This issue of Compas magazine focuses on the main controversies that individuals, communities and agencies involved in endogenous development are experiencing, and to show examples of methodologies to handle these controversies. Many of the articles presented show that the experiences of development agencies in consciously and systematically dealing with controversies are still few. The issue focuses on four controversial issues dealt with in separate sections: traditional leadership and governance, gender roles, agriculture and health care. Some of the main questions dealt with are how controversies between traditional leadership and formal government can be bridged; how to build on the strengths of both traditional and modern health care systems; how to understand culture-based gender concepts and support women in traditional cultures who face suppressive gender-related taboos; and how understanding between scientists and traditional farmers can be increased to help agriculture adapt to changing conditions. The issue includes articles on traditional ways of dealing with controversies; challenges between African, Asian and western philosophy; contexts, concepts and controversies between Andean and western cosmovisions; potentials and questions regarding indigenous institutions in Ghana; blending governance systems in Ghana; revitalising traditional leadership in Andhra Pradesh, India; conflict transformation between pastoralists and settled farmers in Sudan; dealing with land conflicts in Zimbabwe; livestock controversies in Europe; traditional leadership and gender in Kenya; rituals, taboos and gender in Sri Lanka; lessons from Buddhism on equality and diversity in Sri Lanka; ancient farming and modern science in Sri Lanka; changes and controversies in Uganda; controversies between farmers and scientists regarding grain storage n Nepal; and integrating different healing practices in Cameroon. The magazine also contains book reviews relating to the subjects discussed and descriptions of future issues. Sri Lanka, Kenya, Ghana, Cameroon, Europe, the Andes, Uganda, Nepal
This paper is the first of several 'think pieces' that have been commissioned as part of a collaborative research programme designed to examine the dynamics of institutionalising people-centred processes and participatory approaches for natural resource management (NRM) in a variety of settings. The paper focuses on natural resource management in Europe and explores the tensions between state-led and participatory management of water and forests. The authors analyse and discuss how participation does - or does not - occur in the management of forest and water resources at various institutional levels in European contexts. Using a historical perspective, they critically reflect on the roles and interests of the state in offering an institutional framework for participation and/or facilitating processes aimed at institutionalising participation in natural resource management. The paper comprises four parts: Institutionalisation of the State and Natural Resources Management; Forests and Water Management - the Changing Role of the State; Participation - States or People's Control? and Conclusions.
The Aarhus Convention is an agreement which was signed by 35 European and Central Asian countries in June 1998. It relates to the public disclosure of documents relating to environmental matters. The convention guarantees the right to information, the right to participate, and recognises the right to a safe environment. It also guarantees citizens that they will have a way to enforce these rights. This booklet is basically an "every thing you need to know" about the convention. It covers the background and main areas of influence of the convention. It is arranged using short questions and answers to a variety of topics centred on a persons "right to know" and "right to justice". Underlying the concept is the theme of participation and citizenship.
Describes the process of using PRA to plan forestry activities in four rural communities in the Highlands of Scotland. The methods enabled people to put forward their ideas on the future of forestry in the areas, as well as creating wider local involvement and helping to spur people on to further action. The paper concludes by reflecting on some of the constraints and opportunities for using PRA in Scotland.
This paper argues Landcare is showing a way forward to sustainable agriculture by developing a farming community which can respond to changing economic, environmental and technological conditions and to societies changing priorities. Moreover, Landcare is beginning to establish a system of monitoring and guiding the community's performance.