to-the-NegotiatedApproach
2
This inception phase involves a desk-, and field study to gather essential base information needed to develop
a context-specific strategy plan to introduce the NA in their region. These studies will be carried out according
to a format provided by NA expert Gomukh in India (see annex 1).
3
See http://www.bothends.org/en/Publications/document/77/Declaration-of-Commitment
3) Share and discuss the role of civil society and the potential of the NA, in
managing African river basins with interested local, national and regional
authorities, donors and embassies.
4) Discuss appropriate ways to continue sharing experiences and challenges
/potential to build an African CSO network on IWRM (both for sharing and joint
policy influencing).
5) Discuss efforts undertaken so far to acquire funding for a substantial NA in Africa
programme and agree on next steps.
Participants
1. Mawusé HOUNTONDJI, JVE Benin
2. Christian HOUNKANNOU, JVE Benin
3. Sena Alouka, Jeune Voluntaire d’Environment, Togo
4. Dowou Etche, JVE Togo, Togo
5. Anani Kondo, JVE Togo, Togo
6. Halinishi Yusuf, Environment Liaison Centre International, Kenya
7. Serah Munguti, Nature Kenya, Kenya
8. Robert Kugonza, National Association of Professional Environmentalists, Uganda
9. Dickens Kamugisha, Africa Institute for Energy Governance, Uganda
10. Abby Onencan, Nile Basin Discouse, Uganda
11. Ken Kinney, Development Institute, Ghana
12. Vijay Paranjpye, Gomukh Trust, India
13. Mane Amy Kebe, OMVS/African Network of Basin Organisations (ANBO)
14. Bakary Kone, Wetlands Mali
15. Emmanual Seck, ENDA/representative of Drynet http://www.dry-net.org/
16. Mame Tacko Diallo, Eau Vive Sénégal
17. Ibrahim Toko, Aquaded Bénin, Bénin
18. Josea S. Dossou-Bodjrenou, Nature Tropicale, Bénin
19. Tobias Schmitz, Both ENDS
20. Annelieke Douma, Both ENDS
21. Jan Kamstra, IUCN NL (first two days)
Results
The workshop was perceived by all to be a success, and predefined goals have been
met:
1) Sharing and learning:
Most participants presented their analyses of their respective catchment areas and the
issues involved in engaging in the inception phase of the NA. Some other participants
had been invited to speak more specifically on issues related to conservation and/or
participation in integrated river basin management.
There were many similarities amongst the themes presented in the cases, despite their
coming from very different parts of the African continent and because of the knowledge
and experience brought together in the context of the workshop, the participants could
easily relate to each others challenges and provided constructive feedback or
suggestions. The workshop also boosted morale by stimulating the recognition that
many others are working on similar issues and are facing similar dilemmas.
At the same time, the processes of participatory IWRM in the various river basins
represented are at different stages of evolution and take place in widely different political,
economic and climatic contexts. In Senegal for instance a centralised and top-down
River Basin Management Plan (RBPM) had already existed in the ‘70s and mechanisms
for public review of the RBPM have only been developed over the last 15 years. In the
2
Dayi basin in Ghana and Tana in Kenya, management and negotiation structures are
already in place, but not functioning well. In the Mono Basin and Lake Albert, public
participation in river basin governance structures is still lacking and need to be build
from scratch. These differences allows for learning from mistakes and successes in other
areas.
2) Tailored advice from experts and peers.
Break-out group sessions (in an Anglophone and Francophone group) allowed for more
detailed discussions on key challenges that participants are facing. These sessions were
perceived as highly relevant and useful. The workshop clearly gathered a wealth of
knowledge and experience on resources management and dealing with conflict situations.
Important recurring conclusions included: take time to do a proper mapping of resources,
use mapping as a tool to re-awaken local knowledge on / awareness of biodiversity and
the environment, examine power relationships and stakeholders and document
everything well; bring in scientific/objective knowledge such as water balance studies
which are beyond dispute; focus on strong localised pilots and scale up from there; focus
on strengthening people’s livelihoods in parallel to advocacy; build alliances; find
champions; learn from similar struggles in other areas (e.g. in Lake Albert learn from oil
exploration in Nigeria); work on an alternative economic model for the area; create a
common vision by the basin citizens; do not avoid but accept and (non-violently)
confront conflicts: de-bundle them, re-establish lines of communication, find neutral
mediator, lay down rules of the game of negotiation, negotiate routes for cattle,
establish grazing zones, etc.
3) Discuss the role of civil society and the potential of the NA, in managing African river
basins with interested local, national and regional authorities, donors and embassies.
The first and last morning, a number of external participants joined the workshop:






Ing. Arnoud Bruno Zannou from the Water Department of the Benin Ministry of
Energy, Oil and Mining Research, Water and Renewable Energies Development. Mr
Zannou in his presentation congratulated NGOs in Benin for their contributions to the
new Water Law in Benin and expressed his willingness to further engage with all
actors in water management in a more participatory manner. He acknowledged water
is no longer the domain of engineers but also of local communities.
Mr George de Gooijer, First Secretary and water expert at the Royal Dutch Embassy:
would like the Benin Water Partnership to be involved in partnerships on water taking
place in Benin and questioned whether the achievements in India could be
transposed into Africa, where the context is very different.
Mrs Antje Maume from German GIZ: GIZ has carried out a study of Integrated Water
Resources Management in the Mono basin, linked to access to drinking water and
sanitation and is engaging in IWRM in the catchment area so it was important she
was there. Unfortunately she had to leave early and missed JVE’s presentation. Sena
of JVE Togo did talk to her later and GIZ expressed interest to provide needed
technical support.
Armand Houanye, Coordinator of the Benin National Water Partnership: very
interested in the follow up of the process in the Mono River Basin and would like to
be involved in the future.
Maximin Djondjo, national coordinator of the Benin Environment and Education
Society (BEES): enthusiastic about the initiative and would like to link it to
sustainable livelihood development and awareness raising at community level.
Adolphe Degnide, DG Eau Benin: joined the group during the last morning to listen to
the conclusions of the workshop.
3



Dr Amy Kebe from the African Network of Basin Organisations (ANBO) joined the
group during the full workshop. It was important for the group to hear the ambitions
of ANBO and discuss opportunities for CSOs in the group to engage with them. This
will be followed up.
Mr Dowou Etche, chef de Canton in the Mono Basin in Togo, also participated in the
whole workshop.
The workshop was covered in the media, both on television (?) and in the newspaper
La Nation.
4) Way forward as a group
All participants were positive to continue both individually in their basins using the
insights from the NA and the workshop, as well as a group. Encouraging was the fact
that Each Vive Senegal (Senegal River) and Wetlands Mali (Niger River basin) also
wanted to join the process.
Afterwards, DI and NBD proposed to formalize the group on IWRM into a network that
can slowly expand to include others as well. This was supported by NBD and NAPE. We
need to see whether we need a formal network or rather an informal group, which joins
forces in joint advocacy at African and international level and which keep sharing
challenges and questions (BE intends to stimulate continued dialogue amongst the group
by sharing updates and stimulating organisations to share their thoughts and ideas in
the group).
Concrete opportunities for joint advocacy are posed by the established link with ANBO
and AMCOW, and the UN Year of Water Cooperation in 2013, which will include a big
event in September in The Hague around Water Cooperation in Transboundary River
Basins.
5) Additional funding efforts
After the workshop, (pre) proposal were sent by Both ENDS to the Prince Albert II de
Monaco Fund and DGF to find additional resources for specific work in the Mono and Lake
Albert region. Both ENDS is currently following up opportunities to get funding for
supporting a large NA in Africa programme from the EU, Tinker Foundation, the Swiss,
the French, etc.
Lessons with regard to the NA
The NA at first always brings up many doubts and questions with those who hear about
it first. CSOs understandably wonder how the NA is different from what they are already
doing and how it can directly improve their work.
Important when presenting the NA to CSOs is to:
- Clarify upfront it is not a fixed, step-by-step approach, but the NA is still in the
validation phase.
- Clarify we do not want to push this approach but do believe in its relevance and
potential, that we are still learning as well and NA does not provide all answers to
all challenges.
- Recognise the knowledge, capability and approaches of everybody with
experience of working on IWRM: the NA evolves in response to the knowledge it
receives from others.
- Include the views of organisations involved on the NA in public communications
about the NA by Both ENDS.
- NA is not only about negotiation. The name is often confusing.
4
-
-
Also important to stress it does not replace other tools and approaches, but offers
a different comprehensive, integrated framework, in which all these tools and
approaches can have its place (depending on the specific situation and
opportunities).
Stress the important role of negotiating not only between water users, but also
with authorities and nature itself (we often hear questions whether the NA is a
‘civil society-thing’/ when does government come in).
As for the differences with other participatory approaches, this becomes more clear:
-
The difference between the Negotiated Approach and many other participatory
approaches lies in its starting point. The NA takes the local level as the starting
point. Participation in this sense is not about being able to react or ‘negotiate’ minor
changes in already developed plans, but to pro-actively develop own plans, to
determine the principle elements of a development strategy. This implies a power
shift.
-
The end point is also different. The goal is not to ensure communities only have a
voice in official decision-making processes over resources. It aims to ensure the
management of the resources is (partly) handed over to local communities.
It aims to make the government recognise the crucial role of civil society and provide
financial support to play this role.
-
The difference between the NA and many multi-stakeholder platforms also lies in the
process: the emphasis on creating a level playing field, e.g ensuring an active
and equal role of local actors in planning, action and monitoring. Equality implies all
stakeholders should have access to the same information and knowledge, it often
implies building capacity of local stakeholders, and it needs open, two-way
communication channels, joint fact-finding and active involvement of local actors in
institution building. Also, it is not a one off process, but a long-term process with
several iteration rounds.
Way forward for Both ENDS



Continue to support participants in their work on participatory IWRM as part of the
Ecosystem Alliance programme and beyond (find financial resources for individual
basins and a larger NA in Africa programme, and provide case specific advice)
Follow-up with Eau Vive Senegal and WI Mali to clarify our partnership and plan
forward.
Keep up momentum of this group by continuing sharing progress and updates or
questions.


Follow-up link with donors, AMCOW, ANBO and Year of Water Cooperation
Look into possibilities for African partners to visit Gomukh and their work in the
Wainganga.

Revisit the NA matrix we used for providing feedback to the inception reports, and
the inception report format itself (together with WI and IUCN).
Further work on the ‘NA toolbox’, i.e. add links to tools such as ecomapping and case
descriptions or experts for each building block. With special focus on conflict
resolution tools and experiences.
Literature search on other initiatives taken by communities themselves. Update
based on existing literature on participation in development.
Think of a way to facilitate further peer/expert advice or mentoring (as part of the
Learning Agenda?): e.g. monthly online ‘ask Vijay’ sessions?



5