1.4 Options for action
The following options for action offer some ideas on how local people can be included in a conservation initiative. These need to be considered in the light of specific circumstances to judge whether they are or are not appropriate. You will undoubtedly think of other options as well. The list of options for actions should not be viewed as a step-by-step procedure, although it is set out in the order in which options would be logically considered. (For example, you will need to have identified the stakeholders and informed them about the initiative before you can consider involving them in a planning exercise.) Also, some of the options below are alternatives to one another and need to be compared in terms of appropriateness to the particular context.
The list of options is divided into three groups according to type of activity. These are:
1.4.1 Inventory of actual/potential stakeholders
1.4.2 Stakeholder analysis
1.4.3 Information campaign
1.4.4 Public relations service
1.4.5 Environmental discussion sessions
1.4.6 Promoting internal discussion within each stakeholder group
1.4.7 Helping stakeholders organize
1.4.8 Meetings and workshops to build bridges among stakeholders
1.4.9 Visits to similar initiatives with strong participatory components
1.4.10 Strengthening local institutions for resource management
1.4.11 Conservation Councils
1.4.12 Institution for conflict management
1.4.13 Training and incentives for staff and recruitment to fill gaps in skills
1.4.14 Promoting an effective legal basis for participation
1.4.15 Assisting local communities to develop their own conservation initiatives
1.4.16 Participatory appraisal and planning
1.4.17 Collaborative management agreement
1.4.18 Collaborative management institutions
1.4.19 Devolving the initiative to local institutions
1.4.20 Participatory monitoring and evaluation Option for action
Undertake an inventory of local groups, individuals, institutions, organizations and initiatives with interest and/or involvement in resource management. Take care to include those who use the resources on an erratic or seasonal basis as well as secondary stakeholders (i.e., those who have a 'downstream' interest in the resources, such as users of water flowing from a wetland or purchasers of products acquired from the conservation area). Potential stakeholders (i.e., those likely to acquire an interest as a result of future development of the conservation initiative, such as tourism-related businesses) should also be considered.
A stakeholder inventory is appropriate when the structure of local communities is relatively simple and the stakeholders are easily identifiable. The exercise can be undertaken in a round-table brainstorming session with field staff and the management of the conservation initiative. The inventory will provide an overview of the actual and potential stakeholders and their relative importance and strength. It will also be of great value in indicating the diversity and complexity of the interests which need to be taken into account. In fact, it will provide a basis upon which to identify key partners or groups to participate in the various aspects of the initiative.
After the brainstorming you may want to contact those groups and discuss with them their position regarding the conservation initiative. Consider carefully who is representing the views of the groups, and what biases the positions may reflect. You might want to collect information from more than one member in each group.
Potential obstacles that could be encountered in this exercise are distrust between local people and official agencies, and language and cultural barriers, all of which can hamper the collection of information. Also, inventories need to be updated often to retain their relevance to the initiative.
See Question 1.2.2, Volume 1; and Examples 1a-c in Section 6, Volume 2.
Undertake a detailed stakeholder analysis, identifying the relationships of relevant groups and individuals to the area and resources affected by the initiative. Identify local decision-making organizations, the way decisions are made and the holders of relevant specialist knowledge in the community (e.g., resource user groups). Assess the effects the initiative will have on them. Also identify those who could organize activities to discuss and promote participatory prospects in the initiative. Analyze the roles and responsibilities of the various groups and individuals and the ways they could be affected by the initiative.
Specifically include in the study an analysis of the individuals and groups affected by impacts on employment, wealth, nutrition and population dynamics. Consider gender, age, ethnic and class variables. Pay particular attention to any effects the conservation initiative could have on vulnerable groups (e.g., refugees, ethnic minorities).
A stakeholder analysis is more appropriate than an inventory (option 1.4.1) when the communities affected are complex and the stakeholders and their relationships to the resources are not easily identifiable. A stakeholder analysis requires more time and resources than an inventory, since the analysis is usually carried out in the field and involves participatory exercises and the collection of new data.
The use of natural resources is typically characterised by diverse and conflicting interests. For instance, many local communities are socially stratified; knowing the different interests of the various members will help in organizing their participation in the initiative as well as in developing local resource management institutions. Undertaking a stakeholder analysis will also provide a frame of reference for further steps in the initiative and for dealing with various consequences and conflicts which may emerge.
A possible constraint to this exercise is that it requires more expertise in social analysis and community consultation techniques than a stakeholder inventory. Undertaking an analysis can also be costly and time-consuming and, as with inventories, the end product will need to be updated to maintain its relevance to the initiative.
See Questions 1.2.2, 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, Volume 1; Information Gathering and Assessment in Section 5, Volume 2 and Examples 2a-c in Section 6, Volume 2.
Set up a campaign to inform people about the conservation initiative, its goals, ways of working, its benefits, and the ways in which local people and groups can become involved and benefit from it. If there are prejudices or false information about the initiative, specifically aim to dispel them. Be clear about any potential costs and about what the initiative will and will not do, so as not to create false expectations. Involve local institutions, schools, NGOs, women’s groups, community. based organizations, government, and cultural and religious institutions, as appropriate.
Care must be taken to ensure that the forums and methods used do not exclude some sections of the community. For example, some traditional systems may marginalize women and minority groups. Be aware of literacy levels among the stakeholders and adopt suitable communication methods. Use at least some information tools which are not dependent on literacy, such as community meetings, street theatre, or pictorial posters. Household visits may be appropriate where the population is relatively scarce and scattered and literacy levels are low.
As a first step, investigate appropriate ways and means to reach specific user groups. Some may prefer to run their own campaigns with assistance from the initiative. These can interact with the 'official' information dissemination process.
Freely distributed information can help build trust between the management of the initiative and the local stakeholders. A comprehensive information campaign can also greatly increase the level of local awareness, not just about the initiative but about the general state of local resources. Such a campaign will foster a better understanding of the initiative’s benefits and costs in both the long and short term. It can also be used to request the stakeholders to identify themselves. If the campaign is used for this purpose it is best to make the request for a display of interest quite general, using simple and comprehensive criteria to define stakeholders.
As a word of caution, problems may arise if information about the conservation initiative is inadequate. Faulty or conflicting information can create a suspicion that the managers are 'hiding something'.
See Questions 1.2.6 and 1.2.9, Volume 1; Social Communication in Section 5, Volume 2 and Examples 3a-f in Section 6, Volume 2.
If the conservation initiative is large, set up a public relations desk. It should be a place where people can visit to ask questions and offer alternative ideas. It may also be a place to disseminate information, an entry point for relevant databases and, possibly, a coordination centre for consultants and training. Even if the initiative is small, the staff should ensure that local people feel welcome at all times.
Provide an area with an information display about the initiative and show how further information can be requested. Ask local schools, institutions and individuals to visit the display and pose questions. Have a highly-visible suggestion/complaints box (this will work best where people know how to write and are comfortable writing comments). Provide information on the decision-making processes affecting the initiative. If local actors are to influence these processes they need to be aware of how they operate and of the responsibilities of the various agencies involved.
Present information in ways that are appropriate to the area and the initiative. Are the potential users likely to be literate? Consider pamphlets and posters, presentations to schools and churches, guided tours of the conservation area, and audio-visual displays. Recruit local people (artists, teachers, business-people) to design and present the information. Avoid using techniques which give the impression that the initiative has "lots of money" or is top-down and owned by the staff working for it; in some communities, audio-visuals may have this effect. This can lead to unrealistic expectations of what the initiative can provide and undermine efforts to create a dialogue.
It is important that information be made available in the local language, and that it is up-to-date with solid content, to be as useful as possible. A system should be put in place which ensures that all requests for information are dealt with promptly and that people are kept informed of actions taken in response to any suggestions or complaints
By collecting views and information, the service can also act as a monitoring mechanism, picking up on local perceptions, identifying sensitive issues and stakeholder conflicts as well as positive experiences related to the initiative. It can also be the basis for networking on key issues.
See Questions 1.2.6 and 1.2.9, Volume 1; Social Communication in Section 5, Volume 2, and Examples 4a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.
Organize discussion sessions in local communities, in the local language, emphasising a dialogue approach and using techniques and tools that are culturally appropriate and appealing (e.g., theatre, games, audio.visuals, competitions). Include information on the initiative and its benefits in the local area.
There are many ways to discuss environmental matters that are user-friendly, fun and involve the whole community, including children and the elderly. For instance, helping people to develop a slide show on local problems and resources can be very effective in raising awareness.
The need for conservation should be presented in a non-judgmental way and ideally should arise spontaneously from discussions. People may not be aware of the problems created by their actions or they may be aware of the damage but have few options (e.g., an influx of migrants may have reduced the land available or modern schooling may have meant a loss of traditional knowledge). If people are struggling for survival, they may have no alternative but to rely on the resources in a protected area.
Discussions allow the staff to learn local people’s rationale for their actions. Open-ended discussions may improve their understanding of the causes of environmental problems. Staff can then look for solutions that local people feel are beyond their control. Once people have assessed for themselves the importance of conserving natural resources, encourage them to discuss what this implies for their life and work; the costs and benefits of changes; and possible activities to limit costs and optimize benefits. When project staff contemplate a new activity to provide alternative income or replace resources, they would be wise to hold a series of these discussions as a way to sound public opinion.
Hold regular follow-up sessions; one cannot expect a single event to have an impact. Scheduling regular sessions will be appreciated by local people as evidence of staff commitment. Use techniques that are culturally appropriate and financial resources in line with local lifestyles. Also, be prepared to manage possible conflicts (e.g., one group or individual may blame another for the damage to the environment). Lively and meaningful discussion is likely to include differences of opinion.
See Questions 1.2.6 and 1.2.9, Volume 1; Concept File 4.29 (Cross-cultural communication and local media), Volume 2; Social Communication in Section 5, Volume 2, and Examples 5a-f in Section 6, Volume 2.
Once the stakeholders in the conservation initiative have been identified, contact all of them to request their opinions/advice on various issues and activities, including activities they can undertake themselves. Encourage them to discuss the initiative and the costs and benefits it could bring to the individuals and groups that constitute each separate interest. Each stakeholder group will have a different view depending on their relationship to the resources in question. By first discussing the initiative among themselves, they can clarify their own position before meeting for discussions with other stakeholders. This is a particularly important step to build confidence among less powerful and articulate groups.
Holding discussions within their own interest group encourages stakeholders to clarify their concerns and possibly develop a sense of ownership in the initiative. For the managers of the initiative, the process provides an opportunity to gain insight into the perceptions and interests of local actors and to identify common interests and potential conflicts.
Some stakeholders will not be organized into any sort of group. Bringing them together with others who have common interests can take time and there may be some resistance to discuss matters in an open way when people do not know each other. In such circumstances a facilitator may be needed to call a meeting and make sure that the agenda brings out the common interests of the group. Where there are migratory or erratic resource users, bringing these groups together can be a time.consuming exercise.
The way the meetings are conducted is important. In general, the staff of the conservation initiative should not participate, but should be available to provide any information the stakeholder group may need. It should also be clear that the management of the initiative looks forward to an open and constructive relationship with the organized stakeholders.
See Question 1.2.5, Volume 1; Information Gathering and Assessment in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 6a-f in Section 6, Volume 2.
Where there are power differences that disadvantage some stakeholders, the balance may improve if such stakeholders organize themselves in formal or informal ways. Help such stakeholders to organize (e.g., by offering information, training in managerial and financial skills, access to credit, opportunities to meet with organized groups, opportunities to discuss issues with specific bodies, access to technical, organizational and legal advice, etc.). In particular, non-organized resource users could be assisted to represent themselves in discussions regarding the conservation initiative (travel support, per diems, etc.).
Every stakeholder will have different information, concerns and interests which need to be considered and developed. Making sure that all stakeholders are able to develop their own position and form of representation may initially result in more challenges to the initiative. In the longer term, however, through mass mobilization or putting local knowledge to good use, the initiative can greatly increase the level of local support and provide an effective counterbalance to destructive outside forces.
In providing such assistance, it is important that the approach is compatible with the culture and practices of the stakeholders concerned. Whenever appropriate, work within existing social gatherings by adding the conservation issue to existing agendas, rather than holding separate meetings. Avoid setting up new organizations unless there is no alternative. Where some stakeholder groups are particularly vulnerable and have little influence with other stakeholders and decision-makers, you may consider providing support to an umbrella organization, which would group the same interests from a variety of communities (see Example 7a). An umbrella organization may be very effective in attracting funding and expertise to assist stakeholders, and to thus increase their bargaining power.
The duration and scale of the initiative will affect the extent to which stakeholders need to organize (e.g., as informal groups with a common interest or as a formal representative system). It must be remembered that building organizational skills among a disparate group is always a slow process. People need to feel that being part of an organized group is necessary to protect their interests.
See Questions 1.2.3 and 1.2.5, Volume 1; and Examples 7a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.
Organize a series of meetings or workshops with representatives of as many stakeholders as possible, to discuss the need for the initiative and to encourage them to share their views. Start the meeting on a neutral tone, e.g., provide information about the environment and the aims of the conservation initiative. Where there are conflicts among stakeholders, such an approach will help people settle into the subject and feel more comfortable with each other. If necessary, sensitive aspects (such as local causes of environmental damage, or disproportionate benefits) can be dealt with in follow-up meetings.
Be sensitive to when people are ready to come together. They won’t cooperate if the meeting is imposed on them. Build on concepts of mutual assistance and common interests. Be aware of power structures within communities and institutions which may inhibit some stakeholders from contributing. Work on avoiding this as much as possible.
If appropriate, invite local authorities, local leaders, etc. to the meetings but make sure their presence does not make people feel uncomfortable when they are expressing their opinions. Pay attention to timing, so that everyone can attend (e.g., women who are busy with household chores). Note who attends and who does not. In planning subsequent meetings, think about how to better contact and attract those who did not attend.
Hold meetings in the local language. Document the discussions and make sure that all participants know when and where they can see copies of these records and copies of any conclusions reached.
The facilitation of these meetings is crucial to their success. If meetings are well-managed, they can provide an opportunity for each stakeholder to hear and appreciate others’ views and concerns. This is the basis of constructive interaction among the various interests. If meetings are poorly organized and facilitated, then some stakeholders may not be heard or may be intimidated by others, losing resources and goodwill. When meetings are not successful, positions tend to become entrenched and parties become less, rather than more, trusting of one another.
See Question 1.2.4, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.10 (Local knowledge in conservation) and 4.15 (Conflicts in conservation), Volume 2; Participatory Planning in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 8a and 8b in Section 6, Volume 2.
Organize visits to similar conservation initiatives where local people are successfully and positively involved. Stakeholders can be offered travel support to meet with similar groups and discuss their methods of participation and problem-solving. In preparation for the visit, you may discuss what they should look for, what they can expect to learn and who should go. Follow up with a shared debriefing on lessons learned.
Such visits can be very encouraging for local people, provided the area to be visited has similar problems, a similar culture, and a similar level of resources. The visits provide visible proof that the environment can be improved and that stakeholders can play an important part in the process. Hearing positive information from people like themselves and being able to see concrete results is usually much more convincing than information given by officials or the staff of the initiative. It also provides people with a realistic picture of what is involved in participating, as they talk to people who have been through similar experiences and analyze the problems they encountered and the mistakes they made.
The visits can also assist in building bridges among stakeholders as they share the experience and establish personal relationships. Long-term networks can be established with the people in the demonstration area so that both groups continue to share information and support.
An important point to note is that the area visited must be comparable in terms of natural resources, issues, culture and language. This may not be easy to find in the vicinity. If greater distances are involved, the time and cost involved may decrease the enthusiasm and interest of the local stakeholders and/or funders of the initiative.
There are several issues that need to be considered for this option. Avoid looking only at successes; much can be learned from groups who are experiencing problems. Problems will alert visitors to the potential pitfalls of an initiative. Make sure that a broad range of stakeholders join the group, not just those who are already positive about the conservation initiative. And beware of visiting one area too frequently. Explaining their programme to too many visitors without receiving reciprocal benefits can become a burden to 'model communities'.
See Examples 9a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.
Whether local institutions for resource management (e.g., a forest management committee or a fisherman’s group) have a long tradition or are recently established, they can be positively involved in the conservation initiative through specific roles. They can be helped to strengthen themselves by being provided with technology, credit, training (in administrative, managerial and technical skills) or through links with other organizations. But avoid disrupting the local economy, undermining self-reliance or altering social relations, all of which may bring unexpected negative consequences. The initiative should not act in ways which create or worsen disharmony between local interests. For instance, while the power of anti-conservation groups can at times be broken by external interventions, this may not be wise in the long run. They will still be part of the community and may disrupt conservation in many ways. It is better to involve them than to antagonise them.
Enabling local institutions to strengthen their involvement in resource management increases local autonomy, decreases dependency on national and international institutions and funding, and increases prospects for effective local participation in the initiative. Because communities may be stratified, and because there are usually many stakeholders in a conservation initiative, local institutions can become important mechanisms for integrating and mediating between various interests.
In some countries (especially post-colonial ones) local institutions may be weak or nonexistent in significant policy areas, including conservation. It will not be easy to establish new institutions or build up weak ones in such cases. Much time and expert personnel may be needed. It will also take time for any new institution to gain legitimacy. On the other hand, the approach can result in lasting benefits for local communities and the conservation initiative, as local organizations develop the capacity to promote, manage and monitor environmental measures.
The mere existence of local institutions is not enough. They need to be supported by policies and/or legislation which recognizes their right to be involved and to undertake specific tasks (see option 1.4.14).
See Questions 1.2.5, 1.2.7 and 1.2.8, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.2 (Indigenous Resource Management Systems) and 4.3 (Local Institutions for Resource Management), Volume 2; and Examples 10a-e in Section 6, Volume 2.
Set up a Conservation Council and include representatives of all major stakeholders. A council can provide a key advisory (not decision-making) role and serve as a forum for discussion and consultation among stakeholders. It can identify and discuss resource use, management and tenure; interpret national laws and legislation; draft relevant regulations; identify research needs and needs for infrastructure support, services and policies; and propose specific activities. The council may also be called on to approve/endorse the operating plans of the conservation initiative. But a council, unlike a Collaborative Management Institution (option 1.4.18), is not usually a decision-making body.
Membership in the council will give stakeholders the chance to build skills in procedures policy and negotiating, and will provide an overview of environmental concerns. Members and the groups they represent will likely gain a greater sense of responsibility for the initiative. Over time, if appropriate, the council could provide the basis of a collaborative management institution with decision-making authority.
Because of the council’s importance in protecting local interests and disseminating information, members must be representative and accountable, and discussions must not be dominated by a few individuals or groups. All members should have a clear understanding of the council’s purpose, roles and powers. They should represent all major stakeholders and both genders. Take care to balance interests; if commercial activities each have a representative, so should each environmental group). Most of all, ensure that less powerful stakeholders with prior rights (e.g., marginalized ethnic groups) do not lose those rights by being subsumed into a group dominated by more powerful players. The council's convenor should be ‘neutral’ (an NGO or a respected community leader). A chairperson should be elected early on.
Be cautious where there are many stakeholders and diverse interests. The more members there are, the more difficult and expensive it can be to bring them together regularly. The more diverse the interests, the harder it will be to reach agreement. Give thought to paying members who incur expenses or undertake significant responsibilities. Frustration with the system can undermine local support for the initiative.
See Questions 1.2.4, 1.2.7, 1.2.9 and 1.2.10, Volume 1; Concept File 4.16 (Collaborative Management Regimes), Volume 2; and Examples 11a-c in Section 6, Volume 2.
Ask local people about traditional methods of conflict management (mediation, negotiation, etc.). Build on what exists, identify a relevant new body (e.g., a local council) or nominate an individual to mediate and deal with conflicts between stakeholders and the initiative’s management, or among stakeholders. This body or person should be widely respected, and have the trust of all parties involved, particularly indigenous groups. Keep gender issues in mind; both men and women should have confidence in the system adopted. The mediating body must be sensitive to power imbalances between stakeholders (users, regulators, etc.) and be able to maintain a neutral position in the conflict.
Conflict can undermine the viability or sustainability of an initiative. Establishing a formal conflict management system acceptable to all parties prevents conflicts from developing to the point where they are unresolvable and/or violent. Setting up such a system is very complex, however, and should be done only after lengthy public discussion and an exhaustive survey of existing mechanisms (courts, rituals, etc.). Any mechanism established by a short-term project is not likely to be sustainable. Staff must ensure that any new mechanism complements existing systems and doesn’t compete with them or the authorities that run them (be they local shamans or police). The initiative can really suffer setbacks if the staff don’t involve the full range of stakeholders.
There are two main kinds of conflict: conflict among users, and between users and managers/regulators. Each may require a different approach. Conflict among users is often resolved by a commonly accepted mediator. Social and community pressure for compromise can also help. With major power differences it is more difficult; even more so when users and a regulating agency disagree. Often there is a strong sense of mistrust between them, the sides are not equal in strength, community pressure is ineffective and there is political pressure to settle issues quickly and without compromise.
Several factors are particularly important. The conflict management institution must not be seen as being aligned with any party, including management. Those entering into agreements must have the authority to represent their groups. And the conflict management institution must have some power (coercive and/or moral) to enforce agreements.
See Questions 1.2.4 and 1.2.9, Volume 1; Concept File 4.15 (Conflicts in Conservation), Volume 2; Conflict Management in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 12a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.
Initiate training for the expatriate, local and/or counterpart staff in social communication skills and participatory methods of appraisal, planning, monitoring and evaluation. Emphasize the attitudinal change needed to promote local participation in the initiative and to orient work towards a more "enabling/promoting" role rather than a "controlling/providing" one. You may also consider establishing a system of incentives for the staff of the conservation initiative to reward those who succeed in promoting local participation. This option is not always appropriate, however, and may actually result in ‘fake’ participation.
It is important to train the staff who actually work with the local people and other stakeholders. Those at management level should also be trained so that they appreciate and endorse the new approach being adopted in the field. This kind of training not only builds skills, it also raises awareness of the abilities and resources of local people and how they can be utilized to make the project more successful. It builds the confidence of field staff in being able to deal with problems with stakeholders so they are more likely to respond in a helpful, constructive way rather than by simply imposing their authority. Training and incentives encourage the staff to become more interested, creative and dedicated to their work.
Training must be relevant to the tasks staff are expected to perform. Most staff members welcome the chance to increase their skills; this in itself is an incentive to better performance. But promises of training that are not kept, or omitting some people from training, can make staff resentful. At best, training should be carried out by people working on similar tasks in similar initiatives who have the capacity to impart knowledge using specific examples. It should be backed up by a period of supervision in the field and by ongoing support until staff are confident with their new roles and skills. A professional may need to be recruited on a temporary basis to perform this role (see case study 13d). At times, it may be necessary to hire a person (e.g., an applied social scientist) specifically to deal with social concerns. He or she would ensure that participatory processes were adopted when identifying and responding to key issues, writing management plans and monitoring and evaluating results.
See Question 3.2.6 and Option 3.4.3, Volume 1; and Examples 13a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.
Assess the legal basis (legislation, policies and guidelines) for participation of local communities in the conservation initiative. Include an assessment of the status of local institutions for resource management, recognition of communal property regimes, status of local groups (versus governmental agencies with jurisdiction over the body of resources at stake), women’s rights to property, etc. Where the legal basis for participation is unclear and/or ineffective, consider hiring a legal councillor to draw a proposal for policy change to submit to the appropriate authorities.
The existence of rights in law is not enough in itself. If the process for claiming those rights is expensive, complicated or slow, the stakeholders, especially the poor, are usually not able to take advantage of them. Such aspects of legislation need to be assessed.
Where changes are needed, more appropriate policies and laws can be promoted via national/regional workshops, national/regional reviews of laws, submissions to the national or local government and political campaigning.
See Question 1.2.8, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.3 (Local institutions for resource management) and 4.17 (Governance and the rule of law), Volume 2; and Examples 14a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.
Through participatory processes, identify which conservation initiatives are already being undertaken or planned in the area, either by the community or by others. Ask local stakeholders which activities they would like agency assistance for, or with which agency operations they would like to be involved. Discuss with them appropriate ways by which this involvement could be achieved.
This option reflects a belief in the value of bottom-up development. Listening to local people and letting them determine the appropriate areas and levels of involvement by outsiders will build self.esteem in the community, and assist in the establishment of constructive interaction between the local community and outside agencies. If the wish for involvement and/or the need for an initiative have come from the community, the commitment to joint planning and management processes is likely to be sustainable.
See Question 1.2.1, Volume 1; Social Communication, and Planning in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 15a-f in Section 6, Volume 2.
Facilitate participatory appraisal exercises (also called participatory action research) by a variety of stakeholders. Deal with the local biological and socio-economic environment, with specific reference to existing interests, capacities and concerns relating to the conservation initiative. Facilitate the development of specific proposals (participatory planning) which can be then submitted to the judgement of the local residents at large (e.g., via referendums, open meetings, etc.) and/or further discussed by the authorities in charge. Ask community groups for suggestions on how they can use their own management systems for the conservation of an area. Compare their suggestions with the ideas of the staff of the conservation initiative. Identify and discuss ways of integrating proposals from different sources. Look out for conflicts and discuss ways of accommodating these.
This process safeguards against technocratic planning being imposed from outside, which too often ignores the interests and capacities of local communities and other stakeholders. Involving affected parties in identifying relevant issues and potential activities can increase their knowledge and appreciation of the initiative and give them a sense of ownership in its future direction. It can also help to reduce the potential for conflict in the implementation stage. In turn, involving the staff and management of the initiative in the exercise gives them a greater understanding of the concerns and capacities of various stakeholders.
Several issues need to be considered before adopting this strategy. First, the process requires the time and involvement of facilitators with experience and training. Such expertise may not be readily available. Also, if the stakeholders do not anticipate substantial benefits, they may be unwilling to commit time and resources to the exercise.
Second, consider the commitment of the decision-makers to take into account the results of the participatory exercise. Failure to do so will create frustration, disappointment and distrust among the participants, which could be very damaging to the initiative. Related to this is the need to ensure that the inputs from the stakeholders are properly recorded, interpreted and utilized so all parties concerned gain the maximum benefit.
See Questions 1.2.1. and 1.2.7, Volume 1; Information Gathering and Assessment, and Planning in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 16a-h in Section 6, Volume 2.
Support the development of a collaborative management agreement (also referred to as joint management, co-management, participatory management or round-table agreement) in which representatives of all key stakeholders agree on objectives for the conservation initiative and accept specific roles, rights and responsibilities in its management. The process of formulating the agreement should ensure that conflicts are expressed openly, acknowledged, and dealt with.
A collaborative management agreement ensures that the trade.offs and compensations for the stakeholders are clear and that all parties are aware of the commitments made by the other stakeholders. This provides a good structure for internal monitoring and stakeholder accountability. If necessary, identify an external facilitator to assist in mediating and negotiating among stakeholders until a management plan has been agreed upon. Support the plan's implementation and follow.up. Make sure that clear priorities are set for monitoring and evaluation of the agreed activities, and for enforcement and ongoing management of conflicts, as needs arise.
Formulating an agreement among parties with diverse interests requires time, patience and specific skills. Stakeholders will be reluctant to participate if they feel they have nothing to gain by compromising their interests. A collaborative management institution (e.g., a management board, a specific authority, etc.) may need to be established to implement the agreement.
See Questions 1.2.4 and 1.2.9, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.15 (Conflicts in conservation) and 4.16 (Collaborative management regimes), Volume 2; Conflict Management in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 17a-f in Section 6, Volume 2.
Establish a Collaborative Management Institution (e.g., a management board) to develop a management agreement and plan for the territory of the conservation initiative. The institution would also have responsibility for implementing the agreement and the management plan, and for reviewing them, as needs arise. If necessary, the institution could hire a professional facilitator to help negotiate the agreement and plan.
The principal difference between a Conservation Council and a Collaborate Management Institution is that the latter has the power to make decisions. This is essential if the institution is to ensure that the collaborative management agreement is effective. It therefore needs to have some form of legal and/or political status that enables it to enforce its decisions.
The institution would include representatives of all the major stakeholders in the conservation initiative. This would include the governmental agency in charge of management; the local residents in their capacity as users of the resource and/or citizens interested in conservation and/or citizens with unique knowledge and management skills; the local authorities; relevant development and conservation NGOs; and relevant businesses and industries.
As a multi-stakeholder body with an overall knowledge of the initiative and strong local representation, the Collaborative Management Institution provides a most valuable option for the long-term sustainability of the conservation initiative. It may not be easy or inexpensive to set up a new institution, however, even if it can be developed within or alongside an existing one.
See Questions 1.2.7, 1.2.8, 1.2.9 and 1.2.10, Volume 1; Concept File 4.16 (Collaborative management regimes), Volume 2; and Examples 18a-e in Section 6, Volume 2.
If and when appropriate, and in a way which is compatible with the national political, legal and institutional conditions, devolve the conservation initiative to local institutions. They then become the agents in charge. With necessary initial support, devolution can reduce local dependence on outside assistance, build local confidence and strengthen local management systems, thereby increasing the long.term sustainability of the initiative. And because the people who belong to local institutions live close to the resources concerned and their livelihood typically depends on these resources, they often have an intimate knowledge of the resources and their uses. This knowledge is best tapped if local institutions are given formal authority and security of maintaining authority over time. Devolution can reduce the cost of managing the initiative (at least in the long term) while increasing accountability to the community, since the staff and decision-makers live among those affected by the initiative.
Devolution should not be undertaken until a local institution that can equitably represent local interests and competently carry out conservation tasks has been identified, agreed upon and found willing to take on the relevant responsibilities. The assistance required by the community to undertake the activities expected of them should also have been identified and provided. Such assistance may include training, funding, legislative support and even a degree of ongoing managerial support. Political support for the devolution of authority is essential. Devolution of responsibility will not work if the authority to make decisions is retained at the regional or national level.
A further note of warning: devolving management to the local level can make the initiative more vulnerable to takeover by powerful local or outside interests. This is a particularly serious risk when major businesses and industries are involved.
See Questions 1.2.7, 1.2.8, Volume 1; Concept File 4.18 (Decentralizing and devolving government), Volume 2; and Examples 19a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.
With the stakeholders, and, if appropriate, the donors, undertake reg-ular participatory monitoring and evaluation to review objectives, ap-proach, activities and results. Monitoring measures progress or compliance; evaluation reflects on the past to make decisions about the future.
Monitoring enables problems to be identified and solutions to be sought at an early stage. It can be carried out on a formal or semi-formal basis by both local people and staff of the initiative. Establish a system to record the results over time; the resulting data can then be part of the evaluation process. Aspects to be monitored could include effectiveness of information systems; regularity of staff visits to communities; maintenance of park boundaries; compliance with meeting schedules, etc.
Stakeholders could be given authority to monitor the quality of service provided by the initiative, e.g., interactions between the local community and management; follow-up to complaints, etc. If stakeholders are responsible for monitoring, there should be a process for feeding results back to management and a commitment on their part to take these results into account. Failure to do so will create frustration and distrust among the stakeholders, which could hurt the initiative. Keep a record of monitoring results, including recommendations to improve the initiative’s design, management and scope. Establish procedures and responsibilities for ensuring that decisions are acted on.
Evaluation should reassess the design and objectives of the initiative and assess its impact on the environment and the affected communities. This can be done at planned intervals, when there is a crisis, or if a problem becomes apparent. It should be conducted in open meetings with as many stakeholders as possible. Solicit suggestions for improvement and discuss openly the pros and cons of several courses of action.
Prepare stakeholders for evaluation by providing them beforehand with a list of items. Seek their suggestions on matters to be included. Evaluate not just the initiative but also any changes in the communities since it was implemented. Keep questions broad so as not to confine the analysis. Appropriate questions include: What is getting better? What is getting worse? Who is gaining from the initiative? Who is losing?
See Questions 3.2.5 and 3.2.6, Volume 1; Monitoring and Evaluation in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 20a-c in Section 6, Volume 2.