LEWIS

Reconceptualizing Participation for Sustainable Rural
Development: Towards a Negotiation Approach
Cees Leeuwis
ABSTRACT
In many popular intervention methodologies aimed at stimulating sustainable

rural development (in the widest possible sense) the idea of `participation' is
a leading principle. This article will demonstrate that the process in which
actors are supposed to participate is often thought of as being a process of
planning, decision-making and/or social learning. It will be argued that such
an operationalization of development processes is based on inconsistent
theoretical assumptions, and can easily lead to unproductive development
interventions due to an inability to handle conflicts. As an alternative it is
proposed to use negotiation theory as a basis for organizing participatory
development efforts. The implications of such a shift in thinking about
participation are far-reaching: it requires new modes of analysis, and different
roles, tasks and skills for facilitators of participatory processes.
INTRODUCTION
In discourses around sustainable rural development, `participation' has

become a widely advocated methodological principle for intervention prac-
tice, and a range of participatory methodologies, methods and techniques
have been proposed in order to operationalize it.1 In this article, I argue that
despite the fact that important differences exist among the various methodo-
logies, they have in common that they primarily perceive the process in
which actors supposedly participate as a process of planning, decision-
making and/or social learning. Some of the theoretical foundations of this
mode of operationalizing development processes will be discussed; in doing
so, a number of conceptual and methodological problems and incon-
sistencies in the current participation discourse will be highlighted. With
reference to several empirical experiences, I suggest that negotiation theory
may form a more appropriate basis for organizing participatory develop-
ment efforts, as it provides a better language for dealing with the conflicts
1. See, for example, Chambers (1994a, 1994b); Engel (1995); Fals Borda (1998a); Jiggins and
de Zeeuw (1992); Okali et al. (1994); Pretty et al. (1995); Rahman (1993); RoÈling (1994,
1996); Scoones and Thompson (1994); van Veldhuizen et al. (1997).
Development and Change Vol. 31 (2000), 931±959. # Institute of Social Studies 2000. Published
by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK.
14677660, 2000, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-7660.00184 by University Of South Africa, Wiley Online Library on [06/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
932 Cees Leeuwis
that emerge within participatory processes. A number of practical implica-

tions of adopting a negotiation approach are then elaborated, especially
with regard to the tasks and role of facilitators in participatory processes.
Finally, the potential and limitations of the approach in different types of
conflict situations are discussed.
DIFFERENCES IN PROBLEM ORIENTEDNESS, ASPIRATIONS AND

JUSTIFICATION
Each participatory approach is deemed suitable for a specific type of problem

situation, in relation to which it aims to generate certain contributions. In
part, this explains why so many methodologies and approaches exist, each
with its own acronym, abbreviation or (marketing) label. Let me briefly
illustrate this differential issue and goal-orientedness in relation to a number
of well-known methodologies.
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA, see Chambers, 1994a, 1994b) and
Participatory Action Research (PAR, see Fals Borda, 1998a; Rahman,
1993) are probably the most widely-known examples; they typically provide
modes for making a community-based situational analysis as a basis for
further local action, problem solving and/or project identification. Clearly,
a methodology like Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems
(RAAKS, see Engel, 1995) is geared to something more specific, namely to
diagnose the functioning of inter-institutional (knowledge) networks, with
the aim of identifying opportunities and improving the innovative capacity
of the network. Platforms for the (co-)management of collective natural
resources (Pinkerton, 1994; RoÈling, 1994; Steins and Edwards, 1999), on the
other hand, are typically directed towards overcoming another type of
problem situation, namely the unsustainable use of resources like fisheries,
grazing lands or water, in connection with the existence of social dilemmas
(Hardin, 1968; Messick and Brewer, 1983). Finally, Participatory Technology
Development (PTD, see Jiggins and de Zeeuw, 1992) and Farmer Particip-
atory Research (FPR, Okali et al., 1994) are considered to be particularly
suitable for solving socio-technical problems in the development of low
external-input, sustainable agriculture (LEISA) systems.
It is important to differentiate between the perspectives of those who have
developed these approaches, and those who use them in the field. Field-
workers may well use particular methodologies in problem situations for
which they were never intended. Similarly, practitioners often have different
(or additional) institutional and/or personal aspirations in using (elements
of) certain methodologies and discourses (see, for example, van Arkel and
Versteeg, 1997). References to `participation' may, for example, serve merely
to create an organizational image that is beneficial for purposes of attracting
funds and/or securing institutional survival (Pacheco, 2000). Moreover,
even if the interest in participation is genuine, the rationale for using
Reconceptualizing Participation for Sustainable Rural Development 933
participatory methodologies can vary considerably.2 In discourses on par-

ticipation, a variety of arguments are used to advocate the need for a
participatory approach in intervention processes (see for example Webler
and Renn, 1995). Some arguments are typically instrumental in nature, and
boil down to the wish to gain access to relevant information, networks or
target groups (Brinkerhoff and Ingle, 1989; van Dusseldorp, 1990; Geurts
and Mayer, 1996). Some instrumental modes of reasoning have more
theoretical undertones such as the idea that people never change without
motivation or ìnvolvement' of some kind or another (van den Ban and
Hawkins, 1996). Another set of arguments is ideological/normative in nature,
such as the conviction that actors have a wish, moral right and/or duty
to participate in an effort to change their own situation (Rahman, 1993;
Rousseau, 1968). Finally, political concerns may be used to justify a par-
ticipatory approach, such as the wish to emancipate and empower particular
groups in society (Friedman, 1992; Nelson and Wright, 1995; Rahman,
1993). The underlying rationale for using a participatory methodology may
vary from context to context, and may significantly affect the way
methodologies are used. Nelson and Wright (1995) differentiate between
the use of (the same) participatory methods and techniques as a means
(when goals are fixed and externally imposed; that is, when instrumental
arguments prevail) or as an end (when the process is used to èmpower'
participants so that they can determine their own future; that is, when
political and ideological arguments prevail).3
COMMON PERCEPTIONS ON THE NATURE OF PARTICIPATORY

CHANGE PROCESSES
Despite important differences in problem-orientedness, aspirations and

justification (both in theory and practice), the similarities between different
participatory methodologies are probably just as significant. All approaches
mentioned, for example, recognize and emphasize the existence of different
stakeholders in a problem situation, and many of the methods and techniques
proposed and used are rather similar (see Pretty et al., 1995; van Veldhuizen
et al., 1997). Most importantly, they tend to rest on similar conceptual ideas
as to how social change comes about, which Ð amongst many other things
Ð leads them to use a mixture of planning, decision-making and social
learning models as organizing principle for participatory trajectories.
2. In some cases there is little rationale at all, for example where practitioners use methods as
a blueprint without properly understanding what they are doing and why.
3. One could argue that Ð at a higher level of abstraction Ð the use of participatory
approaches always has instrumental connotations; after all the wish to èmpower' people is
a goal that is usually set by some in order to affect the position of others.
934 Cees Leeuwis
Change as the Result of Planning and Decision-making
Models of planning and decision-making are closely related, and typically

include such activities (for some `phases') as situation analysis, problem
identification, goal formulation, selection of alternatives, evaluation of
alternatives, implementation and evaluation (see, for example; CIMMYT,
1988; van Dusseldorp, 1990; Farrington and Martin, 1987). In essence, these
models propose that change comes about (or should come about) through
these kinds of activities. Even if blueprint planning has been abandoned by
many, this has not rendered the models obsolete. Process planning may
have changed the rhythm and order of planning activities (Brinkerhoff
and Ingle, 1989), but has not fundamentally altered the model itself.
The way participatory methodologies are described and used, and the
participatory discourse at large, still reflect this mode of thinking in various
ways.
The Phasing of Participatory Trajectories
Several participatory methodologies draw on planning and decision-making

models in the sense that they are clearly positioned in terms of the models'
activities or `phases'. In many ways, PRA can be seen as a mode of pro-
longed participatory situation and problem analysis Ð that is, as an early
activity within planning processes. Even if Chambers stresses the import-
ance of data collection and analysis as an empowering process in itself, and
does not claim that PRA should be seen as the first step in a formal
planning process, he does see it as the beginning of something, as `the start
of a process' in which people have ènhanced knowledge and competence,
an ability to make demands, and to sustain action' (Chambers, 1994b:
1266). Others are more explicit about the type of process that should be
started by PRA, and even consider the drawing up of a `Village Resource
Management Plan' as a final step of PRA (PID, 1989). In view of the
widespread use of PRA as a method for project identification (see, for
example, van Arkel and Versteeg, 1997; PID, 1989; Shah, 1994) it seems that
this last translation of PRA is dominant in actual practice.
In many ways RAAKS resembles PRA in terms of its relation to planning
models. RAAKS consists of two elaborate phases of situation analysis
(`problem definition and system identification' and `constraint and oppor-
tunity analysis') followed by a stage of `policy articulation/intervention
planning'. Again, we recognize Ð albeit roughly Ð the activities that con-
stitute a planning process. Finally, even if the idea of platforms for the
(co-)management of collective natural resources (Pinkerton, 1994; RoÈling,
1994; Steins and Edwards, 1999) has not been operationalized in a clearly-
articulated methodology, the term `management' is in fact commonly
equated with `decision-making' (Davis and Olson, 1985). Not surprisingly,
therefore, studies in this field tend to focus on decision-making structures

and institutions (see, for example, Baland and Platteau, 1996; Ostrom,
1990). Thus, here too the decision-making model is prominent.
Distinguishing Forms and Levels of Participation
The significance of planning and decision-making models in thinking about

participation is also reflected in widely-used typologies of participation.
Pretty (1994) for example, distinguishes between `passive participation',
`participation in information giving', `participation by consultation',
`participation for material incentives', `functional participation', ìnteractive
participation' and `self-mobilization'. A closer investigation of the cor-
responding descriptions (ibid.: 41) suggests that this classification is largely
based on two dimensions, namely: (a) the distribution of decision-making
authority between participants and interventionists in relation to (b) dif-
ferent key functions in development planning, such as situation analysis,
problem identification, goal setting, and implementation. Other authors
(Biggs, 1989; Paul, 1986, referred to in Okali et al., 1994: 48±9) also use the
level of involvement in decision-making as a basis for classifying different
types of participation. Thus, we see that decision-making and planning
models are considered to be of key importance when talking about (different
modes and levels of) participation.
Ranking as a Decision-making Tool
Different forms of ranking are presented as important tools within par-

ticipatory methodologies (Chambers, 1994b; Jiggins and de Zeeuw, 1992;
PID, 1989; Pretty et al., 1995; Shah, 1994). While some authors (including
Chambers, 1994b; Jiggins and de Zeeuw, 1992) present ranking mainly as an
instrument for getting a better understanding of a situation Ð for example,
through wealth ranking and preference ranking Ð others stress its import-
ance as a way of identifying the most important problems, and selecting
the most feasible opportunities for solving them (PID, 1989). In this latter
mode of application, ranking becomes merely a tool (or voting procedure)
for taking `democratic' community decisions about future action strategies
and projects. In the actual practice of participatory projects we see that this
last mode of ranking often plays a crucial role, for example for directing
community action, intervention projects, òn-farm experiments', after the
initial stages of situation and problem analysis (Khamis, 1998; ZunÄiga
Valerin, 1998). The significance of tools for `participatory decision-making'
underlines the salience of decision-making models in participatory
processes.
936 Cees Leeuwis
Change as the Result of Social Learning
In the participation discourse, learning processes are referred to even more

often and more explicitly than planning and decision-making models.4 Most
of the references are to forms of collective (rather than individual) learning,
whereby different community members or stakeholders generate new know-
ledge, skills, confidence, resources, insight and perspectives on which action
can be based. Although various conceptual `models' of learning exist, the
most widely referred to is Kolb's (1984) model of experiential learning. Kolb
introduces the idea of a learning cycle with stages of `concrete experience',
`reflective observation', àbstract conceptualization' and àctive experi-
mentation'. With the exception of PTD, however (see van Veldhuizen et al.,
1997: 11), these `phases' are not used as an organizing principle for struc-
turing participatory processes as explicitly as the decision-making model.
Nonetheless, participatory methodologies have various additional charac-
teristics which express the strong belief in learning as a prerequisite for (if
not origin of) change.
The Primacy of Joint Situation and Problem Analysis
Even if participatory methodologies have a clear affiliation with planning

and decision-making models, many methodologies only cover a limited
range of planning tasks or `phases'. That is; the methodologies tend to be
geared towards joint situation and problem analysis. This is reflected, for
example, in the nature of the majority of tools and/or `windows' provided by
RAAKS (Engel, 1995), PRA (Chambers, 1994b; Shah, 1994) and training
guides on participatory learning and action (Pretty et al., 1995; van Veld-
huizen et al., 1997). Hence, it seems to be implicitly assumed that stake-
holders and interventionists are in need of a better, or a more widely-shared
understanding of the situation, which in turn can be acquired through social
learning. Apparently, lack of collective knowledge and skills are seen as key
obstacles to comprehensive change and development in situations where
participatory methodologies are deemed applicable.
The Emphasis on Communication and Communicative Action
In addition to tools for situation analysis, techniques which improve human

communication receive a great deal of attention in discourses on participation
4. See, for example, Bawden (1994); Berkes and Folke (1998); Engel (1995); Holling (1985);
Ostrom (1990); Pretty and Chambers (1994); Pretty et al. (1995); RoÈling and Wagemakers
(1998); van Veldhuizen et al. (1997).
(for example, Daniels and Walker, 1996; Fals Borda, 1998b; RoÈling and
Wagemakers, 1998). The training guide by Pretty et al. (1995), for example,
provides numerous tools that essentially aim at enhancing communication
within groups; these include exercises for improving group dynamics,
listening, observation exercises, visualization, and so on. This emphasis
reflects the idea that social learning can benefit a great deal from the
effective and open communication of stakeholder ideas and perspectives.
The role of the facilitator, then, is to support this type of communication.
In philosophical terms, these ideas can be traced back to Habermas's
(1981) notion of communicative action, as distinguished from instrumental
and strategic action (see Bawden, 1994; Fals Borda, 1998b; Maarleveld
and DangbeÂgnon, 1998; RoÈling, 1996). Instrumental action, according to
Habermas, is behaviour that involves following technical prescriptions, based
on nomological knowledge, in order to achieve certain previously defined
goals (Habermas, 1981: 385). Strategic action is still oriented towards the
realization of specific goals, but the actor recognizes other actors as equally
strategic opponents, rather than as òbjects' that obey certain nomological
rules. Finally, Habermas speaks of communicative action (based on com-
municative rationality), when actors aim at reaching agreement or consensus
on a shared definition of the situation as a basis for co-ordinating their
activities. This type of action distinguishes itself from instrumental and
strategic action in that the co-ordination of action does not arise from
egocentric goal-oriented `calculation' by self-interested actors, but from an
open process of argumentation in which any claims (including normative
ones) are subject to critical debate. Thus, the notion of social learning is
closely affiliated with that of communicative action and improved com-
munication.
The Selection of Participants
Especially in participatory discourses and practices around typically col-

lective problems,5 there seems to exist an (often implicit) belief that it is
important for (representatives of) all relevant stakeholders to participate in
one way or another. The underlying argument here seems to be that progress
can be made only when all key players reach a shared understanding. Thus,
the boundaries of platforms should be such that all those affected are
incorporated (Maarleveld and DangbeÂgnon, 1998; Thrupp et al., 1994). This
inclusive approach (which also exists in RAAKS, see Engel, 1995: 199) is
closely connected with the idea that through communicative action and
5. Such as natural resource management and network co-ordination; see Bawden (1994);
Berkes and Folke (1998); Daniels and Walker (1996); Engel (1995); Ostrom (1990); RoÈling
(1994).
938 Cees Leeuwis
learning, conflicts of interest between different parties should and can be

overcome. In order to overcome such problems, higher `levels' of learning
are usually considered necessary. It is not sufficient for stakeholders to
improve present routines (single loop learning); they need to significantly
alter and challenge the assumptions and boundaries which underlie their
practices (double loop learning), or even change the way they organize or
think about the learning process itself (triple loop learning) (Argyris and
SchoÈn, 1996; Wijnhoven, 1995).
CONCEPTUAL SHORTCOMINGS OF THE DOMINANT MODELS
At the conceptual level, a key problem with participatory discourses lies in

the way authors deal with social conflict and struggle over resources in
change processes (see also Mosse, 1995; Scoones and Thompson, 1994).
Over the last decade, many studies have shown convincingly that conflicts
and struggles over resources and images play an important role in the day-
to-day practice of social life, including (participatory) development projects
(Arce, 1993; Long, 1989; Villareal, 1994). Even if such studies have a bias
towards identifying conflict and struggle rather than signalling consensus
and co-operation (Schrijvers, 1992), Long and van der Ploeg (1989) rightly
conclude that there is a large divide between the formal representation of
development projects (in terms of the language and phases of conventional
planning) and the way they evolve in practice. Thus, they argue (ibid.: 228)
that `the concept of intervention needs deconstructing so that we recognise it
for what it fundamentally is, namely, an ongoing, socially-constructed and
negotiated process, not simply the execution of an already-specified plan of
action with expected outcomes'. Or as Crehan and von Oppen (1988: 113)
put it: `[a] development project should be seen not simply in terms of its
goals and their achievement or non-achievement, but rather as a social
event, an arena of struggle between different groups with different interests'.
As we have seen, the designers of participatory methodologies have
responded to these types of observations in three closely related ways. First,
they have resorted to more flexible and process-oriented modes of planning
(that is, organizing planning as a learning process), without abandoning the
planning idea altogether. Second, inspired by Habermas's idea of commun-
icative action, they have proposed that the management of conflicts and
struggle over resources can best be assisted by organizing a process of social
learning. Third, in addition to these two `learning model' solutions, they
have incorporated some language from negotiation discourses. In relation
to platforms for natural resource management, for example, some authors
use the term `negotiation' instead of `decision-making' or `learning' (for
example, Daniels and Walker, 1996; RoÈling, 1994, 1996). In the context of
agricultural knowledge and technology issues, Scoones and Thompson (1994)
emphasize the importance of negotiation processes. Engel (1995) speaks of
`negotiations' when discussing the final stages of RAAKS. Similarly, the terms
`stakeholders' and `stakeholder analysis' have become increasingly popular
(ODA, 1995); these terms too can be traced back to negotiation literature.
In some ways, however, these `solutions' remain rather problematic. First
of all, the rationale for advocating a social learning approach based on the
idea of communicative action is debatable. In a typical situation of natural
resource over-exploitation, for example, the argument for social learning
boils down to the following: (1) there is a problem because people do not act
in a communicatively rational manner (in the collective interest), but act in a
strategic mode (following self-interest); (2) as a solution, they must engage in
a process of communicative action (facilitated by a third party), so that they
can act in a communicatively rational manner in the future.
The difficulty here is that the solution proposed is in fact a negation of the
problem. It is a bit like arguing that `people are not healthy because they do
not eat healthy food, so they must eat more healthy food, in order for them
to become healthy'. What is lacking in such `wishful thinking' statements is
an analysis as to why it is that, in a given situation, people act in a mode
which is deemed undesirable by policy makers. In the case of resource use,
the implicit assumption is that people cannot behave in a communicatively
rational way, mainly because there is no one to organize and facilitate such
a process. Although this may play a role, it is unlikely to be the main factor.
The use of natural resources like land and water is often a critical element in
the livelihood strategies and opportunities of different actors (Manzungu
and van der Zaag, 1996). Given the increased scarcity of these resources,
conflicts of interests and differential opportunities to defend such interests
are the rule rather than the exception (see, for example, Gronov, 1995; Man-
zungu and van der Zaag, 1996; Mosse, 1995). In such cases, the problem is
unlikely be to the lack of an external facilitator, but rather the fact that some
actors, for a variety of reasons, are simply not willing or able to take a
serious part in communicative platform processes. This may be true not only
in cases of natural resource management, but also in relation to technology
and community development processes (see also Eyben and Ladbury, 1995).
Secondly, the celebration of communicative action as a key ingredient in
social learning processes becomes questionable in view of some conceptual
difficulties related to Habermas's separation between communicative and
strategic action. Elsewhere (Leeuwis, 1993: 98, 347±86; Leeuwis, 1995), I have
shown that the occurrence and outcomes of interactions that in themselves
might well be termed `communicative action', can only be adequately
understood if one recognizes that they are at the same time strategic actions
vis-aÂ-vis other communities of actors. Whether or not actions are strategic or
communicative seems to depend on where one draws the boundaries
between communities of actors in time and space, which considerably blurs
the distinction. This also calls into question a related assumption which
underlies the social learning model, namely that the motor for future
societal progress is consensus and shared understanding. Evidence shows
940 Cees Leeuwis
that this is only partly true since effective consensus among some (that is,
consensus that leads a specific set of actors to generate tangible `progress')
is frequently based on conflict and competition with others (see Case 1,
below).
Thirdly, both decision-making and social learning models see cognitive
change as the prime prerequisite for behavioural change and conflict
resolution. Participatory methodologies are mainly geared towards chang-
ing cognition, assuming that this will lead to changes in social practice.
Thus, even if authors on participation are inspired by constructivism (Fals
Borda, 1998b; Pretty, 1994; RoÈling, 1996), they seem to disregard one of
its major insights, namely that differences in (or conflicts of) perception are
not just cultural or accidental, but are intricately intertwined with social
interests and practices (Callon et al., 1986). In other words, social practices
and interests shape perceptions as much as the other way around (Aarts,
1998). By focusing on cognitive processes as an entry point for inducing
change, advocates of participatory methodologies tend to disregard a range
of other strategies or `policy instruments' (van Woerkum, 1990) which may
help to change practices, interests and, eventually, perceptions in the context
of conflict resolution.
Fourthly, apart from theoretical problems, there are considerable
practical problems in creating the conditions for communicative action Ð
àn ideal speech situation' (see Habermas, 1970a, 1970b, 1981). Even if one
succeeds in bringing together all relevant stakeholders in, for example, a
platform for social learning (no small achievement in itself), it will not be
easy to make actors set aside their conflicting personal and/or institutional
interests during the process. Assuming for a moment that the actors in-
volved could abstract temporarily from their strategic interests and power
positions, they will usually have differential resources at their disposal (in
the form of knowledge, access to certain sources, and so on) which they can
use to make and criticize certain validity claims concerning truth, normative
rightness and authenticity (see Habermas, 1981). Thus, even if the oppor-
tunities to speak out are equal, the possibilities to make claims and criticize
them are not. In all, it is extremely difficult Ð if not impossible Ð to ban
power processes from participatory intervention.
Fifthly, the sporadic references to negotiation discourses remain in many
ways `lip-service'. Literature on negotiation processes suggests that nego-
tiations have their own dynamics and characteristics, and can be facilitated
in various ways (Fisher and Ury, 1981; Mastenbroek, 1997; Pruitt and Carne-
vale, 1993). However, participatory methodologies tend not to provide
distinct activities, phases or tools that are based on this body of literature
and are geared towards enhancing negotiation processes. Instead, as we
have seen, the emphasis is mainly on improving communication during joint
situation analysis activities, with the expectation that this will somehow
contribute to resolving conflicts. This rather hesitant incorporation of
negotiation literature into participatory discourses and methodologies is
probably related to theoretical and ideological incompatibilities. If one

wishes to facilitate negotiations, one accepts in principle that people act in
what Habermas would label a strategically rational manner. This goes
against the dominant views within participation discourses that strategic
action is (part of) the problem, and not the solution.
PRACTICAL SHORTCOMINGS OF THE DOMINANT MODELS
An important question is whether or not these conceptual problems

necessitate a different methodological approach towards participatory
processes, and if so, what adaptations are necessary. In other words, is
there anything wrong with the practical use of planning, decision-making
and social learning models as organizing principles for participatory
trajectories? Clearly, little would be wrong if the application of participatory
approaches was successful in terms of inducing development and societal
problem-solving. However, regardless of the exact criteria one uses to assess
`success' or `failure', it is clear that many participatory processes are far
from smooth, and quite often produce disappointing results for those that
initiate or participate in them (DangbeÂgnon, 1998; Eyben and Ladbury,
1995; Khamis, 1998; Leeuwis, 1995; Mosse, 1995; Wagemans and Boerma,
1998; ZunÄiga Valerin, 1998).
Six Cases on Participation and Conflict
The cases presented below have not been deliberately selected; they
represent participatory trajectories that I have more or less `bumped into'
during my own research and student supervision. However, they do give
some examples of frictions in participatory processes; I would argue that
these are somehow related to the limited capacity of current participatory
methods to deal practically with conflict situations.
Case 1: Conflict, Unproductive Consensus and Fruitful Competition (Leeuwis,

1995)
A group of glasshouse horticulturists in the Netherlands manages to arrange
a national subsidy in order to build a computer programme for electronic
data exchange and enterprise comparisons. A condition for getting the
subsidy is that the programme must cater for the needs of all fruit/vegetable
growers. Thus, a large range of growers, representing different crops and
regions, become involved in the design process. Great diversity is apparent
in the information needs of different growers, the only common denom-
inator being that they are all to some degree interested in exchanging
glasshouse climatic data. In fact, the growers are much more interested in
exchanging a range of production data, which differ considerably from crop
942 Cees Leeuwis
to crop. As a compromise, it is nevertheless agreed to focus on exchanging

climatic data. However, as a result of dissatisfaction with the compromise,
struggles over money, the slowness of the process and lack of progress, a
number of conflicts emerge and several growers drop out. Among them is
a small group of cucumber growers who start a competing initiative. In a
very short period of time this group develops a programme that caters very
well for cucumber growers' needs, and which is later adapted in order to
cater for the needs of other growers as well. For a few years, the two
computer packages compete on the market. Eventually the two packages are
integrated again within a third initiative, which builds on the lessons learned
in both projects.
What we see in this case is essentially that the diversity of interests among
the stakeholders Ð the result of an inclusive approach in the selection of
participants Ð becomes an obstacle to reaching productive consensus in the
context of the available experience, budget and technological opportunities.
It is only when a range of growers is excluded, causing two rival groups
of growers to compete, that learning is accelerated and an appropriate
technology is developed, which eventually caters for the needs of all.
Case 2: Reinforcing Conflict through Public Decision-making (ZunÄiga Valerin,

1998)
ZunÄiga describes how, in the San Bosco community in Costa Rica, ranking
techniques are used during group meetings in order to identify and prioritize
general and agricultural community problems. She also describes how insti-
tutional interests and mandates, as well as conflicts within the community,
have a bearing on which of the priority problems are actually dealt with, and
how. Typically, decisions on activities are voted for by hand-raising during
group meetings. This leads to considerable tensions, as the San Bosco
community consists of two sub-communities, divided by a river and Ð to
some extent Ð by family lines. Due to variations in infrastructure, the two
sub-communities have different needs and priorities, which are defended by
the respective community leaders. Both leaders engage in lobbying in order
to influence the outcome of the voting during group meetings, putting some
community members in a difficult position. The responsible field worker
knows about the political struggle, but admits he does not know how to deal
with it, other than by encouraging everyone to express their view, and
eventually following the majority vote. As a result, one sub-community
tends to feel discriminated against in the participatory process.
In this case we see an emphasis on `democratic' decision-making by means
of ranking during public group meetings. Although the different actors seem
to be aware of each others' views and positions, the open group meetings
provide limited opportunities for the kind of `give and take' that is necessary
for settling the disputes. The presence of an audience is not a conducive
environment for leaders to give in or strike deals; rather it is an opportunity
to show strength and reinforce one's position as a leader.
Case 3: Lack of Manoeuvring Space, Institutional Mandate and Capacity

to Resolve Conflict (sources: interviews with Ministry of Agriculture staff,
Manicaland, Zimbabwe; Mutimukuru, 2000)
In the context of a wider land-use planning effort, the members of Chitora
ward in Manicaland, Zimbabwe decide during a village meeting that they
are interested in establishing a communal grazing scheme. Subsequently,
the Ministry of Agriculture develops a plan (in a rather top-down mode),
and manages to find a donor willing to provide the necessary funding. All
parties agree that the donor will provide the material for fences, while the
community will deliver the necessary labour in order to construct the fences.
However, the plan implies that some farmers (including a traditional leader)
will have to move their stone-built homes to other areas, but the donor
refuses to pay compensation to those who have to leave. Also, members of
neighbouring communities object to the scheme, as it will limit their access
to grazing land and water. Over time, competence conflicts emerge between
(and within) traditional authority structures, and the newly introduced
Grazing Scheme Management Committee. These (and several other) conflicts
are not resolved during village meetings that are initiated occasionally by
Ministry of Agriculture staff. At first, some community members start to
build the fences in the context of a `food for work' drought relief pro-
gramme, but as soon as this Ð initially unanticipated programme Ð comes
to an end, nobody turns up any more. Several attempts to revive and adapt
the project during further village meetings prove short-lived (Mutimukuru,
2000), and eventually the grazing scheme is `given up' by the donor and the
Ministry of Agriculture and never completed.
This case demonstrates, first of all, the risks of developing plans in
isolation from relevant stakeholders. The Ministry of Agriculture initially
operates in a top-down manner, a mode of behaviour encouraged by formal
land-use planning guidelines and procedures, which at a later stage also limit
the space for settling the problems that emerge. It is interesting to note,
however, that conflicts similar to those described here also emerge in
relation to much more `bottom-up' community initiatives and plans in
Zimbabwe (see, for example, Shambare, 2000), which suggests that sig-
nificant plans are unlikely to be free of conflict, regardless of their precise
history and origin. Furthermore, this case resembles the previous one in that
the participatory methods applied for community participation (plenary
village meetings) do not allow for a process of `give and take', so that shared
agreements on what should happen in order to resolve the conflicts never
emerge. An additional dimension here is that the main driving forces behind
the project, lack the capacity, willingness and/or mandate to take respons-
ibility for solving the conflicts that emerge. No credible mediator emerges
from the local community (partly because the local leaders themselves are
involved in the various conflicts), while the Ministry of Agriculture and
the donor tend to perceive their role primarily as giving technical advice
and providing funds, and are not willing or able to organize an intensive
944 Cees Leeuwis
conflict resolution process. Thus, a vacuum exists at the level of process

leadership.
Case 4: Neglecting Lingering Conflicts around Technical Solutions (Khamis,

1998)
Khamis describes how, through a group ranking exercise, a farmer research
group in Zanzibar identifies reduced soil fertility as a high priority problem.
The group agrees to conduct on-farm experiments with agro-forestry and
green manuring. In both cases, (planting materials of) trees are used in
combination with cassava. These are long-term experiments; it takes a
long time before farmers can conclude whether the technologies work, to
the detriment of enthusiasm within the research group (Khamis, 1998).
However, even after the technologies have proved themselves, relatively few
farmers are willing to use them. This appears to be related to the land tenure
system in Zanzibar. Before 1964 most of the land in Zanzibar was owned
by Arabs; after the revolution, land was officially confiscated and re-
distributed by the government but, informally, the Islamic laws and habits
of heritage and land-tenure are still respected (Khamis, 1998; Wipfler et al.,
1998). A lot of land is thus considered to have been borrowed from neigh-
bours, or to belong to absentee Arab landlords and their local representatives.
Some of the rules actually prohibit the permanent and/or temporary
planting of trees on borrowed land. Moreover, this dual legal system causes
a certain degree of land-insecurity, which discourages farmers from making
semi-permanent investments. In fact, the planting of trees increases insecurity,
as sanctions may have to be faced.
This case-study shows how particular technical solutions can only be
applied if new social arrangements are made between actors with diverging
interests to support the technology (see also Leeuwis and Remmers, 1999).
In this case, the use of agro-forestry and green manuring on borrowed land
would require a new arrangement between formal and informal land-
owners, their local representatives, and farmers concerning the use of trees
or planting materials of trees. However, this need (or `hidden conflict') was
not seriously tackled within the context of the participatory project, as it was
defined as being outside the project's scope and mandate.
Case 5: Conflict Resolutions without Proper Follow-up (Bolding et al., 1996)

Bolding et al. (1996) describe a situation where farmers in Zimbabwe's
Nyanyadzi irrigation scheme have a conflict over water rights with upstream
farmers, who extract water through self-made weirs. The Nyanyadzi farmers
regard the upstream farmers as squatters who illegally reduce their water
supply, and they repeatedly organize raids in which they destroy the weirs of
the upstream farmers. The upstream farmers simply reconstruct them time
and time again, and increasingly manage to get formally-recognized water
rights. A district administrator acts as a mediator on several occasions.
Through bilateral and group meetings with community representatives he
eventually negotiates a water-sharing arrangement between the farmers in

the Nyanyadzi scheme and several upstream communities of water users.
However, the solution proves short-lived. Technically speaking, the arrange-
ment does not work well, and there are no viable organizational mechanisms
to control and enforce the deal. Moreover, it becomes clear in retrospect
that the water shortages in Nyanyadzi are to a considerable degree related to
water extraction by farmers from tributaries of the Nyanyadzi river, who do
not take part in the deal (Bolding, pers. comm.).
What we see here is that a conflict reaches a climax, after which a deal is
secured under the supervision of a mediator. However, it appears that no
adequate follow-up arrangements have been incorporated in the agreement
on how to enforce it, and on how to deal with unforeseen developments,
unanticipated inter-dependencies and newly emerging information.
Case 6: A Lack of Government Pressure and Authority in Conflict Resolution

(DangbeÂgnon, 1998)
DangbeÂgnon describes the dynamics of a long-standing conflict between
groups of fishermen who derive their livelihood from fishing in Aheme lake,
Benin. The groups of fishermen differ in terms of their lineage, cultural
identity, geographic location, the marine-ecological zones of the lake in
which they fish, the fishing techniques they use, and the governmental
jurisdiction under which they reside. Over time, different initiatives emerge
which are formally aimed at bringing about a more sustainable management
of the severely over-fished lake. Most of these initiatives include the erection
of organizational platforms, which typically exclude one or more of the
major stakeholders, and are geared towards preserving the interests of
particular coalitions. In this context, the conflict sharpens and continues.
Eventually, the national government becomes involved, and organizes a
`JourneÂe de ReÂflection' in which the various communities, groups,
organizations and administrative units are invited to participate. During
the meeting, the government more or less imposes certain measures
(including the banning of several fishing techniques), and encourages the
stakeholders to suggest alternative modes of use. A monitoring committee
(ComiteÂ de Suivi) is established to control and enforce the new regulations.
Initially, a number of semi-permanent `Xha' and Àkaja' fishing construc-
tions are removed, but a number of fishermen from various communities
subsequently illegally reconstruct them. Due to differential policies in dif-
ferent jurisdictions Ð associated with electoral concerns Ð some fishermen
face sanctions, and others not. Eventually, this leads to a total breakdown of
the àgreement'.
In this case, due mainly to the administrative complexity of the situation,
different groups of fishermen have considerable space to frustrate joint
regulation. The central government is relatively weak, with very limited
means to consistently enforce regulations, or to put pressure on the stake-
holders to work seriously towards an agreement.
946 Cees Leeuwis
TOWARDS A NEGOTIATION APPROACH
The case-studies above suggest clearly Ð in line with findings by others,

such as Long and Long (1992), Nelson and Wright (1995) Ð that conflict is
never far away from participatory development trajectories, regardless of their
specific purpose (resource management, community development, techno-
logy design, or whatever). In some cases, conflict gives rise to participatory
intervention, while in other cases conflicts emerge during the process and/or
affect it negatively or positively. Also, it is clear that such conflicts tend to
go along with three broad types of frictions in the participatory process:
(a) difficulties in maintaining an agreement or compromise after it has been
secured; (b) problems in securing an agreement; and (c) failure to tackle the
most significant problems in the first place. The cases present little evidence
that the stakeholders' lack of knowledge and understanding of each others'
perspectives (that is, sub-optimal learning and communication) is either the
central `cause' of these frictions, or the key to overcoming them. Rather, the
cases suggest that stakeholders are unable and/or unwilling to take other
actors' viewpoints and interests seriously. This can be seen in a variety of
circumstances, such as the inclusive selection of participants, the superficial
decision-making methods used, the lack of institutional space provided, in-
sufficient leadership in conflict resolution, the absence of follow-up arrange-
ments, and the non-availability of external pressures.
Of course one could argue that the above case-studies are simply examples
of bad participatory practice (Jiggins, personal comment), and that the
frictions identified could have been prevented by better ex-ante situational
analysis, the offering of `give and take' opportunities `behind the scenes' in
community decision-making, the provision of responsible leadership in
conflict resolution, proper follow-up arrangements and adequate use of
external pressures. However, this would be too easy an argument. The point
is that these types of ìmprovements' are not included in either the main-
stream discourse on participation, or in popular training manuals for facil-
itators of participatory processes (Pretty et al., 1995; van Veldhuizen et al.,
1997). Thus, social learning and decision-making models provide an in-
sufficient basis for organizing viable participatory processes in practice, in
that they tend to fail to resolve conflicts. This practical conclusion is in line
with the conceptual difficulties outlined earlier.
The solution is simple, but so far largely overlooked in view of normative
and conceptual `hang-ups' regarding the value of strategic versus commun-
icative action. If in practice participatory projects emerge as àrenas of
struggle', and if stakeholders tend to act strategically, rather than commun-
icatively, then why not base methodological approaches on these assump-
tions? That is: why not organize participatory trajectories as negotiation
processes, in order to be better able to deal with conflict situations? An
objection may be that this helps only to further legitimize strategic action
in a world that already suffers by actors pursuing their own self-interest.
However, it must be emphasized that negotiation and social learning are by no

means mutually exclusive; communicative and strategic action are in many
ways two sides of the same coin. In fact, adopting a negotiation approach is
probably the best strategy to encourage social learning Ð an argument
supported by insights from social psychology. Here it has been shown that
people tend to act out of self-interest not because they do not care about
others, but because they lack trustworthy institutions, arrangements and/or
information which allow them to choose co-operative options (Baron et al.,
1992: Ch. 7; Messick and Brewer, 1983). In other words, the space for social
learning and co-operation depends on all sorts of pre-conditions and in-
stitutions which have to be created Ð that is, strategically negotiated Ð in
advance (see also Baland and Platteau, 1996; Ostrom, 1990).
We need to develop an approach towards participation that does not
negate Ð conceptually and methodologically Ð the significance of strategic
action and conflicts of interest, by somehow rendering them `normatively
undesirable'. Rather, we need an approach that starts from the assumption
that actors are likely to act strategically in relation to existing and emerging
conflicts of interests, and then finds ways of using this to solve societal
problems. For the purpose of developing such an approach, we will now
explore the ways in which negotiation theory can help to direct participatory
trajectories, as an alternative to the prevailing planning, decision-making
and social learning models.
Practical Implications of Adopting a Negotiation Perspective
Looking at participatory processes as negotiation processes gives us a

number of opportunities for adapting current methodologies with a view to
improving their capacity to deal with the conflicts that will always emerge
whenever meaningful change of the status quo is striven for. Negotiation
processes can be divided into two broad categories. The first might be
described as `distributive': the various stakeholders hold on to their own
perceptions and positions, and basically use negotiations to divide the cake
(or the pain). The gains of one party then represent the losses of another.
According to Aarts (1998), such compromises tend to be relatively unstable,
since the `source' of conflict remains intact. A second type of negotiation
process can be labelled ìntegrative'. In such processes the stakeholders
develop new (and often wider) problem definitions and perceptions on the
basis of a creative collective learning process, resulting in the identification
of so-called `win±win' solutions. This latter type of negotiation process
coincides with the aspirations usually associated with participatory inter-
vention. Building on elements of negotiation literature (Huguenin, 1994;
Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987; van der Veen and Glasbergen, 1992) a
number of tasks have been identified by van Meegeren and Leeuwis (1999)
in order to facilitate integrative negotiations:
948 Cees Leeuwis
Tasks in Integrative Negotiation Processes (derived from van Meegeren and

Leeuwis, 1999)
Task 1: Preparation
. exploratory analysis of conflicts, problems, relations, practices, etc. in
historical perspective;
. selecting participants;
. securing participation by stakeholders;
. establishing relations with the wider policy environment;
Task 2: Agreeing upon a process design and process protocol
. creating an agreed-upon code of conduct and provisional agenda;
. reaching agreement about procedures, methodologies, etc.;
. process management and maintenance of process agreements;
. securing new process agreements as the process unfolds.
Task 3: Joint exploration and situation analysis
. group formation;
. exchanging perspectives, interests, goals;
. analysing problems and interrelations;
. integration of visions into new problem definitions;
. preliminary identification of alternative solutions and `win±win'
strategies;
. identification of gaps in knowledge and insight.
Task 4: Joint fact-finding
. developing and implementing action-plans to fill knowledge gaps.
Task 5: Forging agreement
. manoeuvre: clarifying positions, making claims, use of pressure to
secure concessions, create and resolve impasses;
. securing agreement on a coherent package of measures and action plans.
Task 6: Communication of representatives with constituencies
. transferring the learning process;
. `ratification' of agreement by constituencies.
Task 7: Monitoring implementation
. implementing the agreements made;
. monitoring progress;
. creating contexts of re-negotiation.
Some of these tasks are especially important during the early stages of
a negotiation process, whereas others become important as the process
progresses. However, all tasks remain relevant throughout the process as
much repetition is likely to occur. Thus, the overview of tasks should not
be interpreted as `stages' or `phases'. In principle, all parties involved bear
responsibility for (the distribution of) these tasks, but early in the
participatory process the initiators have a special responsibility.
For each of these (sub-)tasks, many concrete recommendations can be
made on the basis of previous experiences as described in various
studies which add to `conventional' literature on participation. Authors

like de Bruin and ten Heuvelhof (1998), Fisher and Ury (1981), Masten-
broek (1997), Susskind and Cruikshank (1987), and van der Veen and
Glasbergen (1992), for example, develop a number of simple but crucial
guidelines for facilitating negotiations which relate to the tasks listed above,
including:
. make a preliminary conflict assessment before starting a participatory

trajectory (related to task 1);
. invite/select stakeholders on the basis of their feelings of interdepend-
ency (task 1);
. if possible, select representatives who have experienced earlier conflicts
in a less personal manner (task 1);
. enhance feelings of interdependency by introducing external pressures
(tasks 1 and 5);
. make sure the agenda for negotiation is sufficiently open to be able to
strike package deals (task 2);
. give participants the right to withdraw from earlier proposals (task 2);
. ensure that representatives have a clear and sufficiently wide mandate
(task 2);
. strive at jointly endorsed discussion procedures, as a `power-base' for
facilitators and/or mediators (task 2);
. allow participants to `let off steam' at an early stage (task 3);
. distinguish between substantive and relational conflicts, and deal with
the relational problems first (related to task 3);
. ensure sufficient content input from outside sources by means of
learning tools and/or external experts (task 3);
. explore alternative problem definitions in order to help identify possible
`win±win' solutions (task 3);
. make people talk in terms of interests and fears, not in terms of
positions and `facts' (tasks 3 and 5);
. stimulate joint fact-finding as a way of developing a common
knowledge base and relationships of trust (task 4);
. make people talk in terms of new alternative proposals rather than in
terms of their positions vis-aÁ-vis existing proposals (task 5);
. explore package deals in which different problems and solutions are
integrated (task 5);
. involve trusted outsiders for supervising the fulfilment of agreements
(tasks 5 and 7);
. organize interactions between representatives and constituencies as a
negotiation process in itself (task 6);
. make sure that compromises are presented to constituencies by their
own representatives (task 6);
. arrive at clear procedures for monitoring progress, and for re-opening
negotiations (task 7).
950 Cees Leeuwis
It is probably fair to say that the guidelines listed above are culturally
biased, and need to be adapted to different `negotiation cultures'. This is not
the place to elaborate on these practicalities, however;6 suffice to say that
negotiation literature gives access to a range of tools and guidelines that
have so far been largely overlooked in participatory discourses.
Redefining the Role of the Facilitator
As we have seen, starting from a negotiation model considerably alters the

tasks of a facilitator in a participatory process. Although the facilitation of
communication and social learning remains an important point of attention
(for instance in tasks 3 and 4), these activities are now embedded within a
wider negotiation setting which goes along with new tasks and tools. It is
important to realize that this has far-reaching implications for the overall
role of the facilitator. In traditional participation literature the facilitator
tends to be portrayed as a fairly neutral figure whose prime concern is to
enhance communication and learning. However, in a context of negotiation
it becomes more evident that a facilitator needs to have an active strategy,
resources and a power-base in order to forge sustainable agreements. For
example, a facilitator may at a certain point have to strategically select
participants and exclude others, put pressure on certain stakeholders, and/
or impose sanctions if actors do not follow the agreed rules of conduct, etc.
In order to achieve this, the facilitator needs Ð in addition to the power-
base provided by the agreed rules of conduct Ð a certain amount of status,
credibility, charisma, influence and trustworthiness. Thus, the selection of
facilitators may require a lot more attention than in the past. The facilitation
of negotiations is not a task that can easily be left to relatively junior project
staff who have been on one or two communication courses. Apart from a
certain amount of `leverage', a facilitator will have to possess the necessary
insights and capabilities regarding social interactions, the shaping of nego-
tiations and the organization of learning processes.
The Status of Facilitation Tasks and Guidelines
The proposed tasks and the guidelines associated with them are based on the
idea that a participatory process can be organized along the lines of a
negotiation process, in which special attention is paid to the facilitation of
joint learning. In many cases there will in fact be multiple parallel learning
and negotiation trajectories taking place at more or less the same time.
6. A more detailed discussion and overview of such guidelines can be found in van Meegeren
and Leeuwis (1999).
Within negotiations there are usually a number of issues at stake, and new
paths can continually be added, for example by means of joint fact-finding.
One can also speak of negotiations on various fronts: between the different
parties, but also between representatives and their constituencies, or between
the negotiation partners and third parties. The complexities involved demand a
flexible and creative mode of facilitation. The interactions within negotiation
processes can have all kinds of unintended consequences and can also be
influenced by chance or unanticipated events and developments in the
external environment. Within integrative negotiations especially, all kinds
of new directions can open up, necessitating adjustments of the chosen
trajectory. The planning scope for participatory processes is therefore limited.
It would be a mistake to approach the proposed tasks and guidelines as
a `step-by-step' plan that has to be closely adhered to in order to achieve
success. Rather, the guidelines should be treated as an incomplete collection
of methodological tips relevant to tasks that are of importance within
negotiation processes. A creative, selective and purposeful application of
such tips will increase the chances of a productive learning and negotiation
process, but will not be a guarantee for success. The course of human
interactions is too capricious and unpredictable for that.
The Relevance of the Negotiation Approach to Different Conflict

Situations
If adopting a negotiation approach helps to generate new practical guide-

lines for organizing participatory processes, this raises the question of which
types of (conflict) situations might benefit from such an approach. The
following will demonstrate that negotiation theory enables us to better
understand when and where participatory approaches may be productive.
Negotiation theory suggests that three fundamental conditions must be
met before serious negotiations can take place (Aarts, 1998; Mastenbroek,
1997): (a) there must be a divergence of interests; (b) stakeholders must feel
mutually interdependent in solving a problematic situation; (c) the key
players must be able to communicate with each other. How do these apply
to the context of rural development?
Divergence of Interests
We have seen that conflicts of interests are likely to emerge wherever people
strive for meaningful change. These conflicts can differ greatly in terms of
the type of interests at stake, historical roots, the number of actors involved,
complexity, cultural setting, salience, intensity, etc. To deal with these
specific characteristics, each conflict situation will require a tailor-made
mode of organizing and facilitating the negotiation process. In general
952 Cees Leeuwis
terms, in the context of rural development, the `divergence of interests'

criterion for applying the negotiation approach is likely to be present.
Mutual Interdependence
If key stakeholders do not believe that they need each other in order to
arrive at an acceptable solution to their respective problems, a negotiation
approach does not make sense. There are many settings in which one actor
feels dependent on another for solving what it perceives to be a problem,
while the other party does not see the problem as being its concern, and thus
feels no pressure to talk seriously, let alone negotiate, about the issue: one
might think, for instance, of a farmer community in West Africa dealing
with the European agro-industry over food market distortion. Similarly,
resource-rich stakeholders, particularly, may feel that they can best defend
their interests through means other than negotiation, for example by
litigation, lobbying, violence, and so on. Here it is important to recognize
that conflicts are dynamic and evolving. In the early stages, stakeholders
tend to explore their opportunities to `win' the battle with whatever means
they have available. During this phase of exploring `Best Alternatives To
Negotiated Agreement' (BATNA; see Fisher and Ury, 1981), conflicts often
reach a climax, with relations between the opposing parties deteriorating.
Where both parties have considerable resources at their disposal, however,
stakeholders will eventually realize that fighting does not lead to a satis-
factory solution for either party, and that the only way forward is to restore
relations, and negotiate a solution (Aarts, 1998).
An important lesson to be derived from this, is that an inclusive particip-
atory approach (that is, one that brings all relevant stakeholders together)
only makes sense during the `final' stages of a conflict cycle. Where the key
stakeholders do not (yet) preceive a mutual interdependence, interventions
may more usefully focus on developing or enhancing such a perception. This
may be achieved, for example, by strengthening the position of particular
(coalitions of) actors vis-aÁ-vis other stakeholders, or with the help of con-
ventional policy instruments such as new regulations, `carrots and sticks'
and/or strategic communication campaigns.
There may thus be many situations in which an inclusive participatory
negotiation trajectory is not (yet) an option, as key actors do not feel
mutually interdependent. However, policy-makers and interventionists can
employ various strategies to change this situation, including setting up
negotiations between a sub-set of relevant actors who do already feel inter-
dependent. By focusing on feelings of mutual inter-dependence, a negotia-
tion approach helps to identify appropriate boundaries for participatory
trajectories (see also Leeuwis, 1995). A related implication is that a par-
ticipatory trajectory cannot be established out of the blue; in order to assess
promising boundaries of participatory activities a thorough understanding
of the socio-historical context is required. If such understanding is lacking,

various modes of exploratory research and conflict assessment can be em-
ployed before decisions are made about the eventual set-up of participatory
intervention (Leeuwis, 1993; ODA, 1995).
Ability to Communicate
The ability of relevant stakeholders to communicate with each other can be

hampered in various ways. Most obviously, physical distance may form an
obstacle. In our globalized society, relevant stakeholders may well be spread
across the world (as in our earlier example of the food market), which may
hamper the intensive forms of communication that are needed in a nego-
tiation process. Effective communication may also be adversely affected by
institutional and organizational difficulties. In other words, stakeholders
must somehow be organized in order to be represented, and to allow effect-
ive communication between representatives and their constituencies during
the negotiation process. In the case of the international food market this
again poses problems, for example with respect to the position of consumers
of agricultural products. Finally, there may exist deep cultural and historical
divides between relevant stakeholders that make communication impossible,
for example in conflicts between different castes, ethnic groups or religious
communities. In such situations, too, direct negotiations may not be viable.
Where such barriers to communication exist, a participatory (negotiation)
approach is not a real option, and other forms of intervention may be more
appropriate, such as those aimed at containing conflict, and/or reducing its
negative consequences. At the same time, efforts can be directed towards
creating better conditions for communication and thus for negotiation. Such
efforts may take years or even decades, but can pay off eventually, as
demonstrated, for example, by the negotiations that are currently taking
place in Northern Ireland and the Middle East.
It is thus difficult to arrive at a `clear-cut' typology of conflicts in which a
negotiation approach towards participation may be a helpful strategy. The
number of variables that one would need to construct such a typology is
vast, while conflicts themselves are dynamic, their characteristics changing
over time. However, it is possible to identify some fundamental conditions
that must be met before one can adopt a participatory (negotiation) approach.
Each (potential) conflict situation will have to be carefully analysed in terms
of these conditions before an appropriate strategy can be decided upon.
CONCLUSION
This article has demonstrated that current participatory approaches and

methodologies are based primarily on theories regarding planning, decision-
making and/or social learning, which causes them to be blind to conflict as
954 Cees Leeuwis
an inherent component (and at times a positive force) in sustainable rural

development processes. Conflicts, social struggle and strategic action are
either overlooked completely, or denied (that is, rendered undesirable) on
theoretical and normative grounds. I have argued that such modes of
thinking suffer from several conceptual shortcomings and inconsistencies,
such as cognitive bias, an only partial incorporation of constructivist ideas
and an untenable (Habermassian) separation between communicative and
strategic forms of action. At the practical level, a number of case-studies do
indeed suggest that participatory intervention is rarely conflict-free, and
often suffers from an inability to handle pre-existing and/or emerging
conflicts. Hence, practitioners need to find a better language to anticipate
and make use of the dynamics of conflict. As a solution, I propose that the
organization of participatory trajectories should first and foremost be in-
spired by theories of negotiation and conflict management. A first explora-
tion of the negotiation literature indicates that such an approach can bring
a range of useful guidelines and insights to the current discourse on par-
ticipation. Although social learning remains an important concern within
a negotiation approach to participation, it is argued that effective social
learning is unlikely to happen if it is not embedded in a well `managed'
negotiation process. At the same time, effective negotiation is impossible
without a properly facilitated learning process. Furthermore, a negotiation
approach towards participation requires new roles, tasks, skills and social
status for facilitators of participatory processes. It is important to note,
however, that this approach only makes sense in situations where the
fundamental conditions for negotiation are met. In order to assess this, new
modes of analysis preceding and during participatory trajectories are also
necessary.
REFERENCES
Aarts, M. N. C. (1998) Een Kwestie van Natuur; Een Studie naar de Aard en het Verloop van
Communicatie over Natuur en Natuurbeleid. Published PhD Thesis. Wageningen: Department
of Communication and Innovation Studies, Wageningen Agricultural University.
Arce, A. (1993) Negotiating Agricultural Development: Entanglements of Bureaucrats and Rural
Producers in Western Mexico. Wageningen Studies in Sociology No 34. Wageningen:
Wageningen Agricultural University.
Argyris, C. and D. A. SchoÈn (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice.
Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
van Arkel, M. and A. Versteeg (1997) `Participation in Local Development: Experiences from a
Participatory Rural Appraisal regarding Livestock Production in Nianeni area, Machakos,
Kenya'. MSc Thesis. Wageningen: Departments of Communication and Innovation Studies
and Rural Development Studies, Wageningen Agricultural University.
Baland, J. M. and J.-P. Platteau (1996) Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is there a
Role for Rural Communities? Rome: FAO; Oxford: Clarendon Press.
van den Ban, A. W. and H. S. Hawkins (1996) Agricultural Extension. Oxford: Blackwell
Science.
Baron, S. B., N. Kerr and N. Miller (1992) Group Process, Group Decision and Group Action.
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Bawden, R. (1994) `Creating Learning Systems: A Metaphor for Institutional Reform for
Development', in I. Scoones and J. Thompson (eds) Beyond Farmer First. Rural People's
Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice, pp. 258±63. London: Intermediate
Technology Publications.
Berkes, F. and C. Folke (eds) (1998) Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management
Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Biggs, S. D. (1989) `Resource-poor Farmer Participation in Research. A Synthesis of
Experiences from Nine Agricultural Research Systems'. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper
No 3. The Hague: ISNAR.
Bolding, A., E. Manzungu and P. van der Zaag (1996) `Farmer-initiated Irrigation Furrows.
Observations from the Eastern Highlands', in E. Manzungu and P. van der Zaag (eds) The
Practice of Smallholder Irrigation. Case studies from Zimbabwe, pp. 191±218. Harare:
University of Zimbabwe Publications.
Brinkerhoff, D. W. and M. D. Ingle (1989) Ìntegrating Blueprint and Process: A Structured
Flexibility Approach to Development Management', Public Administration and Development
9: 487±503.
de Bruin, H and E. ten Heuvelhof (1998) `Procesmanagement', Bestuurswetenschappen (2): 120±34.
Callon, M., J. Law and A. Rip (eds) (1986) Mapping the Dynamic of Science and Technology:
Sociology of Science in the Real World. London: Macmillan.
Chambers, R. (1994a) `The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal', World
Development 22(7): 953±69.
Chambers, R. (1994b) `Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of Experience', World
Development 22(9): 1253±68.
CIMMYT (1988) `From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics
Training Manual'. Mexico: CIMMYT.
Crehan, K. and A. von Oppen (1988) Ùnderstandings of ``development'': An Arena of Struggle.
The Story of a Development Project in Zambia', Sociologia Ruralis XXVIII(2/3): 113±45.
DangbeÂgnon, C. (1998) Platforms for Resource Management. Case Studies of Success or Failure
in Benin and Burkina Faso. Published PhD Thesis. Wageningen: Group: Communication
and Innovation Studies, Wageningen Agricultural University.
Daniels, S. E. and G. B. Walker (1996) `Collaborative Learning: Improving Public Deliberation
in Ecosystem-based Management', Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16: 71±102.
Davis, G. B. and M. H. Olson (1985) Management Information Systems: Conceptual Founda-
tions, Structure and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
van Dusseldorp, D. (1990) `Planned Development via Projects: Its Necessity, Limitations and
Possible Improvements', Sociologia Ruralis XXX(3/4): 336±52.
Engel, P. G. H. (1995) Facilitating Innovation. An Action-oriented and Participatory
Methodology to Improve Innovative Social Practice in Agriculture. Published PhD Thesis.
Wageningen: Department of Communication and Innovation Studies, Wageningen Agri-
cultural University.
Eyben, R. and S. Ladbury (1995) `Popular Participation in Aid-assisted Projects: Why more in
Theory than in Practice', in N. Nelson and S. Wright (eds) Power and Participatory
Development. Theory and Practice, pp. 192±200. London: Intermediate Technology Pub-
lications.
Fals Borda, O. (1998a) People's Participation. Challenges Ahead. New York: The Apex Press;
London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Fals Borda, O. (1998b) `Theoretical Foundations', in O. Fals Borda (ed.) People's Participation.
Challenges Ahead, pp. 157±73. New York: The Apex Press; London: Intermediate Tech-
nology Publications.
Farrington, J. and A. Martin (1987) Farmer Participation in Agricultural Research: A Review of
Concepts and Practices. Occasional Paper 9. London: Overseas Development Institute.
956 Cees Leeuwis
Fisher, R. and W. Ury (1981) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in. Har-
mondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.
Friedman, J. (1992) Empowerment. The Politics of Alternative Development. Oxford: Blackwell.
Geurts. J. L. and I. Mayer (1996) `Methods for Participatory Policy Analysis: Towards a
Conceptual Model for Research and Development'. Draft paper. Tilburg: Tilburg
University, Work and Organisation Research Centre.
Gronov, C. J. V. (1995) `Shifting Power, Sharing Power: Issues from User-group Forestry in
Nepal', in N. Nelson and S. Wright (eds) Power and Participatory Development. Theory and
Practice, pp. 125±32. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Habermas, J. (1970a) Òn Systematically Distorted Communication', Inquiry 13(3): 205±18.
Habermas, J. (1970b) `Towards a Theory of Communicative Competence', Inquiry 13(4): 360±75.
Habermas, J. (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 1: HandlungsrationalitaÈt und
gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Band 2: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft. Frankfurt
am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Hardin, G. (1968) `The Tragedy of the Commons', Science 162: 1243±8.
Holling, C. S. (1985) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester: John
Wiley and Sons.
Huguenin, P. (1994) Zakboek voor Onderhandelaars: Vuistregels, Vaardigheden en Valkuilen.
Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Lochem.
Jiggins, J. and H. de Zeeuw (1992) `Participatory Technology Development in Practice: Process
and Methods', in C. Reijntjes, B. Haverkort and A. Waters-Bayer (eds) Farming for the
Future: An Introduction to Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture, pp. 135±62.
Leusden: ETC; London: Macmillan.
Khamis, S. A. (1998) `Sustainable Agriculture in Small Scale Farming: ``Facilitating Technology
Development with Farmers''. A Case Study of the IPM Programme in Pemba, Zanzibar'.
MSc Thesis. Wageningen: Wageningen Agricultural University.
Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Develop-
ment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Leeuwis, C. (1993) Of Computers, Myths and Modelling: The Social Construction of Diversity,
Knowledge, Information and Communication Technologies in Dutch Horticulture and Agricultural
Extension. Wageningen Studies in Sociology No 36. Wageningen: Wageningen Agricultural
University.
Leeuwis, C. (1995) `The Stimulation of Development and Innovation: Reflections on Projects,
Planning, Participation and Platforms', European Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension 2(3): 15±27.
Leeuwis, C. and G. Remmers (1999) Àccommodating Dynamics and Diversity in Integral
Design', in C. Leeuwis (ed.) Integral Design: Innovation in Agriculture and Resource Man-
agement, pp. 267±77. Wageningen: Mansholt Institute; Leiden: Backhuys Publishers.
Long, N. (ed.) (1989) Encounters at the Interface: A Perspective on Social Discontinuities in
Rural Development. Wageningen Studies in Sociology No 27. Wageningen: Wageningen
Agricultural University.
Long, N. and A. Long (eds) (1992) Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Social Theory
and Practice in Research and Development. London and New York: Routledge.
Long, N. and J. D. van der Ploeg (1989) `Demythologising Planned Intervention', Sociologia
Ruralis XXIX(3/4): 226±49.
Maarleveld, M. and C. DangbeÂgnon (1998) `Managing Natural Resources in Face of Evolving
Conditions: A Social Learning Perspective'. Paper presented at `Crossing Boundaries', 7th
Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property,
Vancouver, Canada (10±14 June).
Manzungu, E. and P. van der Zaag (1996) The Practice of Smallholder Irrigation. Case Studies
from Zimbabwe. Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications.
Mastenbroek, W. F. G. (1997) Onderhandelen. Utrecht: Uitgeverij het Spectrum B.V.
van Meegeren, R. C. F. and C. Leeuwis (1998) `Naar een Methodiek voor Interactief Ontwerpen',
Sociale Interventie 7: 82±90.
van Meegeren, R. C. F. and C. Leeuwis (1999) `Towards an Interactive Design Methodology:

Guidelines for Communication', in C. Leeuwis (ed.) Integral Design: Innovation in Agri-
culture and Resource Management, pp. 205±17. Wageningen: Mansholt Institute; Leiden:
Backhuys Publications.
Messick, D. M. and M. B. Brewer (1983) `Solving Social Dilemmas. A Review', in L. Wheeler
and P. Shaver Review of Personality and Social Psychology (4): 11±44.
Mosse, D. (1995) `Local Institutions and Power. The History and Practice of Community
Management of Tank Irrigation Systems in India', in N. Nelson and S. Wright (eds) Power
and Participatory Development. Theory and Practice, pp. 144±56. London: Intermediate
Mutimukuru, T. (2000) `Facilitation or Dictation? A Case Analysis of Agritex's Role in the
Planning, Implementation and Management of Gwarada Scheme in Zimunya Communal
Lands, Zimbabwe'. MSc Thesis. Wageningen: Group: Communication and Innovation
Studies, Wageningen University.
Nelson, N. and S. Wright (1995) `Participation and Power', in N. Nelson and S. Wright (eds)
Power and Participatory Development. Theory and Practice, pp. 1±18. London: Intermediate
ODA (1995) `Guidance Note on how to do Stakeholder Analysis of Aid Projects and Pro-
grammes'. London: Overseas Development Administration, Social Development Depart-
ment.
Okali, C., J. Sumberg and J. Farrington (1994) Farmer Participatory Research. Rhetoric and
Reality. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pacheco, P. (2000) `Participation meets the Market. Organisation Dynamics and Brokerage in
the Atlantic Zone of Costa Rica'. MSc Thesis. Wageningen: Group: Communication and
Innovation Studies / Chairgroup Sociology of Rural Development, Wageningen University.
Paul, S. (1986) `Community Participation in Development Projects. The World Bank
Experience'. Paper presented at the Economic Development Institute workshop on com-
munity participation. Washington.
PID (1989). Àn Introduction to Participatory Rural Appraisal for Rural Resources
Management'. Nairobi: Programme for International Development, Clark University,
Worcester, MA, and National Environment Secretariat, Ministry of Environment and
National Resources.
Pinkerton, E. W. (1994) `Local Fisheries Co-management: A Review of International Experi-
ences and their Implications for Salmon Management in British Colombia', North American
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 2363±78.
Pretty, J. N. (1994) Àlternative Systems of Inquiry for a Sustainable Agriculture', IDS Bulletin
25(2): 39±48.
Pretty, J. N. and R. Chambers (1994) `Towards a Learning Paradigm: New Professionalism and
Institutions for Agriculture', in I. Scoones and J. Thompson (eds) Beyond Farmer First.
Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice, pp. 182±202.
Pretty, J. N., I. Guijt, J. Thompson and I. Scoones (1995) Participatory Learning and Action.
A Trainer's Guide. London: IIED.
Pruitt, D. G. and P. J. Carnevale (1993) Negotiation in Social Conflict. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Rahman, M. A. (1993) People's Self-development. Perspectives on Participatory Action Research.
London and New Jersey: Zed Books; Dhaka: University Press Limited.
RoÈling, N. G. (1994) `Platforms for Decision-making about Eco-systems', in L. O. Fresco et al.
(eds) Future of the Land: Mobilising and Integrating Knowledge for Land-use Options,
pp. 386±93. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
RoÈling, N. G. (1996) `Towards an Interactive Agricultural Science', European Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension 2(4): 35±48.
958 Cees Leeuwis
RoÈling, N. G. and M. A. E. Wagemakers (eds) (1998) Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture.

Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rousseau, J. J. (1968/1762) The Social Contract. Translated by Maurice Cranston. Harmonds-
worth: Penguin.
Schrijvers, J. (1992) `De Boodschap van het Vijfde Ontwikkelingsdecennium'. Inaugural
address. Amsterdam: Institute for Development Research, Amsterdam.
Scoones, I. and J. Thompson (eds) (1994) Beyond Farmer First. Rural People's Knowledge,
Agricultural Research and Extension Practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publica-
tions.
Shah, P. (1994) `Participatory Watershed Management in India: The Experience of the Aga
Khan Rural Support Programme', in I. Scoones and J. Thompson (eds) Beyond Farmer
First. Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice, pp. 117±24.
Shambare, E. (2000) `Collective Management of Resources: A Case Study of Chamakareva
Dam, Irrigation and Tourism Development in Dora Ward of Mutare District'. Draft
chapter for PhD Thesis. Wageningen: Group: Communication and Innovation Studies,
Wageningen University.
Steins, N. A. and V. M. Edwards (1999) `Platforms for Collective Action in Common-Pool
Resource Management', Agriculture and Human Values 16: 241±55.
Susskind, L. and J. Cruikshank (1987) Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to
Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Thrupp, L. A., B. Cabarle and A. Zazueta (1994) `Participatory Methods and Political
Processes: Linking Grassroots Actions and Policy-making for Sustainable Development in
Latin America', in I. Scoones and J. Thompson (eds) Beyond Farmer First. Rural People's
Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice, pp. 170±7. London: Intermediate
van der Veen, J. and P. Glasbergen (1992) `De Consensusbenadering: Verkenning van een
Innovatieve Werkvorm om Regionale Milieuconflicten te Doorbreken', Bestuurskunde (1):
228±37.
van Veldhuizen, L., A. Waters-Bayer and H. De Zeeuw (1997) Developing Technology with
Farmers. A Trainer's Guide for Participatory Learning. London: Zed Books.
Villareal, M. (1994) Wielding and Yielding: Power, Subordination and Gender Identity in the
Context of a Mexican Development Project. Published PhD Thesis. Wageningen: Wageningen
Agricultural University.
Wagemans, M. and J. Boerma (1998) `The Implementation of Nature Policy in the Netherlands:
Platforms designed to Fail', in N. G. RoÈling and M. A. E. Wagemakers (eds) Facilitating
Sustainable Agriculture. Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environ-
mental Uncertainty, pp. 250±71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Webler, T and O. Renn (1995) À Brief Primer on Participation: Philosophy and Practice, in
O. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Par-
ticipation. Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, pp. 17±33. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Wipfler, C., M. Spittel, S. Maalim Hamad and A. van Huis (1998) ÌPM in Development'. Draft
paper. Pemba: Plant Protection Service.
Wijnhoven, F. (1995) Organizational Learning and Information Systems. The Case of Monitoring
Information and Control Systems in Machine Bureaucratic Organizations. Published PhD
Thesis. Enschede: Universiteit Twente.
van Woerkum, C. M. J. (1990) `Het Instrumentele Nut van Voorlichting in Beleidsprocessen',
Massacommunicatie 18(4): 263±78.
ZunÄiga Valerin, A. G. (1998) `Participatory Methods in Practice. An Analysis and Comparison
of Two Development Platforms (Basic Agricultural Centres) in Costa Rica'. MSc Thesis.
Wageningen: Dept. of Communication and Innovation Studies, Wageningen Agricultural
University.
Cees Leeuwis is a lecturer in Communication and Innovation Studies

at Wageningen University (Hollandesweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The
Netherlands), and chairman of the MSc programme `Management of
Knowledge and Socio-Technical Change' (MAKS). His research focuses on:
interactive and inter-disciplinary approaches to innovation in knowledge-
intensive agriculture and sustainable land-use; farmers' individual and
collective learning and decision-making processes, and the role of computer-
models and Internet therein; and the consequences of commoditization of
knowledge for innovation processes.

LEWIS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEWIS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reconceptualizing Participation for Sustainable Rural

Development: Towards a Negotiation Approach

In many popular intervention methodologies aimed at stimulating sustainable

In discourses around sustainable rural development, `participation' has

that emerge within participatory processes. A number of practical implica-

DIFFERENCES IN PROBLEM ORIENTEDNESS, ASPIRATIONS AND

Each participatory approach is deemed suitable for a specific type of problem

participatory methodologies can vary considerably.2 In discourses on par-

COMMON PERCEPTIONS ON THE NATURE OF PARTICIPATORY

Despite important differences in problem-orientedness, aspirations and

Change as the Result of Planning and Decision-making

Models of planning and decision-making are closely related, and typically

The Phasing of Participatory Trajectories

Several participatory methodologies draw on planning and decision-making

therefore, studies in this field tend to focus on decision-making structures

Distinguishing Forms and Levels of Participation

The significance of planning and decision-making models in thinking about

Ranking as a Decision-making Tool

Different forms of ranking are presented as important tools within par-

Change as the Result of Social Learning

In the participation discourse, learning processes are referred to even more

The Primacy of Joint Situation and Problem Analysis

Even if participatory methodologies have a clear affiliation with planning

The Emphasis on Communication and Communicative Action

In addition to tools for situation analysis, techniques which improve human

The Selection of Participants

Especially in participatory discourses and practices around typically col-

learning, conflicts of interest between different parties should and can be

CONCEPTUAL SHORTCOMINGS OF THE DOMINANT MODELS

At the conceptual level, a key problem with participatory discourses lies in

probably related to theoretical and ideological incompatibilities. If one

PRACTICAL SHORTCOMINGS OF THE DOMINANT MODELS

An important question is whether or not these conceptual problems

Six Cases on Participation and Conflict

Case 1: Conflict, Unproductive Consensus and Fruitful Competition (Leeuwis,

to crop. As a compromise, it is nevertheless agreed to focus on exchanging

Case 2: Reinforcing Conflict through Public Decision-making (ZunÄiga Valerin,

Case 3: Lack of Manoeuvring Space, Institutional Mandate and Capacity

conflict resolution process. Thus, a vacuum exists at the level of process

Case 4: Neglecting Lingering Conflicts around Technical Solutions (Khamis,

Case 5: Conflict Resolutions without Proper Follow-up (Bolding et al., 1996)

eventually negotiates a water-sharing arrangement between the farmers in

Case 6: A Lack of Government Pressure and Authority in Conflict Resolution

TOWARDS A NEGOTIATION APPROACH

The case-studies above suggest clearly Ð in line with findings by others,

However, it must be emphasized that negotiation and social learning are by no

Practical Implications of Adopting a Negotiation Perspective

Looking at participatory processes as negotiation processes gives us a

Tasks in Integrative Negotiation Processes (derived from van Meegeren and

studies which add to `conventional' literature on participation. Authors

. make a preliminary conflict assessment before starting a participatory

Redefining the Role of the Facilitator

As we have seen, starting from a negotiation model considerably alters the

The Status of Facilitation Tasks and Guidelines

The Relevance of the Negotiation Approach to Different Conflict

If adopting a negotiation approach helps to generate new practical guide-

terms, in the context of rural development, the `divergence of interests'

of the socio-historical context is required. If such understanding is lacking,

The ability of relevant stakeholders to communicate with each other can be

This article has demonstrated that current participatory approaches and

an inherent component (and at times a positive force) in sustainable rural

van Meegeren, R. C. F. and C. Leeuwis (1999) `Towards an Interactive Design Methodology:

RoÈling, N. G. and M. A. E. Wagemakers (eds) (1998) Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture.

Cees Leeuwis is a lecturer in Communication and Innovation Studies