Chapter 3: A Community-led Approach to Addressing Water and Agricultural Issues
Strategy Development Decisions Points
Strategy Development Decisions Points
A few of the most important decision points we encountered, and you may want to assess for your own initiatives, include the following considerations. You will find a worksheet to help you think through how your initiative might address these Community-Led Strategy Decision Considerations.
Group Directions and Priorities
One key element of this approach to engagement is that to the maximum extent possible, activities, directions, issues, and priorities are to be driven by the leadership groups (and by extension the communities they represent). As the ‘sponsor’ of these efforts, our main role is to act as coordinators, collaborators, resource brokers, information providers, and facilitators. This means we take our lead from the groups with whom we were working. In short, we were to act primarily as advocates for process rather than outcome.
Almost by definition, this raises several important potential pivot points you may want to consider. There will be times, given the reality of the political, regulatory, financial, technical, or science-based context in which your group operates, that it may be appropriate to suggest topics for consideration, raise issues that are appropriate as prompts, or provide information that will serve the interests of the group and process. To a considerable degree then, your choices will be a judgment call driven by your best assessment of what can help the group best meet its objectives, how much capacity or comfort they have for collaboratively setting this direction, and how long, or if, they come to see themselves as a group rather than a collection of individuals.
Community-led Engagement in the Water for Ag Context
We chose to develop the Water for Agriculture project’s strategy around a community-led approach because, as we discuss in this and the next two chapters, it provides a valuable framework within which to operationalize our Process Model consistent with the Best Practices (Engagement Principles and Process Attributes) the literature suggests are the process conditions or characteristics that lead to successful engagement efforts.
As we discuss in greater detail in Chapter 4, from the outset of our engagement project initiatives, we established the operating principle that the issues and priorities that our project was willing to support and undertake were entirely in the hands of those we were working with – within the broad categories of water and agriculture. There were no preconditions beyond that and the various projects that emerged from our sites reflected our allegiance to this principle. Examples include a local foods branding initiative, consumer education, research projects, educational programs and tools, grant writing, increased resources for agricultural best management practices, and local government policy discussions.
To some extent, this speaks to the balance of our facilitation roles: idea initiators, information providers, honest brokers, etc. While these are all legitimate roles, the point is to be cautious about suggesting ideas or topics that may inadvertently impede the group’s ability to identify these topics on their own.
Likewise, there may be times when group priorities may drift in directions relatively far from the core operational issues, or your judgment as a facilitator may distract from the emerging priorities the group is working towards. To some extent we have to make these judgments on a case-by-case basis unless the group’s direction is either obviously polarizing or likely to be detrimental to the project, however, our goal should be to support the group to the maximum extent possible.
Engagement Process and Structure
In this context, ‘process and structure’ refers to general design, strategies, and timelines that best align with your group’s preferences and are most likely to successfully address the issue(s) that matters most to your group. Determining the most appropriate structure and processes for your group requires your expertise as a facilitator, carefully balancing your many roles (idea initiator, clarifier, honest broker, etc.) and your willingness to allow group preferences to determine the most appropriate course of your project. For most initiatives, your structure and expectations will be driven at least initially by the overall scope and intent of those convening the project.Â
This doesn’t suggest, however, that there aren’t numerous opportunities for you to work collaboratively with your participants to develop an engagement process and structure. Once you’ve had the opportunity to present and collaboratively identify the key goals and scope of your project, it is a good time to begin purposeful discussions about the broad outlines of your process and structure. Doing so can go a long way to building relationships and fostering the awareness that the project’s success is everyone’s shared responsibility. It is also important to realize and allow for as appropriate that these agreements or expectations may change over time.
That said, you will need to have consensus among those convening your initiative to ensure you are not creating misunderstandings either among your convening team or with participants.
The engagement process in the Water 4 Ag project
Consistent with our overall project goals, and the need to start with our Process Model, all five of our groups intentionally began with the expectation of working through the five major phases of the process in a deliberative and iterative learning environment over a 12– to 24-month period. This, however, was simply the starting point. While some groups settled early on priority issues and were able to move to implementation more quickly than others, some groups who had a broader set of priority issues and proposed solutions took two full years. In each case groups embraced the intent and structure of the process model and adapted it as appropriate to their circumstances.
Process in Arizona
A prime example of community partners’ preferences leading the engagement process and structure emerged from our Arizona site. While four of our five sites chose a formal leadership team that met on a regular, face to face basis as our initial design intended, Arizona felt that a modified Delphi approach to deploying our process model was more appropriate in their contexts. This adaptation allowed that group to achieve a wide range of successes consistent with stakeholder preferences while still undertaking the in-depth deliberative approach enshrined in the project’s Process Model. This approach then allowed them a range of opportunities including taking a Participatory Modeling approach to the development of their Water Estimator Tool.
A few things to consider include:
- In general, how much latitude or control are you willing to give participants in revising or influencing your process and structure?
- What specific aspects of your proposed process and structure are most amenable to collaborative revisions, and what aspects are not?
- How will you, or who will make decisions about revised processes and structures? Who holds the ultimate decision-making authority, the group, conveners, or some subset of both?
- What aspects of this are you willing to be flexible about over the duration of the project? What strategies and on what frequency will you check in with your participants over time?
Once you’re comfortable that your convening team is on the same page, there are several important questions you may want to raise with your participants, including:
- Is the proposed process and structure consistent with goals as you understand them?
- Do you have suggestions to improve the process and/or structure that you think are important to consider?
- What expectations do you have for revising or adapting the process and structure over the duration of the project?
- How would you suggest we make decisions over changes to process and structure?
- Do you have ideas for how and when to check in with one another about ongoing processes?
By being purposeful about both the process and structure – as well as tapping the collective wisdom and preferences of the group you’re working with – you can meet the overall priorities of convenors and participants while also fostering the relationships, collaboration, transparency, and shared responsibility your project will need to maximize its chances for success.
Community Leadership Group Structure and ExpectationsÂ
Working with your group to determine the best leadership and decision-making structures for your initiative requires a similar set of considerations.
Points of discussion you may want to raise include:
- Your group’s preference for ensuring the group’s work is accomplished (e.g., study circles, task forces, or subcommittees, etc.)
- Decision-making expectations (Roberts Rules, majority voting, consensus, etc.)
- Formality of leadership structure (e.g., chairperson, vice-chair, etc.)
Practice Tips
Choosing which leadership and decision-making structure works best for your group requires considering opportunities for maximizing their active participation. If a disproportionate amount of the work and authority ultimately ends up on us as facilitators it will almost certainly undermine your long-term capacity building intentions. Throughout your discussions it will be important to keep in mind the implicit goals of shared ownership, responsibility, authority, and long-term capacity building – and fostering these whenever, and however possible.
In each case, we as facilitators may choose to guide or provide suggestions, but to the maximum extent possible, the decisions of which approaches are most appropriate for the group should be up to them. It’s important to remember that groups will vary in terms of the power and social dynamics, their initial comfort with the project or each other, or even their tolerance for these kinds of decisions early in the process. As the project evolves, preferences may change – similar to process and structure – and will require checking in with the group to determine if adjustments to your leadership structure or expectations are necessary.
Decision-making in the Water 4 Ag project
In all of our sites, our leadership groups preferred to make decisions via consensus with little to no formal leadership structure. Once priority issues and projects were identified, however, several of our groups decided to develop task forces and sub-committees for implementing priority projects.
Stakeholder/Participant Group Capacity
As we discuss in greater detail in the next chapter, paying careful attention to group capacity is a common characteristic of most successful engagement efforts. Collaboratively assessing and responding to your participants’ needs and expectations provides you with yet another opportunity to work in partnership with your group in ways that allow them to determine their needs and preferred solutions.
A wide array of tools and strategies exist to help you work with your group(s) to determine these needs including open discussions, questionnaires, study circles, task forces, sub-committees, or more formal exercises such as World Café and other brainstorming and prioritizing techniques. Regardless of how you approach this, collaboratively assessing capacity needs will ensure your group has the skills to achieve the goals it has established – as well as lay the foundation for the long-term capacity they will need to effectively address future challenges.
Practice Tips
Capacity needs you are likely to want to purposefully explore with your group include:
- Topical or issue-based knowledge, information, or skills – which depending on your range of topics may be broad or narrow.
- Leadership, facilitation, or collaborative governance skills and information. This could include such skills as how to facilitate groups, how to acquire grant resources, how to manage tasks, how to communicate with the media, how to conduct interviews, or how to undertake action research or any number of other ‘soft’ but especially important leadership skills.
Tools & worksheets
Community-Led Spectrum Tool – Tamarack Institute
“Community-Led approaches are those that are led not by an organization or other outsiders but by a collective, community process. It has become an essential way of working to combat power imbalances that exist between traditional ‘authorities’ and the communities who are facing inequities.
This tool is designed for leadership teams to distinguish between Community-Led approaches and to develop a more discerning understanding of various engagement strategies and their effectiveness in cultivating community leadership. These discussions are most effective when community representatives are involved to develop a shared intention, understanding of roles, and commitments.”
Worksheet: Community-Led Continuum
A worksheet to help you assess where along the continuum of community-led considerations your project is likely to want to be.
Worksheet: Community-Led Decision Considerations
This is worksheet to assist you to identify the options you will want to consider as you formulate your strategies.
Additional resources
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.