Through the GLP, detailed in Appendix 2, and building on the lessons learned through its development, I created a safe space for mutual exchange and exploration of local and global issues from a range of perspectives. The space was safe in that it was based on a foundation of strengths or assets that participants had. I combined my role as practitioner and researcher as I engaged the participants through global learning pedagogy in order to share production and transfer of existing knowledge and understanding. This contributed to the development of shared aspirations or value sets through participatory learning activities and critical reflection. I evaluated the sense making process of converting knowledge to understanding and how this results in a change in values and ultimately actions. At all times during the GLP I was careful to distinguish between knowledge and information, skill building and persuasion. It was not my intention to evangelise but rather to engage participants in an exploration of their existing livelihoods and to facilitate sharing and learning that drew on different perspectives and experiences. I hoped actors would identify the barriers and constraints that they faced and would consider how they could build on their existing asset base to address them. In
194 doing so, I was drawing on my theoretical framework that was centred on the importance of starting with and building on existing knowledge and understanding. To achieve this all of the participants worked together in groups to produce an individual and collective mapping of their livelihood assets. From this position participants were encouraged to understand each other‘s experiences and how each other‘s realities relate to the wider world.
The participatory action learning activities used to deliver the GLP were employed, throughout the training programme, to assess prior knowledge understanding and values of the participants, to deliver the programme and to measure how values changed during the learning process. On the first day of the GLP I began the session with some ice-breaking introductory activities. The first one was an aspirations, hopes and expectations exercise in which I ascertained why participants had come, what their expectations were and what they hoped to gain from this learning experience, as summarised in table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Aspirations: Summary of Responses
Reasons for attending Hopes and Expectations To learn about new ways of working with
communities
To find out how to make learning more inclusive
Sent by my ministry/ organisation To see how this relates to my work
To learn something new
To improve our health assessment tools To assist with strategic plans
To be more integrated in our work To have new way of informing communities about climate change
I wrote the five dominant hopes and expectations from the first day of the GLP on a flipchart and measured participants‘ responses throughout the learning programme. I did this by asking participants to place a combination of ticks and crosses at the end of each session on the flip chart paper. The top score was
195 three ticks and three crosses was the lowest score. The table below illustrates the results of this process.
Table 6.2 Summary of Hopes and Expectations Hopes and Expectations Learn something new Improve assessment tools Assist with strategic plans More integrated in our work Have new way of informing communities Week 1 Week 2 Week 3
The GLP began with a presentation on sustainable livelihoods and asset based approaches and was followed by individual and collective mapping of the five capital asset groups: Financial, Human, Physical, Natural and Social. By focusing on local livelihood assets and using case studies to introduce different contexts, existing knowledge space was expanded rather than new spaces being created. This was to ensure that knowledge conveyed between participants connected to, and expanded, intuitive understanding that the participants had. In developing an understanding of what assets are and the mapping of individual and collective assets, there was a significant change in the relationships within the group, in terms of how they related to each other. There was a shared consensus about the importance of social capital in Zanzibar society, at a community level and in terms of governance.
In common with most small states the physical and relationship distance between rural communities and the Government was much smaller than on the mainland. As anticipated, focus shifted away from perceived needs and problems and how to address them towards strengths and how to build on them to overcome individual and shared issues.
196 Building on the mapping of individual and collective assets, I engaged all of the participants in a consensus building activity to identify what global pressures and forces they perceived to impact on their livelihoods and community. Individual responses were discussed as a whole group and used as the focus for a critical enquiry of the issue, the pressures and responses. I asked the participants what global and local issues they perceived to be of importance and relevance to their lives as individuals and members of their community. As a group they identified climate change, extreme weather, food security, tourism and poverty as the significant global pressures and forces that affected rural livelihoods in Zanzibar. Understanding how rural people cope with and relate their livelihoods to these global contexts is crucial to understanding the relevance of global social justice to sustainable livelihoods.
Figure 6.2 Global Context and feeding back