Global Case Studies on Participatory Agricultural Policies

When agricultural policies are shaped from the top down – designed in capitals by technocrats with little input from the people they affect – they often miss the mark. Farmers get left out. Local ecosystems get ignored. Communities resist rather than cooperate. Participatory approaches turn this dynamic around by bringing farmers, indigenous communities, civil society, and local governments into the policy process as active partners, not just recipients. Around the world, several landmark cases demonstrate what this looks like in practice – and what it takes to make it work.

What participatory agricultural policy actually means 🔗

Participatory policy-making goes beyond holding a consultation meeting and moving on. According to the FAO, local people – especially poor and marginalised groups – often have very weak or only indirect influence on policies that affect their livelihoods, and policies developed at the central level are frequently not responsive to local needs. Genuine participation means involving stakeholders in identifying problems, proposing solutions, making decisions, implementing programmes, and monitoring outcomes. This comprehensive involvement ensures that policies are grounded in real-world experience rather than theoretical assumptions.

The global track record is uneven but instructive. Three case studies in particular – India’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), Ukraine’s Agricultural Policy for Human Development (APHD) initiative, and India’s Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme – illustrate both the transformative potential and the real-world complications of participatory governance in agriculture.

India’s NBSAP: biodiversity conservation through community voice 🔗

India’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan is one of the most ambitious participatory policy processes ever undertaken in the agricultural and environmental sector. Mandated under Article 6 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), the NBSAP requires member countries to develop national strategies for conservation and sustainable use of biological resources. What set India’s process apart was the effort to gather input across a vast and diverse nation – from national and state levels right down to sub-state and community levels.

Research by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), based on interviews with over 190 people involved in four Indian states, documented India as one of the first countries to undertake this process under the Convention – with the added challenge of integrating opinions at a national scale. The approach brought in perspectives that typically remain invisible in policy-making: tribal communities, subsistence farmers, women’s groups, and local NGOs.

Key outcomes of the NBSAP process 🔗

India’s updated NBSAP, presented at the 16th Conference of Parties (COP 16) of the CBD in 2024, reflects years of multi-stakeholder engagement. The plan identifies participatory approaches, eco-development, and community-managed conservation as priority areas requiring urgent attention. It recognises India’s 22 agrobiodiversity hotspots and over 168 different crop varieties, underscoring why local knowledge is critical to conservation policy.

The plan’s targets go beyond biodiversity protection in the traditional sense. Five targets specifically promote sustainable management of key sectors vital to rural livelihoods – agriculture, livestock, fisheries, and forests – through inclusive and gender-sensitive governance. Community seed banks were established to preserve local crop varieties. Traditional agricultural practices supporting biodiversity were documented and promoted. And local communities gained legal recognition not just as beneficiaries of conservation, but as active managers of biodiversity.

The plan adopts a “Whole of Government, Whole of Society” approach, which engages government agencies, industry, communities, and civil society together. Public participation and environmental education are promoted through schools, panchayats (local government bodies), and urban institutions.

Challenges in implementation 🔗

The NBSAP process also revealed the inherent difficulties of large-scale participation. Coordinating input from thousands of diverse stakeholders was time-consuming and expensive. Communities with more political influence received more attention, creating uneven representation. In some instances, translating community knowledge into formal policy language diluted the original ideas. These challenges do not undermine the approach, but they do highlight the need for careful process design, dedicated resources, and mechanisms to ensure that marginalised voices genuinely shape – and are not just present in – the final policy.

Ukraine’s agricultural policy for human development: participation under transition 🔗

Ukraine’s experience with participatory agricultural policy reflects a very different context: a post-Soviet country navigating the transition from state-controlled farming to a market economy, while grappling with significant rural poverty and a fragmented landownership structure. Post-war reconstruction of Ukraine’s agricultural sector is now widely agreed to need to proceed in a participatory and inclusive way, with the involvement of civil society and local communities in assessing challenges and planning recovery efforts considered paramount.

The Agricultural Policy for Human Development (APHD) initiative emerged from recognition that Ukraine’s top-down agricultural reform had failed to adequately support rural communities. Researchers like Demyanenko emphasised that the optimal form of rural policy implementation is the project approach applied at the local level – more targeted and less bureaucratic than complex national programmes. This framing aligned with participatory philosophy: smaller, community-grounded projects that respond directly to local realities.

Smallholder inclusion and local-level governance 🔗

A defining feature of the APHD approach was its focus on smallholder farmers and rural households – a group that, despite managing significant portions of agricultural land, had been largely excluded from formal policy-making. Ukraine has almost seven million people with agricultural land, and small family farms and households contribute significantly to agricultural production, yet most lack access to capital, equipment, and investment. The APHD sought to address this structural exclusion by creating platforms for small-scale producers to voice their needs in policy discussions.

Studies examining EU enlargement and Ukraine’s rural transitions have called on policymakers to move toward more inclusive, participatory frameworks for land and resource management – noting that the exclusion of key actors risks fuelling instability and economic marginalisation. This reinforces the APHD’s core premise: that agricultural policy designed without farmers is agricultural policy that fails farmers.

Ongoing challenges and the road ahead 🔗

Ukraine’s participatory policy journey has faced significant structural headwinds. The dominance of large agroholdings in the country’s agricultural sector means that smallholder and community voices can be drowned out by corporate interests. According to the OECD’s 2025 agricultural policy review, domestic investment in key support services such as infrastructure in Ukraine remains historically low, which limits the capacity of rural communities to participate meaningfully in policy processes. Building participatory governance requires not just political will, but also investment in the institutional infrastructure that makes participation possible.

Joint Forest Management in India: community co-governance of forests 🔗

India’s Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme is arguably the most extensively documented example of participatory natural resource governance in the developing world. It grew out of a shift in forest policy – away from commercial exploitation toward ecosystem services and community livelihoods – formalised through the National Forest Policy of 1988 and a landmark government circular in June 1990.

The 1988 forest policy reversed earlier priorities of meeting industrial and commercial requirements, redirecting focus toward environmental protection and meeting the needs of rural and tribal populations, with an emphasis on creating a mass people’s movement involving women. The June 1990 circular provided guidelines for village communities and voluntary agencies to participate directly in the regeneration of degraded forests.

How JFM works 🔗

Under JFM, village communities are organised into Forest Protection Committees (FPCs), which enter into formal agreements with the state Forest Department. These committees take on responsibility for protecting and managing designated patches of nearby forest – typically degraded or deforested areas. In return, they receive a share of the forest produce and, over time, a portion of the revenue from timber harvests. JFM promoted agreements between the Forest Department and village communities to jointly protect and manage adjacent forest land, sharing both responsibilities and benefits.

The concept of community participation in forest management did not emerge from scratch in 1990. The idea had been crystallising in practice since the late 1970s and 1980s, with early experiments at Sukhomajri in Haryana, Arabari in West Bengal, and Harda in Madhya Pradesh. The 1990 government order formalised and scaled up what communities had already been doing informally in many regions.

Documented outcomes 🔗

JFM has had several positive impacts on forest governance: improved forest condition, increased income and livelihood opportunities for participating communities, and a dramatic change in attitude – both in communities and in Forest Department officials – toward each other and toward forests. In some states, community participation in forest protection has reached impressive levels: Gujarat’s participatory forest management programme has achieved 95% community participation in forest protection activities.

The cultural transformation has been equally significant. In several FPCs, traditional forest protection practices have been revived – such as kesar chhanta (sacred groves) in Rajasthan – and there is now greater acceptance of participatory approaches among Forest Department officials. From being a fringe experiment, JFM grew to cover over 18% of all state forests in India, making it one of the largest community-based natural resource management programmes in the world.

Persistent challenges 🔗

JFM has not been without its critics and its failures. For JFM to truly represent participatory forest management, its emphasis on regenerating timber needs to shift toward developing sustainable alternatives that meet the diverse needs of the most forest-dependent community members – including disaggregating forest dependence by caste, class, tribe, and gender.

The marginalisation of women remains a particularly persistent issue. The marginalisation of women in JFM needs to be rectified by structuring their integration in community institutions as independent primary members and management committee members, with clearly specified entitlements to benefits. Across many states, women do the bulk of forest-related work – collecting firewood, fodder, and non-timber forest products – yet their voices in FPC decision-making remain limited.

Elite capture is another recurring problem. There are equity problems in several communities, including elite domination, and many intra- and inter-community conflicts have emerged. A significant power imbalance between Forest Department staff and communities also persists in many areas. When influential community members monopolise decision-making, the benefits of JFM flow upward rather than reaching those most dependent on forest resources.

Cross-cutting lessons from global experiences 🔗

Despite their very different contexts – biodiversity governance in a megadiverse nation, post-Soviet rural transition, and community-based forest management – these three cases share important common threads.

Participation must be genuine, not performative. Token consultations that happen after key decisions are already made generate cynicism and erode trust. All three cases show that meaningful participation requires early, sustained, and structured engagement – not a single workshop. The main goal of participatory policy reform, as identified by the FAO, is to enhance the participation of the poor in policy-making processes – not simply to inform them of decisions already taken.

Institutional capacity matters enormously. Rural communities cannot participate effectively if they lack the organisational structures, resources, and information needed to engage on equal terms with government agencies. Capacity building – training, documentation support, access to legal and technical knowledge – is a prerequisite for genuine participation, not an optional add-on.

Power dynamics do not disappear just because participation is structured. Elite capture, gender exclusion, and bureaucratic resistance are not aberrations; they are predictable features of any participatory process operating within existing social hierarchies. Gender inequalities and social exclusions in community-based forest management have been widely documented, particularly in South Asia, and addressing them requires explicit design interventions – not passive hope that participation will naturally produce equity.

Scaling up is difficult. What works in a pilot village or a small forest patch does not automatically work across a diverse nation. India’s NBSAP struggled to integrate opinions across its vast national territory. JFM produced very different outcomes in different states. Ukraine’s reform efforts have been complicated by the dominance of large agricultural enterprises. Effective participatory policy needs both local flexibility and national coherence – a difficult balance to strike.

Local knowledge strengthens policy quality. Across all three cases, communities contributed ecological, agricultural, and social knowledge that would not have been available through conventional policy research. This knowledge improved the relevance and practical effectiveness of the resulting policies – from identifying agrobiodiversity hotspots in India to understanding smallholder livelihood constraints in Ukraine.

The bigger picture 🔗

These global experiences confirm that participatory agricultural policy is neither a silver bullet nor a passing trend. Participatory approaches in agricultural research and extension services have increasingly been recognised as effective strategies for engaging farmers, integrating their expertise and preferences, and developing locally appropriate solutions. But effectiveness depends entirely on how participation is structured, resourced, and governed.

The most significant shift these cases represent is not methodological – it is political. Participatory approaches acknowledge that farmers, forest-dependent communities, and rural households have rights, not just needs. They are stakeholders with legitimate authority over decisions that shape their livelihoods and environments. When policy-making reflects that reality, the results tend to be more durable, more equitable, and more ecologically sound.

What do you think? If participatory policy-making consistently produces better outcomes, why do governments so often revert to top-down approaches when designing agricultural reforms? And given the challenges of elite capture and gender exclusion documented in these cases, what safeguards should be built into participatory processes to ensure that the most vulnerable communities – not just the most vocal – have genuine influence over agricultural policy?

References

1. https://www.fao.org/4/ad688e/ad688e00.htm
2. https://www.undp.org/india/publications/summary-stakeholders-national-biodiversity-strategy-and-action-plan-nbsap
3. https://www.iied.org/9521iied
4. https://www.indiawaterportal.org/environment/india-presents-its-updated-national-biodiversity-strategy-and-action-plan-at-cop16
5. https://upscgspedia.com/national-biodiversity-strategy-and-action-plan-nbsap/
6. https://www.sanskritiias.com/current-affairs/indias-national-biodiversity-strategy-and-action-plan-nbsap-202430
7. https://en.ecoaction.org.ua/agri-priorities-sustainable-ukraine.html
8. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.01478
9. https://epubs.niras.com/brochure/ukraine/agriculture-rural-development
10. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2025.2486079
11. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/10/agricultural-policy-monitoring-and-evaluation-2025_354e7040/full-report/ukraine_0e71d61e.html
12. https://www.fao.org/4/v3960e/v3960e06.htm
13. https://www.fao.org/4/XII/0774-A1.htm
14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344909002274
15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237944887_Joint_Forest_Management_in_India_Experiences_of_Two_Decades
16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358436455_Present_challenges_in_Joint_Forest_Management_in_India_A_review
17. https://journalacri.com/index.php/ACRI/article/view/782