by W. Daré, K. Napon, F. Jankowski, M. Kaboré and I. Medah Presented at the Final Volta Basin Development Challenge Science Workshop, September 2013

1. Evolution of water users’ knowledge to
assess effects of a participatory approach:
V3 in Boura dam
Daré W., Napon K., Jankowski F., Kaboré M., Medah I.
Final Science Meeting, CPWF, Ouagadougou, 17-19 september 2013

2. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
Difficulties to assess the effects of participatory
approaches (PA)
 “Every evaluation situation is
unique” (Patton, 2010, 257)
• Variety of participatory approaches
• Variety of elements to assess (social
context, quality of participation
process, objectives v/v results)
 Rare interested in the effects
(Guérin-Schneider et al., 2010)
• Tangible artifacts,
• Side-effects (behaviour, attitude,
knwoledge)
 Multiple dimensions of learning
 Time and scale frame specially
with adaptive PA?
OBJ
PART.
PROCESS
RES
PART. PROCESS

3. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
Focus assessment of PA on knowledge
 Why Knowledge?
• First step of a learning process
(Charlot, 1997)
• Knowledge are dynamic
(circulation & exchange)
 Analysis framework
Information
Knowledge
Individual Learning
Collective Learning
K. about
Management of
SR
Social K.
Economical k.
Political K.
Technical K.
K. about the PA
Medah, Daré, 2012
 Local perceptions elicited

4. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
Methodology and data collected
 Elements of the method: field visit, observation of
workshop, sociological interviews (t0, t+2months, t+12)
 Data collected
• Mostly discourse + situated observation
• Interviews conducted: 54 x 3 series, users, non users & researchers
• Corikab, Tomhositi, Piame, Akaweri, Djamnadi, women groups
Other uses :
construction, etc
domestiques,
(briques, lavages,
etc)
Domestic uses, (briks,
cleaning, etc)
CORIKAB
(Rice)
PIAME
(Vegetables)
TOMHOSITI
(Vegetables)
NTONKENTIER
(Vegetables)

5. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
Results
 Technical knowledge
• Context
- overgrazing of project activities
(development & research)
- Access to a lot of trainees <= DPA(H) and
NGOs
• New K about ecology
- Link with PA artifacts: water level, red
beacon
- Ecology of some algae (« Azola »)
- Mesh size (1/4 => 4,5 fingers)
• New K about « Bad practices »
- Cleaning of inputs tins near of the dam
- Fertilizers (NPK => urea)
- Cultural calendar

6. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
Results
 Social and political knowledge
• Few
• Already organized in farming groups
interacting together ( several
memberships)
• No new K in terms of conflict of uses
(farmers vs livestock breeders)
• Weak of reporting of representatives
to members.
 Economical K. :
• No effects
• Only 1 mention of the Household’s
account study (Fusillier)

7. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
Results
 K. About the participatory approach
• Engagement of participants?
- Only the few people directly engaged
in the activities know the project
- Circulation of knowledge outside of
this first circle is weak
- Importance of intermediary tools to
formalize knowledge ( beacon, ppt,
piezometer)
• Adaptiveness of the process?
- A clear message about the objectives
of the V3 but still expectations
- Further investigations are needed (last
round of researchers interviews tbd)

8. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
Conclusion/discussion
 Interest and limits of the analysis framework
• Some knowledge seems already translated into practices (mesh size,
collective cleaning of infrastructure,…)
• Some heuristic interest despite the simplification
• Only 1 year results => first one should be improved by more long data
collection
 Issues at stake
• Scaling up of the results outside the 1st circle?
• Answer to local expectations in terms of development issues ?

9. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
Thank you