5.3 Planning

5.3.1 group brainstorming
5.3.2 guided imagery
5.3.3 problem and solution mapping
5.3.4 nominal group technique
5.3.5 ranking exercise

5.3.1 Group brainstorming

Brainstorming is a process by which all members of a discussion group are encouraged to express a view on a particular issue or topic "off the top of their head" (hence the term brainstorming). Views should be kept short and to the point. The process is usually started by an open-ended question — not suggestive but provocative — from the facilitator about a particular issue. Depending on the topic, an appropriate question could be "What do you value and wish to preserve in your environment?" or "Which activities being carried out in this area are not good for the environment?" or "What can be done to respond to the problems you identified about the forest/wetland/soil erosion, etc?"

Purpose

Brainstorming aims to elicit individual views on a given issue, (e.g. the full range of possible actions that could be undertaken) and is usually followed by a discussion (for instance for the group to work out which suggestions are feasible). Encouraging people to express ideas "off the top of their heads" increases the possibility that new ideas, which might not otherwise have been thought of, are put forward for consideration.

Steps in using the tool

• The issue to be discussed is introduced by the facilitator and the key question is written on a blackboard/large sheet of paper, etc.
  
• Participants call out their ideas at random; these are written down. To avoid interrupting the flow of ideas, no comment is allowed from the other participants at this stage.
  
• When all the ideas have been recorded, the group discusses the list to decide which should be removed for one reason or another. Duplications are deleted. Differences in opinion are highlighted and discussed until a degree of consensus is achieved. (At this stage it is not important that everyone agrees with every suggestion but rather that no one objects to a specific suggestion being included for future discussion.)
  
• The final list may be subjected to some form of ranking process (see the description of ranking exercises) or kept for future discussion and planning exercises within the community.

• a properly conducted brainstorming facilitates participation of all group members in building concepts;
  
• it helps to demonstrate the range of possibilities and the degree of consensus within the group;
  
• it is a good introduction to a more structured and focused planning exercise (such as ranking exercise);

• skills in managing group dynamics are needed by the facilitator to keep the process on track and to maximize participation and consensus;
  
• the process may hide conflicts existing within the group which inhibit some people from contributing at all or from making certain suggestions which could affect others;
  
• conflicts between stakeholders may prevent agreement on which ideas should be kept or deleted from the final list.

Guided imagery is, in essence, a trip into the future. Participants should be familiar with the present state of the environment and society they are imagining in the future. This environment should have clear boundaries so that all participants visualize the same territory.

Purpose

Guided imagery encourages participants to think in terms of the future, unconstrained by what is in place in the present. In other forms of planning exercises, groups may miss a vision of what "could be" by focusing on their immediate interests. Engaging in a deliberate exercise of imagining a world "fit for our children" helps people to overcome this focus on personal and short-term interests.

The facilitator should stress that people may indeed come up with wishful thinking but that this is exactly what the exercise is intended to produce: a vision for the future which may or may not be attainable in the lifetime of the participants, but is desirable for future generations. The specific objectives established in the second phase of the exercise should be, in contrast, attainable and measurable targets.

Steps in using the tool

• In a comfortable setting (not a town hall; possibly sitting under a tree), participants are asked to relax, and close their eyes. They are told they are going on a journey into the future, where their "ideal" community exists, perhaps 50 years from now: one they would want their children to inherit.
  
• A facilitator reads a prepared text describing a walk through a community or an area, asking them what specific components look like. Questions in the text prompt participants to think of elements in that "ideal" situation. Typical questions might be about their homes, the forest, the coastal area, the agricultural fields, or the river: what do they look like? what are people doing? etc. The facilitator does not suggest what the participants will see. He/she merely sets the stage for the participants to visualize the features in that ideal environment.
  
• When the walk is complete, the participants open their eyes slowly, reflecting on all they have seen. They are asked to write down the first ten images they recall from their walk.
  
• The facilitator then goes around the group asking each participant to describe one of the images they have written down. Each is recorded on a flip chart or board. This continues until all the images are recorded.
  
• The facilitator summarizes the images into a vision statement for the participants to amend, add to, etc. until a consensus is reached.
  
• The facilitator asks a participant to start mapping the "ideal" community on a flip chart on the basis of the images provided by the various participants; other participants add to this picture and/or draw other pictures.
  
• The pictures are then discussed and put into categories (e.g. working environment, housing, protected natural areas). These categories form the basis for selecting some action objectives which can be followed up in the present.
  
• The objectives are considered in the light of the overall vision-statement and participants are asked to volunteer for follow-up activities.

• an effective tool for communities wishing to find a shared vision for their collective future;

• puts present differences in perspective, diffusing conflicts and permitting participants to see beyond their pressing concerns;
  
• an interactive, non-confrontational process;
  
• builds cooperative alliances where communities can work together towards common objectives;
  
• it is fun;

• conflicts may emerge if people's images are very diverse;
  
• a great deal relies on the quality of the facilitator and the support materials (written text and questions).

Problem and solution mapping is undertaken in a group situation using a simple map of the relevant features or an aerial photo of the area. People are asked to mark on the map where they think there are problems and how they think those problems can be solved. If problems have been identified in the assessment stage, then people would just be asked to contribute their ideas for solving the problem.

Depending on the problem, they might, for example, draw such things as a new irrigation canal, an area for forest regeneration, a fence to control wild animals, a road realignment, etc. In other cases they may simply draw some zoning suggestions, i.e. for the areas where collection of wild resources is allowed, for areas where housing should be banned, and so on.

Purpose

Problem and solution mapping enables all participants to contribute their ideas and suggestions. By drawing those on a communal plan, they manage to make them visible to all and usually find a way to integrate them.

Steps in using the tool

• Explain the situation that has to be dealt with (e.g. pollution of a coastal area, land erosion, depletion of a species) in simple and, if possible, non-judgemental terms.
  
• Explain that the point of the exercise is to find out together what can be done to respond to the problem and stress that everyone must be given a turn at recording their ideas on the map or photo.
  
• There should be one map or photo for every 1015 people present who are asked to work as a group.
  
• Hand out coloured pens to each of the groups and ask them to discuss the problem and draw possible solutions on the map. Be available to help identify areas/features on the map, if required.
  
• Once everyone has had an opportunity to mark their views on the map, encourage them to look at the maps from the other groups (if there are any) and compare and discuss the different solutions.
  
• Ask the groups to write their suggestions on a large sheet of paper which everyone can see and to present them to the others. Get people to discuss how effective each proposed solution would be and how it could be undertaken.
  
• Facilitate consensus on the actions required to address the problem outlined in the opening presentation.
  
• Get the participants to rank the agreed activities in order of priority (see "ranking exercises" for details).

• drawing features on a map does not rely on literacy or on the ability of people to express themselves orally in a public forum;
  
• the method enables people to see the different opinions in their community and to see how compatible these are with their own;
  
• it is a very lowtech and simple method which does not require extensive training for field staff and is easy to use in rural areas;

• some of the solutions proposed may be impractical (e.g. for financial reasons) but failure to act on them could cause ill feeling;
  
• some cultures or individuals may have difficulty with maps;
  
• the method is not suitable for situations where the solutions are not likely to involve some structural elements (i.e. the problem cannot be solved by zoning regulations or by building, planting or moving something).

Nominal group technique (NGT) is a tool to elicit ideas and reach group consensus on one or more key issues or courses of action. The exercise needs a skilled facilitator, who begins the meeting by posing a clear question to the group (e.g. "what are the key problems and opportunities facing our initiative with respect to the topic X?"). Each individual is given time to think and to note down his or her main replies on cards. The cards are then presented, discussed and grouped to represent the collective reflection of the participants.

Purpose

NGT is especially useful for planning and priority-setting. Together with other scoring and ranking techniques, NGT may also be used when individual opinions must be consolidated into a group decision.

Steps in using the tool

• Present the participants with a clear question upon which to reflect. Have the question written on a flip chart or board for everyone to see.
  
• Give each participant a set of cards (half the size of a letter sheet is usually good; coloured paper adds to the visual appeal) and felt pens. Ask them to write down the answers/issues/actions they think are relevant to answer the question. These should be written as a simple sentence or just a few words (ask them to write large, all-caps letters, to be seen from afar, possibly not more than five words per card). The participants can use as many cards as they like.
  
• Ask each person to come to the front of the group, and read out and explain what he/she has recorded on the card(s).
  
• As people finish, ask them to pin or tape their cards on the wall. The first person spreads her/his cards out. Subsequent people are asked to add their cards close to the ones most similar to theirs or, when a totally new item is suggested, start another "cluster" on the wall.
  
• When all the people have presented their ideas and placed them on the wall, there will be various clusters of items: some with many cards, some with only one or two.
  
• Ask the participants to consider whether they need to rearrange the cards among the clusters; if they do, they should discuss the moves and agree as a group with the help of the facilitator. The participants may also decide to remove some cards or cluster(s). (Those who originally proposed the items may change their mind once they have heard other ideas).
  
• Work out together with the participants a title and/or condensed paragraph to summarize all the aspects/ideas noted in each cluster.
  
• If a rank order is needed among the clusters, follow up with a ranking exercise. More commonly, the large group of participants is broken down into smaller groups, each to discuss in depth one of the various clusters identified. The smaller groups then report on their findings, and a general discussion allows the exercise to be concluded.
  

• NGT helps participants group their individual opinions as a collective product;
  
• everyone is asked and expected to contribute and the technique promotes paying great attention to the ideas of others;
  
• the technique is constructive and adds an important visual element to issues and ideas for action;
  
• a record of the key ideas is produced during the technique (the cards, summary statements and reports from small groups);

• literacy is needed among all the participants;
  
• a skilled facilitator is essential;
  
• a balanced participation of stakeholders is essential.

Ranking exercises are group processes in which participants rank a range of pre-identified actions according to a priority that they assign. The technique follows an assessment process in which people have identified a list of problems and opportunities and/or possible actions to be taken in response to those. It is a particularly good follow-up to a brainstorming exercise or SWOL analysis (see 5.5.4).

The ranking exercise should be followed by identifying, with the participants, the processes required to achieve each of the agreed actions, and by allocating responsibilities for the tasks involved.

Purpose

Ranking is a tool for reaching a group consensus on a course of action to be adopted, and for setting priorities. It can be used when individual opinions must be consolidated into a group decision. Ranking can also be used to identify and quantify needs.

Steps in using the tool

• List the items to be priorized on a board or sheet of paper visible to everyone. Make the items simple; if necessary, use visual images and drawings.
  
• Make sure that the participants involved in the exercise are representative of the interests at stake.
  
• Define a simple ranking mechanism. The system used may depend on the number of items. Where there are more than ten items, each participant can be given a specific number of stickers (red dots, stars, etc.) and asked to stick one or more beside each item they consider important, or they can simply allocate five marks among what they consider to be the most important items. If confidentiality is important, give sheets with the list of items to each person for them to record their preferences. Where there are fewer than ten items, or where participants wish to weight their judgement of each item, a numbering system may be more appropriate. In that case, each participant allocates a number to each item according to their priority (e.g. one to five, with five being first priority).
  
• Explain the ranking system to the participants and ask them to think about their preferences and then to place their stickers or write their numbers against the items listed.
  
• After each participant has ranked the items, compile the group result by counting the number of dots or marks beside each item or by adding up the numbers recorded against each.
  
• Rank the priorities according to the group's total score and discuss the results with the group. Identify and explore disagreements if any exist.

• ranking is a flexible technique which can be used in a variety of situations and settings;
  
• decisions about what should be done and the order of priority are made by the group as a whole rather than being imposed on them. Ranking through consensus is helpful in increasing group commitment to a programme of action;
  
• everyone is able to contribute without having to express themselves in a public forum which can be intimidating for some people (e.g. women and vulnerable groups);
  
• ranking exercises are generally found amusing and interesting by participants;
  
• relatively large numbers of people (up to about 50) can participate in the exercise;

• choices may be affected by highly subjective factors;
  
• "block voting" by certain groups can bias the result. If this is a potential problem, the participants may need to be carefully selected to ensure that different interests are fairly represented;
  
• the course of action eventually decided on may be different to the priorities of the ranking exercise because of factors such as delays in obtaining necessary resources, or because some things can be achieved quickly while others (which may have been given a higher ranking) require more time. To avoid misunderstandings, process considerations should be worked through with the group once the items have been ranked.

5.4.1 a process for negotiation/mediation

5.4.1 A process for negotiation/ mediation

Conflict is normal. Even within groups that share a common background, individuals differ in the way they view the world and in the things they value and care for. These views are influenced by factors such as gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, religion and age. Differences are important; they make communities interesting places to live. But when choices have to be made that affect people with diverging views, interests and values, differences can lead to conflict.

There are many reasons why conflicts arise in conservation areas. Sometimes they result from lack of attention to the process of involving local people in planning and decision-making. In other cases, the local residents and resource users have needs in opposition to the needs of the conservation area and/or in conflict with each other.

Sometimes the conflicts can be worked through by having each side explain to the other how they feel about a particular situation or proposal, and why. One or both sides agree to change and the problem goes away. Sometimes the conflict cannot be resolved so easily and more structured processes have to be used. Whichever approach is adopted, it must be appropriate for the context in which it occurs, and must take into account local customs and institutions for dealing with conflicts.

There are three broad categories of approaches to managing conflicts. They differ in the extent to which the parties in conflict control the process and the outcome. These categories are:

Negotiation: where the parties, with or without the assistance of a facilitator, discuss their differences and attempt to reach a joint decision. The facilitator merely guides the process in a non-partisan manner to help the parties clarify and resolve their differences.

Mediation: where the parties agree to allow an independent, neutral third party (usually a person trained in mediation) to control and direct the process of clarifying positions, identifying interests and developing solutions agreeable to all. As with negotiation, this is a voluntary process which the parties can opt out of at any time.

Arbitration: where each side is required to present their case to an independent person who has legal authority to impose a solution. Agreements are enforceable through law.

General principles of negotiation/mediation

To avoid focusing on particular stakeholders or positions (either of which can increase conflict and/or result in a deadlock), the best approach to adopt is what is sometimes termed "interest-based" or "principled" negotiation/mediation. This approach requires the parties to acknowledge that, to be sustainable, an agreement must meet as many of their mutual and complimentary interests as possible. The focus should be on mutual cooperation rather than unwilling compromise. This approach encompasses four general principles which can be applied to conflicts in conservation initiatives just about anywhere.

Focus on underlying interests. "Interests" are people's fundamental needs and concerns. "Positions" are the proposals that they put forward to try to satisfy those interests. A conflict management effort in which all interests are satisfied is much more likely to result in a lasting and satisfactory resolution than one where the interests of only one side are addressed. Compromise may be the best way to serve everyone's interests in the long run, however, especially when overt conflict is replaced with the stability and predictability of a mutually agreeable solution. For example, in the context of the management of a protected area, allowing some use of the area's resources may ultimately serve the interests of conservation better than keeping the area in strict reserve status, and might also serve the interests of adjacent communities as well. The alternatives — which could include uncontrolled poaching or outright warfare — could be much more damaging.

Address both the procedural and substantive dimensions of the conflict. "Procedural" issues can include a group's need to be included in decision-making when their interests are at stake, to have their opinions heard and to be respected as a social entity. "Substantive" refers to interests that relate to tangible needs, such as availability of firewood, protection from predatory animals or protecting the land from damage caused by over-development.

Include all significantly affected stakeholders in arriving at a solution. Failure to involve all affected stakeholders in the establishment and design of a conservation initiative, in decisions affecting management, or in working out how to resolve conflicts, generally leads to unsustainable "solutions" and to new conflicts arising in the future.

Understand the power that various stakeholders have, and take that into account in the process. Each party's approach to the conflict will depend on their view of the power they have in relation to the other stakeholders. For example, a group that feels powerless to influence an outcome through a bureaucratic process may choose to use illegal activities instead. There are often extreme differences in power between different stakeholders. Those living next to a conservation initiative may be poor and lack a formal education. Despite their lack of power, they should be included in reaching settlements to ensure their needs can be met within the provisions made for the conservation of natural resources.

Conditions for negotiation/mediation

There are a variety of conditions which can affect the success of a negotiation. They should be present before a negotiation process is undertaken. The conditions are:

• All the people or groups who have a stake in the negotiations should be willing to participate.
  
• Parties should be ready to negotiate. They should be psychologically prepared to talk to each other; they should have adequate information; and an outline of the conflict management process should be prepared and agreed to. This is particularly important when dealing with different racial/ethnic groups, especially those which have a tribal system where speaking rights are subject to tradition and the consensus of other members. The negotiation/mediation process should allow time for the different cultural decision-making time frames to be accommodated, e.g. to select a spokesperson and to decide the approach to be taken.
  
• Each party should have some means of influencing the attitudes and/or behaviour of the other negotiators if they are to reach an agreement on issues over which they disagree.
  
• The parties should have some common issues and interests on which they are able to agree for progress to be made.
  
• The parties should be dependent on each other to have their needs met or interests satisfied. If one party can have their needs met without cooperating with others, there will be little incentive for them to negotiate.
  
• They should have a willingness to settle their disagreements. If maintaining the conflict is more useful to one or more parties (e.g. to mobilize public opinion in their favour) then negotiations are doomed to failure.
  
• The outcome of using other means to resolve the problem should be unpredictable. If one party is sure of complete victory for their point of view if they go to court, or directly to the government, they are unlikely to be prepared to negotiate a settlement where only some of their interests will be met.
  
• All parties should feel some pressure or urgency to reach a decision. Urgency may come from time constraints or potentially negative or positive consequences if settlement is or is not reached.
  
• The issues should be negotiable. If negotiations appear to have only win/lose settlement possibilities, so that one party's needs will not be met as a result of participation, the parties will be reluctant to enter into the process.
  
• Participants should have authority to actually make a decision.
  
• The parties should be willing to compromise even though this may not always be necessary. On some occasions an agreement can be reached which meets the needs of all participants and does not require sacrifice on the part of any.
  
• The agreement should be feasible and the parties should be able to put it into action.
  
• Participants should have the interpersonal skills necessary for bargaining as well as the time and resources to engage fully in the process. Inadequate or unequal skills and resources among the parties may hinder settlement and should be addressed before negotiations commence.

The process of negotiation can be viewed as comprising 13 basic steps. These steps can be used as a checklist for anyone called upon to facilitate such a process.

The steps give no indication of the time required to complete them. The actual negotiation/mediation process may take a number of sessions. If the need for more information is identified at any point, the process should be stopped until that information is provided. If the parties reach a point where no progress is being made, they may decide to break the process and either get back together at a later date or enter into an arbitration process instead.

The basic steps are as follows.

• Prior to the parties' meeting, check that all or most of the conditions listed above are present. This will require meeting with the parties individually to clarify their attitudes and positions.
  
• Set a time and place to meet that is agreeable to all parties.
  
• At the beginning of the negotiation, ask each party to explain their position clearly: what they want and why. They should not be interrupted except for points of clarification.
  
• After all parties have stated their case, identify where there are areas of agreement.
  
• Identify any additional information that any of the parties need in order for them to be able to understand the claims made by other parties. If necessary, stop the process until they can be provided with that information.
  
• Identify the areas of disagreement.
  
• Agree on a common overall goal for the negotiations (e.g., the sustainable use of a resource and the maintenance of livelihood for a particular group or community).
  
• Help the parties to compile a list of possible options to meet this goal.
  
• List criteria against which each option should be measured (e.g. urgency of need, feasibility, economic returns).
  
• Evaluate each option against these criteria.
  
• Facilitate an agreement on one or more options that maximize mutual satisfaction among the parties.
  
• Decide on the processes, responsibilities and time-frames for any actions required to implement the agreement.
  
• Write up any decisions reached and get the parties to sign their agreement.