111 Universities Council on Water Resources Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education Issue 171, Pages 111-126, December 2020 Coproduction Challenges in the Context of Changing Rural Livelihoods *Ruxandra Popovici1, Katy E. Mazer2, Anna E. Erwin1, Zhao Ma1, José P. Pinto Cáceres3, Laura C. Bowling2, Edwin F. Bocardo-Delgado4, and Linda S. Prokopy1 1Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA; 2Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA; 3Department of Agronomy, Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa, Arequipa, Peru; 4Department of Biological Sciences, Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa, Arequipa, Peru; *Corresponding Author Abstract: Coproduction is a process that involves scientists and citizens engaging throughout the production of knowledge, decisions, and/or policies. This approach has been widely applied in an international context for addressing global environmental issues. It is customary for scientists to travel to rural communities, where both scientists and local knowledge holders work together and jointly design solutions to pressing problems. Such collaboration, however, often involves high costs for both residents and scientists, which can reduce project effectiveness. This study examines the challenges associated with coproduction in the context of changing rural livelihoods in beneficiary communities. We specifically conduct a self-analysis of the coproduction process led by our own university team, where scientists designed tools for water and crop management together with community members in Peru’s Caylloma province. We collected qualitative data on the coproduction challenges in five local districts in Caylloma, using focus groups and semi- structured interviews. Our results indicate that changing socioeconomic conditions in rural communities undermined the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of the coproduction efforts and deliverables. These included increased migration, market integration, and reliance on regional institutions for water and crop management. Keywords: agriculture, Peru, Latin America, participation, governance, community-based natural resource management oproduction is an approach that has been coproduction, multiple stakeholder groups can increasingly used to address natural resource discuss, negotiate, and co-create practical solutions Cmanagement challenges. Coproduction to their identified problems (Pohl et al. 2010). Such involves collaboration between differenta process is believed to be more effective than top- stakeholders, such as external experts and local down or bottom-up decision making alone (Beier resource users, to jointly determine the problems et al. 2017). to be addressed, as well as their solutions (Beier Coproduction was originally designed as a et al. 2017). This approach is often suitable for mechanism to include citizens in the design and addressing complex issues, such as climate change delivery of public services that were traditionally adaptation and watershed management, requiring created and provided by government alone (Ostrom complementary knowledge types (Leimona et 1996; Bovaird 2007). However, the concept al. 2015; Wall, Meadow, and Horganic 2017). and related practices have evolved into a highly Individual stakeholder groups rarely have the full participatory and collaborative process that can range of knowledge, experience, and expertise involve multiple stakeholders (government, civil required to tackle complex social, economic, and society, private sector) and have been expanded environmental problems (Berkes 2010). Through to areas such as watershed management (Leimona UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education Coproduction Challenges in the Context of Changing Rural Livelihoods 112 et al. 2015) and climate policy (Lövbrand 2011). et al. 2015). Using the modes of engagement Currently, coproduction is seen as a process that presented in Table 1 as a reference, the coproduction promotes intensive and repeated collaboration process represents a move away from top-down, between external experts and local experts, as contractual, or consultative relationships and well as other stakeholders such as governments, toward more collaborative, collegial, equitable, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and inclusive forms of interaction (Ahmad, Kyratsis, businesses, with the specific goal of informingand Holmes 2012; Akpo et al. 2015; Higginbottom better decisions, management practices, and and Liamputtong 2015; Meadow et al. 2015). policies (Prokopy et al. 2017; Djenontin andWhen it comes to the actual interaction between Meadow 2018; Vincent et al. 2018). Figure 1 different stakeholders, Pohl et al. (2010) outline describes the coproduction cycle in more detail. two spaces for coproduction: the agora and the In the university research context, coproduction boundary organization. In the agora, researchers, is closely related to Participatory Action Research community members, and other stakeholders (PAR), an approach where the research objectives, gather and interact in a common space where methods, and outcomes are co-developed by they deliberate and negotiate various aspects of researchers and study participants (Baum et al. the proposed project. In such spaces, the “quality 2006). PAR involves the acknowledgement of of dialogue” is particularly important, especially different values and different forms of knowledge when stakeholders hold different views (King as valid and important and seeks to empower and Gillard 2019, 702). It is thus necessary for study participants to design projects that are most researchers to take on the role of facilitators and beneficial to them (Dudgeon et al. 2017). In an mediate between the different stakeholder interests international development context, coproduction in a way that promotes fairness, sharing, learning, is also used in more applied projects and for and joint problem-solving (Akpo et al. 2015). the generation of specific deliverables, such asCoproduction efforts can also be led by boundary educational programs for farmers and technologies organizations, whose members are professionals for soil and plant management (Almekinders that engage with the different stakeholders and 2011; Dalton et al. 2011; Davis et al. 2012; Akpo facilitate cross-group discussions and negotiation et al. 2015). Scholars have indicated that there are (Pohl et al. 2010). Boundary organizations can different types and levels of engagement between include NGOs, university extension offices, and researchers, community members, and other some local or regional government branches. It stakeholders, as shown in Table 1 (Biggs 1989; is important to note that, while the agora and the Higginbottom and Liamputtong 2015; Meadow boundary organizations are presented as separate Figure 1. The cycle of coproduction. Source: Adapted from Vincent et al. 2018, 49. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR 113 Popovici et al. Table 1. Modes of interaction between researchers and other stakeholders. Mode Objective Type of Relationship Stakeholder Involvement Contractual Test applicability of new Unidirectional flow of Primarily as passive recipient technology or knowledge information from researchers of new knowledge or to stakeholders technology Consultative Use research to solve real- Researchers consult with At specific stages of research world problems stakeholders, diagnose the such as problem definition, problem, and try to find a research design, diffusion of solution findings Collaborative Learn from stakeholders to Stakeholders and researchers Continuous with emphasis on guide applied research are partners specific activities, depending on joint diagnosis of the problem Collegial Understand and strengthen Researchers actively Variable, but ongoing local research and encourage local research and development capacity development capacity Source: Adapted from Biggs 1989, 3-4 and Meadow et al. 2015, 183. elements, they are located on a continuum and undermined by several obstacles. These include can also happen simultaneously. For example, a uneven power relations (Bowen et al. 2015; boundary organization can hold an open discussion Wyborn 2015; Farr 2018), failure to build trusting in a public space with a wide range of stakeholders relationships (Bowen et al. 2015; Schuttenberg (Lemos et al. 2014). and Guth 2015), lack of support by the larger-scale Coproduction, however, is not easy. It is a political or institutional climate (Lebel, Wattana, complex, iterative process that requires time and and Talerngsri 2015), as well as differences in effort from scientists, local residents, and other cultural and organizational norms (Castellanos et stakeholders involved (Lemos and Morehouse al. 2013; Campbell, Svendsen, and Roman 2016; 2005). It often requires capacity-building at Cvitanovic, McDonald, and Hobday 2016). multiple scales to enable collaboration and In this paper, we assess the coproduction knowledge sharing between different actors withchallenges that arise in the context of changing different experiences and areas of expertise rural(van livelihoods due to shifting socioeconomic Kerkhoff and Lebel 2015). Stakeholders needconditions, to a topic that has been less explored in the build trusting relationships in order to coproduce, literature. Many coproduction initiatives seeking to which takes time and effort (Lemos and Agrawal address issues related to climate change or natural 2006; Bowen et al. 2015; Prokopy et al.