The growth of interest in participation as both a means and an end in natural resource management has diverse roots and developed through a dynamic interaction of demand from grassroots activists/NGOs and subsequent conditionality from donor agencies. This has led to massive confusion about what the 'correct' principles, practices, benefits and disadvantages are of participation. Examples will be given. Present day paradoxes centre around: i) the standarization of an approach intended to be flexible and contact-´pecific as a reaction against the limitations of blueprint planning and implementation, and ii) the mechanical use of 'participatory' methods without the understanding of the underying principles, that were at the root of the pioneering work. The first need is to clarify the nature of participation of various stakeholders over time (using examples of the forest sector), and address the tendency towards simplistic assumptions about 'community'. The second need is to recognize that power and conflict are a given factor in participatory from of natural resource management, and that conflict resolution must therefore be part and parcel of the development process. Finally, we address the implications for the role of forestry professionals in the transition to more participatory forms of forest policy development/forest management.

Text in English