Subnational | PANORAMA

Adopting an enabling legal framework

In order to grant the management responsibility to a local entity, a new legal framework had to be created. The Laponia Ordinance is the only legislation applying to a World Heritage Site in Sweden. It enables the County Administrative Board and the Environmental Protection Agency to hand over responsibilities to Laponiatjuottjudus. In normal cases it is the municipalities or the County Administrative Board that administrate a new World Heritage Site.

A willingness from the authorities to try new solutions in management.
Not to be afraid to think outside the box.
A willingness to compromise.

It is really hard to give recommendations how stakeholders in other countries should work with a similar process, because so much depends upon the situation in the country, how the relationship between the different stakeholders, inhabitants in the area, is. It is necessary to understand well which possibilities the government, authorities, and local people have to participate in a process such as the Laponia Process.

It is fundamental to know what is possible to do with the legal framework because the proposal must be compatible with the rest of the country’s legal framework.

Subnational

Establishment of an inclusive dialogue process: the Laponia Process

The Laponia Process was an approach to dialogue created and developed by a diversity of stakeholders in the Laponian Area World Heritage property. Since Laponia is a large area which consists of several protected areas, to establish a coordinated management system as a whole has been very challenging since its inscription in the World Heritage List. The County Administrative Board of Norbotten and the Sámi communities and municipalities of Jokkmokk and Gällivare started originally to prepare their conservation programs independently. The Laponia Process started by the initiative of the Governor of Norrbotten in 2005 including all stakeholders in a process of dialogue based on a set of common values, which would lead the parties to agree in crucial issues and the terms in which the Laponian Area should be managed. All decisions were determined to be taken by consensus, and new regulations for the national parks and nature reserves were requested. In 2006, the parties signed a common agreement which they sent to the Government, which contained:

A set of common basic values
Common intentions for a number of efforts
The establishment of a temporary Laponia delegation
Preparations for the start of a World Heritage management group with a Sámi majority on the committee.

The political will of the Governor of Norbotten, the Sámi village organizations through the association Midjá Ednam, the interest of the municipalities of Jokkmokk and Gällivare, and the endorsement of the SEPA were essential conditions for starting the process. The initiative originates in the acceptance of the different realities of the parties involved and the strong will to co-create a new management for the Laponian Area. Moreover, there was enough financing for the project and each group participated with the same economical prerequisites.

To be able to establish an organization based on consensus and develop a new way of management, one needs to listen to people and try to learn why they are thinking and doing like they are (it is norms and values that forms their ideas and practise) but also openly explain why one is thinking and doing in the way one is, because that also depends on the norms and values one has in life. This process takes time, and it is about learning new knowledge from each other and accept it. This is also a process one cannot do in the office, one needs to go out and meet people in their ordinary life regularly. It cannot be rushed or think it can be a quick fix. The Laponia Process took six years until all stakeholders involved could agree upon a common organization and management plan.

To do a process like the Laponia Process – you need to have time, financing, and the “right” people involved. Listen to each other. Time to take home tricky questions and discuss them with other representatives for the stakeholders, before decisions are made.

Documentation and dissemination of results

Local

Subnational

Creating a shared vision of land management through water

In order to promote an operational connectivity between the diverse upriver and downriver sub-basins (zones) of a river basin, including both ecosystems and productive activities, water was chosen as the conductive element; the element to bring the zones and stakeholders together. Modelling of the surface water supply and sediment retention in different zones permitted the identification of provider-recipient-accumulation relationships. Through this, the dynamics between demand for hydrological services (e.g. populations, tourist zones) and those that produce them (mountainous zones with forest cover) could be identified and connected. Based hereon, the different stakeholders were brought together to learn about and exchange on key information on zonal levels of production and services available. This in turn led to the identification of what should be done where and by whom.

A network of NGOs with sufficient experience to mentor producers and other stakeholders;
Availability of quality teaching materials and methods usable by and with communities;
Commitment and interest from different stakeholders and government insitutions towards the whole project

The intrinsic connectivity of the PAMIC methodology has proven to be the aspect that attracts interest from the government entities and from land use stakeholders. The tool helps to identify who they can work with regarding productive activities (i.e. coffee, sugar production). This aspect has enabled local actors as a group to understand the dynamics between micro watershed units.

Implementation

Documentation and dissemination of results

Subnational

Inter-institutional governance at different levels

To create and develop PAMIC, diverse government entities belonging to the environment sector joined forces to design a cutting edge and innovative project: the National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change (INECC) coordinated the construction of the PAMIC plans; The National Comission of Natural Protected Areas (CONANP) consolidated the management and operation of the project within the Protected Natural Areas (ANP); and the National Forestry Comission (CONAFOR) implemented Payments for Environmental Services schemes from the biodiversity fund. The Mexican Nature Conservation Fund (FMSN) contributed its experience in the management of financing schemes. All in all, this created two further funds to stimulate activities and impacts. Moreover, the inter-institutional coordination included i) a Technical Project Committee that supervised and directed the operation of C6; ii) a Unit Project Coordinator and iii) two Regional Project Units, which were responsible for the daily coordination of technical and logistical issues. Such a design has been an essential aspect that generated major advances in land use planning for collective benefits.

Very good coordination between the institutions, all of which share a clear vision of the use of different financial and management instruments;
Sufficient financial and institutional resources;
Experience and interest of the institutions involved;
Experience in the implementation of existing programs, e.g. social assistance programs, subsidies, Payments for Environmental Services, etc.

Coordination efforts benefit from forms of polycentric governance between levels and stakeholders. This scheme of governance is backed by formal agreements between institutions that establish the rules of the game for all the other organizations and stakeholders involved in the project in a transparent manner.
Formal institutional agreements can produce a planning instrument which is dynamic and can strengthen decision-making, helping each stakeholder to make the most of different planning elements for land use management.
There has been a visible increase in confidence on the part of key institutions in local scale land use planning processes. This can be seen in improved decision making and use of programme funds.

Implementation

Documentation and dissemination of results

Subnational

Building agency through facilitated knowledge co-creation

After the baseline assessment the deliberation and co-learning process needs to shift towards a long-term continuous process with recurring meetings. This may include changing roles and encouraging stakeholders to claim ownership and take lead. For this to be a smooth transition it needs to be addressed already when the process starts.

Increasing familiarity with online platforms and tools.
Creation and use of boundary objects (mind maps, system diagrams, billboards).
Clear protocols for data management and sharing are required, and group dynamics and potential disagreements need to be handled. Hence, it is essential for a successful process that the core team has competence and experience in process design, facilitation and communication, and that these different roles are divided among the core team members.

Especially if you are an ‘external’ actor, finding local collaborators with a shared interest, and who are willing to invest some time, is invaluable.
Start with already existing strategies or the actions participants can see themselves engaging in. Starting with something more ’concrete’ will help people to reflect and think beyond their current reality.
Designing and planning exercises together with key stakeholders and local partners may help facilitate the process.
Actor differences make it difficult (or impossible) to find a format, time, topic and language that suits everyone. A recommendation is to run at least part of the process in parallel focus groups in order to be able to go deeper into certain topics that might not be relevant for the whole group.
Small things matter, like sending individual emails to people adapted to them and their work, finding opportunities to meet in person or join external events organized by the participants of your process.

Space for reflexivity

A diagnostic and reflexive approach on values, knowledge and expectations at individual level is a useful baseline to prepare the group interactions and to balance representativeness and synergies in pluralistic settings

Meeting individuals “where they are” and encouraging them to reflect what they would bring (in terms of defended values and knowledge) to a group deliberative setting may enhance their long-term engagement and contribute to building collective capacity for mosaic landscape management;
Similarly, upfront asking participants who will be engaged in knowledge co-creation about their expectations from the process, i.e. expectation management, may increase participation.

In situations of values plurality and participatory decision-making it is more appropriate to adopt an adaptive and reflexive approach that recognises knowledge is intertwined with values and that they are mutually co-creating each other;
To navigate consensus, dissensus and inclusivity in multifunctional landscapes it is useful to plan for a collaborative process that alternates between consensus building and plurality recognition; in other words, reaching consensus should not be done at the expense of excluding certain viewpoints. This needs to be mentioned transparently, as agreement may not be favoured over the expression of value plurality;
An individual-based reflective inquiry of values and knowledge can be a relevant part of planning a multistage collaborative process towards sustainability outcomes.
More reflexive approaches to protected area management may enhance inclusive processes by allowing for different value and knowledge systems to co-exist.

Horcea-Milcu et al 2019 Values in transformational sustainability science: four…

Preferences, priorities, problem identification and tentative solutions – mapping system knowledge, target knowledge and transformative knowledge

Eliciting perspectives and systems understandings from a larger group of people in a systematic way to better understand the key issues that the process is framed around. Key issues are useful entry points to start entangling system dynamics - What are useful entry points in your case and to whom? This phase also asks the question of what is already known about the system by the stakeholders and what are uncertainties according to the stakeholders?

The iterative online survey offers a way to synthesize existing knowledge without actually meeting, online or in person.
The Delphi survey design helps bypass challenges in different actor preferences for how to collaborate, the perceived importance given to different issues and the practical circumstances of their involvement (e.g. professionally or privately). These differences may make it difficult (or impossible) to find a format, time, topic and language that suits everyone.

Complementary activities, like open ended interviews or discussions with a reference group not involved in the survey, can help clarify what information you have and what is missing.
Finding a unifying and specific vision for a complex landscape is hard. Identifying multiple points of common interest and a broad target like ‘liveable countryside’ can serve as a more realistic starting point for moving forward.

Guías para decisores políticos y partes interesadas

Principios compartidos en los procesos de OEM de los 3 archipiélagos

MarSP, 2019

Presentación de la solución durante el desarrollo del proyecto

MarSP

La PEM aporta un enfoque de gobernanza oceánica integrado, novedoso a nivel de la Macaronesia. La decisión política y la participación pública son elementos fundamentales en esta política, que necesita del entendimiento de la PEM tanto a nivel de cada archipiélago como a escala transfronteriza.

Las guías de PEM de la Macaronesia europea pretenden informar y apoyar respectivamente a decisores políticos y partes interesadas en su importante papel en la PEM, incluyendo su participación activa en la preparación y desarrollo de los planes. Ambas guías hacen un repaso sintético de varios elementos importantes en esta materia:

La Macaronesia como región biogeográfica y sus componentes clave;
La PEM como política emergente;
El marco legal de la PEM en España y Portugal;
Los contenidos fundamentales de los planes de cada región;
Desafíos y oportunidades que presenta la Macaronesia.

Las guías también aportan información sobre los beneficios que conlleva participar en el proceso para los actores, así como los principios que orientan la toma de decisiones. Por último, se proporcionan recomendaciones de futuro para la participación y la toma de decisiones en Azores, Madeira y Canarias a partir de lo aprendido durante el proyecto.

Cooperación con el resto de los equipos del consorcio en la elaboración de las guías.
Revisión de contenidos por parte de las autoridades competentes de PEM de cada archipiélago, asegurando la veracidad de las informaciones.
Participación en talleres de PEM con las partes interesadas para presentar las guías y obtener aportaciones de los participantes. Esto creó la base para una buena parte de las recomendaciones incluidas en las guías.

Los proyectos sobre temáticas novedosas necesitan de documentos de carácter divulgativo. En éstos se requiere un esfuerzo sintético para poder alcanzar y ayudar a su público objetivo. Generalmente los decisores políticos y agentes socioeconómicos no disponen de tiempo o interés para leer informes extensos.
La ilustración y diseño de este tipo de guías son clave para hacerlas atractivas e invitar a su lectura.
Las guías deben ser traducidas a la lengua maternan de cada país, en este caso español y portugués, para alcanzar el mayor público posible.
Los proyectos piloto deben mostrar cierta flexibilidad a la hora de abordar sus entregables para poder adaptarlos a las necesidades reales y cambiantes a lo largo del tiempo.

Guía de Planificación Espacial Marina en la Macaronesia europea para las partes…

Guía de Planificación Espacial Marina en la Macaronesia europea para los deciso…

West and South Europe

Citizens are encouraged to be nosy about air quality

Amelie

Claessens

Training and capacity building

Women meeting

CEJAD

Public awareness and trained community groups in old town on plastic waste substitution, recycling, reduction, recovery, and safe disposal practices.

Equipping the women artisans with machinery, tools, and equipment for making sculptures and items out of plastic waste as well as training women artisans on product development and packaging was very well informed.

Empowerment is just a means to an end in ensuring that plastic waste management is mainstreamed.

Establishing enterprises: This factor has been critical in sneering sustainability is enhanced all through, including linking the community groups with financial institutions to enhance their financial management skills.
Established a model centre at the Madubaa landing site for demonstrating best practices for zero-waste, 3Rs (reducing, recycling and re-using), showcasing viable plastic waste products and enterprises, troubleshooting, and continuous learning.

Provide incentives to catalyse waste segregation at source as well as compliment it advocacy awareness to ensure county governments step their roles and function of proper waste management enforcement.
Develop programs that enhance paradigm shift to promote circularity among stakeholders in a consultative manner. i.e. walk with them through the journey, co-creation sessions.

Implementation

Local

Subnational