Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Overview ural people in Africa have always and change their own institutions and K' M n maintained a certain formidable knowledge svstems. Thus, the opportuni- power that guards their indigenous ties surrounding initiatives to bring to- institutions and knowledge systems, gether indigenous knowledge systems and thereby maintaining some level of self-reli- natural resource conservation are im- ance. This measurable powvcr is based mense -however, so are the dangers. The upon the capacity to resist what they do opportunity is the possibility of working not have a voice in. Recent reports from from within, consequently establishing ex- donor agencies documenting the failure pandable natural resource initiatives of projects over the past twenty years to which are congruent, and therefore sus- initiate sustainable action and make a tainable, with existing institutions and positive differenice in poverty levels in Af- systems. The danger is that indigenous rica tend to substantiate this thesis. These knowledge items or outputs-identifica- ' decades of failed visions did not happen tion of plans, or methods of planting, for because donor agency staff were uncom- instance-may be identified with no re- mitted, nor because African communities gard for their other components of rules were uninterested. They happened be- and roles-which are no less important Li cause local people's voices -their involve- because they often seem invisible to the ment and control were thought to be part outsider. )hen this particular incorpora- 'F of the goal of development, rather than tion happens, the ownership factors that the process of development. are critical to both sustainability and self- The power of the rural people to resist reliance begin to fade away; and local ® the development projects that regard people find themselves even more bereft S1 them in this manner, and include them as of their self-reliant heritage. No. 1 only "beneficiaries, " but not as "actors," is October 1998 admittedly a power that has not expanded their resource base; and there is now, of erbmp. d course, an increasing fragility of this re- -.i P- source base in terms oi environmental and -An 24dic P economic deterioration. Despite these al- most paralyzing problems, many people w o;fi99SThprto 3, and groups throughout Africa strongly be- En lG * Af e -i lieve that positivTe new development can v - C O <9 t <,happen, but onlv if the people themselves T e ho it on ee ste 2. stay in control of their resources, econo- f a e pesse 0 mies, and culture. - Bhs D h 7NW This capacity for local control only - - 23 - (202% happens, however, when people are al- 4737574 ,-snata- vl loI Ted to internally work from, expand, r ¶ It is the intent of this article then to briefly define some there is emerginig consensus on what toe priblems are of the dangers so that they may bc avoided, and define some there will be a similar consensus on how to solve these prob of the opportunities so that they may be morc thoroughly lems. Thus, it seems the opportunity and the way fomar( and solidly desveloped. To aceomplish this obleetive, some is- depcnds upon kceeping in mind two things: on the one ham sues are briefly outlined belowwhich secen to contain sttmng occaus: "voicc" has been achieved and therefore people arn clements of both danger and opportunitv: isteniog and willing to collaborate, increased efforts nee( to be placed on the how-to; on the other hand, pilot b ho Defining How Far U'e Have Come to" modalitics cannot assume that people who now agree ol what nceds to change, have similar perspectives on hox Cver the past 40 years, the international development con- things need to be changcd. Thcreforc, these pilot initiative: munity has primarily operated on the premise chat in'put- featuring indigenous knowledgc systems and institution output dxevlopment models which offer 'ast, effficient Irans- will need to spell out ver- clearly both the conceptual frame fer of goods and structural entitics, werc the 'Rey elements works and power/control implications so that differences iI in a country s economic and social devceopment. However, pereeptions and approach can be rccognized and mutuall- failurc of these programs and institutions to achieve sos- actedcd to. rather than buried in a barrage of rhetoric. tainabliity and effectiveness, assumed to be dependablc DV- products of the input-output model, has finally bought into Assumptions Make A Difference serious question thc efficacy of this approach. Expanding pcreeption of this new reality has initiated a paradigm The critical difference in defining how to go about change i etange away from mechanistie top-down models pridoriiy depend ent upon whether one assumes tha economic an concerned w'ith economnic developmenr, tioard dynraric social developnment can be internally initiated or whcthe participatory approaches concerned with all feeets ot hu- on cbcliev-es that it must be externally induced. The interna man dcvelopment. The power of this paradigm shift is that' tional eceveiopment communitv and African governments not onsy provides new solutions; it also provides new insights with their long-standing preferences for input-output mod as to 'soat are the problems. els havc obviously ascribed to externally induced mnodes an( The key to understanding how far we hav'e eome in em- mnodels. As the notion of sustainability began to emphasiz( bracing these new- pereeptions is to focus on hbo rs-och has the imrportance of participant ownership and the resultini ctangecd in terms of defining what the prmbhiems are. I.erc responsibility participation initiatives have become increas the "necessity for sustainabiiitr-' has accomplished what inglv popular. lHere, however, donor organizations haos of "cqu4ic-' and "basic human necds" concepts, despite their ten assumed that participation processes were to be used tt cfforts over several decades, have been unablc to do -ma induct -nargirnalized groups of people into the presenth toe case that people-oricnted, participatory dcsclopmeoit iS dominanit Webstcrn-typc economic and cultural s-sstems - not only preferable from a social iustiee perspective- b-.t is but ,xith more sensitix'ity and within their osn time-frames also necessary frotm an effeetiveness standpoint. Howexen, This essentially leaves the assumptions surrounding the ne this emerging consensus on what are the nature of the porb- cessitv for externally induced change untouehcd anc lems, does not neeessarilv indicate similar agreement on unreflected upon. now to solve these problems, and indeed therc is no s'uch The possibility that existing indigenous African institu agreement. rions -often distinguished as 'eustomary" or 'informal' The danger here is of tso kinds. First, those w-ho have --eouil be a base for internaily initiated oIevelopment ha; beer' advocating thcse changes for so nariy deeadcs may been til o rarely explored. However. the rcernt dcleloproern; continue to assume that there has been no suecess because ficeus on eapaeitv and institution building has 'oegun to ini it has not beenl total; not realizing that whil enuduring pol.- tiate rc-eovaluation of the effieaey of these institutions. Floi cics of the input-output cra may not have vet ehangetd, instanei, Miamadou Dia, in a 1991 paper on "why eulture "voice" has indeed been aehies-ed for an alternatisve s5ew- m-attcrs" proposed that recognition and utilization o point. The alternative danger is to assume that because tri w s awn institutions are essential to the eootinent's fu ______ 3 ture progress. A subsequent regional study entitledAfrian Mobilization Strategy Managementfor the 90s (AM90s)" was designed to investi- gate the efficacy of utilizing incligenous institutions, in par- The project of development action is chosen and designed ticular the management and organization practices. The bv outsiders, usually by specialists within the initiating do- study's results shed definitive light on how culture anc. in- nor or government institutions, before people's involvement digenous institutions matter in terms of effecting more begins. The program leadership then "mobilizes" the "tar- positive governance emphasizing participatory processes, geted beneficiaries" to endorse, collaborate with, and adopt creating efficient but culturally congruent productivity, and thc decisions taken. This strategy leaves full control in the implementing equitable gro-rbh strategies. At the same hands of the external agent. time, the results begin to point to expanding levels of dis- connect at all formal institutional levels and African civil Community/Institutions Development Strategy society. The danger that is faced here is that of unwittingly com- Social surveys are carried out or meetings held to achieve a pounding the existing level of disconnect. This is a strong better understanding of community/institutional percep- possibility if attempts are made to utilize indigenous natu- tions about a specific problem which has been identified as a ral resource systems, without explicitly eschewing external constraint to development. Local groups may then be in- change models at both the micro and macro levels. On the volved, using participatory techniques, in planning and car- other hand, w-hile opportunities abound for necessarn re- rying out solutions to a problem. Actor/participants share connect activities and expansion of indigenous knowledge specified amounts of control with the external agent, but systems, for this to be successful, conceptual frameworks decisions as to the actual amount often rests externally must change, and the actual work will be, to a great extent, complex and uncharted. Distinguishing Among Participation Strategies IK N o te s Approaches used to achieve grassroots participation are nu- would be of interest to: merous and diverse in their objectives, operational strate- gies, and results. Assessing levels of control, and resulting Name _ sustainability, provides participation standards that sepa- rate action from rhetoric. This categorization, in turn, pro- Institution vides a measurement typology that allows facilitating agen- cies to be honest about participation initiatives and results. Address This capacity is particularly cracial when groups decide to set aside externally-induced models of development ancl be- gin working from internal initiatives and institutions. To create basic standards, participation strategies are divided into four major categories. They are then further ~ ~ - -' classified according to the amount of control which rests --0Q with the actor/participants. This classification, based upon "- measurement of powver/control transfer, explains how differ- ent participatory strategies work and what they can be ex- - pected to accomplish from the perspective of bothi thae "ae- tor/participant" and the "extei-nal agent." The basic strate- E i gies and control focus are as follows. m i St X 4 _ _ Organizing Strategy Each of these participation strategies. in addition to their control quotient, has what we mav call an "action in- Marginalized groups organize themselves, or are organized, tent.' In selecting a strategy it is essential to clarify this ba- to incrcase their strength and influence in areas of decision- sic action intent. And critical to the success of a project is making that affect them. Cooperatives, rural unions, and an understanding of how the action intent is preserved or some community-based NGOs are examples of this strategy. distorted daring implementation. Mobilization strategies Actor/participants share specified amounts of control with use only specified portions of the participatory process to external agents or with elected office holders. consult; both the community and organizing strategies use it to negotiate; and empowerment strategies use it to oreate Empowerment Strategy autonomy. UJnderstanding the action intent of the various participatio-n strategies, and often subtle but critical differ- Community based groups, often assisted by an outside fa- ences betveen them, can help us to decide where the locus cilitator. initiate a learning/empowerment process that en- of control needs to rest for the maximum sustainability, and ables them to define their own goals and objectives; assess how we can keep it there. the implications of options open to them; decide and as- The danger here is that to work effectively with indig- sume responsibility for actions to achieve their agreed to enous knowledge systems, both negotiation and empower- objectives. The empow-erment strategy places control in the ment strategies must be used and sustained for long periods hands of the actor/participants, who claim both their rights of time, not only at the grassroots level, but also at the and responsibilities. policy levels. Sustaining one or the other of these two modes For sustainable results, the critical question is: Where without slipping back to consultation levels is most difficult. does the control rest? The strategy of "mobilization" keeps On the other hand, the opportunity is that the necessity of the control solely in the hands of project managers and is this objective will engender extensive new "how-to" knowlI- therefore easy to initiate and manage. But, because local edge that will make future efforts in this area much easier to control is so minimal, this approach seldom engenders a accomplish. sustainable base. "Community development" and "organiz- ing strategies" share some levels of control with partici- Conclusion pants and are therefore capablc of generating adequate lev- els of sustainability, but only if (a) project management pro- In summary participatory approaches necessary for effee- cesses adequately match indigenous styles; and (b) the tively working with rather than against indigenous knowl- project output meets a strong community need, such as im- edge systems do not make for easy analysis or simple solu- proved water supply. "Empowerment" strategies enable the tions. I lowev7er, these participatory processes do capture the participants to create and design their own initiatives as complexity and inter-dependency of the issues themselves. well as implement them, thereby placing maximum control And they effectively outline the required complex problem- and responsibility in participant hands, with consequent solving processes for sustainable solutions. More impor- high levels of local sustainability. But maximum control can tantly, it is a first step in returning African development ini- also increase marginalization. tiatives to internal rather than external forces. :S0intitutions0 andmutilateral: orizations. h iw 0S e3pressed inl this artile rethoe ofth pti,rsan soud ot e attiuted0 0 to0t the WorldtBankGrup oriJts patners in tis iimtitie A webpage 7 nK i0s aviabl at tp/vwcrd5wk. rg./aftdr/ik idefaulti.htn i .i . i Aao