Communication for Development: setting the scene

For centuries, several groups of Inuit have roamed the Canadian Arctic. They depended on the native caribou (wild reindeer) as a source of food, using their hides for clothing and shelter. The hunt was not only a means of survival; success as a hunter was an indication of recognition as a man.

Since the 1950s, biologists from southern Canada have spent millions of dollars observing the habits of the caribou. They monitored the state of the different herds in the Keewatin area of the far north, part of what is now known as Nunavut. They usually didn't bother to report their findings to the people of the north. When they did, it was in a scientific language quite foreign to the Inuit.

In the 1970s, mining exploration began extensively in the Keewatin district, bringing with it people, equipment, aircraft and noise. The Inuit became alarmed. They believed that the noise was hurting the caribou, driving them from their traditional feeding areas. The miners and biologists thought otherwise. Public hearings took place with Inuit filing lawsuits to stop the mining. While these failed to halt the mining operations, more rigid conditions were put on mining activities to protect the caribou. At the same time, the biologists gave information suggesting the government also impose strict quotas on the hunting of the Kaminuriak herd. An angry impasse occurred. The crisis came to a head when an Inuit leader reacted to new game laws and declared a state of war between his people and the biologists and game wardens. There was a call for the Inuit to defy new game quotas. Hostilities heightened on both sides.

Alarmed at the gravity of the situation, a government official called in Donald Snowden – the man who had pioneered the use of video as a communication method to facilitate community dialogue. Snowden proposed a solution. He suggested that each group be videotaped in their own domain in the appropriate language. This would allow each to give full rein to feelings and explanations in the language of choice. He stipulated that every tape produced be available to all groups and that editing rights be vested only with those who appear on tape – not in Inuit organizations, nor with senior government officials.

Two production crews were assembled – Inuit and non-Inuit – and training was given to augment the crew experience. A system was put in place to select community representatives from each of the Inuit communities to act as spokespeople for the communities. Four biologists were selected to speak on behalf of the scientific community. Following production, all videotapes were versioned into the second language for playback. The tapes were then collected and played back to separate discussion groups of Inuit and government people. Each group could experience the tapes in their own language.

So rich was the material on the tapes that they were taken back to the communities for screening and discussion. People met in homes, schools, community halls and at social gatherings to watch, to learn and to comment. Over time major changes of attitude were seen to take place and people expressed a willingness to work together with government in resolution of problems around the Kaminuriak herd. Similarly biologists screened tapes. So impressed were they by the tone and content of Inuit knowledge that there was an agreement that a new understanding had been reached where both groups could work together.

Initially, the government extended an invitation to the Inuit leaders to sit on the already formed government committee. This invitation was rejected. Instead, Inuit leaders formed their own committee and invited government to sit with them. There was a realization that this was an important turning point in the debate and soon government agreed to abolish the old system and join the newly formed Inuit committee. Today, more than twenty years after that first initiative, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq (Kaminuriak) Caribou Management Board is still operational; its website (www.arctic-caribou.com) opening note is a testament to the enduring impact of that first intervention: 'Welcome to the Beverly and Quamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, a group of hunters, biologists and wildlife managers working together to conserve Canada's vast Beverly and Qamanirjuaq caribou herds for the welfare of traditional caribou-using communities and others.'

We use this example, from almost forty years ago, to illustrate the power of Communication for Development. The story is compelling: you can see the Inuit and the biologists watching each other's videos. You can imagine how they began to change their understanding. You can appreciate how the medium (video) made it possible for each side to listen to the other's story in their own language without interruption – for once. The Kaminuriak Caribou Herd case shows how a cultural, social and economic disagreement between traditional users of resources and scientists was overcome. This is communication at its best.

A field known by many names

While we like to use such examples to introduce the term 'Communication for Development', we stress that this is only one approach among many variations and numerous definitions that go by that name. Like a chameleon, communication is embedded in international development. It changes colour to reflect the development thinking of the day: Development Support Communication, Development Communication, Communication for Human Development, Social Communication, Communication for Social Change, Strategic Communication – the list goes on.

These labels also work as markers of international development eras, each trying to capture its relevance and reflecting the dominant thinking of the day (Nederveen Pieterse, 2001). The term 'Communication for Development' was prominently used as the title of the first World Congress on Communication for Development (WCCD) in 2006 organized by the Communication Initiative, FAO and the World Bank. Now even this is being supplanted by the formulistic-sounding C4D (UNICEF) or DevCom (World Bank). The different names have caused exasperation and confusion among practitioners and students in this field. So, too, do the variety of communication approaches and methodologies that have emerged. One communication colleague mocked the confusion by drafting this fake letter:

Dear Professor

As a student of yours over the past year, I must confess that I am confused: I don't...