Participation in Local Resource and Conflict Management

A compilation prepared for the Workshop of the SPPE Discussion Forum North-South (Solothurn, 29 November - 4 December 1999)

Manuel Flury[1]

Discussion Forum North-South, Basic Documents No. 6
© 1999, Interfakultäre Koordinationsstelle für  Allgemeine Ökologie Universität Bern

Table of content

1. Introduction

A substantial number of research projects within the Swiss Priority Programme Environment of the Swiss National Science Foundation, both in countries of the South and in Switzerland, investigate in issues pertaining to the participation of citizens in the environmental management on local level. The Discussion Forum North-South provides a platform for the exchange of corresponding findings and experiences both among researchers and with representatives of local authorities, NGOs, development organisations, etc. In particular, the Discussion Forum strives at compiling innovative institutional approaches, both in rural and urban environments, to (enhanced) participation and at identifying their potential for more sustainable resource management.

A number of contributions[2] have been submitted to the Discussion Forum, compiling findings of individual projects and project groups. The present paper outlines the problematic nature of the issue. It refers to the contributions made to the Discussion Forum and formulates questions both for a further debate and for drawing conclusions of practical relevance. In particular, this paper serves as a background document for the discussions during the Workshop in Solothurn (29 November - 4 December 1999).

2. Need for innovative approaches in environmental management

There is a general societal change towards growing participation of the individual subjects at the definition of societal rules and regulations. This general change concerns as well resource management. Classic top-down, technocratic resource management, based on scientific and expert knowledge and fixed on norms, values and rules have lost their broad acceptance and become inadequate. As Sottas (cit. in Flury et al. 1998) has formulated, there is a shift from technological solutions of problems (mostly identified by experts) to the rationales, knowledge and visions of those concerned, be it rural populations, women, policy designers, administrators, or implementers.

There is growing resistance vis-à-vis state interventions and environmental decisions encounter resistance by those affected (cf. GTZ 1996). The current understanding of environmental problems[3] requires new approaches to their solution. The increasing scarcity of natural resources, as a result of the growing needs of the human population, the growing inter-linkages of human activities in the process of general globalisation and the highly unpredictable response of ecological processes to human interventions render management issues highly complex.

The transformations of society-nature relationships are multiple and induce numerous conflicts (cf. Baechler 1999). Besides the growing number of conflicts between different resource users for scarcity reasons, there is an increased conflict potential due to increasing negative environmental impacts of unsustainable resource use strategies. The burden the affected, the "losers", have to bear is growing to the benefit of the "winners". Conventional resource management approaches do not dispose of appropriate instruments for compensating such external costs (cf. Knoepfel 1995).

Innovative approaches in environmental management on local (or lowest possible) level is a topic of first and foremost interest in countries of both the South and the North. In line with the growing actor-orientation in resource management and the corresponding understanding of resource management constituting a social process in itself, experience and know how of the actors, i.e. the resource users, is being recognised of at least equal relevance as expert knowledge and not to be substituted by quick transfer of retort knowledge.

The related multi-stakeholder approaches require an appropriate institutional and legal framework for the related negotiation processes. Such processes would ideally focus on reaching contractual arrangements, based on all parties' voices having been heard, available evidence, theory and arguments having been considered, potentially useful options having been assessed and evaluated and latent consequences and their distributions among the many publics having been identified and evaluated.

Making reference as well to Baechler, resource management and conflict management are closely intertwined. „Both domains are imbedded in a socio-culturally preformed natural environment which is under constant change“ (Baechler 1999). Resource use conflicts are part of what Baechler defines as „environmental conflicts“[4]. The specific socio-political and socio-cultural circumstances determine how the conflicts finally manifest.

According to both Cissé (1998) and Charlot Zinsli (1998)[5], participatory approaches, i.e. the involvement of stakeholders in particular and of actors in general would constitute a precondition for effective conflict management. There is an implicit underlying assumption saying that through participatory approaches, conflicts are raised, they become evident and become subject to resolution efforts. Baechler confirms that instruments used in participatory resource management and those developed for managing or transforming conflicting relationships among actors and among stakeholders are quite similar.

Such innovations, to which reference has been made, constitute societal changes. They concern the socio-political organisation of the society, as well at the micro or local level. Participation in local resource and conflict management would, therefore, constitute both (1) an instrument for efficiently managing the resources and (2) a principle in the constitution and the organisation of the society.

3. Elements of the debate on „Participation in Local Resource and Conflict Management“

3.1       Actors, Stakeholders

Cissé (1998)[6], Charlot Zinsli (1998)[7] and Dürrenberger (1999)[8] differentiate between two categories of individuals and collectivities:

1. those who are actively involved or take part directly in resource, conflict and risk management and related social processes, who represent a clientele and defend particular interests, who possess information and expertise for strategy formulation and implementation, who have means to significantly influence „environment-development interactions“, and
2. a wider category: those who bear the risks and are affected by the outcomes of the particular resource management issue, that act and, hence, influence the particular resource management issue but do not act as representatives of specific interests.

It is proposed to name

• category (1): „stakeholders“ (German: „Beteiligte“) and
• category (2): „actors“ (German: „Betroffene“)

A third category would constitute the „general public“, that does not act in a significant manner with respect to the particular resource management issue.
The authors do not explicitly refer to the question whether all those belonging to category (1) necessarily belong to category (2) as well or not.

3.2       Participation

3.21     Assumptions

The term „participation“ is used in enormously varying contexts, representing diverging understanding. Often, the related assumptions remain implicit. Accordingly, the word „participatory“ is connoted with „good“, with „empowering“ (Guijt 1998), with „efficient“ or as a pre-condition for „sustainable development“.

3.22     Aims, basic concepts

Following a frequent differentiation as mentioned by Stahl (1992), the use of the term „participation“ represents two basic concepts implying overall aims:

1. an overall socio-political principle of the constitution and the organisation of the society (EMPOWERMENT)
2. an instrument in (environmental) management (EFFICIENCY).

With respect to the latter one, Dürrenberger [9] would make a further differentiation and add the role of participation in delivering topical, substantive insights and, hence in adding to the competence of decision-making.

Joss (cit. in Charlot Zinsli 1998) draws a line between „the extension of decision-making power to citizens in an attempt do (...) break the elitist relationship between science and politics“ and „the consultation of experts, interests groups, and the public as a mean of lending the representative political decision-making processes a greater quality of social relevance“.

3.23     Dimensions and degrees of „participation“

In practical resource management, the role (and „design“) of participation for efficient resource management is closely linked with the constitution of participation at the societal level. There is a vast literature proposing typologies distinguishing between different types of participation in terms of increasing degrees of control over decisions and resources. With respect to the discussion, reference is made to three authors:

With respect to participation as a principle in planning and implementation of activities in view of sustainable resource management, the Shaba-Conference of SPPE in 1998 (SPPE 1999) concluded:

„Having recognised that participation is a fundamental principle requiring power sharing by all stakeholders[10] at all levels and at every stage, we suggest to promote institution building and awareness creation among decision makers to:

1. ensure participation of all community representatives and of all segments of the community;
2. include corrective mechanisms in the planning and development process (protect the weak);
3. namely: create awareness among process initiators of possible constraints like: undifferentiated selection, transfer and understanding of information; exclusion of stakeholders; lack of agreed values on the negotiation process; weak negotiation position of  minorities.“ 

In the context of (practical) resource management, there is need to specify the criteria for the dimensions and degrees of participation („what would participation encompass?“, „what control over decisions and resources would the stakeholders exert?“) and how participation is ensured.

3.24     Socio-political dimensions of „participation“

Even for instrumental and efficiency-oriented aims, participation has socio-political effects.  Dürrenberger and Ratti (1999) discuss

1. the shift of responsibilities from the parliament (and in the end from the sovereign population) to the administration through informal pre-negotiations with highly influential stakeholders in view of building consensus and
2. to what extent such processes have to be amended in such a way that the actors, the general public, the citizens can participate directly.

In a similar perspective, the member of the SPPE Integrated Project „Strategies and Instruments“[11] state,

„Direct participation constitutes a basic principle of the Swiss democracy and is realised in both the formal and informal organisation of the society. The growing margins of action of the local and regional institutions (communes in particular) result in the general participation of the individual citizen at societal decision making being strengthened even more. On a more general level, the high level of institutionalised participation is a result of the broad „Einsprachemöglichkeiten“ (right to objection/right to appeal) persisting in the political decision making in Switzerland.
(...)
On an operational level, the need for participation is driven by the need for new and innovative solutions and, related to that, for acceptance by the large majority of the concerned citizens. This „new“ participation complements the already existing (formal and informal) participation of influential groups, e.g. the land owners. For successful, traditional/classical approaches, existing forms of participation are adequate.

Several aspects are of a problematic character with respect to „new“ (and extended) forms of participation:

• Legitimation of those participating: who are „important“ groups, individuals (trade-off between legitimisation and efficiency)? who decides upon whom to involve?
• „Special“ treatment / procedures for highly influential groups / groups with special resource endowments;
• Competition with traditional forms of participation; mix of aims: promotion of participation on operational level for socio-political aims and vice versa.

There is need to understand any „participation“ in its socio-political context. Efficiency-oriented participation influences the power relation of the society and might as well empower the „powerful“ and disempower the „weak“.

3.25     Participatory approaches in resource and conflict management

According to Cissé (1998), the main goal of participatory approaches is to find and use strategies on how best to implement the good policies, how to involve and mobilise the local communities and all the stakeholders, how to assure sustainability:

No method is inherently participatory, or spontaneously encourages “ownership“ of the project and innovation among stakeholders. The ultimate responsibility remains with the users and facilitators. Furthermore, not all community-based methods consider that local people are experts.

Following Charlot Zinsli (1998) several techniques/methods can be used, depending on the objectives to be achieved

Baechler proposes an innovative approach to „managing“ conflicts, combining most essential elements of conflict transformation[12]. The following conflict management principles would be followed:

• „a non-adversarial framework,
• an analytical approach,
• a problem solving orientation,
• the direct participation by the conflicting parties,
• moderation or facilitation by a trained third party.“ (Baechler 1999)

Environmentally induced conflicts are the result of transforming society-nature relationships. Baechler argues, that they are, moreover, integral part of transforming such relationships. Negotiation, mediation and reconciliation are the means to act preventively and proactively. The „Interactive Problem Solving Workshop“ (IPSW) is proposed as a method to transform resource conflicts. „IPSW brings together politically influential members of conflicting parties in a private, confidential setting for direct, noncommittal communication“ (Baechler 1999).

„Workshops are designed to enable the parties to explore each other’s perspective and, through a joint process of creative problem solving, to generate new ideas for mutually satisfactory solutions to their conflict. The ultimate goal is to transfer the insights and ideas gained from these interactions into the political debate and decision-making processes in the (...) communities.“ (Kelman cit. in Baechler 1999).

·

3.3       Conditions of success

The success of „participation“ and of related approaches in resource (and conflict) management would basically be evaluated against its impact 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 impacts, the formulation of favourable conditions („under what conditions management approaches will most probably be ecologically effective?“) provides an alternative.

The subsequent list constitutes a preliminary compilation of several contributions provided by SPPE research projects to the Discussion Forum. It is subject to supplementation in the course of the ongoing debate.

Rey (in Rossel et al. 1998) emphasises the fact that consultation processes do not bring solutions but create conditions necessary for the recognition of the problems to be solved and the search of a solution by and with the stakeholders.

3.4  Role of research

The considerations with respect to participatory approaches in local resource management represent a research perspective. Research in the SPPE projects participating in this discussion are in most cases actors themselves in the processes they evaluate and assess. In their studies Cissé (1998) and Charlot Zinsli (1998) review both the role of research and the experiences the particular research projects gain in applying participatory research approaches.

Charlot Zinsli (1998) describes two different roles of research:

1. Research as moderator/facilitator of social processes and applying participatory research approaches:
   Researchers help develop learning processes and contribute to agreed courses of action. Environmental research needs to study the inter-relatedness of knowledge and action and to make a greater contribution to the application of knowledge. Research is to be participatory, promoting the implementation of research results through the involvement of the target groups. Researchers need to accept their share of responsibility in social development, its voice should be heard in the overall social decision-making process, the results of the research are to be diffused actively.
2. Researchers as observers, studying both participatory and classical management options:
   The researchers should be neutral observers of social processes or resource management issues. The role of the searchers should be to observe and to interpret. Sometimes they can also be considered trainers (continuing education). But they should not become too active because there are people who are better in moderating or managing conflicts. If researchers become too active there is a real danger of instrumentalisation of the environmental policy through the searchers.

Cissé (1998) focuses on some experiences made with basically participatory research approaches (type I, see above):

• Research can assist environmental management in the development of a set of decision-supporting techniques and tools, including indicators of environmental changes at local level.
• Research at the community level can be paralysed by divisions and divergencies at the level of the communities, between different social groups but as well between different government bodies and departments respectively.
• The image of scientists as being neutral and “without interests“ may give them the chance to play the role of facilitators among the diverse actors. But, on the other hand, the image of scientists as “dreamers“ or “without the means of putting their ideas into practice“ could reduce the weight of their opinions and evidence found.
• Technical solutions (hydraulic, biological, or geological aspects, civil or environmental engineering studies, etc.) required imply various difficulties. i.e. communication between the technicians and users that often lack effective organisation and that often have difficulties in describing their needs.
• Traditional technical solutions have become inadequate. The lack of appropriate technological options/approaches is sometimes at the heart of the problem. It is not sufficient to just be able to “animate“ people, to make them “proud“, to give them the “hopes“ if, at the end, no technically feasible solution is clearly identified. If too many qualitative (even the more discrete quantitative) research activities are conducted in a community without any immediate benefits arising, the communities quickly start to show clear resistance.
• Training of the weaker groups is a most important support. However, such support could lead to weaker groups just pretend to maintain best possible relations with researchers, but only as long as they are present.

Research constitutes an actor and often a stakeholder in the social processes related to resource and conflict management issues. This is valid as well for research assuming the role of an observing institution. Research acts in a given arena and, therefore, influences decision-making processes.

References

Baechler, G. (1999). Transformation of Resource  Conflicts. Approach and Instruments. A Contribution of the SPPE Project ECOMAN (Environmental Conflict Management). Basic Document Nr. 3. Berne, Discussion Forum North-South.

Charlot Zinsli, S. (1998). Participatory Local Resource Management. The Experience of SPPE projects. Contribution of the SPPE Integrated Project "Strategies and Instruments" to the SPPE Discussion Forum North-South. Basic Document Nr. 2. Berne, Discussion Forum North-South.

Cissé, G. (1998). Partnership in Local Resource Management. The Stakeholder Approach. Contribution of the SPPE Project Group "Urban Environmental Management" to the SPPE Discussion Forum North-South. Basic Document Nr. 1. Berne, Discussion Forum North-South.

Dürrenberger, G. (1999). Participation in Local Environmental Management. Contribution to the Discussion Forum North-South. Unpublished Manuscript. Berne. 

Dürrenberger, G. and R. Ratti (1999). Neue Herausforderungen für die politische Konsenssuche. Bürgerbeteiligung an vorparlamentarischen Verfahren? LesGes 1999(1): 101-106. 

Flury, M., Mwangi, I.K., Obiero, S.V., Ndegwa, E.D., Eggmann Betschart, C. et al. (1998). Stakeholders in the Limelight. In: T. Wachs, U. Wiesmann (eds.). Principles of Actor-Centred Resource Management. Resources, Actors and Policies. Towards Sustainable Regional Development in the Highland-Lowland System of Mount Kenya. Eastern and Southern Africa Geographical Journal, Special Number. Nairobi. Pp 97-106.

GTZ, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarabeit (1996). Environmental Conflict Management. An environmental policy instrument in developing countries. Eschborn, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit. 

Guijt, I. (1998). Participatory monitoring and impact assessment of sustainable agricultural activities. London, International Institute for Environment and Development. 

Kaufmann-Hayoz, R. (1996). Der Mensch und die Umweltprobleme. In: R. Kaufmann-Hayoz and A. Di Giulio (eds.). Umweltproblem Mensch. Humanwissenschaftliche Zugänge zu umweltverantwortlichem Handeln. Bern, Stuttgart, Wien. Pp 7-20. 

Knoepfel, P. (1995). Von der konstitutionellen Konkordanz über administrative Konsenslösungen zum demokratischen Dezisionismus. In: P. Knoepfel (ed.). Lösung von Umweltkonflikten durch Verhandlung. Basel, Frankfurt am Main. Pp 283-322. 

Pretty, J. N., I. Guijt, et al. (1995). A Trainer's Guide for Participatory Learning and Action. London, IIED. 

Rossel, P., M. Bassand, Eoy, M.-A. (1998). Au delà du laboratoire: Les nouvelles technologies à l'épreuve de l'usage. Lausanne, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes. 

SPPE (1999). Research, Planning and Conflict Resolution for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. Proceedings of the International Conference held at Nanyuki and Shaba/Kenya, September 8 - 16, 1998 . Berne. 

Stahl, M. (1992). Environmental Rehabilitation in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands: constraints to people's participation. In: D. Ghai and J. M. Vivian (eds.). Grassroots Environmental Action: people's participation in sustainable development. New York, London. Pp 281-303. 

[1] Interdisciplinary Centre for General Ecology, University of Berne
[2] Charlot Zinsli 1998, Cissé 1998, Baechler 1999
[3] Environmental problems: “Changes in the natural environment of humans which are undesired or threatening and which are induced by human action. They occur most often as unintended side effects of action.“ (Kaufmann-Hayoz 1996: 7, translated)
[4] „Environmental conflicts are characterised by overuse of renewable resources; overstrain of the environment’s sink capacity (pollution); and impoverishment of the space of living. Environmental conflicts manifest themselves as political, social, economic, ethnic, religious or territorial conflicts, or conflicts over resources or national interests, of any other type of conflict.“ (Baechler 1999)
[5] SPPE researchers have observed the subsequent categories of conflicts:
- Conflicts between different actors and actor categories because of unequal public subsidies and other resource endowments.
- Conflicts because of diverging perceptions of the problems among the actors.
- Conflicts because of diverging motivations between the different actors (issue of „free riders“).
- Conflicts because of diverging interests, e.g. between research and administration.
(Charlot Zinsli 1998)
[6] „The term ‘stakeholder’ could denominate those individuals, social groups, or institutions that take part directly in the management of resources and related conflict management processes. They are defending particular and specific interests. The term ‘actor’ could refer to those individuals or collectivities that are playing an active role in a particular resource management issue.“Cissé proposes the following differentiation between the two first categories of individuals and collectivities: „(The stakeholders) are defending particular and specific interests. To identify relevant (stakeholders) for a specific issue, the following questions may be asked
i.   whose interests are affected by the (resource management) issue at hand, or by (resource)  management strategies and actions that may be decided?
ii.  who possesses information and expertise needed for strategy formulation and implementation?
iii. who controls relevant implementation instruments or has the means to significantly influence environment-development interactions?
[7] „The ‘actors’ are individuals or organisations which are involved and who take part actively in a social process or in a resource management issue whereas the ‘stakeholders’ are individuals or organisations concerned and affected by the project or social process or measure.“ The author differentiates further between ‘stakeholders’ and ‘population/citizen’. She proposes the german term of ‘Beteiligte’ for ‘actor’ and of ‘Betroffene’ for ‘stakeholder’.
[8] „Stakeholders are individuals that represent a clientele with regard to the issue at stake. The clientele may range from grassroot movements to individuals and collectivities holding specific property rights. Whether stakeholders take actively part in a particular social process is a questions of "stakeholder involvement". Contrast to that is the general public (the ordinary citizen, the people, or whatever term is used to label the members of the civil society). It is not organised. Otherwise, it would hold stakeholder status. In such view, actors are the parts of clienteles that act and, hence, influence the relevant social process. However, they do not act as representatives of specific interests. Personally, I use the german words ‘Beteiligte’ (‘stakeholders’) and ‘Betroffene’ (‘actors’). ‘Betroffene’ are the risk-beares. They are affected by the outcomes. They might be excluded from risk-management exercises. ‘Beteiligte’ take part in such exercises.“
[9] Dürrenberger (1999) distinguishes three dimensions of participation: the substantive, the instrumental and the participatory. „First, participation „delivers“ topical (substantive) insights (e.g. new framings) and, hence, adds to the competence of decision-making. Second, participation may lower conflict and increase acceptance of and trust into government and expert decisions. By that, it may increase efficiency of policy processes (instrumental interests). Third, normative arguments relating to empowerment, fairness, rights to be informed.“
[10] Corresponds to the term „actor“ according to the understanding proposed in this paper.
[11] Workshop Eggiwil, 5-6 November 1998
[12] Based on empirical research; genuinely participatory; action-oriented (Baechler 1999)
[13] The results of a delphi-questionary among experts showed that the resistance of the citizens against new incineration installations could diminish when such processes were used (86% of the experts think such instruments should be more largely used) (Joos, cit. in Charlot Zinsli 1998).