"They think they created this World Heritage site by filling out a bunch of papers and encircling this area on a map! They didn’t create it…. This forest and these animals wouldn’t be here if we hadn’t kept others out. We took care of this forest that our ancestors left us. We Karen are responsible for creating this World Heritage site, not the conservationists."

This section considers the prospects and methods for participation in practice. It helps the management team to answer the questions: "how do we involve the relevant people in the conservation initiative?" and "how do we get the stakeholders to participate?".

The team may find it helpful to visualize the degree of participation by locating it along a continuum (see Figure 1). At one end is the classic conservation project, which is controlled and run by specialists (national and/or expatriates), excludes the consideration of social concerns and various existing capacities, and does not involve stakeholders either in decisions or activities. At the other end are initiatives originated and fully controlled by stakeholders (e.g., communities, user groups, associations, private owners) with no interference from the agencies supposedly in charge. In between these extremes are various models of shared control that present different opportunities for and degrees of stakeholder participation. workshop participation

Three main observations can be made. First: the location in Figure 1 (the actual de facto sharing of control) may not be sanctioned by law or policy (de jure). Control can be exercised in many ways, not all necessarily codified or explicitly mandated.

Second: stakeholder participation in an initiative has to be tailored to fit the unique needs and opportunities of each context. In other words, there is no ‘best’ place to be in the participation continuum. Different approaches should always be compared in terms of benefits, costs and expected effectiveness. A conservation initiative needs to find its appropriate niche in a specific historical and socio-political context and it is within that context that it should be evaluated.

Third: no matter where in the continuum a conservation initiative is ‘born’ or ‘set’, its position may change. For instance, changes in legal, political, socio-economic and ecological factors induce modifications in institutional settings and/or management practices, and they in turn affect the prospects (and needs) for stakeholder participation. In addition, facing concrete problems and ‘learning-by-doing’ often lead to a better recognition of the opportunity to involve various groups, particularly local people, in conservation.

Stakeholder participation presents different characteristics from place to place and it usually varies, even within a specific place, over time. A general consideration applies to all cases, however. Any initiative that wishes to respond positively to social concerns has to assume a conscious philosophy and approach. In other words, it has to be specific about who is expected to participate in what activities, and about why, how, when and under what conditions. This first section of Volume 1 helps the team to define the existing conditions for participation and to modify, accept or reject some specific options for action. In this sense, the scale at which the initiative operates is crucial. Activities that are feasible when dealing with a few communities may face serious constraints in time and budget when there is a large number of stakeholders.

The professional team should foresee a number of difficulties and be prepared to face them. While a conservation initiative that encourages participation is likely to benefit from the new approach, it is also likely to face new issues and dilemmas as a result of the involvement of various groups and individuals.

... the initiative has to be specific about who is expected to participate in what activities, and about why, how, when and under what conditions.

Key question 1.2.1
So far, who participates in the conservation initiative?

• Who is (was) involved in planning it? Who actually worked on a management plan if one exists? Who made the major decisions about it?

• Who is responsible for implementing the initiative? Who is responsible for monitoring and evaluating it?

• Who knows and is regularly kept informed about the initiative and its functioning?

• So far, who has taken action for the initiative? Who has provided resources (human or otherwise)? Who has acquired benefits or suffered damages?

• Have some individuals or groups complained because they have not been informed, contacted, heard, involved or because they have been treated unfairly, have not received benefits, etc.?

• Is there any obvious social bias in terms of who has participated so far? For instance, have women, ethnic minorities, economically disadvantaged groups and various age groups been equitably involved in the initiative?

• Who are the people and groups actually or potentially affected by and/or concerned about the conservation initiative? Are there: historic occupants, e.g., indigenous residents and regular transients? Local settlers who were already in the area before the beginning of the initiative? Recent migrants? Non.resident users of resources? Absentee landlords? Major secondary users (e.g., buyers of products, tourists)? Government agencies responsible for various resources? Local authorities? Local and national politicians? Interested NGOs, peoples’ associations, research institutions, staff of relevant development and conservation projects? Interested businesses and industries?

• How are the natural resources to be conserved being used at present and by whom? Who specifically is having an impact on conservation? Has this changed over time?

• Who are the people or groups most dependent on the resources at stake? Is this a matter of livelihood or economic advantage? Are these resources replaceable by other resources not in the conservation area?

• Who possesses claims — including legal jurisdiction and customary use — over the resources at stake? Are several government sectors and ministry departments involved? Are there national and/or international bodies involved because of specific laws or treaties?

• Who are the people or groups most knowledgeable about, and capable of dealing with, the resources at stake? Prior to the conservation initiative, who was managing the resources? With what results?

• Are the stakeholders — and the stakeholders’ interests in the resources — geographically and seasonally stable (e.g., are there seasonal migration patterns)? Are there major events or trends currently affecting the stakeholders (e.g., development initiatives, land reforms, migration, population growth or decline in a specific area, etc.)?

• Has there been a similar initiative in the region? If so, to what extent did it succeed? Who was in charge and how did local people respond?

• Are there social factors (e.g., literacy, gender, ethnicity) affecting the ability of one or more stakeholders to contribute to and/or benefit from the conservation initiative?

• Do any of the venues used for meetings exclude a particular group (e.g., women, ethnic or religious group)? Is the language of meetings comprehensible to all?

• Can all stakeholders afford to participate (e.g., can they afford the time and/or expenses to reach a meeting venue)?

• Do all stakeholders feel comfortable participating (e.g., or are are they concerned about being asked for contributions they cannot make; do they fear being singled out or punished if they express themselves freely)?

Participation: why, what, when and how
Social actors and stakeholders
Gender concerns in conservation
Poverty, wealth and environmental degradation
Governance and the rule of law

• Are there relationships of hierarchy or direct dependence among stakeholders? Are there powerful families, clans or businesses capable of influencing and controlling others? Is their power base stable or changing?

• Are there factions or political groups that separate and/or cut across stakeholders in the conservation initiative?

• What degree of autonomy do villages have? Do they collect taxes and use tax revenues to support local development, or are incomes being taxed to benefit others?

• Are the stakeholders’ interests in the natural resources compatible with one another or in conflict? If conflicts of interest exist, is violence involved? Have the less powerful groups developed strategies to deal with those conflicts? Is the conservation initiative affecting these strategies? Is the initiative allied (or seen as being allied) with some parties in conflict with others?

• Are the local conflicts muddled or clear to all? Are conflicting parties discussing matters with one another? Is anyone facilitating the discussion? Are there local mechanisms and institutions which can help to mediate an agreement among them?

• Was there ever an agreement developed among conflicting parties (with or without external support)? If yes, how was it achieved?

• Have the stakeholders any previous experience of working together? If so, to what effect?

• Are there local institutions for resource management? How do they operate? With what results? Are they affected by the conservation initiative? Are they, or are they expected to be, involved in it in any positive way?

• Are all stakeholders organized in traditional institutions (e.g., clans), or official associations, with members, rules, etc.? Alternatively, are they organized informally or on an ad hoc basis, just for a specific purpose? Are any of them not organized at all?

• Does a suitable system of representation exist for all important stakeholders, so that they can play an active role in the conservation initiative?

• If representation exists, is it legitimate and accountable to all the relevant people? Is there any evident skewing in ethnic group, caste, age, class, gender or focus of interest among the representatives?

• If no suitable systems of representation exist, can something be done to help the stakeholders organize and interact with others?

• Has any stakeholder discussed the possibility of taking on some specific responsibilities in the management of the resources at stake?

Key question 1.2.6 , Have all the stakeholders been informed and been heard about the conservation initiative?

• Is the professional team working for the conservation initiative in touch with the local stakeholders? With all of them? At the appropriate level (e.g., at the level where people take and carry out decisions affecting natural resources)?

• Were/are the stakeholders contacted, informed and listened to in ways appropriate to their culture and level of literacy?

• Are all the stakeholders well-informed about the implications of the conservation initiative, i.e., knowledgeable about the specific benefits and costs actually or potentially accruing to them?

• Are the management and staff of the conservation initiative aware of what various stakeholders feel, believe and are doing about the initiative?

• Are some stakeholders collaborating with the conservation initiative? How did the collaboration develop?

• Are some stakeholders actively opposed to the conservation initiative? How does the opposition manifest itself?

Key question 1.2.7, Is there political support for participation in the conservation initiative?

• What is the political history of the area? Do local residents enjoy a degree of autonomy from the national government? For instance are local taxes used directly — at least in part — for local projects and benefits?

• What is the local experience of participation? Is there any history of political conflict associated with colonial, recent or contemporary regimes? Are people usually confident or fearful in expressing their opinions?

• Within the conservation community at local, national and international (e.g., donors) level, is there support for a participatory approach in the initiative at stake?

• What is the national government’s attitude towards people’s participation? Is the concept mentioned often or generally avoided? Is it used as a slogan? Is it practised in restrictive ways? Is participation ever repressed outright? Is it promoted and implemented in specific governmental sectors (e.g., the health system)? If yes, are there lessons learned there that can be of use in the conservation initiative?

• What is the attitude of the local government administration towards people’s participation? Are local people usually informed and consulted about important decisions? Are they involved in development activities? In general, is the contribution of local people and groups recognized and valued by the local administration?

• Is people’s participation in the conservation initiative likely to affect the distribution of power in the local area? If so, how are those adversely affected likely to respond? Are there individuals or groups (e.g., a major land.owner or armed resistance group) who may feel free to act outside legal constraints and affect people’s participation in the initiative?

Key question 1.2.8, Is there a legal and institutional environment favourable to participation?

• Is there a national or regional strategy for conservation? Does it make provision for recognizing local interests and capacities?

• Does the law recognize local actors (such as organized groups of resource users) as entities with legal status, the capacity to assume responsibilities, and the capacity to acquire benefits and share them among their members?

• Where stakeholders are involved, are they given equitable representation and ‘weight’ in the discussion and negotiation processes?

• What types of local institutions for resource management are officially recognized in the country? Are these also present at the site of the conservation initiative? If not, are they at least known by the local people?

• Are there — in the country or locally — peoples’ associations and NGOs that could play a role for the conservation initiative? Are they known by the locals? Do they have any vested interests which could affect their acceptance by the local actors?

• Is the central government effectively sharing authority and responsibility with its regional, district and local representatives? Is there any specific legislation regulating such a "decentralization" process? Is that legislation actually implemented?

• In general, are policies and laws implemented and respected in the country? Is there a fair judicial system in place? Do people know and trust the system? Are there social pressures by which people feel bound to comply with norms, rules and agreements?

Key question 1.2.9, What specific channels, mechanisms and human resources are available to support participation?

• Are there channels to inform and consult stakeholders about the conservation initiative (e.g., local journals, meeting places, bulletin boards, etc.)? Are they being used for this purpose? Are there specific events (celebrations, rituals, markets) where information can be passed on?

• Are there specific places where stakeholders can interact with the promoters, managers and staff of the conservation initiative and provide advice, discuss activities, and promote or oppose decisions?

• Is there any institution or individual who does or could facilitate a process of negotiation among different stakeholders to achieve a management agreement acceptable by all? Is assistance available to identify and deal with conflicts?

• Could future agreements result in written and signed documents? Could some person or institution provide a secretariat for that?

• Could future agreements be legally binding? On what legal basis? Could someone provide legal counselling to develop an agreement? Would there be a body to settle controversies, should they arise?

• Are there ways by which stakeholders can invest in the conservation initiative (e.g., in terms of money, labour, opportunity costs) with the expectation of future returns?

Key question 1.2.10, What economic resources are available to promote participation?

• Do those funding the initiative recognize the need to involve local stakeholders? Are they earmarking specific funds for that purpose?

• Are the stakeholders themselves contributing or willing to contribute (in cash or kind)?

• What is the likely, and what is the optimum, time period over which funding for stakeholder participation in the initiative could be provided?

Indicators

Percentage of local people (or proportion of stakeholders) who know about the conservation initiative, its objectives and management procedures, what to do to contact its management, etc.

Percentage of people (or proportion of stakeholders) who express confidence in being able to influence the initiative

Local "ownership" of the initiative (locals talk about it with interest, pride, concern, energy, passion)

Variety of viewpoints and proposals put forth during meetings where the initiative is discussed

Level of open disagreement Some stakeholders strongly expressed in meetings where the oppose the initiative, but were initiative is discussed never given an opportunity to (positive indicator!)

Ability of management and staff to list the main stakeholders, their key interests and concerns about the initiative, name a representative for each stakeholder and illustrate the activities carried out to involve them in the initiative

Ability of stakeholders to represent themselves in discussions about the intiative, to articulate their own interests and concerns and to negotiate agreements with others

Extent to which local leaders Community protects those who are support the initiative and attract community support for it

Number and relevance of activities (in the conservation intiative) in which local actors play an active role (e.g., as salaried staff, key advisors, evaluators, etc.)

Number of local groups and associations that have regular relationships with the initiative

Percentage of local people (proportion of stakeholders) who say appreciate the conservation initiative and derive benefits from it

Average net flow of "investments" in the initiative (per household or per stakeholder, as appropriate)

Percentage of local people (or stakeholders) who say they have entered into a relationship or partnership with other local groups because of the initiative

Percentage of local people (or stakeholders) willing to enter into colla- borative management agreements or take charge of the initiative

Provision of resources and other forms of support for people's participation from local/regional/ national government

Warning flags

Several stakeholders and even key local people (e.g., traditional authorities) are not aware of the initiative

Stakeholders are very reluctant to talk about the initiative. Answers to questions are yes/no type and the topic is avoided, especially when 'outsiders' are present

Locals talk about the conservation initiative as "your project" or with obvious resentment

Locals create derogatory names, songs or skits about the initiative

Major meetings to take decisions about the initiative are poorly attended and some key stakeholders are not represented at all

Meetings are dominated by one person or group pushing sectarian interests

Some stakeholders strongly oppose the intiative, but were never given the opportunity to discuss their concerns with the management of the initiative and/ or other stakeholders

Opposition is expressed via acts of themselves in discussions about rebellion and violence, possibly the initiative, to articulate their anonymous (e.g., destruction of own interests and concerns and to information signs associated with negotiate agreements with others the protected area)

Most stakeholders lack organization and formal representation

Local leaders (traditional and governmental) are unable to enforce rules and sanctions

Community protects those who are damaging the initiative (e.g., attract community support for it warning off poachers so they can’t be apprehended)

The initiative is entirely run by non-locals and/or expatriates

The majority of respondents of a given group (e.g., women, or an ethnic minority) state that they receive no benefits whatsoever, or are actually worse off because of the conservation initiative

No local investment (in cash or kind) has ever been made in the conservation initiative

Emergence of new conflicts among stakeholders

Figure 1. Participation in a conservation initiative: a continuum
Full control by agency in charge		Shared control by agency in charge and stakeholders		Full control by stakeholders
actively consulting	seeking consensus	Negotiating (involving in decision-making) and developing specific agreements	Sharing auhtority and responsibility in a formal way (e.g. via seats in a management board)	transferring authority and responsibility
No interference or contribution from stakeholders				No interference or contribution from agency in charge
increasing expectations of stakeholders
increasing contributions, commitment and "accountability" of stakeholders