Participatory processes and climate forecast use: Socio-cultural context, discussion, and consensus

research paper

Participatory processes and climate forecast use: Socio-cultural context, discussion, and consensus NICOLE D. PETERSON1, *, KENNETH BROAD2,*, BEN ORLOVE3, CARLA RONCOLI4, RENZO TADDEI5 and MARIA-ALEJANDRA VELEZ6 1

Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, New York, NY 10027, USA Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149, USA

2 3

Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, One Shields Way, Davis, CA 95616, USA

4

Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 302232, USA School of Communication, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Av. Pasteur, 250 fundos – Praia Vermelha, Rio de Janeiro,

5

RJ 22290-902, Brazil 6

´ n. Universidad de los Andes, Colombia Facultad de Administracio

Participatory processes are increasingly promoted by various groups as among the best approaches to increase efficiency, democracy and equity in decisions involving climate forecasts. Yet little is understood about the interaction between participation and its surrounding socio-cultural environment in the context of the dissemination and use of climate forecasts. This article draws on two case studies: water allocation choices in Brazil and agricultural decision making in Uganda. The focus is on two under-studied aspects of participatory processes: (1) the social norms of interactions that affect activity and outcomes through exclusion, pre-meetings, alliances, language and non-linguistic events; and (2) the diversity of goals and outcomes that motivate participation, including desire for consensus, social networking and community building. These norms and goals often result in behaviours and outcomes unanticipated by the promoters. We argue that the influence of socio-cultural context on the process is not only an unavoidable characteristic of participation, but also what makes it possible in the first place, bringing meaning and purpose to the activity for many participants. Keywords: climate; culture; economic development; language; participation

1. Introduction In an over-air-conditioned room of a rural town in the dusty interior of the state of Ceara´ in Northeast Brazil – a region prone to devastating, recurrent droughts – about 120 people sit in tight, orderly rows of chairs facing a stage with a long table occupied by representatives from the state water agency, local water committees, and the municipal government. For almost 8 hours, with breaks for fresh air, coffee and cigarettes, the participants discuss how much water to release from the massive Jaguaribe–Metropolitano Hydrosystem reservoirs. A microphone is passed around, moving from local politicians to itinerant fisherpersons, to farmers,

to aquaculturalists. All, to varying degrees and in different forms, have a stake in how much water is released, and employ a range of analytical and emotional arguments to push for choosing one of six scenarios projected on a screen at the front. Central to many of their arguments are predictions of next year’s rains and subsequent reservoir levels. If a consensus is not achieved, a vote will be taken. This twice-a-year meeting is imbued with gravitas well beyond the practical outcome of who gets how much water. It is a symbolic event linked to the interrelated tenets of modernization, decentralization and democratization. In contrast to the norms of explicit clientilism and state paternalism that drove allocation decisions in the

B *Corresponding authors. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT 2 (2010) 14–29 doi:10.3763/cdev.2010.0033 # 2010 Earthscan ISSN: 1756-5529 (print), 1756-5537 (online) www.earthscan.co.uk/journals/cdev

Participatory processes and climate forecast use 15

recent past, this participatory decision making enables a varied set of resource users to choose among several scenarios of water-release under current climate forecasts and hydrological models. At least this is the goal espoused by organizations, including the World Bank, that have promoted this process as a means of fostering democratic ideals of participation and equity. A very different meeting, also convened to discuss the upcoming season’s climate forecast, is taking place under a spreading tree in the Rakai district in the southern part of Uganda. This open-air meeting appears quite informal. People from nearby villages walk in and greet each other before finding a spot on a chair or bench or mat. The gathering group has been formed in recent years through government agricultural development projects, through decentralization programmes, and through the activities of international and national NGOs; it draws widely from the population of farmers who grow a variety of crops on small fields, including maize, beans, cassava, sweet potatoes, white potatoes, peanuts and, in carefully tended plots, bananas and coffee. At some point, a leader of the group or a local official makes formal introductions and the group welcomes a team of visitors. The team includes two linguists from the national university and two anthropologists from the USA, who are introduced by the local agricultural extension agent. The team plays a taped forecast for the upcoming rainy season prepared by meteorologists at the Uganda Department of Meteorology. The farmers spend some time discussing the forecast and its implications for farm management and other activities. In this meeting, the primary goal is to reach farmers who have had limited access to ‘cutting edge’ information to aid agricultural decisions; secondarily, the aim is to link farmers to a larger movement of decentralized rural development. These two cases involving climate forecasts, apparently so different, share an important characteristic: they represent the interaction of several sets of ideas about the purpose and process of participatory processes. Participatory processes in economic development activities emerged in

the 1960s as a way to involve local users in the implementation of local projects (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999; Botchway, 2001; Campbell and Vainio-Mattila, 2003; Stephenson, 2003). Most studies focus on the ‘official’ purpose of participation (e.g. Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Beierle and Cayford, 2002; National Research Council, 2008). These evaluations give little, if any, attention to the range of goals and motivations derived from the social norms and lived experiences of project participants. Yet, as will be shown in this article, participatory processes are characterized and sometimes driven by such extra-project norms and goals. Our analysis reveals the shortcomings of US-based models of participation which, by emphasizing equality and recognizing only verbal speech, miss the depth of participation for many people around the world. Climate forecast producers and other meteorologists have begun to look to participatory processes as a means of improving the comprehension and use of their data. The intent is to correct patterns of underuse, distortion or misapplication of forecasts, which persist despite impressive advances in scientific ability to forecast seasonal climate variations in several regions of the world (see http://iri.columbia.edu for an example of state-of-the-art capabilities) (Stern and Easterling, 1999; Broad and Agrawala, 2000; Hammer et al., 2001; Miller, 2001; Phillips et al., 2001; Broad et al., 2002; Hansen, 2002; Ingram et al., 2002). In some cases, including in Ceara´, Brazil, the probabilistic nature of forecasts has been miscommunicated or misunderstood, creating confusion and distress as well as problems arising from the incorrect application of forecasts (Taddei, 2009). These unintended consequences have led to criticism of the forecast community (Finan and Nelson, 2001; Broad et al., 2002; Glantz, 2002; Lemos, 2003). Studies have increasingly shown them to be a result of the cognitive difficulty of explaining the complex topic of uncertainty to a lay audience (Cash et al., 2006), as well as a result of socio-economic factors, including disparity in socio-political power and access to capital and productive resources (Nicholls and Kestin, 1998; Pfaff et al., 1999; Patt, 2001; Patt

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

16 Peterson et al.

and Gwata, 2002; Podesta´ et al., 2002; Luseno et al., 2003; Roncoli et al., 2003, 2009; Hansen et al., 2004; Ziervogel, 2004; McCrea et al., 2005; Roncoli, 2006). Scholars and on-the-ground practitioners (e.g. rural NGOs) have also criticized forecasting agencies for their unidirectional model of information flow, in which organizations publish press releases, bulletins or other media for use by individual decision makers or intermediary organizations (Agrawala et al., 2001; Orlove et al., 2004; Taddei, 2008). Such information has sometimes been entirely ignored. In other cases, it has reached only people and organizations with greater economic resources and access to state and private institutions (Agrawala and Broad, 2002; Archer, 2003; Luseno et al., 2003; Taddei, 2004, 2005). Drawing on lessons from analogous technology transfer cases, policy analysts have urged forecasting agencies to collaborate with end users to increase the acceptance and usability of their information (Agrawala and Broad, 2002). One solution suggested by consultants with experience in other areas of international development was participatory meetings between end users and the forecast communities in regions throughout the world. In response, the Climate Outlook Fora (COF) (see NOAA/OGP, 1999) began bringing together researchers from different fields, sectoral specialists, media representatives and, lately, end users (IRI, 2000; DaSilva et al., 2004). The Brazil and Uganda cases explored here stem from the COF process. An early COF for northeastern South America was held in Ceara´ in 1998, and regional meteorologists have attended regularly since; meanwhile the Uganda Department of Meteorology has taken part in Greater Horn of Africa COFs since the late 1990s, hosting them on several occasions. In Ceara´, climate data informs more sophisticated reservoir modelling efforts that are integrated into the state’s water resource management system, and in public meetings are presented as a set of reservoir release scenarios (Taddei, 2005, forthcoming; Taddei et al., forthcoming). The introduction of seasonal climate forecasts to Uganda’s rural areas – not including those based

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

on traditional indicators – is a result of applied research efforts funded by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and of Uganda’s efforts to reduce poverty through increased agricultural productivity. A systematic comparison of these two cases reveals the function of participatory activities under very different social and technological conditions. Even in the seemingly straightforward case of information dissemination, participatory processes are still influenced by socio-political issues, as well as the additional challenge of understanding the inherent uncertainties of climate forecasts. This article acknowledges the usefulness of participation for improving forecast dissemination, yet finds a critical approach useful for probing the limitations of previous work on participation. Our intent is to discuss participation as a result of social context, including relationships of power and influence. While others have recognized its importance (e.g. Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Hickey and Mohan, 2004; Chambers, 2005), our focus is on how social context is both problematic, because it affects how participation is understood and proceeds in different situations, and vital, in that it creates the possibility for participation by providing a set of norms and goals for the process. We examine the social contexts created by social norms, including exclusion, alliances, language and non-linguistic cues, which indicate a variety of concrete ways in which power operates. We also discuss various goals brought into participatory processes, including non-project goals, and possible outcomes from participation.

2. Case studies: Water allocation in the Northeast Region of Brazil and small-scale agriculture in Uganda1 2.1. Brazil water allocation meetings The semi-arid northeast region of Brazil that includes the state of Ceara´ is subject to extreme droughts that affect the agricultural production of commercial and subsistence farmers. Low productivity is also due to poor soils, skewed land

Participatory processes and climate forecast use 17

distribution, low levels of education, high levels of poverty and underemployment, and limited physical and social infrastructure (Costa et al., 1997). Farmers’ vulnerabilities are exacerbated during multi-year droughts (Magalha˜es, 2002; Neves, 2002). Historically, the government has responded to recurrent droughts by funnelling relief money into public works programmes which gave disproportionate advantage to private landholders and oligarchic rural families. Recently, efforts have focused on understanding and predicting climate variability in the region ˜o and other climatic (influenced by El Nin factors), and applying this information to public decision making in order to prevent reliance on the central government for bailout measures (Finan and Nelson, 2001; Lemos, 2003). Two major initiatives by government agencies in Ceara´, partly funded by multinational organizations, have sought to alleviate the biases of drought response through: (1) the development of an extensive network of reservoirs for water storage and canals for water transfer, and (2) an intensive implementation of participatory decision making for water allocation among stakeholders, in so-called Water Allocation Seminars, in large part due to a lending requirement of the World Bank (Kemper et al., 2005; Taddei, 2005, forthcoming; Taddei et al., forthcoming). The participatory process involves groups who share water from connected reservoirs (see Taddei et al., forthcoming, for a typology of users). They are ‘hydrological’ residents of the Jaguaribe Valley, the largest segment of a rural hinterland of some 30,000 ha of irrigated land, home to over 2 million people. Small plots of less than 10 ha dominate, and rice and other crops are cultivated mostly with rudimentary technologies. Participants in allocation meetings are presented with a range of scenarios for the next season’s water availability which factor in climate variability. Organized and led by the Ceara´ state water management agency Companhia de Gesta˜o dos Recursos Hidricos (COGERH), water users negotiate, through day-long discussions, waterrelease amounts for each reservoir and water-use priorities for the upcoming six months. The

informal presentation and discussion of scenarios pre-selected by COGERH is often preceded by a technical presentation on some aspect of climate or water management. Consensus is attained through dialogue, facilitated by a moderator from COGERH. If verbal agreement is not unanimous, a vote is taken. Given the variety of alliances and points of discussion, consensus can be reached on characteristics of water management and minimum needs of diverse users at several points, suggesting that the dynamics of the process follow from an interaction between selfish motives and social norms related to maintaining stable relations among the network of water users (Taddei, 2005).

2.2. Uganda farmer discussion groups As in most of sub-Saharan Africa, the majority of Uganda’s population resides in rural areas and relies on rain-fed agriculture for food and income. Compared with its neighbours, Uganda is favoured by abundant rainfall and fertile soils. Yet a poor choice of crop variety or planting date can be the difference between a good harvest and a partial or total crop failure, threatening household livelihood. Therefore, at the onset of each rainy season, farmers scrutinize the local environment for indicators signalling whether their crops can safely germinate, grow, and mature before the rainy season ends. Indicators include shifts in wind direction, night-time minimum temperatures, the shape and forms of clouds, observations of migratory birds, and the flowering of particular trees (Orlove and Kabugo, 2005). In addition, farmers rely on information from social networks, marketplaces, and radio broadcasts that allow them to track the onset of rains across the country (Orlove et al., forthcoming). Interpretations are grounded in the accumulated experience of multiple generations of local farmers. While Ugandan farmers still rely on this local knowledge base, many believe climatic patterns today are changing and less predictable. Their growing sense of uncertainty suggests they are open to receiving additional information to

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

18 Peterson et al.

˜o event orient their decisions. Since the El Nin caused severe floods in the region in 1997 – 1998, the Ugandan government has disseminated ENSO-based climate forecasts through media advisories and agricultural extension. Produced by the Department of Meteorology in collaboration with other scientific centres in the region, the forecasts are incorporated into advisories by the Ministry of Agriculture. Due to cumbersome political mechanics, advisories do not always reach farmers at the right time (before planting) or in a format that facilitates understanding and use. In addition, reports are written in English rather than local languages and spread through newspapers or national radio stations that do not reach rural areas. The local language programmes more commonly listened to by farmers sometimes introduce distortions. Even when forecasts are correctly reproduced, their broad (regional) scale and ambiguities relative to their probabilistic nature can deter farmers from using them as decision support tools. To help make climate forecasts more accessible and useful to farmers, a team from the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED), composed of US-based anthropologists and Ugandan linguists, worked with the Department of Meteorology to produce and distribute downscaled seasonal rainfall forecasts to farmer groups. In its outreach efforts the CRED team sought to capitalize on an extensive network of communitybased organizations that has been promoted by the government’s recent shift towards decentralization of governance and modernization of agriculture. The project assessed whether farmers’ groups could serve as key links in a participatory process joining forecast producers, agricultural advisors and end users. The first step in the experimental design consisted of rendering downscaled seasonal rainfall forecasts in a few simple sentences that were then translated into the local language (Luganda), paying particular attention to key terms like ‘season’, ‘normal’ and ‘probability’. The resulting message was recorded on tape and played during farmers’ groups meetings; afterward, participants were invited to discuss the information without facilitation by the

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

researchers. Group discussion focused on participants’ understanding of the forecast and its implications for agricultural decision making. In many cases, groups sought to reach a consensus on what the forecast meant and what strategies to adopt. Each group was also asked to agree on a number of feedback points that would be conveyed by the research team to the Department of Meteorology to help them better serve the farmers’ needs. In these cases, as many other studies, different ideas about participatory processes are evident, similar to Arnstein’s (1969) early ideas regarding participation. Participation is seen by those setting up the meetings as a useful means for communicating forecast information to improve decision making. The process is framed as fostering communication, understanding, and decisions. But, in practice, social processes of negotiation, manipulation, and contestation can overtake and subvert the activity. Participants and organizers alike bring in ideas about what participation involves, how it should proceed and what it can accomplish (see also Mompati and Prinsen, 2000; Botchway, 2001; Eversole, 2003). Far from being a neutral space for decision making, participation becomes an arena for enacting and resolving conflicts (Gaventa, 2004), negotiating social relationships (Williams, 2004), and creating communities. As we discuss in the next section, this arena includes a diversity of social norms and project goals that can influence the process.

3. Beyond talk: The social norms of participation Participation happens in a variety of formal and informal spaces and includes activities ranging from organized to open-ended. Much of the focus of the participatory literature has been on formal and organized events, rather than the context surrounding them. For example, formal participatory processes are often the focus of experimental studies (e.g. Ostrom, 2000; Walker et al., 2000; Tyran and Feld, 2002; Cardenas, 2005; Bischoff, 2007). However, studies

Participatory processes and climate forecast use 19

increasingly suggest that informal meetings and activities are important (Uphoff, 1992; Cleaver, 1999; Buanes et al., 2005; Parkins and Mitchell, 2005). Case studies suggest that western models of participation in either formal or informal events are insufficient: participation often reflects local modes of social exchange. As a result, the design of participatory processes should acknowledge a broader range of activities (Buanes et al., 2005; Parkins and Mitchell, 2005), since nonmeeting activities, social norms and non-verbal interactions appear to affect how information is presented, discussed, and the influence that various groups and individuals exert. A close look at activities surrounding participatory processes suggests that the western-dominated notion of participation as egalitarian and based in speech misses the real cultural richness of what it means to participate for many people, including norms of exclusion, alliances, language use, and non-linguistic activities.

3.1. Norms of involvement: Exclusion As noted, participation is often idealized as open involvement, in which everyone can be part of the process, whether for design, decision making or another project activity. Yet participation can be, at best, poorly implemented given local contexts (Taddei, 2005) and, at worst, a mask for larger issues of inequality and inadequacy in governance (Terborgh, 2000) or a means for institutionalizing power differences (Wester et al., 2003; Taddei, forthcoming). Critics see few real benefits for the most vulnerable (Cleaver, 1999; Blair, 2000; Kumar, 2002; Taddei, 2005). In the Brazil and Uganda cases, shortcomings included: exclusion, whether via intentional or unintentional non-invitation to the main participatory activity; non-participation in pre-activity meetings; or privileging certain voices (or modes of expression) during the meeting (see also Peterson, forthcoming). In the Uganda project, group meetings were scheduled in advance and members were informed by an extension agent or the group chairperson, as is customary. Being contacted

and informed by these gatekeepers was therefore a prerequisite for attendance. Some individuals were prevented from participation because they live in remote areas (and did not receive the information) or because they were purposefully excluded. In one case, a group leader failed to invite a member who had openly challenged him and the team during a previous meeting. Exclusion particularly affects immigrants and other marginal social groups. In some cases, those not informed or invited can join or listen to the discussion, although this is more difficult when meetings are held indoors rather than outdoors, where it is possible to linger on the edge and listen, or move closer to join the discussion. In Ceara´, there is de facto exclusion because transportation to the meetings is not subsidized, and poorer or marginalized groups often cannot pay transportation costs (Taddei et al., forthcoming). Traditionally, in Ceara´ meetings, the strength of individuals or representatives comes from their degree of visible support from non-voting group members. So poorer groups can be doubly disadvantaged by having fewer attendants who can speak, and fewer supporters for those who do speak.

3.2. Norms of involvement: Alliances In Ceara´, another form of exclusion occurs because the government presents only a limited range of water-release options during the meetings. The water use of some regions (e.g. the metropolitan area of Fortaleza, capital of Ceara´) or sectors (tourism and industry) is not open to public negotiation. In addition, before meetings, different user groups often forge alliances that increase the total number of supporters or provide access to speakers able to advance a particular water-release scenario. Clearly, ‘informal participation’ outside the recognized process can influence outcomes (Taddei, 2005). Norms of inclusion thus appear to be powerful determinants of outcomes. The range of means for exclusion shows the limitations of participation and suggests that exclusion is based on, and often justified by, social norms of interaction – often

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

20 Peterson et al.

unanticipated by organizers – that dictate how participation in a local context should proceed. The extra-project context introduces additional rules, constraints, and expectations that guide the processes of participation.

3.3. Languages in use Linguistic strategies and norms can also substantially affect how people may participate and the extent to which they may do so. In the Uganda meeting, participants draw on different styles of speech. Some traditional leaders adopt a flowery, high-flown form of Luganda, similar to that used in the royal courts. Elected officials sometimes draw on the populist rhetoric of political campaigns or development discourse. Educated members, such as teachers or deacons, might pepper their presentations with English words or switch into English entirely. In Ceara´, the terminology of hydrology imposed by water managers as the legitimate register for making proper decisions alienates less educated (economically disadvantaged) individuals. As a result, a given consensus could mask the fact that some people failed to voice their concerns due to linguistic discomfort. Taddei (2004, 2005, forthcoming) has suggested that the ways in which climate forecasts are used in Ceara´ reflect local social, cultural and political divisions, as well as the attempt of local elites to manipulate scientific products or the uncertainties behind them, potentially affecting how people participate. Language then, in Brazil and Uganda, serves as a strategic means to exclude others, bring in political messages, or increase participants’ social capital, giving them additional modes of communication derived from their experiences in the local socio-cultural context.

3.4. Non-verbal influences Cultural norms concerning appropriate public discourse also guide participation. In Uganda, such norms favour positive contributions over

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

expression of disagreement. Yet participants may express dissent or challenge ideas in subtle ways, for example by withholding expected non-verbal expressions of assent like nodding or humming, or by failing to show support by repeating the statement in question. Engaging in side conversations or attending to other tasks can also suggest disagreement or dissatisfaction. Rather than abruptly changing topic, dissenting members might try to steer the conversation by a series of small steps towards a different conclusion. These tactics are especially common in public discussions involving individuals of different social status (men and women, elders and young people, locals and immigrants). In Uganda spatial arrangements reflect differences in social roles or power, which in turn affect participation. Men sit on chairs or benches and closer to the researchers. Women sit on the floor and on the margins of the group, tending children and carrying out other tasks. Some women directly address the group (particularly if called upon), but more often talk among themselves or communicate through non-verbal means, such as stance, glances, clapping, or laughter. Boys often sit or stand by the side in a group, intently observing and occasionally joining in laughter. They are ignored by the adults, except when reprimanded for making noise or called upon to help carry chairs. When meetings take place outdoors, passers-by may stop and linger, or join members of their own gender. The very history of the term ‘participation’ in Uganda yields insights into how the act is understood and engaged in. Ugandans who are fluent speakers of both Luganda and English translate ‘participation’ by the Luganda term kwetabamu (Roncoli et al., submitted). Its literal meaning is ‘involvement’, ‘joining up together’ or ‘uniting with a group’. It carries a sense of entering an area and remaining there, and usually applies to groups that physically meet together. Though the English meaning of ‘participation’, as used in the context of participatory development, centres on voicing one’s own opinion to a group, the word kwetabamu is broader. It refers not only to speech, but also to non-verbal expressions, such as

Participatory processes and climate forecast use 21

laughter, applause, murmurs, and gestures. Such behaviours constitute a more active process of listening than is expected in other settings. Though speech is important, and the contribution of ideas (ebirowoozo) is valued, non-verbal forms of participation are appreciated as equally positive contributions. Mere physical presence is considered a legitimate form of participation, signalling one’s assent to the emerging consensus and adhesion to the group’s social goals. Ugandan farmers’ experience of participation centres on these meanings and values that reflect shared cultural norms of communication. Similarly, in Ceara´, because reaching a consensus during debates is locally preferred over voting, groups that feel vulnerable sometimes encourage a large turnout of associates, as mentioned. Such crowds do not have voting power, and although any individual can speak, few feel comfortable doing so. Nevertheless, through their massive presence and spontaneous reactions to issues being discussed, and through their facial reactions or collective murmuring, they can influence the course of debates, evident in the switching of stated positions by some official representatives in response to group dynamics. Researchers have called for a greater appreciation for non-linguistic means of communication (Young, 2000; Parkins and Mitchell, 2005) or attention to context-dependent information about how different speakers (and non-speakers) participate in a conversation (Levinson, 1987). Yet most reviews ignore how different ideas about language and communication are central to how participation is envisioned by different participants. The cases discussed here show that non-verbal behaviours during discussions are valid, if underappreciated, forms of participation that arise from the socio-cultural experiences of those involved, and can be crucial for how the activity proceeds.

4. Beyond decisions: Goals and outcomes of participatory processes In Brazil and Uganda, facilitators and participants advanced multiple goals and outcomes, some not

directly project-related yet nevertheless providing motivation for participation. Debates during the meetings about what participation was intended to achieve suggested that the processes were guided by many different ideas and expectations about the purpose of the activity. The academic and policy literature broadly acknowledges two kinds of outcomes for participation, based on whether international agencies are pushing efficiency or empowerment (Orlove and Brush, 1996; Michener, 1998; Cleaver, 1999; Kessler, 2004). Efficiency goals include improving project success through increased compliance and better use of resources. For instance, a recent World Bank report suggests that participation and civic involvement in loan policy development led to greater commitment to democratic reforms, and less resistance to and increased support for projects (Reuben and Arevalo, 2005). In Brazil, participation in the allocation seminars appears to have contributed to improving compliance, reducing conflict and infrastructure sabotage, and increasing the overall sense among some groups of a shift toward a more democratic society. Similarly, in Uganda, participating in the discussion groups has led farmers to use forecast information in planning decisions; farmers elsewhere have been less likely to do so (Orlove et al., forthcoming). In contrast, empowerment refers to an intention to improve the conditions of local people by increasing their capacity to enact changes themselves. Botchway (2001), studying economic development projects, suggests that at a minimum, participation is ‘the process in which local communities discover the possibilities of exercising choice and become capable of managing what they understand as development’. This idea of participation as empowerment to manage resources is increasingly common in evaluations of participatory processes (Pollnac et al., 2001; Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Brody et al., 2003; Fung and Wright, 2003; Mascia, 2003; Bryan, 2004). However, decentralization efforts in Brazil have not significantly transformed historical patterns of wealth concentration in the last 10 years (Cleaver, 1999; Blair, 2000; Kumar, 2002).

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

22 Peterson et al.

Other case studies suggest that additional outcomes are important to participants (see also Chambers, 2005). Studies that examine individuals’ satisfaction with participatory processes find that respectful and appropriate processes are more important than specific material outcomes (Wilson and McCay, 1998; Smith and McDonough, 2001). In both Brazil and Uganda, reaching consensus appears to be a shared goal for many participants, often tied to ideas of commitment and shared ownership in a project (see also Brody et al., 2003; Bryan, 2004). Other goals have also become very important for the process of participation, some deriving from ideas about how meetings should proceed, and others from re-appropriation of the process to provide assistance for other projects.

4.1. Consensus in participatory processes In Uganda, the attainment of ‘consensus’ or ‘agreement’ (nzikiriziganya, which translates as something like ‘agreeing with one another’2) is regarded as a goal in itself for any group interaction. Yet consensus is not unproblematic or simple. A closer analysis of the Uganda linguistic data shows that reaching the appearance of group consensus entails subtle negotiations over meaning and shifts in turn taking (Roncoli et al., submitted). For example, a male elder opened a discussion of the forecast by stating that planting should proceed as usual. A woman speaker then voiced her concern that a break in the rains made it urgent for everyone to plant quickly; she did so by making a polite statement that appeared to respect the older man’s view but in fact countered it. Though the man reiterated that group members should plant at their habitual time, others picked up on the woman’s concern and began discussing what to do about the predicted dry spell. The woman’s early planting plan was ultimately adopted by the whole group. The whole interaction reflected complex power dynamics of dominance and resistance. In Ceara´, consensus is also the preferred decision mechanism; voting is considered a last

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

resort and is rarely used. Given the divergence of interests in the water allocation process, movement toward consensus is heavily influenced by alliances, which can become crucial bargaining tools. The overarching goal is conflict resolution; in years with greater uncertainty about water availability, majority-win voting replaces consensus mechanisms, suggesting a greater emphasis on a particular outcome (i.e. more water for a particular group). Thus, the final decision might arise because of the social goal of closure, rather than actual agreement, which can also have repercussions; it is not unusual to see sabotage actions (e.g. the opening or closing of a reservoir valve during the night) that go against the decisions made in the participatory allocation process. One reading of these actions is that they are made in response to the incapacity of the decision structure to accommodate diverse socio-economic backgrounds and conflicting interests (e.g. upstream vs. downstream) in the same decision setting (Taddei, 2005). Researchers and practitioners have often examined the heterogeneity of those engaged in participatory processes, finding that differences – particularly differences in wealth – are often ignored but can lead to different degrees of political influence and biased outcomes (Agrawal and Gupta, 2005). However, we find that the effects of heterogeneity can be mediated by the goal of consensus. In Uganda, focusing on consensus appears to conceal social inequalities, while in Ceara´, an interest in conflict resolution makes voting necessary in drought years because of heightened differences among participants and their desires, and also appears to lead to increased dissatisfaction with the outcome. Indeed, heterogeneity of participants can lead to different actual outcomes and levels of satisfaction in different social contexts.

4.2. Non-project outcomes of participation Outcomes other than those explicitly adopted by the participatory exercise (e.g. a decision) appear equally important for individuals, and are largely

Participatory processes and climate forecast use 23

neglected in the participatory literature. Nonproject outcomes include individual, group or community gain. In our view, these outcomes must be seen, again, as a product of the context in which they occur, bringing together traditions, local culture, and previous experiences with similar participatory processes. Given the continual movement towards democracy in both Brazil and Uganda, participation in decisions regarding forecasts is an important affirmation of increasing political involvement. The events also provide opportunities to communicate directly with the government. In Ceara´, the allocation meeting serves not only as a place in which to discuss water, but also as a venue for voicing local community concerns directly to the state government (via the water agency), thereby providing an alternative to the clientelistic processes that mark municipal political relations. Meetings also give local individuals an opportunity to grow in political status, since the watershed decision level is located between state and municipal political structures (Taddei, 2005, forthcoming). Many participants have taken advantage of networking possibilities and have transformed from technicians to important local leaders through their participation in the water allocation process. In the Uganda discussions, participation has an important social goal of reaffirming connections to the farmers’ group and to the local community. This affirmation is expressed in the concerted effort to reach consensus on the meaning of the forecast and on appropriate adaptive responses. In addition, while many results of the participatory process consist of individual decisions (e.g. decisions about what to plant, when and where), some entail group planning and effort, including implementation of soil and water conservation technologies (e.g. digging trenches to channel excess water, obtaining improved seed and inputs on credit, and group marketing of farm produce to secure better prices and attract traders). In addition, group members are aware that communities with high levels of organizational capacity and technology adoption are also more likely to attract NGO interventions

and development projects, creating greater opportunities and potentially greater representation in government. More broadly, the participatory process encourages farmers’ groups to consolidate and expand their membership, to move into new activities, and to link with other groups as part of democratization. Much as there are multiple goals, there are multiple objects of attention in the discussion at meetings (and in other forms of participation). People may be talking about the forecast, but they also know they’re talking about a particular political party, or whether uneducated people have worthwhile knowledge, or what arenas are appropriate for ministers or priests to speak in.

4.3. Improving understanding through participation These cases also suggest that participation can aid in applying complex information. In Uganda, farmers who attended group meetings reported more ideas about potential adaptive responses to forecasts than those who did not (Orlove et al., forthcoming; see also Patt et al., 2005). The participatory process facilitated understanding and use of climate information by enabling individuals to pool ideas and plan coordinated responses. The data suggests an important value for discussion as a way to understand and incorporate uncertainty into planning. Discussions about the forecasts often reframe uncertainty as the possibility of a loss that can be mitigated by focused attention and group efforts. In several groups, participants commented that before they heard the forecast, they were uncertain about the course of the rains, hence about which agricultural strategies to pursue. They said when they heard different opinions voiced at the meeting they remained unsure about what would come and what to do, but once a consensus was reached, they trusted the forecast, and felt they could work hard and effectively at the particular strategies the group had settled on.3 The examples above argue strongly for wider recognition of the importance of non-project

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

24 Peterson et al.

goals in participatory projects. From a desire for community agreement, political involvement, coordination of activities, or understanding new ideas, these activities provide a forum for meeting a variety of group and individual goals. And while the decision at the end of the meeting might be the obvious outcome of this process, participants achieve other goals, unrelated to those of the project. It is not impossible that these extra-project goals might sometimes even drive the participatory process itself, or entice different individuals to participate in the first place.

5. Conclusions Our case studies highlight the rich cultural influences on participation, which is often seen to be a Western or formal process characterized by specific techniques and rules of order. In fact, participation emerges from the experiences and expectations of those involved, depending as much on how Ugandans hum, Brazilians form alliances, and how both sets of participants understand the importance of consensus, as on how the formal speechmaking proceeds. The methodological focus on interactions during participatory processes, and on the relationship between these and the wider social context (see also Parkins and Mitchell, 2005) brings into bold relief the expected and the more subtle characteristics of ‘how people participate’. In identifying specific ways that participatory discussions proceed, through pre-meetings, alliances, non-linguistic cues and norms of interaction, it becomes clear that the socio-cultural context plays a large role in organizing interactions. Participation can also support the understanding and use of information like climate forecasts. However, it is also important to note that both participation and climate forecasts themselves have a social existence. Far from being neutral, authoritative sources, forecasts are often modified during social processes, and sometimes manipulated by those responsible for creating and maintaining disparities in income and

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

social influence (Lemos et al., 2002; Finan, 2003; Roncoli, 2006). When participation, also highly dependent on social context, is used simply as a tool for forecast dissemination and use, there is a chance that the result will be more complex than either forecast use or participation alone, particularly when discussions and a focus on consensus create opportunities for multiple perspectives and spontaneous reframing of the information to make it relevant and accessible. Instead of seeing participation as a ‘tool’ for these kinds of projects, its fit within a particular context of relationships and culture should be a dominant concern. Reed (2008) also argues for a more process-based view of participation that includes a culturally appropriate way to engage relevant stakeholders. Looking to the future, complementary studies, incorporating additional theories and methods from the cognitive sciences, might deepen the understanding of the process of participation. Research into decision making and group interactions shows promise for understanding how decisions are both social and cognitive events, and how participation of often marginalized groups might be improved by reducing biases in how information is presented and processed. Research on framing might suggest how certain topics or themes come to dominate discussions, to the exclusion of other viewpoints or options. One element of our ongoing research in Brazil is the strategic use of uncertainty by groups to their advantage. In particular, the presentation of uncertainty, and its links to different risks, appears to be an important aspect of how waterrelease is discussed, and thus is a factor in which opinions come to dominate the decision process. Studies on the use of technical language allow for an exploration of how analytic information like forecasts can be overshadowed by experiential information, such as the memory of previous years’ rains, because of affective connotations and the differential way affects are processed and stored (Marx et al., 2007). Participatory discussions might allow group members to ‘retranslate’ experiential and analytic information into more accessible and relevant forms (Marx et al., 2007).

Participatory processes and climate forecast use 25

Research into non-project goals during participation may provide a critical perspective into how individuals make decisions that appear to be at odds with models of rational economic behaviour. Understanding social values and how they relate to group goals and participation should lead to greater knowledge about the value of cooperation (or non-cooperation) for various participants. The work presented here suggests that participation is often a complex group process deeply embedded in the social context, involving a variety of ideas, motivations, goals and outcomes. Future work can build upon these insights to suggest how participation might become more effective, particularly by reducing those inequalities in participation that reduce the satisfaction of participants and the efficacy of outcomes. Current research on social processes and cognitive biases may aid in this by suggesting how social processes themselves present possibilities for greater biases, but also opportunities for correcting these.

Acknowledgements Preparation of this article was facilitated by US National Science Foundation Grants SES0345840 and SES-0435622, and US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Grant NA06GP0308, the Tinker Foundation, the Wenner– Gren Foundation, the Comitas Institute for Anthropological Study (CIFAS), the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), the University of Miami’s Abbess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy and the Sa˜o Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP). We acknowledge the valuable comments provided by Roberta Balstad, David Krantz and Elke Weber (co-directors of the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, CRED). We thank Merit Kabugo and Dorah Nanteza both of Makerere University for their participation in the research in Uganda, and Gina Maranto and Ed Sarachik. In Ceara´, the staff of the Limoeiro do Norte office of the Ceara´ State Water Agency (COGERH), Francisco de Assis

de Souza Filho and Eduardo Savio Martins from the Ceara´’s Foundation for Meteorology and Water Resources (FUNCEME), Joa˜o Lu´cio Farias de Oliveira from the National Department for Works Against the Droughts (DNOCS), and the members of the water committees of the Jaguaribe Valley. Finally, we thank Jon Bialecki, the members of the CRED lab and two anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback on earlier versions of this article.

Notes 1. The research informing this article was conducted by the authors. Work in Ceara´ began in 2002 and continues; the Uganda project spanned 2 years, from early 2005 to late 2006, including forecast dissemination during the 2006 September – December and the 2006 March–May rainy seasons. Both projects involved audio and video analysis of interactions during the participatory meetings, extensive interviews, focus groups and observations of interactions in varied settings, including formal and informal gatherings, by the authors. This mixed methods approach allows us to examine processes of participation in a rare degree of detail. 2. Composed of the verb kukkiriza (to believe, to accept, to assent, to say ‘yes’) and the suffix ganya (which marks reciprocal action), the term nzikiriziganya refers to the core Kiganda ideals of unity and harmony. 3. The trust of a whole group in the forecast may lead to a decrease in diversity of planting characteristics (crop type, date of planting etc.). Thus the vulnerability of a larger group to a ‘wrong’ forecast may be increased.

References Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C., 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4). 629 – 649. Agrawal, A. and Gupta, K., 2005. Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Development, 33. 1101 –1114. Agrawala, S., Broad, K. and Guston, D., 2001. Integrating climate forecasts and societal decision making:

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

26 Peterson et al.

challenges to an emergent boundary organization. Science Technology and Human Values, 26(4). 454 – 477. Agrawala, S. and Broad, K., 2002. Technology transfer perspective on climate forecast applications. Research in Science and Technology Studies: Knowledge and Technology Transfer, M. D. Laet (ed.). Emerald Group, Bingley, UK. 45 –69. Archer, E., 2003. Identifying underserved end-user groups in the provision of climate information. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84. 1525 –1532. Arnstein, S. R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4). 216 – 224. Beierle, T. C. and Cayford, J., 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA. Bischoff, I., 2007. Institutional choice versus communication in social dilemmas: an experimental approach. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 61(1). 20 – 36. Blair, H., 2000. Participation and accountability at the periphery: democratic local governance in six countries. World Development, 28(1). 21 – 39. Botchway, K., 2001. Paradox of empowerment: reflections on a case study from Northern Ghana. World Development, 29(1). 135 – 153. Broad, K. and Agrawala, S., 2000. The Ethiopia famine – uses and limits of seasonal climate forecasts. Science, 289(5485). 1693 – 1694. Broad, K., Pfaff, A. P. and Glantz, M. H., 2002. Effective and equitable dissemination of seasonal-to-interannual climate forecasts: policy implications from the Peru˜o 1997–98. Climatic vian fishery during El Nin Change, 54(4). 415–438. Brody, S. D., Burby, R. J. and Godschalk, D. R., 2003. Mandating citizen participation in plan making: six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3). 245. Bryan, T., 2004. Tragedy averted: the promise of collaboration. Society & Natural Resources, 17(10). 881 – 896. Buanes, A., Jentoft, S., Maurstad, A., Soreng, S. U. and Karlsen, G. R., 2005. Stakeholder participation in Norwegian coastal zone planning. Ocean and Coastal Management, 48. 659 – 669. Campbell, L. M. and Vainio-Mattila, A., 2003. Participatory development and community-based conservation: opportunities missed for lessons learned? Human Ecology, 31. 417– 437. Cardenas, J. C., 2005. Governing ourselves: rules from the state, and from the people. Psychology,

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Rationality, and Economic Behavior: Challenging Standard Assumptions, B. Agarwal and A. Vercelli (eds). Palgrave, London, UK. Cash, D. W., Borck, J. C. and Patt, A. G., 2006. Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 31(3). 1 – 30. Chambers, R. 2005. Ideas for Development. Earthscan, London, UK. Cleaver, F., 1999. Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to development. Journal of International Development, 11(4). 597 – 612. Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds), 2001. Participation: The new tyranny? Zed Books, London, UK. Costa, A. C. G., Kottak, C. P. and Prado, R. M., 1997. The sociopolitical context of participatory development in Northeastern Brazil. Human Organization, 56(2). 138 – 146. DaSilva, J., Garanganga, B., Teveredzi, V., Marx, S. M., Mason, S. J. and Connor, S. J., 2004. Improving epidemic malaria panning, preparedness and response in Southern Africa. Malaria Journal, 3(1). 37. Eversole, R., 2003. Managing the pitfalls of participatory development: some insight from Australia. World Development, 31. 781 – 795. Finan, T., 2003. Climate science and the policy of drought mitigation in Ceara´, Northeast Brazil. Weather, Climate, Culture, S. Strauss and B. Orlove (eds). Berg, New York, NY, USA. 203– 216. Finan, T. J. and Nelson, D. R., 2001. Making rain, making roads, making do: public and private adaptations to drought in Ceara, Northeast Brazil. Climate Research, 19(2). 91 – 96. Fung, A. and Wright, E. O., 2003. Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Verso, London, UK & New York, NY, USA. Gaventa, J., 2004. Towards participatory governance: assessing the transformative possibilities. Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? S. Hickey and G. Mohan (eds). Zed Books, London, UK. Glantz, M., 2002. The role of the media in ENSO reporting. La Nina and its Impacts: Facts and Speculation, M. Glantz (ed.). United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan. 213 – 218. Hammer, G. L., Hansen, J. W., Phillips, J. G., Mjelde, J. W., Hill, H., Love, A. and Potgieter, A., 2001. Advances in application of climate prediction in agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 70. 515 – 553. Hansen, J., 2002. Realizing the potential benefits of climate prediction to agriculture: issues, approaches, challenges. Agricultural Systems, 74. 309– 330.

Participatory processes and climate forecast use 27

Hansen, J., Marx, S. and Weber, E., 2004. The Role of Climate Perceptions, Expectations and Forecasts in Farmer Decision Making: The Argentine Pampas and South Florida. International Research Institute for Climate Predictions, Palisades, NY, USA. Hickey, S. and Mohan, G. (eds), 2004. Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? Zed Books, London, UK. Ingram, K., Roncoli, C. and Kirshen, P., 2002. Opportunities and constraints for farmers of West Africa to use seasonal precipitation forecasts with Burkina Faso as a case study. Agricultural Systems, 74. 331 –349. IRI, 2000. Coping with the Climate: A Way Forward. International Research Institute for Climate Prediction, Pretoria, South Africa. Kemper, K., Dinar, A. and Blomquist, W., 2005. Institutional and policy analysis of river basin decentralization: the principle of managing water resources at the lowest appropriate level – when and why does it (not) work in practice? World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Kessler, B. L., 2004. Stakeholder Participation: A Synthesis of Current Literature. National Marine Protected Areas Center, Santa Cruz, CA, USA. Kumar, S., 2002. Does ‘participation’ in common pool resource management help the poor? A social cost-benefit analysis of joint forest management in Jharkhand, India. World Development, 30(5). 763 – 782. Lemos, M. C., 2003. A tale of two policies: climate forecasting and drought relief in Ceara´, Brazil. Policy Sciences, 36. 101 – 123. Lemos, M. C., Finan, T., Fox, R., Nelson, D. and Tucker, J., 2002. The use of seasonal climate forecasting in policymaking: lessons from Northeast Brazil. Climatic Change, 55. 479– 507. Levinson, S. C., 1987. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics, 23. 379– 434. Luseno, W., McPeak, J., Barrett, C., Little, P. and Gebru, G., 2003. Assessing the value of climate forecast information for pastoralists: evidence from southern Ethiopia and Northern Kenya. World Development, 31. 1477– 1494. Magalha˜es, A. R., 2002. Climate, society and public policy: how climate affects society, how society and government respond to climate impacts. Climate Affairs in Latin America: Climate Issues and Policy Responses. Institute of Latin American Studies, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. Marx, S. M., Weber, E. U., Orlove, B. S., Leiserowitz, A., Krantz, D. H., Roncoli, C. and Phillips, J., 2007. Communication and mental processes: experiential

and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Global Environmental Change, 17. 47– 58. Mascia, M. B., 2003. The human dimension of coal reef marine protected areas: recent social science research and its policy implications. Conservation Ecology, 17(2). 630– 632. McCrea, R., Dalgleish, L. and Coventry, W., 2005. Encouraging use of seasonal climate forecasts by farmers. International Journal of Climatology, 25. 1127 –1137. Michener, V. J., 1998. The participatory approach: contradiction and co-option in Burkina Faso. World Development, 26(12). 2105 –2118. Miller, C., 2001. Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26(4). 478– 500. Mompati, T. and Prinsen, G., 2000. Ethnicity and participatory development methods in Botswana: some participants are to be seen and not heard. Development in Practice, 10. 625 – 637. National Research Council, 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. Neves, F., 2002. A seca na histo´ria do Ceara´. Uma Nova ˜ es Demo´Histo´ria do Ceara´, S. de Sousa (ed.). Edic¸o crito Rocha, Fortaleza, Brazil. 76 – 102. Nicholls, N. and Kestin, T., 1998. Communicating climate. Climatic Change, 40. 417 – 420. NOAA/OGP, 1999. An Experiment in the Application of Climate Forecasts: NOAA-OGP Activities Related to the 1997 –98 El Nino Event. US Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD, USA. Orlove, B. S. and Brush, S. B., 1996. Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25(1). 329 – 352. Orlove, B. S. and Kabugo, M., 2005. Signs and sight in southern Uganda: representing perception in ordinary conversation. Etnofoor, 18(1). 124 – 141. Orlove, B. S., Broad, K. and Petty, A. M., 2004. Factors that influence the use of climate forecasts: evidence ˜o event in Peru. Bulletin of from the 1997/98 El Nin the American Meteorological Society, 85. 1735– 1743. Orlove, B., Roncoli, C., Kabugo, M. and Majugu, A., forthcoming. Indigenous climate knowledge in southern Uganda: the multiple components of a dynamic regional system. Climatic Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584-009-9586-2. Ostrom, E., 2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3). 137 – 158.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

28 Peterson et al.

Parkins, J. and Mitchell, R., 2005. Public participation as public debate: a deliberative turn in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 18(6). 529 – 540. Patt, A., 2001. Understanding uncertainty: forecasting seasonal climate for farmers in Zimbabwe. Risk Decision and Policy, 6. 105 – 119. Patt, A. and Gwata, C., 2002. Effective seasonal climate forecast applications: examining constraints for subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Global Environmental Change, 12. 185 –195. Patt, A., Suarez, P. and Gwata, C., 2005. Effects of seasonal climate forecasts and participatory workshops among subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(35). 12623 – 12628. Peterson, N., forthcoming. Excluding to include: (Non)participation in Mexican natural resource management. Agriculture and Human Values. Pfaff, A., Broad, K. and Glantz, M., 1999. Who benefits from climate forecasts? Nature, 397. 645 – 646. Phillips, J. G., Makaudze, E. and Unganai, L., 2001. Current and potential use of climate forecasts for resource-poor farmers in Zimbabwe. Impacts of El Nino and Climate Variability in Agriculture, C. Rosenzweig (ed.). American Society of Agronomy Special Publication, Madison, Wisconsin. 87– 100. Podesta´, G., Letson, D., Messina, C., Royce, F., Ferreyra, R., Jones, J., Hansen, J., Llovet, I., Grondona, M. and O’Brien, J., 2002. Use of ENSO-related climate information in agricultural decision making in Argentina: a pilot experience. Agricultural Systems, 74. 371 – 392. Pollnac, R. B., Crawford, B. R. and Gorospe, M. L. G., 2001. Discovering factors that influence the success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management, 44(11 – 12). 683– 710. Reed, M. S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation, 141. 2417 – 2431. Reuben, W. and Arevalo, B., 2005. Participation, social accountability and transparency mechanisms in development policy loans in Latin America, 2000– 2003. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Roncoli, C., 2006. Advances in ethnographic and participatory approaches to research on farmers’ responses to climate predictions. Climate Research, 33. 81 – 99. Roncoli, C., Ingram, K., Kirshen, P. and Jost, C., 2003. Meteorological meanings: understandings of seasonal rainfall forecasts by farmers of Burkina Faso. Weather, Climate and Culture, S. Strauss and B. Orlove (eds). Berg, Oxford, UK. 181 – 202.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Roncoli, C., Jost, C., Kirshen, P., Sanon, M., Ingram, K., Woodin, M., Some´, L., Ouattara, F., Sanfo, J., Sia, C., Yaka, P. and Hoogenboom, G., 2009. From accessing to assessing forecasts: an end-to-end study of participatory forecast dissemination in Burkina Faso (West Africa). Climatic Change, 92(3). 433– 460. Roncoli, C., Orlove, B., Kabugo, M. and Waiswa, M., submitted. Cultural styles of participation in farmers’ discussions of seasonal climate forecasts in Uganda. Agriculture and Human Values. Smith, P. D. and McDonough, M. H., 2001. Beyond public participation: fairness in natural resource decision making. Society & Natural Resources, 14(3). 239–249. Stephenson, G., 2003. The somewhat flawed theoretical foundation of the extension service. Journal of Extension, 41(4). www.joe.org/joe/2003august/a1.shtml. Stern, P. and Easterling, W., 1999. Making Climate Forecasts Matter. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA. Taddei, R., 2004. Notes on the social life of climate forecasts – a study of the case of Ceara´. Gerenciamento ˜o Integrado dos Recursos Hı´dricos com Incorporac¸a ˜ o e Previsa˜o da Previsa˜o Clima´tica: da Informac¸a Clima´tica a` Reduc¸a˜o das Vulnerabilidades a`s Secas no ´ rido Cearense, U. Lall and F. A. S. Filho (eds). Semi-A IRI/FUNCEME, Palisades, NY, USA and Fortaleza, Brazil. Taddei, R., 2005. Of clouds and streams, prophets and profits: the political semiotics of climate and water in the Brazilian Northeast. PhD dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, NY, USA. ˜ es Taddei, R., 2008. A comunicac¸a˜o social de informac¸o sobre tempo e clima: o ponto de vista do usua´rio. Boletim da Sociedade Brasileira de Meteorologia (BSBMET), Ago-Dez. 76 – 86. Taddei, R., 2009. The politics of uncertainty and the fate of forecasters: climate, risk, and blame in Northeast Brazil. Weather, Local Knowledge and Everyday Life: Issues in Integrated Climate Studies, V. Jankovic and C. Barboza (eds). MAST, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Taddei, R., forthcoming. Watered-down democratization: modernization versus social participation in water management in Northeast Brazil. Agriculture and Human Values. Taddei, R., Broad, K. and Pfaff, A., forthcoming. Integrating climate and water management in Ceara´: historical background, social and legal structures, and implications. Climate, Water and Society, U. Lall, F. A. Souza Filho and R. Taddei (eds). IRI, Palisades, NY, USA. Terborgh, J., 2000. The fate of tropical forests: a matter of stewardship. Conservation Biology, 14(5). 1358–1361.

Participatory processes and climate forecast use 29

Tyran, J. R. and Feld, L., 2002. Why People Obey the Law: Evidence from the Provision of Public Goods. Working Paper Series No. 651. CESifo, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Uphoff, N., 1992. Monitoring and evaluating popular participation in World Bank-assisted projects. Participatory Development and the World Bank: Potential Directions for Change, B. Bhatnagar and A. C. Williams (eds). World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. 135 – 153. Walker, J., Gardner, R., Herr, A. and Ostrom, E., 2000. Collective choice in the commons: experimental results on proposed allocation rules and votes. Economic Journal, 110(1). 212 – 234. Wester, P., Merrey, D. J. and de Lange, M., 2003. Boundaries of consent: stakeholder representation in river

basin management in Mexico and South Africa. World Development, 31(5). 797 – 812. Williams, G., 2004. Towards a repoliticization of participatory development: political capabilities and spaces of empowerment. Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? S. Hickey and G. Mohan (eds). Zed Books, London, UK. Wilson, D. C. and McCay, B. J., 1998. How the participants talk about ‘participation’ in Mid-Atlantic fisheries management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 41. 41–61. Young, M. I., 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Ziervogel, G., 2004. Targeting seasonal climate forecasts for integration into household level decisions: the case of smallholder farmers in Lesotho. Geographical Journal, 170. 6– 21.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT