Proposal for Fern
Working across difference, power and context—then turning insight into better meetings, partnerships and decisions.
The organisational reality
Internally, Fern is co-managed, non-hierarchical and consensus-led. Externally, it connects movements, forest communities, civil-society partners and European institutions.
How do we open access without reproducing the conditions that restrict whose knowledge, pace or voice counts?
The working lens
Participants learn a repeatable way to slow interpretation down and widen the range of possible responses.
Generate cultural hypotheses without turning them into national stereotypes or individual predictions.
The intellectual architecture
The programme does not discard familiar intercultural models. It places them inside a wider analysis of meaning, power and whose knowledge is recognised.
Erin Meyer and Geert Hofstede help generate hypotheses about communication, disagreement, trust, hierarchy and time.
Stuart Hall helps separate what happened from the meaning we assign to it.
Catherine Walsh, Aníbal Quijano, María Lugones and Linda Tuhiwai Smith widen the analysis to dominant norms, multidimensional identity and recognised expertise.
Learning outcomes
By the end of the session, participants will be able to:
Recognise cultural expectations without stereotyping individuals.
Distinguish observation from interpretation and generate plausible alternatives.
Surface how language, resources, institutional access and history shape participation.
Change meetings, requests, decisions and resource allocation in concrete ways.
Use the four-part lens in one real interaction after the training.
The four-hour journey
00:00–00:20 · Opening activity
Participants respond before theory is introduced. The room generates the differences; the frameworks arrive afterwards.
“If I disagree with the direction of a meeting, I would normally say so during the meeting.”
00:20–00:55 · Stage 1
Four short situations make interpretation visible before participants search for better questions.
Two days later, a partner emails significant concerns about the proposed strategy.
00:55–01:30 · Case 1
A facilitator needs a rapid group decision. Some colleagues challenge openly, one speaks little, and detailed concerns arrive only after the meeting.
“What conditions allow consensus to genuinely include different ways of participating?”
01:40–02:20 · The second layer
The same situation returns with information about language, tenure, EU-policy familiarity, relationships and confidence challenging in public.
“They did not speak, so perhaps they agreed.”
First-language differences · uneven institutional knowledge · unequal relational proximity
What did culture explain—and what did it leave invisible?
02:20–02:40 · Practice
Theory disappears. Each group receives one recognisable Fern-style object and must return a concrete alternative.
Make room for different forms of participation without allowing the meeting to become endless.
Output: a revised agendaAccount for different capacity, language and consultation needs.
Output: rewritten requestReplace “Does everyone agree?” with a stronger test of meaningful consensus.
Output: new prompts02:40–03:25 · Case 2
Fern proposes a rapid EUDR advocacy response. An Indonesian partner does not object in the call—but later raises serious concerns and needs more consultation as the Brussels window closes.
Who created the deadline?
Whose timeframe has priority?
Who controls institutional access?
Whose knowledge makes the advocacy legitimate?
03:25–03:50 · Case 3
Groups distribute tasks, resources and decision-making responsibility across four fictional organisations.
Facilitation principle
Fern’s capacity for dialogue is an asset. The design gives each conversation enough structure to result in an observable choice.
“Discuss what you think.”
“You have six minutes. Identify two explanations and choose one response.”
What Fern receives
The proposal covers design and facilitation of one four-hour session, adapted to Fern’s working reality.
Four hours of structured, participatory learning with a visible activity rhythm and one ten-minute break.
Consensus, partnership urgency, capacity, resource allocation and EU-policy access made discussable through realistic scenarios.
The four-part lens, observation-to-adaptation sequence, redesigned prompts and concrete interaction outputs.
Each participant leaves with one real interaction they will approach differently in their work.
Delivery date, mode, participant profile, accessibility requirements and commercial terms to be agreed with Fern.
The intended shift