FRAMEweb > Governance > Land Tenure for Drylands...

Land policy dialogue and participation: 1. How do we define participation? (15 answers)

Question

English Français Español

Helpful Vote

Private

-- Updated May 15, 2009 --

Popular Tags:

Edit Tags

Most Helpful Answer

Helpful Vote

Private

Dec 31, 2008

I appreciated being able to be part of this discussion and reading
interesting thoughts and experiences on this very important topic. I find a
refreshing amount of the nuance that background information and participants are
giving to the issue of participation in land policy dialogue. I would like to
make a couple comments, mostly in support of what has already been said, and to
ask a question.

As a person who has focused a great deal on participation and building from
the bottom up, I am concerned with the results of many supposedly
participatory events. Participation may even openly be a tool to justify an action.
For example, one well known conservation INGO had in its field manual that
project people must use participation. Their manual goes on to say staff should
find people in the community who agree with this INGO approach and invite
them to a meeting which would be participatory without disruption of those who
disagreed.

Mona Haidar gave an important reminder when she said that changes in policy,
in tenure or access, or even resource distribution through projects,
involves reallocation of rights and resources with winners and losers. Each of the
participants may (or may not) be genuine in their participation but have
different explicit or implicit goals. The discussion seems to assume that the
government has in mind helping the poorest, which I have not always (or even
usually) seen to be the case. Governments may, for example, feel the most
urgent goal is to increase national income. Economists may have a goal of finding
the most efficient use of resources which may not be through the poorest.
Conservationists may feel that the most important goal is preserving the
environment for the future and participation must take place within reaching that
goal. This complicates the already mixed picture of the results of
participation. Even when stakeholders come together with good intentions they may not
even hear each other or recognize that their goals are different. This
would underline the importance of language, the need for transparency and an open
learning communication environment. It might also suggest the need in
policy reform for a balance between assured rights and the need for a period of
trial and flexibility with a great deal of feedback.

I agree with Amy's concern about marginalization. The discussion of
participation seems to have implied that if everyone fully participates from the
beginning, all will go well. However, when there is less resource than demand or
is a change in power, market or participants, equal participation may not be
the final answer. As several discussants mentioned, when the power level is
very uneven the weaker may participate hoping to get the best deal possible
under the circumstances, but progressively lose. For example, when an
outside stakeholder wants to get part of a local resource the discussion may end up
in a compromise in which the traditional group loses a small amount. The
process may happen a number of times. Each time the demand is mitigated so the
more powerful do not get as much as they request, but again the weaker group
loses one more part of their resources. I think, where possible, first
focusing on building alliances or other approaches to help strengthen marginal
stakeholders is so important before meetings inviting participation of all
stakeholders.

The question I have is, have any of you had experience with developing a
system of giving a different weight to inputs of different groups? I am, of
course, not searching for a formula to use in all circumstances. But the inputs
of newcomers may be weighed differently in some cases from those with a long
history. Concerns of people who are vulnerable to losing a resource on
which they depend or may have no other choices may be given different weight than
those less vulnerable or having other choices of resources to use. If
anyone has used such an approach I think it would be important to share.

View in context

All Responses

0
Helpful Votes

Private

Dec 30, 2008

Promoting a development strategy that takes into account, not only soils
degradation, but also the link between desertification and land tenure in
drylands zones is nowadays a major challenge that requires a common approach
& strategy. This justifies the importance of the workshop held recently in
Nairobi with the assistance of DDC, ILC and other development institutions
involved in the Drylands imperative initiative. The meeting discussed within
others, the participation concept, recognized not only as a complex process,
but also as an indispensable tool to reach sustainability in drylands areas.

A series of questions are therefore raising, within others:

* How do we define participation? Who decides which actors are
included, which excluded? When does participation begin? When are people
part of the reform process?

Different development experiences in Benin show that the concept of
participation is wide, complex, multifaceted, changing according to context,
time, and conjuncture. Globally, participation may be defined as a process,
a working context made available by a group of actors to involve other
people who have their part of interest in the development action that the
first actors are initiating. During these last decades, the concept is used
by project managers to ensure the involvement of local communities to
sustain development initiatives.

Participation is according to me a spirit of commitment that makes local
communities active, but no more passive, to renounce to their old mentality
of permanently assisted people and to change the relationship between their
traditional organizations and national authorities. Finally, participation
is a kind of empowerment of the actors aimed by a development action to make
them acquire different forms of capacities to fight fatality, resignation,
and dependence, passing through a sharing of responsibilities and a dialog
process. It is also a walk, leading to self-analysis, self-planning,
self-organization and self-management My small experience shows that
participation must start at the early step of the development action or
project. Main stakeholders must be invited to draw the outline of the
project and to fix its full contain, but not just to validate a full
foreseen action plan. A good application of this is quiet difficult, but
effort must be made to be close to this ideal view. UNDP and the GEF show a
great willingness of it, by developing field PDF projects to formulate full
projects and programmes, to be sure that all parts of stakeholders are
involved at an early step. Involving main stakeholders, but not only local
communities at the starting point enables all involved actors to decide on
which ones must be included or not and what may be the role of each part of
society(local community, governmental bodies, NGOs, youth groups, women,
etc.) to attain common goals.
0
Helpful Votes

Private

Dec 31, 2008

I am following the discussions with great interest and really enjoying
the richness and diversity of experience. I have a general comment on
"Land policy dialogue and participation", the basis for this week's
questions. We must always remember that land tenure reforms involve the
relocation of rights, producing winners, losers, and resistance. Reforms
are often about asking those who have the right to give up some of their
rights and power to poor and marginalized people. Resistance, out of
fear and self-interest, is certain. Few will be willing to give up their
rights for the sake of equity, efficiency or dryland development, which
is probably why most reforms take place during times of economic and
political crisis, not through well-planned processes.

Nevertheless, two strategies may move participation and the
implementation of a drylands land tenure policy forward: challenging
resistance and opportunism. Resistance to reforms needs to be confronted
by everyone interested in the reforms. The lobbying capacity of farmers
and pastoralists needs to be strengthened. They neither know how to
lobby nor how the political system of their countries is organized.
Opportunities for change arise continually; they might be economic or
political. Advocates need to be prepared for opportunity. The clear
lesson of the past 20 years of support to land reform is that land and
reforms by themselves do not reduce poverty or enable development (the
objective of the exercise): they must be linked to wider efforts
including production and marketing support and the development of basic
services and markets.
Mona Haidar, Ph.D.

Livelihoods Advisor

Drylands Development Centre

Regional Node for Arab states and Iran
0
Helpful Votes

Private

Dec 31, 2008

Who decides which actors are included, which excluded?

I would like to make two points with regard to this question.
First as a principle participation in decision-making should include all
those that are potentially AFFECTED by the problem at hand. This seems
self-evident, but does not always happen.
This also means that there must also be active identification of those
potentially affected as many might not be aware that there is a forum where
something is discussed that might affects them.
Second, is the tendency for strong groups and more powerful interests to
prevail, so there must a mechanism that monitors and often also strengthens
strategic interaction capacity of weak interests. See for example (Edmunds,
David and Wollenberg, Eva (2001) ŒA Strategic Approach to Multistakeholder.
Negotiations¹, Development and Change 32(2): 231-253).

These two points imply value judgements and the fact that nobody is neutral
nor objective as such when decisions about participation are made. But I
think it is possible to follow certain principles that should facilitate
inclusionary processes.

Monica Di Gregorio
0
Helpful Votes

Private

Dec 31, 2008

In response to Stephen Dohrn’s Blog Summary:

to address a few points which stimulate thought;
amy poteete writes:
If people find new institutional arrangements valuable enough to sustain
after a project ends, the participants are likely to adapt them to meet
their own truly self-defined interests. They will be better able to resolve
internal differences and make collective decisions than they were
previously. This is a form of empowerment.

In this sense, the endeavour of development strikes me as being quite
similar to teaching in universities and schools, the over-riding goal always
being one of teaching critical thinking. In group meetings with community
development projects, I have repeatedly been struck by the similarities with
teaching, in trying to lead a person or group to reach their own critical
conclusions.

stephan dohrn wrote / quoted: In many project examples it seems that not
even the structures last. For me the question is thus, did the discussions
and joint activities have an impact on the social structure and dynamics of
the household, family, community, district or other unit that enable poor
and marginalized people to continue to change their situation at their own
pace and with their own intensity? It seems likely to me that group/
communal decision-making will sometimes be an improvement, but not always.
Why might the change be beneficial? What conditions make its success more
likely?

it seems that human management and organisational skills have become
variables for the measurement of project success, i.e. in efforts to halt
land degradation. For example, capacity-building can be seen as a way to
ensure that Œlearning structures are in place to absorb new resources and
information, and to maintain contact with external govt & NOG orgs. This
points increasingly to the idea that what is being developed is the ability
to respond, and that our ³product² is capacity-building, would
anyone/everyone agree?

stephan dohrn wrote: did the discussions and joint activities have an
impact on the social structure and dynamics of the household, family,
community, district or other unit that enable poor and marginalized people
to continue to change their situation at their own pace and with their own
intensity?

this strikes me as being the key to the discussion, and also enabling us to
separate the specific issues at hand from long-term concerns for example,
grazing rights or overcoming a drought as an issue of immediate concern, and
the ability to create structures integrated in the ³modern² world which can
remain in place to address future issues as a long-term concern.

stephan dohrn writes: An example of Namibia was cited where "concerns about
marginalization became less, the more widespread the participation /
ownership of the project" was. "If each family/household/compound is seen as
a decision-making unit, then the goal is to include at least one
representative from every unit." One might counter by asking about the role
of women in a household, or the power structures within a compound and
whether the person representing this compound truly represents the different
needs and concerns single group members might have.

Yes, it is important to involve as many voices as possible, while still
respecting local decision-making structures. One might ask, for example, is
it necessary to respect that the (male) head of the household in many places
is responsible for making all important decisions?

In the Namibian case, this was less of an issue, as 2 of the 3 projects were
headed by women, and the majority of stakeholders were women.

In the Namibian case study, of three sites, the project/site with the
highest level of participation had both a) the highest number of
female-headed households and b) the lowest household incomes / assets. This
lead the research team to conclude that the willingness/ incentive to
participate was based on the incentive to generate income (ultimately
employment), and related to a high concentration of female-headed households
/ low income level. Because the area had both the lowest average wealth and
the highest level of participation, the conclusion was that the more
households are eligible for participation, then the higher the chance of
high levels of participation and ultimately project success. The correlation
between high levels of female-headed households and high levels of
participation is not yet understood as anything other than socio-economic.

amy poteete asks:

What conditions make its success more likely?

Specific to this desertification-related project and land degradation, as
opposed to capacity-building, the implication is that more people will
participate in such projects when they are structured through
community-based organizations which present financial opportunities; yield
income-generating incentives.

cralan deutsch
http://www.desertification-research.info
0
Helpful Votes

Private

Dec 31, 2008

Stephan Dohrn? ce que tu dis est pertinent, mais j'attire votre attention sur ce qui suit:
Parlant de la participation à une action collective, qu'une institution extérieur au groupe décide de qui participe de qui est inclus ou exclu, ou le groupe s'identifie lui même dans tous ces cas de figure, on ne peut jamais obtenir à 100% la particiaption.

Dans ce tu dis? j'ai l'impression qu tu veux obtenir la participation à 100%

Ganamé
du MALI
- 0
  Helpful Votes
  
  Private
  
  Dec 31, 2008
  
  Je m’excuse d’avoir pris le train en marche sur ces questions fondamentales relative au foncier. Ma modeste contribution est relative à la réflexion sur la participation.
  La participation, comme vous le dites si bien, est très complexe. On se cache souvent derrière ce terme pour faire croire que les textes de lois ou les documents sont issus d’un large consensus. La participation c’est la contribution effective de toutes les couches socio-professionnelles dans tout le processus, de l’élaboration à la mise en œuvre, à la vulgarisation indispensable. Nous insistons sur effective parce que souvent l’on s’arrange à avoir la présence d’un plus grand nombre de personnes de toutes les sensibilités (encore que souvent ce sont plutôt les représentants) dans un contexte qui ne favorise pas en fait leur participation. La participation doit être analysée et une méthodologie appropriée utilisée. On ne peut pas par exemple rassembler des chercheurs, des responsables traditionnels et coutumiers, des décideurs politiques, l’administration autour des questions foncières et s’attendre à une participation effective de tous aux débats. Il serait plus judicieux de faire plusieurs « consultations », échanges pour permettre à chaque groupe de s’exprimer.
  Les difficultés majeures à notre avis résultent des lacunes au niveau de la participation. Le plus souvent ce que l’on constate est que les documents sont élaborés et l’on organise une sorte de forum pour faire les faire adopter et donner l’impression qu’il y a eu participation.
  Le processus d’élaboration d’une politique de sécurisation foncière en milieu rural au Burkina Faso est en cours et en temps opportun, des éléments d’information pourront être communiqués sur certains aspects.
  
  -- Updated Dec 31, 2008 --
  - 0
    Helpful Votes
    
    Private
    
    Dec 31, 2008
    
    La participation, comme vous le dites si bien, est très complexe. On se
    cache souvent derrière ce terme pour faire croire que les textes de lois ou
    les documents sont issus d’un large consensus. La participation c’est la
    contribution effective de toutes les couches socio-professionnelles dans
    tout le processus, de l’élaboration à la mise en œuvre, à la vulgarisation
    indispensable. Nous insistons sur effective parce que souvent l’on s’arrange
    à avoir la présence d’un plus grand nombre de personnes de toutes les
    sensibilités (encore que souvent ce sont plutôt les représentants) dans un
    contexte qui ne favorise pas en fait leur participation. La participation
    doit être analysée et une méthodologie appropriée utilisée. On ne peut pas
    par exemple rassembler des chercheurs, des responsables traditionnels et
    coutumiers, des décideurs politiques, l’administration autour des questions
    foncières et s’attendre à une participation effective de tous aux débats. Il
    serait plus judicieux de faire plusieurs « consultations », échanges pour
    permettre à chaque groupe de s’exprimer.
    Les difficultés majeures à notre avis résultent des lacunes au niveau de la
    participation. Le plus souvent ce que l’on constate est que les documents
    sont élaborés et l’on organise une sorte de forum pour faire les faire
    adopter et donner l’impression qu’il y a eu participation.
    
    Le processus d’élaboration d’une politique de sécurisation foncière en
    milieu rural au Burkina Faso est en cours et en temps opportun, des éléments
    d’information pourront être communiqués sur certains aspects.
    
    Asséta DIALLO
    Burkina Faso
0
Helpful Votes

Private

Dec 31, 2008

(i)La participation suppose avant tout une action collective. On peut tenter
dans ce cas la definission suivante : la participation peut être définie
comme étant l'implication de toutes les parties prenanate à une action.
Implication ou toutes ses parties prenantes prennenet la parole et disent ce
qu'elles pensent.
(iii) Quand est ce que la participation commence?la participation commence dés le début l'action
Quand est ce que les gens interviennent dans le processus de réforme ? Les gens doivent intervenir tout au long du processus

(i) BEFORE ANYTHING PARTICIPATION ASSUMES COLLECTIVE ACTION. THE FOLLOWING
DEFINITION COULD APPLY: PARTICIPATION CAN BE DEFINED AS THE INVOLVEMENT OF
ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN AN ACTIVITY. INVOLVEMENT IN WHICH ALL STAKEHOLDERS CAN
SAY WHAT THEY THINK.(iii) WHEN DOES PARTICIPATION START? PARTICIPATION STARTS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF ANY ACTIVITY.WHEN DO THE PEOPLE INTERVENE DURING POLICY REFORM PROCESSES? THE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE WHOLE PROCESS

-- Updated Dec 31, 2008 --
1
Helpful Vote

Private

Dec 31, 2008

I appreciated being able to be part of this discussion and reading
interesting thoughts and experiences on this very important topic. I find a
refreshing amount of the nuance that background information and participants are
giving to the issue of participation in land policy dialogue. I would like to
make a couple comments, mostly in support of what has already been said, and to
ask a question.

As a person who has focused a great deal on participation and building from
the bottom up, I am concerned with the results of many supposedly
participatory events. Participation may even openly be a tool to justify an action.
For example, one well known conservation INGO had in its field manual that
project people must use participation. Their manual goes on to say staff should
find people in the community who agree with this INGO approach and invite
them to a meeting which would be participatory without disruption of those who
disagreed.

Mona Haidar gave an important reminder when she said that changes in policy,
in tenure or access, or even resource distribution through projects,
involves reallocation of rights and resources with winners and losers. Each of the
participants may (or may not) be genuine in their participation but have
different explicit or implicit goals. The discussion seems to assume that the
government has in mind helping the poorest, which I have not always (or even
usually) seen to be the case. Governments may, for example, feel the most
urgent goal is to increase national income. Economists may have a goal of finding
the most efficient use of resources which may not be through the poorest.
Conservationists may feel that the most important goal is preserving the
environment for the future and participation must take place within reaching that
goal. This complicates the already mixed picture of the results of
participation. Even when stakeholders come together with good intentions they may not
even hear each other or recognize that their goals are different. This
would underline the importance of language, the need for transparency and an open
learning communication environment. It might also suggest the need in
policy reform for a balance between assured rights and the need for a period of
trial and flexibility with a great deal of feedback.

I agree with Amy's concern about marginalization. The discussion of
participation seems to have implied that if everyone fully participates from the
beginning, all will go well. However, when there is less resource than demand or
is a change in power, market or participants, equal participation may not be
the final answer. As several discussants mentioned, when the power level is
very uneven the weaker may participate hoping to get the best deal possible
under the circumstances, but progressively lose. For example, when an
outside stakeholder wants to get part of a local resource the discussion may end up
in a compromise in which the traditional group loses a small amount. The
process may happen a number of times. Each time the demand is mitigated so the
more powerful do not get as much as they request, but again the weaker group
loses one more part of their resources. I think, where possible, first
focusing on building alliances or other approaches to help strengthen marginal
stakeholders is so important before meetings inviting participation of all
stakeholders.

The question I have is, have any of you had experience with developing a
system of giving a different weight to inputs of different groups? I am, of
course, not searching for a formula to use in all circumstances. But the inputs
of newcomers may be weighed differently in some cases from those with a long
history. Concerns of people who are vulnerable to losing a resource on
which they depend or may have no other choices may be given different weight than
those less vulnerable or having other choices of resources to use. If
anyone has used such an approach I think it would be important to share.
0
Helpful Votes

Private

Dec 31, 2008

Thanks to Esther's excellent summary of last week's discussion. Much of
the discussion of participation (and its challenges) would apply almost
anywhere, but the dispersed settlement problems of many people living in
drylands can add to the difficulties and costs of participation. This also
relates to Mark Gnanasigamony's point in week 2 about languages--many
marginalized drylands people speak different languages, again making it more
difficult to participate in "mainstream" discussions. It might be useful to
compile good approaches for facilitating participation among far-flung or
mobile groups.
0
Helpful Votes

Private

Dec 31, 2008

I only want to add that here Perú is beginning a
process that we hope it could become a real platform
for colective work, considering three zones: North,
Center and South. Here is going to participate the
State (relevants sectors) and the civil society (NGOs
and CBOs). Actors who are working around it for so
long and new ones if it´s necessary. It could
guarantee the dialogue for state politics.
But here is important to state a real institutional
platform of work. With a law that create it and
specifics points, considerating for examples the cases
about people who use to be absent; or state a yearly
job plan.
Also is too important guarantee basics economics
resources for the real implementation. If not, there
is not going to be a real participation. Is easy to
impel the participation but the people is tired of
being without a continue process.
The important of the mentioned colective work is that
not more the work is going to be concentrated only in
one state organisation. But is necesary guarantee the
permanent work of this. At least, considerate a
secretaryship for each group.

-- Updated Dec 31, 2008 --
- 0
  Helpful Votes
  
  Private
  
  Dec 31, 2008
  
  BONJOUR ALBERTO LIMO
  
  je viens de lire ton intervention sur la politique et la participation des acteurs autour de toutes les questions touchant la terre, en ce sens que j'ai eu la motivation de demander votre agrement pour une eventiuelle collaboration, parce que je suis le president d'une jeune ong de droit nigerien et je desire partager notre connaissance dans les domaines de l'approche participative et je reste à votre entiere disposition toutes questions ou informations que je peux vous etre utile ici dans mon pays la république du Niger, au prochain je vous ferez parvenir toutes les informations sur mon ong
  
  je vous adresse toutes mes excuses si je vous inportune
  cordialement
  Ermbel MOHAMED
  BP 11244 TEL 00227 974892
  NIAMEY NIGER (WEST AFRICA)
  - 0
    Helpful Votes
    
    Private
    
    Dec 31, 2008
    
    Dear Ermbel MOHAMED,
    
    I´m able to explain you more about it. If it´s
    necesary I could find the way to give you the
    information in french.
    
    Alberto Limo
    ONG PROTERRA
    Perú
    - 0
      Helpful Votes
      
      Private
      
      Dec 31, 2008
      
      Dear Alberto
      
      I'm very content that you answered me, the significant one for me is to hold of the corespondances being all of the actors of development, I think that we can exchanged information which will be useful to our structures, and perhaps to meet one day.
      
      Ermbel MOHAMED,
      ONG DAOUD
0
Helpful Votes

Private

Dec 31, 2008

Dear All,

Unfortunately, I have joined very late in this debate but then I have
enjoyed reading through the last patches of discussion particularly thoughts
shared by Marilyn W. Hoskins and John Pender.

1. I want to add to what John Pender says about, ""everyone should be
encouraged to participate" to be unrealistic and probably self-defeating".
This is true and has been proved so with penetration of mass movements by
all kinds of people from within the communities. In some cases, those who
already hold more than legally permitted size of land holdings could well be
the first ones to benefit from some of the gains achieved by land rights
movements.

2. Discussing definitions and other nuances of 'Participation' at global
forums, hardly means anything for the poor (especially the tribals, dalits
and other historically marginalized communities) who have been subjected to
inter-locked modes of exploitation at the hands of a powerful coalition of
local elites, bureaucrats, and now increasingly influential corporate houses
and multinationals. I may have missed a lot of important discussion but it
would have been better to have more of a discussion on particular mechanism
and strategies that have been adopted by the groups working on ground for
organizing communities to help them gain their rights.

2. To me it seems that while intellectual discussions have attained heavenly
heights, people are struggling with most basic of their rights. When are we
going to stand up and force the governments to do simplest of things like
ensuring the accountability of local revenue officials in undertaking
upgradation of land records? Why this has to wait while we go on researching
into finer details of academic issues involved? And by the way, what fun in
concluding things such as: "Government to promote democracy and openness to
change". Well, we have heard this before!!! And a thousand times at that..

3. This to me is the core of civil society action in times we live in. Where
do we focus our resources and how do we prioritize our action. This also
relates to the issue of accountability of civil society to its constituency
(poorest communities at the top of list).

Many thanks,

Prakash Kashwan
New Delhi