Forschung

Swiss National Science Foundation - Swiss Priority Programme Environment (SPPE)

Discussion Forum North-South
Workshop Solothurn, 29 November - 3 December 1999

Participation in Resource and conflict management

Synthetical note

Manuel Flury, Guéladio Cissé, Nicole North (February 2000)

This note summarises the results of the discussion held in Solothurn, both among the researchers and with the end-users. It is an integral part of the proceedings of the Workshop of the Discussion Forum.

References
Report of the Working Group „Participation“ (Nov. 29 - 30, 1999) (North, Cissé)
Handout: First and preliminary results
Background Document: Basic Document Nr. 6 (Flury)
Basic Documents Nr. 1 (Cissé), 2 (Charlot Zinsli), 3 (Baechler)
Notes to the Discussion Forum (Dürrenberger, Eggmann Betschart, Lang, Raju)
Note to participants of Working Group „Participation“
Questions of practical importance

1. General

1.1 Introduction

„Difficulties in local resource management can be represented by a big ball which should reach a point at a high level against a strong slope. To win the steep slope made out of constraining social, environmental and economic problems with a heavy ball of complex community problems, more imagination is needed. We must lessen the weight of the ball or/and reduce the slope. For that goal, we feel that we need to find support through a large participation at various levels, from all „actors“ or/and „stakeholders“. The actors/stakeholders could be „invisible“ or „visible“, „passive“ or „active“, „formal“ or „informal“. The key challenge is to find the adequate „approach“ to involve and mobilise all the resources for a common goal.“ (Key note Dr. Guéladio Cissé, Burkina Faso)

„Many experiences show the limited scope of participatory approaches. There is no participation unless law and political power permit. Therefore we perceive the link between (informal) participatory approaches and existing formal law and procedures as most important for the success of participatory approaches. Effective participation procedures require a certain obligation of participants to implement measures agreed upon within such processes. Ideally, such processes are based on the formal commitment of the government to implement the results. This kind of „connectivity“ is one of the key elements in the European Awareness and Scenario Workshop (EASW) method as well as in the model of „Werkstatt Basel“. The question of the formal legitimacy of such models within a parliamentary democracy - shift of decision making power from elected parliaments to participatory fora - has, however not been solved yet. The Swiss experience demonstrates the need to realistically define and possibly limit the scope of participatory approaches within the given legal and political framework.“ (Key note Mr. Christoph Baettig, Switzerland)

„Participation“ refers to an approach in resource and conflict management that strives at mobilising the human resources for a common goal, starting from the assumptions, that increased participation of the actors concerned/involved leads to more sustainable livelihoods. Implicitly, participatory approaches promote the mobilisation of „more„ human resources than this is being done in „classic„ resource and management. In addition, participatory approaches aim at empowering the weaker strata of the society, to provide them with power in the respective project or management arrangement. (Higher) participation, therefore, is instrumental to a more efficient management and to the empowerment of the weaker parts of the concerned actors.

1.2 Conceptual framework

1.21 Overall goal  

Why must we utilise the participatory approach to research and development?
The participatory approach is an indispensable, dynamic tool, which in the context of development ensures the achievement of sustainable livelihoods, efficient mobilisation and use of resources and guarantees a balanced system. (Note: A balanced system encompasses social peace and stability.)

1.22 Objectives

In a specific management arrangement, „participation“ constitutes the mobilisation of the resources the actors dispose over for the common goal of sustainably managing the resources and conflicts for more sustainable livelihoods.

1.23  Criteria

According to the degree of „control over decisions and resources“, the different actor categories can be described and differentiated with respect to their role and influence in a resource management process.

1.24  „Participants“

Those individuals and collectivities that act in a substantial and relevant way with respect to the respective management issue are considered as actors. The differentiation and categorisation of actors assists the analysis as well as the management of the processes. According to the respective management issue, categorisation is to be introduced. The following differentiations might be applied:

• political actors, citizens, representatives/stakeholders
• actors, stakeholders (see Basic Document Nr. 6)
• formal actors, informal actors
• visible actors, invisible actors

1.25 Political arena, space of action

The action of the actors (according to the understanding mentioned above) refer to and constitute both a political arena and a specific space of action.

1.3  New insight

The analysis of various case studies (-> doc.) brought about the following insight:

1.31 Assumptions

• The ownership of beneficiaries is increased
• Sustainability of interventions is assured
• More resources can be mobilised
• Concerted action is necessary but not sufficient
• Intermediate city level is appropriate for collective action
• Authorship of process is with the local actors
• Mental models of the actors are at the basis of decision building
• Insights into the (structured) system characteristics of problems lead to organisational learning    

1.32 Concerns and Innovations

Issues of concern		Achieved and achievable innovations
Empowerment of some groups of actors may lead to disempowerment of groups of actors Participation can lead to a redistribution of power · Participation often does not mean that the funds, or the control over funds, would be in other hands than in those of the donor agency or the government. Participation does generally not take place while decentralising structures; more often the political power structures persist. The informality as well as – on the contrary – the bureaucratic consequences of participatory arrangements are seen as problematic. Discrepancies between different donor’s requests remain: Request for participation, good governance and practices versus support of privatisation tendencies Participation is very time and resource consuming, though no stakeholder should be excluded as long as she/he wants to participate. Participation should take into account the dynamics of the processes.		Participation may reinforce the „local visions„ of local, regional, national or even international authorities, donor agencies and governments   Through persistent, long-term participation a social change can be achieved Increasing the participation of the (yet) informal group of actors can contribute to their legitimisation. The formalisation of the mechanisms, i.e. the definition of the rules and guidelines for participation can create sustainable solutions ·    Through participation capacities can be built up: bottom-up approaches (e.g. skill and know how improvement) top-down approaches (technology transfer) Participation can open up the space for interaction on all levels, space for experimentation that can lead to new institutional relationships

1.4 Conditions of success - a first synthesis  

Introductory remark

The success of „participation“ and of related approaches in resource (and conflict) management would basically be evaluated against their effects on the use of energy and resources, on the distribution of benefits and costs and on other criteria of ecological sustainability or sustainable development in general. Given the basic difficulties in assessing such effects, the formulation of favourable conditions („under what conditions participatory processes will most probably be ecologically effective?„) provides an alternative.  

Indispensable conditions for participatory approaches to resource and conflict management  

Start of the process		... on the way
„crucial“ actors are to be included South: authorities‘ support (data, information and legitimacy · „pioneers“ e.g. victims, concerned, etc. „catalysts“ to initiate process „facilitator“ is credible, accepted   visions and goals are to be developed, specific results remain open: openness of the process     human resources managerial knowledge organisational knowledge/resources operational funds ·    room for experimentation		no exclusion of actors „networking“ as an instrument of strategic importance for consolidating the framework (-> landscape of others being active in the respective field) common goal, that is accepted room for action willingness to co-operate ongoing commitment to reform -> process/experimentation develops into institutions   skilled / trained facilitator       overall capacities of actors to build up (social competencies, managerial competencies)     investments, compensations (transfer payments) for services provided and ecological „qualities“ produced

2. Participation in the South

2.1  Transfer issues

The participatory process is dynamic and delicate. Initially, particular effort should be made to involve key initiators, strong supporters (for political, social and financial purposes) and key actors. The ongoing participatory process should be conducted and enhanced through efficient networking constant prioritisation, capacity building and results with actions/implementations.

Question:
What aspects would have to be taken into consideration if participation (in the context of resource and conflict management) is to be meaningful?

• „Meaningful“ requires continued involvement (win-win situation).
• Include partners right from the beginning.
• Benefits and damages for all involved should be made clear.
• People need to take responsibility.
• People should put in their „maximum„ share. However: Who defines this „maximum„?
• The models should be replicable, with adaptation to specific situation.
• When should participation start?
• People should set their own agenda! (time schedule)
• Information should be given to all involved.  

Question:
How can the dilemma of creating expectations and not fulfilling them be addressed in the context of North – South collaboration for sustainable development?
There is a dilemma and they always are created -> so: how to deal with the situation?

• Making a social contract
• (Transmit) come with a clear message
• Being transparent with the partners
• Separate the functions of defining the agenda and of funding  

Question
How can Participatory-Action-Research result be more profitable to development issues at different levels?
It constitutes an important strategy for empowerment (on both human and institutional levels) providing the tools to ensure continuity and sustainability of development processes.

2.12  The principles and ethics

The participatory approach should apply the following principles and ethical values:

• Transparency of process
• Neutrality of moderation
• Accountability of outcomes
• Tolerance during process
• Flexibility of process
• Committment of involved participants
• Clarity of communication

Questions
What are the potentials and the pitfalls/risks in the North – South intercultural communication? What can be done to overcome pitfalls/risks?
The search for a common solution would require common principles and ethical values. Overall, the „democratic attitude„ of all partners constitutes a pre-condition.

• Transparency would mean: transparency of intentions, of „who does what„. Full transparency might conflict with remaining „hidden agendas„ and be limited due to persisting rules and regulations of selected partners.
• Through mediation, a certain degree of power is being exerted. Mediation defines rules e.g. for round tables and selects „entry points„, that might be of a technical nature in one context and of a socio-cultural nature in another one. Mediators have to be independent persons. 
• Flexibility: There is need for flexible frame conditions i.e. as well with respect to persisting rules and regulations of particular partners. In addition, donors are supposed to provide flexible funds.
• „Clarity„ refers to „terminology„ used and concepts underlying.
• Donors constitute an additional actor within the framework, disposing over means and, correspondingly, over power over the process and over related decisions. The question arises on „who defines the needs?„ or: what role do the donors assume in this respect. This, again, points at the overall need for capable civil society organisations.

2.13 Intercultural co-operation in the context of local resource management

Intercultural co-operation on North – South and South -  South basis is important to promote experience sharing and mutual support towards attaining sustainable livelihood on a global level.

Questions How can participatory approaches resolve conflicts?

Reuse of wastewater in urban agriculture„ - one of the resource management issues being studied by SPPE research - reflects the interrelationships between local resource use and management norms set by the global society. Such norms are subject to adaptation to local conditions, creating losers and winners and causing conflicts. Local resource management transforms to an issue of intercultural importance: how are global norms to be adapted to or to be applied in local conditions. The emerging divergence between global and local norms and the normative power on the side of the global perspective reflects the basically diverging interests between „different cultures in one single world„.

Inter-cultural co-operation accepts cultural differences with respect to basic norms and values and the will to work together for common solutions. Such co-operation starts with the acceptance of one’s own concepts and stipulates the exchange and development of common concepts. Specific approaches and tools in this respect would have to be utilised. „Participatory Learning and Action„ constitutes such an approach. It has, however, to be based on a corresponding attitude and requires respective capacities (on individual and institutional levels) to be built up. It needs to reflect on and to be adapted to basic cultural concepts like e.g. time.

One major question remains open: „how to associate those who dispose over political and economic power?„ Such participatory approaches face the related political limitations. Consequently, efforts in order to change the basic political structure (on the macro-societal level) would be indispensable. However, research has shown that social change can be brought about by „persistent participation„. This implies the need and the possibility of refocusing efforts on local level through promoting address, decentralised initiatives.

Participatory efforts can resolve the conflict mentioned at the beginning by persistently developing local solutions and, by doing so, capacitating and empowering local level societal structures, creating the need for adaptations on the upper societal levels.

2.4 Summing up

Overall, the cases studied provide insight into the basic conditions for participatory resource and conflict management to be effective in social, economic and ecological terms and contributing to sustainable livelihoods. Donors and national governments might support the development of an enhancing political, legal and administrative framework, research might continue to analyse management approaches and their effects and, through this, contribute to enhanced learning and capacity building processes among all the respective actors.

3. Participation in Switzerland

3.1 „More“ participation?

The political situation in Switzerland is characterised by a long tradition of direct democratic processes with formalised processes of decentralised decision making. Participation is a constituting element of these processes. There are however, new forms of participation emerging:

„Does Switzerland need more participation? - No, it needs another one!“ (or additional instruments)

	Conventional, direct-democratic processes	New participatory approaches
Examples	Popular initiative Referenda Appeal and objection procedures („Einspracheverfahren„) Petitions Formalised participatory procedures („Mitwirkungsverfahren„)	Mediation processes  EASW (European Awareness Scenario Method) ·   Round tables ·    „consensus" LA-21 processes Workshops on the future („Zukunftswerkstätten„) Platforms
Characteristics	· Principle of majority (expression of opinion)	Discourse principle (development of opinion)
	Possibility for participation	Mobilisation for participation
	Passive integration of all (the silent majority); only those disposing of voter rights have the possibility to participate	Careful selection of participants (danger of marginalisation if not on invitation)
	Action by the administration (although still dependent on individuals)	Institutional set-up („Trägerschaft„) and moderation are crucial
	Execution of concrete  tasks	„Pathfinding„ in the context of open problematic situations
	Procedures are limited in time (unpopular issues are delayed)	Long(er) term time horizon of processes (less bureaucracy; longer term planing processes)
	Costs: integrated in budget of the administration	Costs: have to be procured specifically (process itself might not be cost-intensive)

3.2 Conditions of success for participatory approaches

Level of	Indispensable factors	2nd priority	Further factors
Actors	Common interest Participants need to have a „common interest. „Trägerschaft„ (responsible institution) has to be credible and accepted by all actors	Participants have to be ready to co-operate and to solving the problems at stake	Political legitimisation by political authorities Identification and integration of key actors, including „interested„ actors Pre-condition: „empowerment„ of individuals towards participation in a group·  Consciousness about the problems among the group
Institution	Political authorities Readiness of political actors, administration to co-operate, vertically (decision making process) and horizontally (substantial issues)
Resources	Psychological resources Through the mobilisation of resources creating identification and motivation	Mobilisation of local resources	Allocation of time
Process	Professional moderation Professionality in the management of the process and in the moderation	Rules have to be transparent and need to be formulated and agreed upon by the participants Process development: increasing obligations -    Open results, realistic objectives	Responsibility for process development with moderation/animation Moderation is required namely in the set-off phase

3.3 Opportunities and risks

The subsequent table reflects most relevant opportunities („Chancen“) and risks of participatory approaches in resource management in the Swiss political context. They are arranged according to their order of priority:

Opportunities (value added)		Risks, hazards
In general Empowerment of the administration and of the citizens Sense of ownership is strengthened Strengthening of democracy Strengthening of the political interest of the population Potential for innovative (approaches to) solutions Political effectiveness is experienced (collective sense of effectiveness) Early recognition of conflicts of interest Competence  (in substance matter) of actors is built Simplified enforcement Political authorities and administrations draw benefits		In general Disempowerment of the parliament   Frustration of the actors due to lacking implementation (especially if short-term milestones are missing) Participation requires ample time and resources „Informality„ of participatory approaches Dilettantism, unrealistic and unfeasible (proposals, options) solutions Additional strengthening of the already organised interests (especially if process does not reinforces the unorganised interests) Unfeasible for short-term solutions

„Redistribution of power„ resulting from participatory approaches would be limited to the administrative framework. Within the administration, a shift of power from one unit to another one can be observed. On the general level of the society, such redistribution can not be observed (yet?).

3.4  Issues of concern

Each and every issue is confronted with a series of constraints until it will eventually be subject to political decision making and to specific action.

The different steps can be summarised as follows:

1. Existing problematic situation, missing awareness among the ones concerned
   ->  constraint: individual norms and perception of actors (of those „concerned„)
2. Actors are aware of the problem
   ->  constraint: individual norms and perception of politicians/decision makers
3. Politicians/decisions makers are aware of the problem
   ->  constraint: agenda setting
4. Problem is on the agenda
   ->  constraint: power, influence in order to get a majority vote
5. Political decision
   ->  constraint: translation into action: acceptance
6. Execution of action

Discourse in participatory approaches assists in the articulation of problems among the concerned individuals. Such „articulated awareness„ is a precondition for consensus-based solution. In view of rendering aware the politicians/decisions makers, they need to be associated timely in the problem solving process. Participation supports both the creation of awareness and the mobilisation of those concerned. The organisation of those concerned brings attention to the issue and increases pressure for bringing the issue on the agenda. If the issue is taken up by the institutionalised political decision making processes, it is confronted with the rules of decision making persisting. Execution of related action depends on the action of the administration and of the acceptance by and the co-operation of those concerned. Participatory approaches that are based on discourse and on consensus oriented decisions may facilitate enforcement of laws and execution of related measures. Participatory approaches (in Switzerland) are only effective if they are accepted by majority, according to the direct-democratic principles.

In Switzerland, the very high protection of property rights, especially on land ownership is an important barrier for effective participatory approaches. The experience shows very clearly, that it is important to link any participatory process to the political and legal framework right from the start  - if possible in a formal way. „Political connectivity„ constitutes a pre-condition for sustainable solutions.

Interfakultäre Koordinationsstelle für Allgemeine Ökologie (IKAÖ) der Universität Bern (1988-2013)