Process Notes
on participatory dialogues with local actors
The identification of local partners, study sites and priorities
for collaborative research were based on extensive participatory
dialogues facilitated by the IIED project coordinator in each
country. Dialogues with local actors dependent on biodiversity
for their livelihoods were by far the most important aspect
of this participatory process. Village level meetings and interactions
in rural areas ensured that:
-
the IIED coordinator had the opportunity to present and
discuss the aims and activities of the DGIS supported project
with farmers, indigenous peoples and external support organisations.
-
the farmers and indigenous peoples had an opportunity to
assess, -on their own terms-, the desirability and relevance
of engaging in collaborative activities with IIED. For example,
after initial discussions with the IIED coordinator, farmers
in Andhra Pradesh (India) asked for time to reflect, decide
and give their informed consent for the project to go ahead
(or not) in their area. Village level discussions were then
held over a period of 2 to 3 months and the IIED coordinator
was informed of the outcomes of villagers decisions. Similar
dialogues and clarifications have taken place with Kechua
indigenous communities in Peru and with small farmers in
Indonesia to ensure that the principle of prior informed
consent laid out in various international agreements and
declarations is fully implemented.
This
participatory process was also important in building trust
and long term commitment to the project. Moreover, it allowed
for a more open exploration of the underlying values and ethics
that should ideally guide the collaborative activities. Village
level complaints about how outside professionals normally
behave and work were followed by lengthy discussions on how
issues on biodiversity, livelihoods and farming should be
approached. What should the respective roles, rights, responsibilities
and rewards of the different actors involved in IIED’s
collaborative research on Sustaining Local Food Systems, Agricultural
Biodiversity and Livelihoods? A series of principles and norms
were derived from the dialogues with local communities and
previous work done by the IIED coordinator(1).
A
radical shift is required from imposed conservation and development
which aims to retain external control on the management and
end uses of biological and other resources to an approach
which devolves more responsibility and decision making power
to local communities.
Community
based conservation and development are likely to be sustainable
ecologically, economically and socially only if the overall
management scheme can be made sufficiently attractive to local
people for them to adopt it as a long term livelihood strategy.
In that context, dialogue, negotiation, bargaining and conflict
resolution are all integral parts of a long term participatory
process which continues well after the initial appraisal and
planning phases.
Existing
conservation and development organisations and professionals
need to shift from being project implementors to new roles
which facilitate local people's analysis, planning and action.
The whole process should lead to local institution building
or strengthening, so enhancing the capacity of people to take
action on their own. This implies the adoption of a learning
process approach (Table 1) and a new professionalism with
new concepts, values, participatory methodologies and behaviour.
Table
1. Sustaining Food Systems, Agricultural Biodiversity and
Livelihoods: the contrast between blueprint and learning-process
approaches (2)
| |
Blueprint |
Process |
| point
of departure |
nature's
diversity and its potential commercial values |
the
diversity of both people and nature's values |
| keywords |
strategic
planning and trade liberalisation |
Participation
and local definitions of well being |
| locus
of decision making |
centralised,
ideas originate in capital city |
decentralised,
ideas originate in village |
| first
Steps |
data
collection and plan |
awareness
and action |
| design |
static,
by experts |
evolving,
people involved |
| main
resources |
central
funds and technicians |
local
people and their assets |
| methods,
rules |
standardised,
universal, fixed package |
diverse,
local, varied basket of choices |
| analytical
assumptions |
reductionist
(natural and economic science bias) |
systems,
holistic |
| management
focus |
spending
budgets, completing projects on time, market performance |
sustained
improvement and performance |
| communication |
vertical:
orders down, reports up |
lateral:
mutual learning and sharing experience |
| evaluation |
external,
intermittent |
internal,
continuous |
| error |
Buried |
embraced |
| relationship
with people |
controlling,
policing, inducing, motivating, dependency creating. People
seen as beneficiaries |
enabling,
supporting, empowering. People seen as actors |
| associated
with |
normal
professionalism and corporate power |
new
professionalism and democratic decision making |
| outputs |
1.
diversity in conservation, and uniformity in production
(agriculture, forestry,...)
2.
the empowerment of professionals and corporations |
1.
diversity as a principle of production and conservation
2.
the empowerment of rural people and citizens |
Notes:
-
Pimbert, M.P. and Pretty, J.N. 1995. Parks, People and Professionals.
Putting "participation" into protected area management.
Discussion Paper No. 57. UNRISD-IIED-WWF, Geneva, 60pp.
(View
pdf 222k)
-
Korten,D. 1994. People centred development: Towards a framework.
In: D.C. Korten and R. Klaus (eds) People centred development.
Kumarian press.
Pimbert,
M.P. 1999. Sustaining the Multiple Functions of Agricultural
Biodiversity. Paper for the FAO/Netherlands conference
on the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land,
Maastricht.
|
