Planning phase | PANORAMA

Stakeholder engagement

The SAGE Assessment is a participatory process involving all the key stakeholders of the conservancy. Identification of stakeholders was carried out at the planning phase of the assessment. This stakeholder mapping was spearheaded by the SAGE consultant and involved Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association (KWCA), Taita Taveta Wildlife Conservancies Association (KWCA landscape level Association working within Tsavo Landscape) and Amboseli Ecosystem Trust (KWCA Landscape level Association working within Amboseli Landscape). The following stakeholder groups were identified and invited for the assessment workshops: Conservancy management, Conservancy Investors, Youth, Men, Women and Board. The assessments were attended by a total of 99 participants.

Each assessment was followed by a synthesis workshop where each group selected two to three representatives to attend the synthesis workshop. The findings of the assessment workshops were presented at the synthesis workshop and ideas for action were discussed. A total of 46 stakeholders from two conservancies attended the synthesis workshop.

The engagement of all relevant stakeholders in the SAGE ensures that stakeholders are all heard and invested in the actions that they collectively decide on.

The collaborative identification of the stakeholders made it possible to exhaustively map all the key stakeholders
Clustering of stakeholders according to common interest created safe spaces for all (especially women and youth) to openly and productively dialogue on the governance status of the conservancies
The self-assessment character of SAGE tool fostered community ownership of the process and the identified actions for implementation

Effective stakeholders engagement plays a key role in ensuring shared understanding of project scope as well as fostering a collaborative approach to project implementation
Clustering stakeholders according to interests is a key ingredient to unrestricted and productive discussions especially by those who may be marginalized in terms of governance and decision making processes
Effective stakeholders engagements enhances ownership of project implementation processes and products

Planning phase

Inception phase

Implementation

Documentation and dissemination of results

Local

Build collaborative environment

Strategic Enforcement Development Session

Belize Audubon Society

Enforcement involves more than just one organization. The entire process in development and implementation of an enforcement strategy must be participatory. Ultimately, stakeholders must be involved as they can have a positive or negative effect on outcomes. In this case local government agencies are crucial to be involved (i.e coast guard, police, military, government agencies). Equally important are community members of influence who can become stewards educating on legislation and the protected area rules ultimately to help reduce poaching. Additionally, the value of strong community support is the fact that they can become “eyes on the ground”.

All partners are to be equally valued in terms of input as this will affect implementation. Process of engagement and facilitation are key.

Ease of implementation of the enforcement plan is directly tied to having good partners and community support.

Situational Analysis—National Context for enforcement of selected Protected Area

In order to develop your enforcement strategy there are key pieces of information that must be collated and understood. These include lay of the land (why is the protected area important, what are the natural assets that need protection), legal framework (what laws apply, what agencies are involved in protected area enforcement/management), and finally what do you want to focus on: enforcement goals.

Informed, capacitated people should be involved in the process. Enforcement goals need to be S.M.A.R.T (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound), this can only happen if the context is correctly represented.

Context is key in the design of enforcement goals. Having a participatory process gets support and buy in from partner agencies and communities making enforcement “easier”.

Carrying out a shared diagnosis for the selection of plant species and trial site selection.

Native seeds collected by volunteers

Nicolas Rinck

Identification of target species by the botanist expert in the presence of project volunteers

Tristan Allignol

One of the prerequisites for action was to work with the project referents in the tribe to conduct an inventory of potential sites for seed planting trials, as well as to identify and select certain target plant species necessary for the process. This step involved mobilizing specific expertise in ecology and botany, also traditional knowledge, as well as putting in place a validation process by the different levels of local authorities involved.

Good communication with the local leaders in the tribes was a critical factor in completing this step. Project presentation ceremonies were held, followed by several field visits with ecological experts to list the range of possibilities and entrust the final choice of these trial sites to the local leaders. The project coordinators were flexible in adapting to the constraints of the location and human factors related to the desired modes of the organization by the local leaders.

Remain flexible in the implementation of solutions; remain attentive to local community referents in order to arrive at a shared and agreed diagnosis and validate project options that local partners have appropriated.

Planning phase

Inception phase

Local

Site-level profile and governance gap analysis

stakeholder meeting

Cecilia Banda

Data Collection

Cecilia Banda

A brief site-level profile (baseline) was developed to assist in understanding the governance gaps and issues in the targeted protected areas. In this case, a SAGE too was identified to assist with a quick assessment of governance issues. This process also helped to identify key stakeholders relevant to the implementation of the project at the site level.

The community buy-in, and commitment from the government and other stakeholders made the process more participative. The use of the SAGE tool encouraged more interaction and contributed to the implementation of the project. The Technical staff and field-based teams were also always available to guide the process through.

The baseline survey to establish site level profile and governance gap analysis required cooperation and collaboration from other stakeholders, especially the traditional leadership and government. It is also a slow process and requires adequate planning and preparation.

Information booklet for Mumbwa

Project blog

Collaboration

Blue Parks relies heavily on collaborations with other conservation NGOs, communications and marketing professionals, government leaders, MPA managers, scientists, and local ocean champions. Growing the network of Blue Parks and amplifying the Blue Park standard for conservation effectiveness requires many partners.

Blue Parks has benefitted from the contributions of many partners. These collaborations have been made possible by a growing awareness that MPA coverage alone is not sufficient to safeguard biodiversity -- that we need to fully implement high quality MPAs in order to see conservation outcomes, and most MPAs are not yet well implemented.

These collaborations have also grown out of Marine Conservation Institute's long-standing history as a trusted partner among marine scientists, conservation organizations, and governments.

Nurturing collaborations across multiple sectors (government, NGO, academia) requires clear communication. We have found that regular, though not too frequent, outreach and communication with these partners keeps the collaborations active, and that these communications are most effective when they are designed for the audience, so we often send separate communications to partners in different sectors.

Documentation and dissemination of results

International Scientific Expertise - The Blue Parks Science Council

The Science Council is made up of over 30 renowned marine science experts from around the world who make award decisions and help refine the criteria. Their expertise is essential to the Blue Parks initiative as they ground the initiative in good science.

Science Council members are leading experts in science related to marine protected areas -- particularly marine protected area quality -- including management, governance, design, monitoring, and compliance -- and outcomes. These experts ensure that the Blue Park criteria are up-to-date, reflecting the best available science related to MPA outcomes, and provide a meaningful global standard for effective marine protection. With their deep understanding of Blue Parks' standard, the Science Council members also judge the Blue Park nominees against it, ensuring that the Blue Park Award decisions are credible.

The Blue Parks initiative depends on the credibility afforded by the roll that the Science Council plays in setting Blue Parks' standard and evaluating nominees. Science Council members volunteer their time and expertise to the initiative, generously dedicating themselves to improving global marine protection.

The Blue Parks team at Marine Conservation Institute endeavors to facilitate positive and productive experiences for those who serve on the Science Council. We are careful with member's time and good will, and we look for opportunities to collaborate in related research or other projects.

Facilitating consensus-based decision-making among members in diverse time zones is a challenge -- one that we are always working to overcome. We rely heavily on email, Zoom calls, and sometimes recorded videos to communicate about Blue Park Award decisions. We have found that careful documentation is important. It is also helpful to be able to connect in person periodically.

Blue Parks Science Council

Be creative with the methodology

Participants during daily quizz

GIZ

Training on an intersectoral topic such as climate change and health is more challenging for participants because their academic and practical background knowledge might not cover both topics. The training will likely cover a lot of new information for each participant. Given the complexity of the topic, it is even more important to develop and utilise a wide range of methodological approaches to maintain energy levels and focus during the training.

Interactive and innovative methods require good preparation from the presenters. It is often necessary to prepare aids or specific content. Using some methods can be challenging for participants who have never encountered them before and may take more time than originally anticipated.

Add several animated or guided group work sessions
- For example: divide participants into different subgroups (i.e. by disease type: vector-borne, water and foodborne, airborne, zoonotic, direct impact) and have them work out which diseases to choose, how to investigate the link (vulnerability assessment), and how to adapt to climate impacts (national public health adaptation planning)
Refrain from lengthy reports that repeat the previous day's content; instead, ask questions in the form of a group game (quiz);
Share slides and summaries so participants can interact more freely and don't feel the urge to note everything down;
Use a different icebreaker each day so the group gets to know each other better;
Schedule site visits, guest lectures, and organise poster presentations to be held by participants.

formation-ccs_toolbox.pdf

Design tailored trainings to a specific purpose

Facilitator during one of the modules

GIZ

The relationship between climate change and health is very complex, as many different fields come together at this intersection. The training experience showed that there is a need to tailor the training to the participants. This should be based on the previous knowledge of the participants, their professional position and the general level of implementation of climate and health activities in their respective countries.
Based on the experience utilizing the training manual in practice, several customized formats are conceivable:

Beginner and advanced level training formats;
Thematic training: introduction to the scientific link between health and climate change;
Policy training: in-depth exercises to develop core policy documents such as a climate risk and vulnerability assessment and a national public health adaptation plan;
Climate governance training: analysis of the Ministry of Health's respective positions on climate – identifying how to integrate climate issues into health policy, how to develop climate policy documents, learning about possible coordination mechanisms, highlighting the international mechanisms on climate change, how to mainstream climate issues in the Ministry of Health

The success of tailoring the training depends on the information available at the preparation level and the skills and flexibility of the trainer. Prior questionnaires for participants can help determine their interest and prior experience. The trainer should have knowledge of climate change, health, hydrometeorology, and the environment, as well as being proficient in the core documents of the fields. Since this is a rare profile, determining the goal of the training early on also makes it easier to find a suitable trainer.

Potential instructors must be very experienced as the manual covers several different topics;
Using the 16 modules of this training in 5 days is too much content and leaves little time to apply more diverse training methods;
Objectives should be clearly stated from the very beginning of the process;
The preparation, coordination and implementation of the training requires a dedicated support team in the hosting country with enough time, personnel and budget resources.

Agenda of 5-day training

Focus on regionalisation

Winners of daily quizz

GIZ

Bringing together different stakeholders not only from different sectors (health, environment, hydrometeorology, university, etc.), but importantly also from different countries in the same region, allows participants to network, share their experiences, and find contextually appropriate, concrete and immediately applicable solutions. The use of a regional trainer helps to address sensitive issues related to governance and finance, and to relate theory to practical examples from the regional context.

The selection of appropriate participants depends on prior knowledge of the stakeholder landscapes of the participating countries. It is essential to be able to identify decision makers in the respective ministries who can place the topic in the policy dialogue.
Regarding the trainer, it is important to find a person with appropriate experience on the link between climate change and health, as well as expertise in andragogy.

The number of participating counties should be limited to three to keep the total size of the group below 30 while still including diverse stakeholders.
One starting point in identifying participating countries is the mix of topics according to their implementation status (developed documents and studies, pledges, etc).
There are very few suitable trainers, especially for francophone countries: a database should be developed and shared among partners. This would also enable continuity of the training and familiarity with the format and content.

Planning phase

Multi-national