‘Consensus’ participation: an example for protected areas planning
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-162X(199710)17:4<413::AID-PAD952>3.0.CO;2-P |
| Author | MICHAEL WARNER |
| Published date | 01 October 1997 |
| Date | 01 October 1997 |
`Consensus' participation:
an example for protected areas planning
MICHAEL WARNER*
Overseas Development Institute, London, UK
SUMMARY
This article forwards the argument that combining institutional and people participation is
fundamental to the pursuit of `sustainability'. A generalized model of participation is
proposed based on building consensus and preventing/resolving con¯ict between all
stakeholders who might be in¯uential in, or affected by, the effect of major developments
on a society's goals for sustainability. This `consensus' participation model seeks to overcome
problems relating to the exclusive nature of community-based `popular' participation (such as
Participatory Rural Appraisal), and the narrow economic nature of current `stakeholder'
participation. The model is founded upon two ideas: that to achieve consensus requires
stakeholders to negotiate and reach agreement collaboratively, and that certain stakeholders
(e.g. the disenfranchised poor and entrenched government bureaucracies) are often polarized
from a capability to contribute effectively to this process. In a manner similar to the
introduction of methodologies to guide environmental management in project planning
(environmental impact assessment, land use evaluation etc.), it is suggested that
methodological frameworks are needed to aid the process of integrating `consensus'
participation within major development initiatives (large-scale projects, sectoral
programmes, strategic land use or resource management planning, and regional and
national policy formulation). Based on research in Zambia, an example of a consensus-
orientated participation framework is presented, designed to guide preparation of strategic
management plans for protected areas. The example is used to draw out some of the bene®ts of
`consensus' participation. &1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Public Admin. Dev. Vol. 17, 413±432 (1997).
No. of Figures: 1. No. of Tables: 3. No. of Refs: 40.
INTRODUCTION
`Hard' problems are quanti®able, knowledge-rich and predictable over time (De
Neufuille and Stafford, 1971; Checkland, 1981). The search for solutions to `hard'
problems has been the province of the scienti®c paradigm of positivism. In the ®eld
of development notable successes include the `green' revolution, eradication of
`smallpox' and the meeting of rising energy demands. However, not all problems are
`hard'. For `soft' problemsÐthose that cannot be explicitly stated, are knowledge-
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 17, 413±432 (1997)
CCC 0271±2075/97/040413±20$17.50
&1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
*Correspondence to: Dr M. Warner, Research Fellow, Overseas Development Institute, Portland House,
Stag Place, London SW1E 5DP, UK.
sparse and perceived differently by different members of societyÐthe pervading
paradigm has begun to falter. Nothing highlights this more clearly than efforts to
direct development towards a con¯uence of economic, social and environmental
sustainability (Bass et al., 1995). Achieving sustainability presents an array of `soft'
problems that require a wholesale change of approach to development analysis and
decision-making. Without this change, feasible and desirable solutions will not be
realized.
Sustainability and `popular' participation
A landmark in global development is Agenda 21, the United Nations' action
programme for sustainable development. The programme places particular emphasis
on consultation, capacity-building and empowerment of citizens through the
delegation of authority, accountability and resources (UNCED, 1992). In practice
this means that local people themselves generate, share, analyse, prioritize, and
contribute to, or control, decision-making. As Redclift (1992) argues: `.. . if people
are not brought into focus through sustainable development, becoming both
architects and engineers of the concept, then it will never be achieved anyway, since
they are unlikely to take responsibility for something they do not ``own'' themselves'.
In the context of the millions of marginalized rural and urban poor in developing
countries, the new preoccupations with citizen consultation, local capacity building
and empowerment have merged with the longer-standing concerns of poverty
alleviation and rural development. The coming together of these ideas has spawned
the relatively recent practice of `popular' or `people' participation: `the [genuine]
participation of the poor and others who are disadvantaged in terms of wealth,
education, ethnicity or gender' (World Bank, 1995).
`Popular' participation is operationalized through a wide range of community-
based participatory planning methodologies (see Bass et al., 1995). Pivotal, in terms
of its practical and publicized evolution, has been Participatory Rural Appraisal
(PRA) (Chambers, 1992, 1994a, 1994b). Less publicized, but no less in¯uential, have
been the various types of bene®ciary assessments (BAs) carried out by the
multilateral donor community (e.g. the World Bank, FAO, IFAD). Most recently,
`popular' participation has found its way into the Terms of Reference of almost all
donor-funded capital projects. This is a positive development. At worst, it promotes
the gathering of previously unappreciated qualitative information. At best, it can
encourage `subsidiarity' in the control of development. A growing number of studies
have demonstrated the success and effectiveness of `popular' participation (Cernea
1987, 1991; Kottak 1991; Upoff 1992). Broadly, these studies point to the bene®ts of
greater community ownership, self-reliance and project sustainability.
As with the crystallization of all good ideas, `popular' participation has turned
from initial euphoria to re¯ection and innovation. For example, Leurs (1996)
outlines a wide range of current challenges facing PRA. Of particular importance is
the charge that the practice of PRA has tended to internalize the appraisal of
problems and opportunities within the participating community or group, with the
effect that local sustainability is undermined (Thrupp et al., 1994; Warner and Robb,
1996). This situation is perhaps understandable. It is a basic principle of community
414 M. Warner
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 17, 413±432 (1997) &1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial