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 Business as usual Technical fix,- the market is the solution Structural change Goal making our projects more efficient making our projects more effective multiple economic, ecological and social goals Target singling out ‘target groupsÂ’ as objects of development projects reforming policies and institutions to allow for regulation by the market multiple linkages with diverse actors; broad coalitions and alliances for social change Principal methods for analysis and planning logframes, Rapid Rural Appraisals (RRA), questionnaires, beneficiary assessment, cost-benefit analysis logframes, RRA, participatory Rural Appraisals (PRA), cost benefit analysis, market surveys Participatory Learning and Action (PLA)and complementary participatory methodologies, deliberative democracy, advocacy, coalition building, direct action Dominant role and relationships enlightened technocrat and benevolent paternalism provider of market based solutions genuine partnerships and power sharing Boundary conditions broader context unacknowledged - everything remains as is: property rights, land tenure, social relations, decision-making structures & processes broader context unaddressed: everything beyond the intervention remains as is; economy and markets treated as given, but subject to some intervention explicitly concerned with changing the broader context of peopleÂ’s lives: social and ecological goals, many futures possible Development goal improved products and services more kinds of interventions mediated through the market minimise the need for external intervention, self reliance Diversity (social and ecological) low low to medium high 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 Passive Participation People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already happened. It is unilateral announcement by an administration or project management without any listening to people's responses. Participation in Information Giving People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers and project managers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of the research or project design are neither shared nor checked for accuracy. Participation by Consultation People participate by being consulted, and external agents listen to views. These external agents define both problems and solutions, and may modify these in the light of people's responses. Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision-making and professionals are under no obligation to take on board peoples's views. Participation for Material Incentives People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash or other material incentives. Much in-situ research and bioprospecting falls in this category, as rural people provide the fields but are not involved in the experimentation or the process of learning. It is very common to see this called participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end. Functional Participation People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion of externally initiated social organisation. Such involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made. These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become self-dependent. Interactive Participation People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local groups or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and structured learning processes. These groups take control over local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices. Self-Mobilization People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. Such self-initiated mobilisation and collective action may of may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power. 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. Knowledge and power “Contests for knowledge are contests for power. For nearly two centuries that contest has been rigged in favour of scientific knowledge by the established power structures. We should ask why it is that scientists' endeavours are not seen to be on a par with other cultural endeavours, but have come to be singled out as providing the one and only expert route to knowledge and guide to action. We need to confront the question of what kinds of knowledge we want to produce, and recognise that that is at the same time a question about what kinds of power relations we want to support - and what kind of world we want to live in… We are all involved in the production of knowledge about the world - in that sense, there is no single group of experts” H Kamminga, “Science for people?”, in T Wakeford and M Walters (eds), Science for the Earth, Wiley: Chichester, 1995. 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. Deconcentration, not Decentralisation In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the International Agricultural Research Institutes made significant efforts to reform the methods and topics of crop breeding to meet new pro-poor and environmental objectives. However, these reforms eventually fell short because they were confined to a new methodology called Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSRE). FRSE was a conscientious attempt to grapple with the multiple characteristics of crops and farming systems that make analyses by remote researchers very difficult. But the analysis and process remained extremely hierarchical. The move towards FSRE was a small but real advance over older strategies because researchers did start taking into account more variables and adapting technologies to suit specific local conditions. It was thought that by using the new methodologies of FSRE to determine the concerns of small farmers, researchers and extensionists could adapt technologies to their benefit by reworking options that had either been developed but not-adopted (‘on the shelf'), or had benefited only better-off farmers (trying to achieve a spill over from larger to smaller farmers). The key steps in the FSRE process include: 1. Conducting surveys of farmer preferences of a given “type” and collecting data on sets of homogenous farming systems 2. Taking the information back to the research station for diagnosis (usually via statistical analysis) of farmer problems to determine research priorities. 3. Station-based crop breeding and technology development according to those priorities. 4. Station-based design of experiments to be conducted on-farm to test the new technologies. 5. Collecting /analysing farmers' responses to those experiments. 6. Making adjustments to the technologies. 7. Preparing the final recommendations for extension to farmers. Unfortunately this new methodology did not fundamentally change the existing structure of research and extension. Farmers' were still considered as inert “targets” rather than active and collegial partners of the research and evaluation apparatus, and were involved only in a few stages of the research process (steps 1 and 5 above). Surveys were increasingly utilised, but were suited to meet tight-budgeted researchers' demands for ‘quick and cheap' appraisal. Resources and knowledge were not extended to farmers, rather, scientists and extensionists retained their roles as the primary agents of technology change — collecting data, analysing it, developing technologies and modifying them. The real change was that they extended the research arena into farmers' fields. What FRSE represented was a deconcentration of research and crop breeding through an expanded role of unrepresentative actors who are upwardly accountable to central institutes, rather than a decentralisation. In the end, FSRE was better at making minor adaptations to prior technologies and recommendations. Because the hierarchical nature of research and extension remained unchanged, farming systems work generated interesting, but not very productive, analyses. Source: Aaron deGrassi and Peter Rosset, A New Green Revolution for Africa? Myths and Realities of Agriculture, Technology and Development, Food First Books, USA (in press). 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.                     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 and municipalities  first steps data collection and plan awareness and action  design static, by experts. Design of technologies and systems reflect and reinforce priorities of more powerful actors evolving, people involved. Broad citizen control on design of technologies and systems  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 and shareholders assets sustained improvement and performance, focus on right to food, health and other indicators of locally defined well being  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 and consumers enabling, supporting, empowering. People seen as actors and citizens  associated with normal professionalism and corporate power new professionalism and democratic decision making  outputs diversity in conservation, and uniformity in production (agriculture, forestry,...)     diversity as a principle of production and conservatio the empowerment of professionals and corporations the empowerment of  citizens and local communities 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. Democratising R&D and policy making 1. Open up decision making bodies and governance structures within R&D organisations to allow a wider representation of different actors and greater transparency, equity and accountability in budget allocation and decisions on R&D priorities in the life sciences. Throughout the world, there is a dire need for much wider and more gender balanced representation of different citizens in these institutions – small farmers, tribal people, forest dwellers, fisherfolk, healers, and also farm workers, small food processors, retailers and consumers. These bodies should set the agenda for the design of food and farming technologies. They broadly decide which technologies will ultimately be developed, why, how and for whom. 2. Reorganise conventional scientific and technological research to encourage participatory knowledge creation and technological developments that combine the strengths of farmers and scientists in the search for locally adapted solutions and food systems. An important goal here is to ensure that both knowledge and technologies are tailored to the diversity of human needs and situations in which they are to be used – and this on the basis of an inclusive process in which the means and ends of R&D are primarily shaped by and for citizens through conscious deliberation and negotiation. 3. Ensure that genetic resources on which transgenic and other technologies are based remain accessible to all as a basic condition for economic democracy and the exercise of human rights, including the right to food and participation. Decisions to issue patents on genetic resources and national intellectual property right legislation require more comprehensive public framing of laws and policies based on deliberative and inclusive models of direct democracy. 4. Include the full diversity of interests and values in technological risk assessments by running consensus conferences, citizen juries, focus groups and referendums on a regular basis. These deliberative and inclusive democratic procedures need to be linked into the formal policy process through appropriate reforms that allow citizens to more directly frame policies and regulations. Participatory democracy can help re-frame policies on the future of food and farming to reflect broader social interests Michel Pimbert is an agricultural ecologist who works for the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, UK. He has also worked at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in India and the World Wide Fund for Nature in Switzerland. Over the last 20 years he has written widely on agriculture, natural resource management, participatory action research and the political ecology of biodiversity, rights and culture. He can be contacted at [email protected] This article is taken from a longer paper entitled “Towards Democratic Control and Participation in the Management of Agricultural Biodiversity” which was presented at the Growing Diversity conference in Rio Branco, Brazil in May 2002. The full paper is available from www.amazonlink.org/gd/diversity/event.html or on request from GRAIN. [1] R Chambers, Challenging the Professions. Frontiers for rural development. IT Publications, London, UK, 1993. [2] MP Pimbert and T Wakeford, Prajateerpu. A citizens jury/scenario workshop on Food and Farming Futures in Andhra Pradesh, APCDD, NBSAP, The University of Hyderabad, IDS and IIED. IIED, London, 2002. [3] MP Pimbert and T Wakeford, “Deliberative democracy and citizen empowerment - an over-view”. PLA Notes 40: 23-28. IIED, London, 2001. [4] D Posey and G Dutfield, Beyond intellectual prop-erty rights. Towards trad-itional resource rights for indigenous peoples and communities. IDRC and WWF International, Ottawa and Gland, 1996. [5] IIED and IDS, Transforming bureaucracies. Institution-alising participation in natural resource manage-ment. An annotated biblio-graphy. London, 2002. [6] MP Pimbert et al, “Global restructuring, agri-food systems and livelihoods”. Gatekeeper Series no 100, IIED, London, 2002. [7] Localised food systems start at the household level and expand to neighbourhood, municipal and regional levels. Food systems include not just the production aspects of food but also processing, distribution, access, use, food recycling and waste. 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