The promise of participation: democratising the management of biodiversity

Michel Pimbert

Technical advances in breeding – however impressive – are meaningless without farmers. The corporate research model seeks to turn farmers into serfs in a feudal agricultural system, a move which will be devastating to our future food supply. Michel Pimbert identifies some of the reforms needed to encourage democratic participation and more genuine local control in the management of agricultural biodiversity. Emphasis is placed on strengthening diversity, decentralisation and democracy through the regeneration of more localised food systems and economies.

Despite repeated calls for peoples' participation in conservation and development over the last thirty years, the term “participation” is generally interpreted in ways which cede no control to local people. It is rare for professionals (agronomists, foresters, plant breeders, and so on) to relinquish control over key decisions on the design, management and evaluation of local or community based management of agricultural biodiversity. The thinking, values, methods and behaviour dominant in their profession or discipline tends to be stable and conservative and are concerned with “the needs and interests of the rich.” [1] While recognising the need for peoples' participation, many professionals place clear limits on the form and degree of participation that they tolerate in local contexts. Participation is still largely seen as a means to achieve externally-desirable goals.
The concept of “participatory development” has gained new vigour over the last two decades, partly as a result of the evident failures of top down, standardised development, the retreat of governments in service and technology delivery, and the emphasis on market-based solutions in a globalised economy. The reasons given for professional re-orientation and organisational transformation vary and are not necessarily the same for all actors. They include the need for flexibility and cost effectiveness, the need to respond adaptively to dynamic change and to a diversity of social and ecological conditions, the recognition that human needs differ in time and place, and the need to deal with open ended uncertainties. Because of this, the meanings given to “participation” and “participatory development” vary considerably (see Table 1 below). The divergences highlight the ideological framework which actors consciously or unconsciously adopt in their work.

Table 1. Participatory Development Paradigms

Deliberative democracy

Seven different types of participation are shown in Table 2. The implication of this typology is that the meaning of participation should be clearly spelt out in all community-based programmes. To achieve sustainable and effective management of biological resources and effective agricultural research, nothing less than functional participation will suffice. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) describes one group of a growing family of methods ands ways of working that enable local people to share, enhance and analyse their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and act. Deliberative and Inclusive Processes (DIPs) are also increasingly being used in the North and the South to give the historically excluded a voice in decisions. Some of these methods and processes include citizens' juries [2], consensus conferences, scenario workshops, multi-criteria mapping, participatory learning and action (PLA), visioning exercises and deliberative polling. Many of these participatory processes have been developed in an attempt to move beyond traditional forms of consultation. [3] These approaches require self critical awareness of the facilitators' own attitudes and behaviour towards local people. The implementation of codes of conduct and research agreements between local communities and outsiders – as has been done by the Kuna of Panama and the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada – can enhance reciprocal accountability by spelling out the roles, rights, responsibilities and distribution of costs and benefits among actors. [4]

Decentralisation policies generally offer a more enabling context for deliberative and inclusive processes in decision making. The democratic potential of decentralisation is usually greatest when it is linked with the institutionalisation of local level popular participation and community mobilisation. In several municipalities in Brazil where participatory budgeting was introduced in the 1990s, public spending priorities changed significantly, reducing inequalities in some places. The improvement of the quality of life was evident, as it was the first time that the local government had taken into account the needs of the poorest sectors of the population. Participatory budgeting has not only meant a much greater involvement of citizens and community organisations in determining priorities but also a more transparent and accountable form of government. The potential of participatory budgeting in community based or local management of agricultural biodiversity needs to be more fully explored.

However, decentralisation does not always equate with increased democratic participation. It does not necessarily break power structures or lead to a redistribution of resources, but may only result in de-concentration with a transfer of power to another level of the bureaucracy (see box below).

Table 2. Different forms of Participation

Modified from J Pretty, Alternative systems of inquiry for sustainable agriculture. IDS Bulletin, 25(2):37-48, 1994

The participatory process – and the political negotiation over what constitutes valid knowledge in a particular context (see box below) – deeply challenges bureaucracies and professionals to assume different roles and responsibilities. In particular, existing bureaucracies and professionals will often need to shift from being project implementers and deliverers of standard services and technologies to new roles that facilitate local people's analysis, deliberations, planning, action, monitoring and evaluation. The whole process should strengthen local groups and institutions, so enhancing the capacity of citizens to take action on their own. This implies changes in organisational cultures and the adoption of new professional skills and values. The adoption of participatory methodologies calls for a greater emphasis on training in communication rather than technical skills. Outside professionals must learn to work closely with colleagues from different disciplines or sectors, as well as with rural people themselves. Professional agencies need to set aside time for field experiential learning for their staff, so that they can see, hear, and understand the reality of local people, and then work to make it count.

With real commitment and work, truly participatory approaches can yield impressive results, as in the case of particpatory bean breeding undertaken by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (see above). In this example, the adoption rates of conventionally bred varieties were compared with those generated by ‘farmer research committees'. These committees used the same original germplasm as formal sector breeders, but performed their own selections under their own conditions, changing traits and the genetic make-up according to their own perceived needs. As the graph shows, communities with farmer committees, and their neighbouring communities, had dramatically accelerated rates of adoption of the new varieties. Not surprisingly, the results suggest that the more farmers are involved in breeding and selecting, the more they will actually use the varieties generated, and more quickly.

Source: A deGrassi/P Rosset (see box above), after CIAT

Training in participatory principles, concepts and methods must be viewed as part of a larger process of reorienting institutional policies, organisational cultures, procedures, financial management practices, reporting systems, supervisory methods, reward systems and norms. [5] Institutional mechanisms and rewards must be designed to encourage the spread of participatory methods within the organisation. Without this support from the top, it is unlikely that deliberative and participatory approaches will become core professional activities.

Transformation and citizen empowerment

It is not enough to focus on a re-invigorated political democracy to mainstream local control and participation in the management of agricultural biodiversity. Widening economic democracy is also key. The structural reforms needed for more political and economic democracy are best seen from a broader food system and livelihood perspective. [6] Some of the reversals, issues, relationships and processes that need to be addressed in this context are summarised in Table 3.

Broadly speaking, the blueprint approach is associated with the increasingly global food system based on the principles of uniformity, centralisation, control and coercion. The learning process approach is associated with more localised food systems [7] that are grounded in the principles of diversity, decentralisation and dynamic adaptation. Localised food systems potentially offer a more enabling context for democratic participation than the global food system which relies on technologies designed to enhance both profits and centralised political control over key links in the food chain.

A radical shift is required from a largely corporate-led development which aims to retain external control on the management and end uses of food systems (including agricultural biodiversity) to an approach which devolves more responsibility and decision making power to local communities and citizens. 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 1) a learning process approach, 2) new professional values, participatory methodologies and behaviour, and 3) enabling policies aimed at re-localising food systems and economies, and cultural values that emphasise more direct citizen participation in determining research agendas, regulations and policies (see box below).

Perhaps more than ever before, the growth of democratic participation in the management of agricultural biodiversity depends on expanding spaces for autonomous action by civil society. It is also dependent on a process of localisation and reversals that regenerates a diversity of localised food systems, economies and ecologies. The unprecedented imbalances of power induced by corporate-led globalisation challenge us to engage with these conceptual and methodological frontiers. Now is a time for bold and extraordinary initiatives to ensure that participation does not become a forgotten human right in this century.

Reference for this article: Michel Pimbert, 2003, The promise of participation: democratising the management of biodiversity, Seedling, July 2003, GRAIN

Website link: www.grain.org/seedling/seed-03-07-5-en.cfm

What is Seedling? Seedling is the quarterly magazine of GRAIN. It provides thought-provoking articles on all aspects of GRAIN’s work and more. To receive Seedling in paper or electronic format (on a CD Rom), or to inform us of a change of address, please