The ERA-NET promoting European research on biodiversity
BiodivERsA
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Handbook BiodivERsA is the network of national funding organisations promoting pan-European research that offers innovative opportunities for the conservation and sustainable manage- ment of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
For further information on the ERA-NET BiodivERsA2, please contact: Coordinator Xavier Le Roux [email protected] BiodivERsA Secretariat Executive Manager: Frédéric Lemaître [email protected]
Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité 195, rue St Jacques 75005 Paris France Tel: +33 (0)1 80 05 89 37 Fax: +33 (0)1 80 05 89 59 www.biodiversa.org
© BiodivERsA, Paris, 2014 BiodivERsA2 (2010-2014), ERA-Net funded under the EU’s 7th Framework Programme for Research. BiodivERsA Stakeholder Engagement Handbook Best practice guidelines for stakeholder engagement in research projects
This publication should be cited as: Durham E., Baker H., Smith M., Moore E. & Morgan V. (2014). The BiodivERsA Stakeholder Engagement Hand- book. BiodivERsA, Paris (108 pp).
For further information on this report, contact: Helen Baker ([email protected]) or Matt Smith ([email protected])
Acknowledgements: BiodivERsA would like to thank everyone who contributed to the development of this Handbook. The main authors were Emma Durham, Helen Baker, Matt Smith, Elizabeth Moore and Vicky Morgan of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee UK (JNCC). Xavier Le Roux, Frédéric Lemaître, Claire Freour and Claire Blery of the Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiver- sité (FRB, France), Hilde Eggermont of the Belgian Biodiversity Platform/ BELSPO (Belgium) and Henrik Lange of the Swedish Research Council FORMAS (Sweden) provided contributions and support.
The Partners in BiodivERsA2 contributed information on national practices. Additional material and review was provided by Ros Bryce (Perth College, University of the Highlands and Islands, UK), Mark Reed (Birmingham City University, UK) and Anna Everly (Project Maya). Representatives from 21 of the BiodivERsA research projects, along with Peter Bridgewater and Richard Ferris (JNCC, UK), Marie Vandewalle (Biodiversity Knowledge), Juliette Young (SPIRAL), Cathy Jolibert (University of Barcelona, Spain), Mark Reed (Birmingham City University, UK) and Anna Evely (Project Maya), made important contributions at a workshop in April 2013. The Handbook was copy edited by Neil Ellis (JNCC, UK) and the design and layout completed by Angélique Berhault © BiodivERsA, Paris, 2014 (Belgian Biodiversity Platform/ BELSPO, Belgium). BiodivERsA2 (2010-2014), ERA-Net funded under the EU’s 7th Framework Programme for Research. BiodivERsA is also grateful to all those who kindly contributed to the development of the Handbook through response to the public consultation process. Contents n Foreword: why does BiodivERsA promote stakeholder engagement in research projects?...... 1 CONTENTS- Part 1...... 3 FOREWORD: Why does BiodivERsA promote stakeholder engagement in research projects? 6 Introduction...... 3
Background...... 3 PART 1: INTRODUCTION 8 How does the Handbook work?...... 4 Background 10 What do we mean by engagement?...... 5 How does the handbook work? 11 What is a stakeholder?...... 5 What do we mean by engagement? 11 Why is stakeholder engagement beneficial?...... 5 What is a stakeholder? 12 Challenges and limits to engagement...... 9 Why is stakeholder engagement beneficial? 12 Key points to consider for effective stakeholder engagement...... 13 Challenges and limits to engagement 15 How BiodivERsA can help in stakeholder engagement...... 15 Key points to consider for effective stakeholder engagement 19 General information and advice...... 15 How BiodivERsA can help in stakeholder engagement 21 Information from other researchers and projects...... 15 General information and advice 21 References...... 16 Information from other researchers and projects 21
Part 2...... 20 References 22 Why engage with stakeholders...... 20 PART 2: WHY ENGAGE WITH STAKEHOLDERS 24 Scope and context...... 21 Why engage with stakeholders 26 References...... 25 Scope and context 28 Part 3...... 28 References 32 How to identify stakeholders...... 28 PART 3: HOW TO IDENTIFY STAKEHOLDERS 34 Stage 1: Who are your stakeholders?...... 28 How to identify stakeholders 36 Stage 2: Assess, analyse and prioritise stakeholders...... 33 Stage 1: Who are your stakeholders? 36 Stage 3: Understand your stakeholders...... 39 Stage 2: Assess, analyse and prioritise 40 Summary of the three stages of stakeholder identification...... 42 Stage 3: Understand your stakeholders 46 References...... 43 Summary of the three stages of stakeholder identification 49 Part 4...... 46 References 51 When to engage with stakeholders...... 46 PART 4: WHEN TO ENGAGE WITH STAKEHOLDERS 52 Mapping stakeholder roles to different stages of the project lifecycle...... 47 When to engage with stakeholders 54 References...... 50 Mapping stakeholder roles to different stages of the project lifecycle 55 Part 5...... 51 References 59 Methods for engagement...... 51 PART 5: METHODS FOR ENGAGEMENT 60 Types of engagement method...... 51 Methods for engagement 62 Practical methods notes...... 56 Types of engagement method 62 Engagement skills...... 56 Practical methods notes 67 Matching methods to levels of engagement...... 57 Engagement skills 67 Matching methods to levels of engagement 68 References 69 PART 6: PLANNING THE DETAIL OF THE ENGAGEMENT 70 Planning the detail of the engagement 72 The engagement planning table 73 Practicalities, feasibility and implementation 75 The engagement table: share, adapt and update 76 References 77 PART 7: MANAGING STAKEHOLDER CONFLICT 78 Managing stakeholder conflict 80
Conflicts with and between stakeholders: types and causes 80 Stakeholder perspectives on conflict 81 Analysing conflict 83 Conflict management tools 85 Constructing a conflict timeline 85 References 89 PART 8: MONITORING AND EVALUATING THE ENGAGEMENT 90 Monitoring and evaluating the engagement 92 Benefits of evaluation 93 What to evaluate? 93 When to evaluate? 93 Stages of evaluation 94 Stage 1: From the outset 94 Stage 2: Throughout the process – on-going evaluation 94 Stage 3: Final evaluation 95
Evaluating the process 95 Evaluating the outcomes 96 References 97 APPENDIX 1: Approach used to develop case studies to demonstrate the different stages 100 in stakeholder engagement in biodiversity research Aims 100 Methods 100 COPYRIGHTS 104 ANNEXES: available online at http://www.biodiversa.org/577 6 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook odologies, but oftenlacksuchclearframeworks and developing and using scientific frameworks and meth- scientists from manyotherdomains)are verystrong in it appearsthatbiodiversity scientists(probably as and societalimpactatthe sametime.Inparticular, ing forresearchers to ensure academicexcellence BiodivERsA recognizes thatitisparticularlychalleng - research process, from inceptiononwards (Figure F1). society andscience-policyinterfacingalongthewhole In this context, BiodivERsA is promoting science- future”. be usedandchangethecourseforforeseeable lever weneedtoactivateinorder tomakeourresults research results whilehavinganimpact;whichisthe in research andwhatisthebestwayofcommunicating understanding whoare thekeypersonstobeinvolved BiodivERsA-funded projects: “Akeypointformeis statement from theprincipalinvestigatorofone recent a by exemplified as stakeholders with engage effectively to how clear always not is it researchers for Still, findings. their explaining and disseminating ers, includingpolicymakers,adoptingnewwaysof involved intheprovision ofknowledgetostakehold- etal impact.Biodiversityscientistshavealready been reach academic excellence, and haveaclear soci- promote interdisciplinarity, integratearangeofactors, a cross-cutting subject,biodiversityresearch needsto political, food-securityandenergy-security one.Being an environmental issue,butasmuchaneconomic, versity andassociatedecosystemservicesisnotonly BiodivERsA partnersrecognise thatresearch onbiodi- BiodivERsA aims to launch annual calls in future. biodiversity andecosystemservicescurrently face. major spond tothemostpressing strategicissuesthat five launched it calls forproposals onprioritised topicsthatcorre- 2014, and 2008 Between biodiversity research atapan-European scale. form for encouraging excellent and policy-relevant cies inEurope thataims tobuildadynamicplat- BiodivERsA isthenetworkofnationalfundingagen- Why doesBiodivERsApromote stakeholder engagement inresearchproje nFOREWORD- the European level. to tacklekeyenvironmental andsocietalchallengesat for better protecting, managing and using biodiversity way toknowledgeprovision andilluminatesolutions relevance. We hopethishandbookwillfurtherpavethe lence intermsofbothacademicoutputsandsocietal excel- reaching for field the in community research BiodivERsA’s activitiestoreinforce theEuropean of aspect acrucial considered is research scientific enhancing thelegitimacyandsocietalrelevance of Making theengagementprocess more inclusiveand the mostprofitable fortheir research project. determine whichtypesofstakeholderengagementare tion oftoolssothateachresearch consortiumcan ogy; thehandbookprovides aframeworkandselec- not toprovide adetailedandprescriptive methodol- tices. TheobjectiveofthisBiodivERsAhandbookis prac- engagement stakeholder of field the in authority of theUKpartnersinBiodivERsAandanestablished Joint Nature ConservationCommittee(JNCC),one development ofthishandbookhasbeenledbythe academic stakeholders,includingpolicymakers.The to researchers tobetterplanandengagewithnon- in research projects, providing practicalguidance practice handbook on stakeholder engagement In thiscontext,BiodivERsAhasdevelopedbest often notappliedinbiodiversityresearch. holders inresearch activitiesare available,butare to ensure abalancedrepresentation ofrelevant stake- selection offrameworksandmethodologiesdesigned methodologies when engaging with stakeholders. A JNCC, leaderof theTask forstakeholder FRB, BiodivERsAcoordinator andCEO BELSPO, BiodivERsAWP5leader engagement in BiodivERsA Hilde Eggermont Xavier LeRoux Helen Baker ts?
Stakeholder involvemen
t
Academic involvemen Involvement offundingagenciesandministries+ stakeholder &scientificadvisoryboar t Use ofspecificevaluationcriteria(policyre Priorities andtopicsdependonsocietal Establishment ofacommonr Identification oftopicsforjointcalls Mapping Survey &monitoringoffundedpr impact; stakeholderengagement) Societal impactsassessmentbythe Evaluation offundedpr & pr challenges stakeholder advisoryboar Assessments ofbothacademicexcellence& ogrammes alignment the fundedresearch. of research results) toincrease the societal impactof are used(from co-design ofprogrammes topromotion to besupportedinBiodivERsA, innovativeapproaches excellence isamajorcriterion forevaluatingresearch the research (development) process. Whileacademic science-society dialogueinBiodivERsAthroughout stakeholders andpromote thescience-policy and Figure F1. ds oadmap societal impact DISSEMINA Results disseminationtostakeholdersandpolicy oject outcomesandimpacts -By BiodivERsAthroughspecificmaterials levance; societal -By theprojectleadersthemselves OF FUNDEDPROJECTIMP d Approach andmethodologyusedtoengage ojects TION OFRESUL CO-DESIGN (e.g. policybriefs) makers TS ANDPROMOTION CO-PRODUCTIONC O ACT -PRODUCTIO T ransdisciplinarity engagement stakeholder N 7 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 8 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook › HowBiodivERsAcanhelpinstakeholder engagement › › Challengesandlimitstoengagement › Whyisstakeholderengagementbeneficial? › Whatisastakeholder? › Whatdowemeanbyengagement? › HowdoestheHandbookwork? › Background Introduction What will the outputs of the stakeholder engagement process be? Allow timeforscopingand pilotstudies Barriers tosuccessfulengagement: Sciencetopolicy Benefits ofstakeholder engagement ›› Key points to consider for effective stakeholder engagement
Case studies Part 1 9 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 10 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook include: research, andtherefore criticalstakeholdergroups, of biodiversity. Itfollowsthatthemainusersofthis for the conservation and sustainable management funding mechanismthatgeneratesnewknowledge BiodivERsA is a pan-European biodiversity research and canbedifficulttoachieve. diverse rangeofstakeholdersisrarely straightforward, agreement on concepts and solutions from such a the complex nature ofbiodiversityissuesmeans that better outcomesforbiodiversityandsociety. However, attitudes andbehaviourwhichultimatelymaydeliver and actedupon,inorder tobringaboutachangein findings effectively communicated The be to research.need research from the of outcomes and aims desired the on views differing as well research,as the andundertaking of approaching ways different have has itsowncomplications; those involvedmaywell and thegeneralpublic.Atrans-disciplinaryapproach makers, land-owners,businesses,NGOs,themedia, as wellotherstakeholders,from engineerstopolicy from ecologiststosocialscientistsandeconomists, disciplines different from scientists and researchers different of range wide a involve to and approach ary comprehensive and biodiversity research needstotakeatrans-disciplin- effective be to Thus, impacts. subject, whichhaseconomic,socialandpolitical cross-cutting a is it benefits; and applications ranging Biodiversity andecosystemsresearch canhavewide for thespecificapproaches takenby research teams. applications toBiodivERsAresearch callsascontext engagement. Itmayalsobeusefulforthoseevaluating work, andselectappropriate methodsofstakeholder to engagewithinorder to enhancetheimpactoftheir to assistresearch teamsidentifyrelevant stakeholders wider environmental science community. Itisdesigned tem services,andmaybeausefulresource forthe ing outresearch projects onbiodiversityandecosys- has beencreated forresearchers planningandcarry- The nBackground- BiodivERsA Stakeholder Engagement Handbook ✶ ✶ research funders ✶ policymakers non-governmental organisationsnon-governmental 1 2 , science-policy interfacing is available,forexampletheSPIRALHandbookon approaches tosociallearning engagement in biodiversity research Several previous studies haveassessedstakeholder a wider range of stakeholders in the research process. affect the public and so it may be important to consider However, policy and managerial decisions can also project expect toachieveand/orreceive from engagingwitha activities, butalsowhatstakeholderscanrealistically outcomes ofaproject thatresult from theengagement and thestakeholders–notonlyregarding desirable of managingtheexpectationsbothresearchers Additionally, existing literature outlines the importance carried outisconsidered tobe‘toolittle,toolate’. to all projects and generally that the engagement approach to stakeholder engagement can be applied guidelines With Environmental Change’ knowledge-exchange ing conflictandmonitoring outcomes. guidance onplanningengagement activities,manag- ‘why’, ‘who’,‘when’and‘how’ toengage,aswell by providing a clear, simple guidance, which considers The ✴ ✴ ✴ minimum ies demonstratethatitisimportanttoconsider, ata In determiningtheapproach totake,previous stud- book follows. generally agreed engagementrules,whichthisHand- Handbook aimstoaddress theserequirements, 8,9 ✶ . The existing literature provides a clear set of theaimsandobjectivesofengagement 10 7 including businessesandindustry. natural resource managers(practitioners), and money). the available resources (in particular time ing theoutcomesofengagement the expectations of the stakeholders regard- . Thesestudiesdemonstratethatnosingle : 2 , theUKprogramme ‘Living 6 , andsomeguidance 3-5 , including defined for simplicity. At the highest level, fully active fully level, highest the simplicity. At for defined Handbook, fourlevels ofengagementhavebeen aims the ultimate of engagementactivities and theproject.on Withinthe depending identified, be can engagement of stakeholder levels Different project. participation ofothersin some aspectofaresearch Engagement means the active involvement and nwhat dowemeanbyengagement ?- tions available, each withtheirownadvantages and limita- range of stakeholder engagement methods and tools The suggestions tohelpusersensure thatthey: book following-up onstakeholderengagement.TheHand- It provides guidanceon planning, carryingout,and and choosingthebesttechniquesforengagement. inform the scope of research and share knowledge; holders; whenandhowtoworkwithstakeholders benefits of engagement; identifying appropriate stake- The on thetypeofresearch. most successfulmethodsofengagement,willdepend holders are engaged,how manythere are, andthe they engage with stakeholders. Exactly which stake- researchers onhowtoplanormanagethewaythat The nHOWDOESTHEHANDBOOKWORK?- require different levels of communication at each key each at communication of levels different require and contributions differing make to likely are holders Handbook coverstopicssuchas:identifyingthe 10 Handbook demonstratesthatthere isawide Handbook isdesignedtoprovide adviceto should notbeviewedasprescriptive; itprovides . Additionally, it describes how different stake- different how describes it Additionally, . ✶ ✶ ✶ with stakeholders). (within theproject team,withfunders,and communicate decisions and outcomes ing stakeholders,and consider whattoolsare availableforengag- conducting effectiveengagement, account forallfactorsnecessary along withreferences for furtherreading, are provided. process isdeveloped.Casestudiesandtemplates, a comprehensive andwell-designedengagement rately, theycanalsobeusedinsequencetoensure Whilst eachofthesesectionscanbeusedsepa- The Handbookcomprisessevenmainsections: project degree ofengagementis likelytovarythroughout the be engaged all of the time, or in the same way so the the project or deliver the outcomes to those whom it might bedesigned tosimplyshare information about level, communicationwith more-passive stakeholders ‘collaboration’).Atthelowest as (defined perspective research direction, and/orcontributingresources and effectively partners with the research team, driving the engagement isundertaken, where stakeholdersare stage ofaproject 12, 13 ✶ ✶ ✶ Planningthedetailofengagement ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ment exercises. for informing futurelessons learned engage- demonstrate achievements and toidentify Reviewing andassessingtheprocess to ment Dealing with conflict in stakeholder engage- frequently usedapproaches (how), including information on the most Choosing thebestmethodsforengagement stakeholders (when) Identifying thebesttimestoengagewith itising andunderstandingtheirmotivations (who), includingassessing,analysing,prior Identifying thestakeholderstobeinvolved from the engagement (why) desired outcomes the Defining . 11 . Notallstakeholderswillneedto - 11 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 12 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook research outcomes can become tailored more effec- more tailored become can outcomes research For example, byengagingwithstakeholders, the (see beneficiaries and users improving therelevance orutilityoftheresearch to ing accesstoadditionalinformation orresources, and promoting linksbetweenscienceandsociety;gain - holder engagementwithin research. Theseinclude: There are anumberofreasons forundertakingstake- nWhyisstakeholder engagement BENEFICIAL?- selves thesubjectofresearch. Inotherwords, itisnot research aspartofaresearch teamorare notthem- individuals orgroups whoare notundertakingthe of thisHandbookisfocussedonengagingwiththose subjects ofstudy, andthosewhoare not.Thescope project, eitherotheracademicsornon-academicsas those undertakingorparticipatinginresearch ina It shouldbenotedthatthere isadistinctionbetween to beinfluencedbythem. direct user of, or directly affected by, project outcomes or negatively. Astakeholderdoesnothavetobea or the ability to influence its outcome, either positively well asthosewhomayhaveinterests inaproject and/ as a project, by affected indirectly or directly group, any or anyone, covers definition inclusive broad, This The Handbookusesthefollowingdefinitionofstakeholder nWhat is a stakeholder?- those withwhom‘involvement’occurs(e.g.theyare (e.g. theyare askedforopinions orinformation);and to meettheneedsofstakeholderswhoare ‘consulted’ holder. Themiddlelevelsofengagementare designed team tocommunicateinawaythatsuitsthestake- of engagement because it still requires the research one-way flow of information, but is included as a form may affect (defined as ‘inform’).Informingistypicallya who influencesorisinfluencedbythe research ❞ ❝ Astakeholderisanypersonorgroup Table 1.1forasummary). 14 beneficial impactsforall outcomes are adoptedandapplied,leading to tively tolocalcontexts,increasing thelikelihoodthat individuals ororganisations inagroup. different for vary may levels engagement the so and are likelytohavethesameinterests andmotivations, recognise thatnotallstakeholdersinonebroad group resource availability. Forthisreason, itisimportantto scale atwhichtheymakedecisionsoroperate,and might be affected by factors such as the geographical Suchvariation a grouping. in stakeholders different be muchvariationintheinterests andmotivationsof stakeholder group foraproject, butthere is likelyto an important as identified be might ‘policy-makers’ Stakeholders are oftenbroadly grouped, forexample a handbookofresearch methodsinsocialscience. will includeamixofallfourlevelsengagement. ate for different projects and situations. Many projects appropri - be to likely are levels different but ‘inform’), (i.e. engagement of level first the least at require ects holders atmore thanone level.Mostresearch proj - Individual projects may, andoftendo,engagestake- or data). more fullyengaged,and may alsoprovide resources holders can learn andassistinthegeneration of holders can learn empowerment. Byengagingwithresearchers, stake- Additionally, and engagementcanleadtolearning : 15-17 . facilitate learning andtrustbetweenparticipants facilitate learning they occur and improve unexpected negativeoutcomesbefore research process, itbecomespossibletoanticipate Furthermore, byconsidering localknowledgeinthe and helpmediateconflicts new knowledge(e.g.sociallearning involved infuture research exchange FIREMAN project. Fire managementonaEuropean heatlandecosystem,aspartofthe 7 ), andmaybeempowered tobecome 20-23 MAN: a researcher by from wereFIRE- described benefits following The scenarios. change climate under fire-vegetation models inform to participation stakeholder of level high . Well managedengagementcanalso ✴ ✴ ✴ programmes inSpain. eventshadbeenintegratedintopractical forestryinternational training perceived One stakeholderreported thatinsightsgainedfrom theirparticipationin were countries different in to beextremely insightfulandvaluableforinforming theirownpractice. and ecosystems contrasting in others with management fire discuss to managers for opportunities The research. firemanagement todiscuss countries European different from International borders: across meetings andaconference were heldwhichbrought togetherstakeholders management fire in experiences Sharing dialogue. constructive in resulting management, fire on perspectives differing with Discussions with stakeholders diffused conflict between stakeholder groups models. ecosystem complex of development the informed This countries. different from managers land with directly management fire discussed they where ment issuesbyparticipatinginstakeholderworkshopsacross Europe manage- fire practical of understanding deep a developed Researchers 15,18,19 25 . . 6 ; knowledge 17,24 different European ecosystems and involved a and involved ecosystems European different management inmaintainingbiodiversity rn. hs rjc ivsiae te oe f fire of role the investigated project This bring. can participation stakeholder that benefits of holder engagement B 0 project (see Experiences from the BiodivERsA FIREMAN , enefits ofstake-
Case study thus betteroutcomesforbiodiversityandsociety. can enrichresearch anddeliverbetterknowledge, and adequatelyresourced, successfulengagement risks posedbylackofengagement engagement can far outweigh the risks, including those of benefits the that suggests literature Existing taken. take to step first cal Establishing the reason(s) forengagement is acriti- Appendix 1) illustrate well a range before anyengagementisunder 26 . Ifwellplanned, - 13 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 14 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook
Table 1.1
Summary of potential benefits from stakeholder engagement in research on biodiversity and ecosystem services based on the four levels of engagement presented in the Handbook (see Part 3 for a full description of the levels of engagement). Note that benefits identified for lower levels of engagement are also appropriate for all higher levels (i.e. the benefits identified for theinform ‘ ’ level of engagement also apply to ‘consult’, ‘involve’, and ‘collaborate’).
an opportunity involvement of stakeholders as a constraint instead of intangible andremote. Some scientistsmayseethe the usefuloutcomescanbelongertermorseem undertaking oftheproject more complicated;whereas the stakeholders in the short term, and might make the increases thecoststoboth theresearch project and tations thatmaybefaced.Forexample, engagement cally, andbeaware ofsomethechallengesandlimi- effective process, itisimportantto approach engagementcriti- that evidence research the to benefits many bring strong can engagement is there Although nChallengesandlimitstoengagement ment activities, which negatively affects willingness to that istheybegintofeeloverloadedwithengage- time toengage,orexperience‘stakeholderfatigue’, 27 , andsomestakeholdersmaylackthe suppliers. tions oftheirinvolvement,especiallyiftheyare data to ensure stakeholdersare clearabouttheimplica- rights (IPR), which need to bediscussed and agreed Ethical considerationsincludeintellectualproperty age minorityperspectivesfrom beingexpressed existing privileges, or where group dynamics discour perverse orpoordecisionsifitinadvertentlyreinforces In addition,unbalancedengagementcanleadto participate andlessensthequalityoftheirinput. - 11 - . 15 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 16 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook dissent, and therefore enhancelegitimacy and conflict manage help can methods, appropriate with along process, engagement holder particularly important in cases where conflict may occur. A clearly stated, appropriate and agreed stake- Legitimacy istheperceivedandbalanceofstakeholderengagementprocess, fairness andis iskeyto Relevance process, and them throughout. of the with stages communication motivating participationandultimatelyhavingareal impact. theplanning and in engagement effective stakeholders ensuring key of identification through improved being adaptabletochangingcircumstances canallenhancerelevance. Relevancecanalsobe timing oftheengagement,andparticularlyoutcomesisappropriate; and ment process more credible and relevant; and finding the right mix of participants and ensur ofparticipants mix right the finding and relevant; ing nogroups havebeenexcludedwill enhancelegitimacyandcredibility. and credible more process ment outcomes oftheengagement. However, earlyengagementislikelytomake theengage- The mostappropriate approach willbedependentontheindividual project, andthedesired n and thepeopleinvolvedwithengagement Credibility istheperceived quality andvalidityofthestakeholderengagementprocess tics ofcredibility, relevance andlegitimacy. within thatresearch –togiveitmore validityandimpactitshouldincorporate thecharacteris- However, thesameprinciplescanbeappliedto stakeholderengagementundertaken These three factors can be strengthened by appropriate engagement with stakeholders ulig hs tre atr it te tkhle eggmn poes ae tm, effort time, takes others asaffectingthelegitimacy oftheprocess process engagement ment process anditsdesired outcomesforsomestakeholders,but maybeperceived by stakeholder the example, makingalinkwithpolicymakers may improve therelevance oftheengage - into factors and resources, and it may not always be possible to enhance threeall aspects of CRELE. For these Building Getting theCRELEbalance facilitators tohelprunengagementactivitiescanalso help. ing needs it relates tostakeholdersandresearchers needs,andhowresponsive theprocess istochang- Relevance refers totheusefulnessofengagementprocess anditsoutcomes–howclosely and tomaintainrelationships andbuildtrust. ment exercises isalso considered importanttoensure thatknowledge andskillsare builtupon, of theprocess isalso important.Somecontinuityofthoseinvolvedinstakeholderengage- avoid exclusionofthosewithopposingviews,andbetransparent; theviewthatothershave ment process shouldhave clearobjectives,usethemostappropriate peopleandmethods,but taken withcredibility, relevance andlegitimacy(sometimesreferred toas‘CRELE’) For research tobeconsidered validandvaluable,ithasbeenrecognised thatitshouldbeunder some of the stakeholders are viewed to be inappropriate by others in the group ers canimprove legitimacy, althoughcare mustbetakentoensure thislegitimacyisnotthreatened if have beentakenintoaccountappropriately. Theinclusionofabalancedgroup ofmultiplestakehold-
Stakeholder engagement–makingitCredible,Relevant andLegitimate 31 . Adopting understandable language for different stakeholder groups; ensuring the ensuring groups; stakeholder different for language understandable Adopting .
30 . In addition, stakeholders need to feel satisfied that their interests their that satisfied feel to need stakeholders addition, In . 28
. 30
. To improve credibility, astakeholderengage- 28 . Employing unbiased
28,29,2,30 31 - - . .
come with effective design and good facilitation good Table 1.2provides anoverviewofkeychallengesand and design effective with come The majorityofbarriersto engagementcanbeover carefully andsensitively. Manyscientistsare unused occur in a situation of conflict, which must be handled In certain circumstances stakeholder engagement can quences, butbenefitswere stillaccrued. outcomes, orledtounanticipatednegativeconse- stakeholder engagement failed to deliver intended There are examples of research projects in which ers. provide useful outputs early, although it may be a significant investment for research- ate it. Therefore making initial literature reviews available in this way can be a way to community oftendonothaveaccesstothisliterature ortheskillstocriticallyevalu- research cycle,before empirical data hasbeen collected. Members of thepolicy literature-based assessmentsofpresent-day evidencetoinformpolicyearlyinthe for allparties.Forexample,itmaybepossibletheresearch teamtoprovide benefits ensure to stakeholders the with compromises negotiate or possible, where Researchers canthensteertheresearch towards outcomesmore relevant topolicy what policymakersrequire andexpectfrom theengagementandresearch process. are carefully managedfrom thebeginningofaproject, through explicitdiscussionsof Itis longer time-scale. therefore ona importantthatexpectationsofpolicymakersare takenintoaccountand projects research further through refinement require research canbecomplex,uncertainandhighlydependentoncontext,often a highlevelofcertaintytoaiddecision-making.However, results emerging from answers from researchers aspolicydevelops.Theylookforquicksolutionswith makers tend to work on far shorter time-scales than researchers and require quick common issuefacingcollaborations between researchers andpolicy makers. Policy and policiesforBiodiversityEcosystemservices;seeAppendix1)highlighteda A researcher intheBiodivERsA INVALUABLE SCIENCE TO POLICY B 0 ARRIERS TO SUCCESSFULENGAGEMENT:
Case study 17 - . overcome. with abrieflistofways these couldbeavoidedor limitations associated with stakeholder engagement, conflict isincludedinPart7oftheHandbook. a positive,constructiveway. Guidanceondealingwith conflict is to be expected and should be planned for in avoid it.However, insomeareas ofbiodiversitystudy, between conflicts where individuals andgoalsare present, andmayprefer to situations in working to project (Integrating valuations, markets 17 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 18 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook Ways ofovercoming someofthechallenges andlimitationstostakeholderengagement Table 1.2 or are notfunded. not compatiblewiththescope oftheresearch process, anddiscovertheirsuggestionsare holders whoengageearlyintheresearch alistically high expectations among stake- Unrealistically highexpectations by stakeholders. achieve impacts and deliver benefits expected to difficult it making projects, funded of tion engagement oftenlastsonlyforthedura- ing holders orkeytakeholders miss- Biased repreentation of stake- result inlimitedengagement withresearch. tangible outcomes for stakeholders. This may in circumstances where they did not lead to tives havetakenplaceinthepast,especially where manystakeholder engagementinitia- 7,16 Short-term engagement exacerbating conflict. marginalised, andpotentiallyleadingtoor whose ideasare notheard, makingthemfeel als andagendas,attheexpenseofothers, may leadtodominancebyparticularindividu- Stakeholder fatigue Challenges andlimtations holder engagementactivities Power imbalanceswithintake- some stakeholders. raised overthelegitimacyofoutcomesby : engagementcansometimescreate unre- 35-37 : thismayleadtoquestionsbeing 32-34 : mayoccur 7 : stakeholder 16,17 : why itwasnotpossibleto integrateallideas. plans toshowwhichoftheir ideashavebeenintegratedand and updatestakeholdersas soonaspossiblewithresearch ideas theproject teammaybeabletoworkwithimmediately, who haveastrong interest inyourresearch; identify which if fundingisuncertain;makesure youare engagingwiththose with stakeholders during project development, make it clear Manage expectationscarefully from theoutset.Ifengaging foundations forfuture research thatcouldbefunded. ment, even if very limited, to maintain relationships, and lay the research hasended.Findwaystofundongoingengage- of theresearch tocontinueinvestinginoutcomeslongafter ownership sufficient them giving outset, the from them with ence inyourstudyarea andplanthelegacyofyourresearch Identify localorganisations thatmighthavealong-termpres- that itisimportanttoengagewiththeproject. may identifyusingstakeholderanalysis)topersuade others with yourresearch, andworkwithopinionleaders(whoyou there will be tangible benefits for stakeholders from engaging from stakeholderfatigue. Where thisisnotpossible,ensure suffering communities with working avoid possible, Where (covered inmore detailsindifferent partsoftheHandbook) member oftheresearch team. facilitation budget,undertakebasictrainingfora and commentonideas(possiblyanonymously).Ifthere isno facilitation methods thatenableallparticipants to provide groups in conflict or with significant differences in power; and professional facilitator, considering:parallelactivitiesfor Carefully designstakeholderengagementactivitieswitha less ormarginalised. with significant interest in your research, who may be power stakeholders those neglect not do but influence, most have prioritise thosewhoshouldbeengaged.Considermight Conduct asystematicstakeholderanalysistoidentifyand W a y s to a v oid or vercome - ✴ ✴ ✴ Manageexpectationsbybeing clearonwhatcanorcannotchange. ✴ Address ethicalissues,includingintellectualproperty rights(IPR). ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ Givestakeholderstheopportunitytohelpplantheirown engagement. ✴ Engageindialoguewithstakeholdersasequalsandvaluetheirknowledge. W ✴ ✴ Who? ✴ ✴ ✴ Adapttheprocess tosuit theneedsofbothresearchers andstakeholders alike. ✴ How? ✴ Determineandunderstandthemotivationsofstakeholderstobeinvolvedinresearch process. ✴ Identifythebenefitsforstakeholderswhoengagewithyou. ✴ Haveclearaimsforstakeholderengagementinyourproject, andsettheseaimsfrom theoutset. Why? stakeholder engagement nKeypointstoconsiderforeffective- Ensure communications canbeeasilyunderstood byallstakeholders –donotusecomplexor technicallanguage processes or topicalissues)asrequired Be prepared to be flexible and adaptable, tailoring research activities and communication of findings (e.g. policy the expertiseorexperience. stakeholder engagement(includingprofessional facilitatorsorscienceadvocates) ifproject teamsdonot have in experts and groups) stakeholder by,different trusted and to, connected are (who brokers’ ‘knowledge Use project; research the embed themwhere suitableintheproject team(e.g.viastakeholderadvisorypanels). of course the influence to power stakeholders give appropriate considered is it Where to beinvolvedallofthetime. Remember thatnotallstakeholderswillhavethesame role ordesire tobeinvolved;noteverystakeholder needs demographic groups. groupsexclude not aredo that – inclusive toBe difficult ensure all and of reach participation balanced relevant to influencetheuptakeof research findings. Systematically identifythosewhoare likelytoholdaninterest intheresearch, includingthosewhohavepower or policyprocesses. Think aboutthetimingofyourresearch anditsoutputs,considerwhetheritcaninformanyrelevant external scoping studieswhere appropriate. Plan your engagement and make sure youengage early in theresearch process (as earlyas possible); include under standing (andideallytraining)instakeholderengagement. with those by managed and funded properly be to needs and different is process engagement Every a y s to successfulengagement - - 19 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 20 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook ✴ Donotforget toprovide feedbacktostakeholdersassoonpossible/inatimelymanner. ✴ ✴ ✴ Thinkaboutthelong-termimpactsofproject, andthepotentiallegacy. Bey groups according togenderorage. times ofthedayandyearthatare suitableforthem;where deemedappropriate, considerselectingorsplitting Tailor engagementtothepracticalandculturalneedsofstakeholders,bringingproject towhere theyare, at unless thisisaskedforbythestakeholder. whether certainapproaches needtobeadapted,andassesstheimplicationsofanyfuture practice. Assess the success of engagement throughout the research process, share good practice with peers, reflect on ond theprojec stakeholders toensure theresearch wasofinterest andrelevant tothem. Some ofthedetailslocal casestudies(e.g.studysites)were jointlydecidedwith and trustedcanbeagoodwayofovercoming this. be viewedwithdistrust;developingrelationships withlocalcontactswhoare known engagement. Researchers whoare viewedas‘outsiders’from anothercountrymay good knowledgeofthelocalcommunitiesandissues toassistwithstakeholder of theaimsresearch project. and spreading theword verballytoensure thatthecommunitieswere wellinformed approaches andquestionswere wellreceived andunderstoodbystakeholders. ect aimsandaskedifsimilarresearch hadbeenconductedtoavoidreplication. measures were taken: and thisispartlyattributabletotheinvestmentinscopingwork.Thefollowing engagement. The subsequentstakeholder activities were perceived tobe successful depend onthehealthofcoralreefs fortheirlivelihoods,before beginningstakeholder considerable resources toscopingactivitieswithinfocalCaribbeancommunitiesthat holders. Researchers oftheBiodivERsAFORCEproject (seeAppendix1)committed and maintainingthepositiveperceptions oftheengagementexperienceforstake- Good planning is fundamental to the success of stakeholder engagement activities PILOT STUD IES ALLOW TIMEFORSCOPINGAND 0
Case study Developing localcontacts:researchers recruited local assistantswhohada Raising awareness: community meetings were widely publicised using flyers methodologies:apilotproject wasruninonearea toensure Refining Avoiding potentialstakeholderfatigue:stakeholderswere informedofproj- t’s life of stakeholderengagementexpertsfrom theseproj- approached stakeholder engagement, contact details ing informationonhowexistingresearch projects have tariat maybeabletohelpresearch teamsbyprovid- involved insimilarprocesses. TheBiodivERsASecre- may require consultation with otherswhohavebeen Establishing best-practiceapproaches toengagement institutes andotherorganisations (includingstake- through nationalprogrammes anddetailsofresearch on research projects on biodiversitythatare funded for successfulcooperation.Itincludesinformation new facilities,aswelltodetectpotentialbarriers and future needsfornewresearch programmes, gaps existing of identification the improve to order in the current stateofbiodiversityresearch inEurope org/database] provides acomprehensive ‘map’of The BiodivERsADatabase[http://www.biodiversa. n n stakeholder engagement nHowBiodivERsAcanhelpin
Information fromotherresearchersandprojects General information andadvice of stakeholdersthroughout theprocess. col wouldbeco-developedduringtheproject. Thiscleargoalmaintainedtheinterest of themanagement ininforming rodent outbreaks inthefuture anditwasagreed thatanadaptivemanagementproto- beuseful would that output specific a towards project what theywantedtogainfrom theirparticipation. They expressed the awishtowork of beginning the at meeting first the in asked were forum consultative needs. In the BiodivERsA Ecocycles project, stakeholder members of the national their on based stakeholders with partnership in this on decide to flexibility be may ers. Itmaybethatoutputsare decidedbefore stakeholdersare involved or there the planning stage and allows researchers to manage the expectations of stakehold- Deciding ontherequired outputsofthestakeholderprocess isanimportant partof STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESSBE? WHAT WILLTHEOUTPUTS OFTHE 0
Case study - for aparticularresearch project. approach to stakeholders relevant finding applicants further developtheirresearch. Inparticular, itcanhelp tify potentialresources andnetworkopportunitiesto ects. Thedatabasecanhelpresearch teamstoiden- holders) involved,andresearchers leadingtheproj- makers policy engaging on briefings be relevant (e.g.theSPIRALproject handbookand ects, andinformationfrom otherEUprojects thatmay able. on professional mediaspecialistsmightalsobeavail- website [www.biodiversa.org]. Inaddition,information mation forapplicantsispostedontheBiodivERsA 2,38 ). Keyinfor - 21 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 22 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 ACCOUNTABILIT Y 9 8 7 6 5 2007. EDIT. 4 3 yOUNG, J.C., WATT, and Policy Science, between A.D.VAN Interfaces DEN HOVE, S.andSPIRAL project team. 2013a. Effective 2 1 nReferences- [Accessed 9June 2014]. able from: FISCHER, F. 2000.Citizens,ExpertsandtheEnvironment. ThePoliticsofLocal Knowledge.DukeUniversityPress, London.Avail- ties/file/9c960533b581515f36.pdf [Accessed9June2014]. cation/12884336_Power_between_evaluator_and_community_research_relationships_within_New_Mexico’s_healthier_communi communities. WALLERSTEIN, N.1999.Powerbetweentheevaluatorand community: research relationships withinNewMexico’s healthier participation. GlobalEnvironmental Change:HumanandPolicyDimensions,75–24. to barriers cultural investigating – development sustainable with identification Public 1997. M. P.JACOBS, MACNAUGHTEN, and ofEnvironmentalJournal Management. drylands. global in management from land Evidence sustainable outcomes? processes their decision-making affect participatory of DE VENTE,J.,REED,M.S.,STRINGER,L.C.,VALENTE, L.C.,VALENTE, S.,NEWIG,J.(inpress). Howdoesthecontextanddesign holder-participation-for-environmental-management-a-literature-review.pdf [Accessed9June2014]. Research Institute,UniversityofLeeds,25pp.Available from: http://sustainable-learning.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Stake- REED, M.S.2008.StakeholderParticipationforEnvironmental Management:ALiterature Review.SRIPapers,No.8,Sustainability 11 April2014]. Agricultural Systems,55,195–216.Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X97000073 [Accessed context. institutional and effectiveness implementation, methods: research Participatory 1997. J, SHERINGTON, and A. MARTIN, December 2013]. from: within ClimateChangeResearch, Tyndall Working Paper, 128.Tyndall Centre forClimateChangeResearch, Norwich,47pp.Available CARNEY Stakeholder-Engagement-Guidelines-University-of-Edinburgh [Accessed30April2012]. UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH. 2008. Stakeholder Engagement . 7 pp. Available from: wci__1319577185063 [Accessed6June2014]. /ifc_external_corporate_site/ifc+sustainability/publications/publications_handbook_stakeholderengagement__ Business inEmerging Markets.IFC,Washington. 201pp.Available from: http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content INTERNATIONAL FINANCECORPORATION (IFC).2007.StakeholderEngagement:AGoodPracticeHandbookforCompaniesDoing Research Prioritisation.InstituteforAgriculturalandFisheriesResearch, ILVO, Belgium,35pp. ERBOUT, N.,DECOCK, L.,DEBOEVER,M.andLAUWERS,L.2010.BestPracticeforStakeholderInvolvementatNationalLevel ANDERBERG, S.2010.StakeholderInvolvementandDialogueinLUsTT.BriefingPaper, 19 pp. Climate%20Adaptation/CAF_WorkingPaper03_pdf%20Standard.pdf [Accessed6December2013]. tion. CSIROClimateAdaptationFlagshipWorking Paper, No.3,32pp.Available from: http://csiro.au/~/Media/CSIROau/Flagships/ GARDNER, J.,DOWD,A.-M.,MASON,C.andASHWORTH, P. 2009.AFrameworkforStakeholderEngagementonClimateAdapta- images/content/3/6/362/AA1000SES%202010%20PRINT.PDF [Accessed5December2013]. org.uk/ke-guidelines [Accessed29November2013]. LIVING WITHENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE(LWEC). 2012.LWEC KnowledgeExchangeGuidelines . Available from:http://www.lwec. YQ [Accessed12Marchclimate-change-exploration-social-learning-and#.U5G26_ldW 2014]. and FoodSecurity(CCAFS),Copenhagen.Available from: http://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/catalysing-learning-development-and- CGIAR.CCAFSWorking Paperno.43.CGIARResearch Program in onClimateChange,Agriculture differentiation social and ing SHAW, A.andKRISTJANSON,P.- forDevelopmentandClimateChange.Anexplorationofsociallearn 2013.CatalysingLearning [Accessed 6June2014]. ESEE, 18pp.Available from: http://www.esee2011.org/registration/fullpapers/esee2011_c3e403_1_1304967722_4161_2164.pdf JOLIBERT, C.2011.StakeholderEngagementinEUResearch:.Conference BringingSciencetoBearonBiodiversityGovernance 816–22. Available from: http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/149479.pdf [Accessed11April2014]. POMEROY able from: http://www.e-taxonomy.eu/files/StakeholderReport1.pdf [Accessed6June2014]. website.pdf [Accessed11April2014]. Society: theSPIRALProject Handbook.Available from: http://www.spiral-project.eu/sites/default/files/The-SPIRAL-handbook- GAIA_2_2013_Nesshoever.pdf [Accessed11April2014]. ing theScience-PolicyInterfaceofBiodiversityResearch Projects. GAIA,22(2):99–103.Available from: http://ipbes.net/images/ NEßHOVER, C.,TIMAEUS,J.,WITTMER,H.,KREIG,A.,GEAMANA,N.,vandenHOVE,S.,YOUNG,J.andWATT, A.2013.Improv- http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/content/dynamic-typology-stakeholder-engagement-within-climate-change-research [Accessed5 , S.,WHITMARSH,L.,NICHOLSON-COLE,S.andSHACKLEY , R.andDOUVERE,F. 2008.Theengagementofstakeholdersinthemarinespatialplanningprocess. MarinePolicy,32, Stakeholder EngagementinBiodiversityandEnvironmental Projects –component4.1.2BIS.Project Report,37 pp.Avail- http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Citizens_Experts_and_the_Environment.html?id=rUEFMenCPH0C&redir_esc=y Social ScienceandMedicine,49,39–53.Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nina_Wallerstein/publi - 2008. . AA1000 StakeholderEngagementStandard 2011.52pp.Available from: http://www.accountability.org/ , S.2009.ADynamicTypology of Stakeholder Engagement http://www.docstoc.com/docs/54409298/ - 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 yOUNG, J.C.,WATT, A.D.vandenHOVE,S.andtheSPIRALproject team.2013b.TheSPIRALsynthesisreport: Aresource bookon 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 - facing biodiversityandpolicy. Unpublishedreport, SPIRAL, April2012. SARKKI, S.,NIEMELÄJ.andTINCH, R.2012.SummaryReportonAssessment CriteriaforScience-PolicyInterfaces.SPIRALinter and-why-A-typology-of-stakeholder-analysis-methods-for-natural-resource-management.pdf [Accessed9June2014]. Management, 90,1933–1949.Available from: http://sustainable-learning.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Who%E2%80%99s-in- 2009. Who’s inandwhy?Atypologyofstakeholderanalysismethodsfornaturalresource ofEnvironmental management.Journal REED, M.S.,GRAVES, A.,DANDY Resource-Management.pdf [Accessed11April2014]. http://sustainable-learning.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Stakeholder-Analysis-and-Social-Network-Analysis-in-Natural- sis innaturalresource management.SocietyandNaturalResources, PRELL, C.,HUBACEK,K.andREED,M.,2009. Stakeholderanalysisandsocialnetworkanaly- Resources Forum,19(2),113–114. GRIMBLE, R.andCHAN,M.-K.1995.Stakeholderanalysisfor naturalresource managementindevelopingcountries. Natural from: uk/20110218135832/http:/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr5304.pdf Available [Accessed24March 2014]. London. Office, Home Directorate, Statistics and Development Research 53/04. Report Online Office Home in CommunityInvolvementArea-Based Initiatives?ASystematicReviewoftheLiterature. BURTON, P., GOODLAD,R.,CROFT, J.,ABBOTT, J.,HASTINGS,A.,MACDONALD,G.andSLATER, T. 2004.WhatWorks Island Press, Washington DC. WONDOLLECK, J.andY dam. approach. In: H.R.Fox,H.M.Moore and A.D.McIntosh(Eds), HANDLEY at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/global_reporting/regular_process_background.pdf [Accessed9June2014]. Process forGlobalReportingandAssessmentoftheStateMarineEnvironment IncludingSocio-economicAspects.Available UNEP andIOC-UNESCO.2009.AnAssessmentofAssessments,FindingstheGroup ofExperts.Start-upPhaseaRegular science-policy interfaces.Available from: http://www.spiral-project.eu/content/documents [Accessed11April2014]. full.pdf [Accessed9June2014]. edge systemsforsustainabledevelopment.PNAS,100 CASH, D.W., CLARK, W.C., ALCOCK, F., DICKSON, N.M., ECKLEY [Accessed 9June2014]. Linking Research, AssessmentandDecisionMaking.Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=372280 CASH, D.,CLARK,W., ALCOCK,F., DICKSON,N.,ECKLEY WP2%20milestone%207%20report%20with%20coversheet.pdf [Access11April2014]. Approaches: Towards Best Practice Guidelines. Unpublished BiodivERsA report. Available from: MORGAN, V.M., MOORE,E.A.,DURHAM,E.L.and BAKER,H.2012.BiodivERsAtask2.1.AnalysisofStakeholderEngagement [Accessed 5December2013]. Available from: http://www.immi.gov.au/about/stakeholder-engagement/_pdf/stakeholder-engagement-practitioner-handbook.pdf ner Handbook.NationalCommunicationsBranchoftheDepartmentImmigrationandCitizenship,Belconnen,Australia,37pp. AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT (DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP). 2008. Cambridge. J. In: bottom-up. to top-down from conflicts: Y conservation managing to approaches Alternative 2014. J. SIDOLI, and M. REED, ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/ [Accessed9June2014]. the adaptivemanagementofsocio-ecological systems: acriticalreview. EcologyandSociety, STRINGER, L.C.,PRELL,C.,REED,M.S.,HUBACEK,K.,FRASER,E.D.G.andDOUGILL,A.J.2006.Unpacking‘participation’ in , 19,197–214.AvailableGovernance from: http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/44744/1/604559410.pdf [Access11April2014]. effective? and – participatory,multi-level governance: Environmental 2009. O. FRITSCH, and J. NEWIG, http://195.37.26.249/ijsc/docs/artikel/01/03_Forschung_Newig_final.pdf [Access11April2014]. framework. NEWIG, J.2007.Doespublicparticipationinenvironmental decisionsleadtoimproved environmental quality?Towards ananalytical 6210.2006.00671.x/abstract [Access11April2014]. orative management?PublicAdministrationReview,66,111–121.Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540- KOONTZ, T.M. andTHOMAS,C.W. 2006.Whatdoweknowandneedtoabouttheenvironmental outcomesofcollab- Conflicts in Conservation: Strategies for Coping with a Changing Changing World, Cambridge University Press, a with Coping for Strategies Conservation: in oung and S. Redpath (Eds). Conflicts , J.F., GRIFFITHS,E.J.,HILL,S.L.andHOWE,J.M.1998.Landrestoration usinganecologicallyinformedandparticipative Communication, Cooperation,Participation.Research andPracticeforaSustainableFuture, 1,51–71.Available from: AFFEE, S.L.2000.MakingCollaborationWork: Lessonsfrom InnovationinNaturalResource Management. , N.,POSTHUMUS,H.,HUBACEK,K.,MORRIS,J.,PRELL,C.,QUINN, C.H.andSTRINGER,L.C. (14): 8086-8091.Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/100/14/8086. , N.andJAGER,J.2002.Salience,Credibility, LegitimacyandBoundaries: Land Reclamation: Achieving Sustainable Benefits. Balkema,Rotter Sustainable Achieving Reclamation: Land , N., GUSTON D.H., JAGER, J. and MITCHELL, R. 2003. Knowl- http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. 22, 501–518.Available from: Stakeholder Engagement: Practitio- 11, 39.Available from: http://www. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/ Environmental Policyand - -
23 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 24 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook › Scopeandcontext stakeholders Why engagewith Forest fortheFuture (BeFoFu) Reasons toengagestakeholders:European Beech Identifying reasons toengagestakeholders ››
Case studies Part 2 25 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 26 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook of astakeholder analysis;forexample Dougill goals change. Thenegotiatingmaybe doneaspart stakeholders, perhapsidentifying newstakeholdersif may needtonegotiatethe goalsoftheresearch with ment isdefinedatthispoint ing’ phasebecausethescopeandextentofengage- This initial step is defined as the ‘preliminary’ or ‘scop- ment aimed for, andthescopecontextofengage- engagement activityisnecessary, whatoutcomesare inthe stakeholder engagement process step is to identify why the most critical, the perhaps and first, The scope oftheengagementanditscontextatoutset and what outcomes you wish to achieve. Begin outlining the ❝ nWhYengagewithstakeholderS- ment, andwhatisbeingsoughtfrom theprocess devised withoutconsideringthereasons forengage- ship ofresearch outcomes ers, whoare inconsequencemore likelytofeelowner research meetstheneedsandprioritiesofstakehold- research programme can increase thelikelihood that Engaging stakeholdersasearlypossibleinthe stakeholders inthisinitialscopingphaseofthework. and ‘collaborate’modes,itisimportanttoengage For projects engagingpredominantly inthe‘involve’ not theywanttobecomeinvolvedwiththeresearch. they canmakeaninformedchoiceaboutwhetheror help theproject meettheneedsofstakeholders,so clear about theaims of engagement and howitwill priate format.Theinformationprovided needstobe made availabletopotentialstakeholders,inanappro- ‘consult’ modes(Table 1.1),thisinformationmaybe In projects thatare mainlyoperatingin‘inform’and ers toidentifythescopeandcontextofengagement. may bemore, orless,engagementwithstakehold- Depending onthelevelofengagementsought,there Define why you wish to undertake stakeholder engagement stakeholder undertake to wish you why Define 1 . Nostakeholderengagementstrategycanbe project andcontinuously develop it.❞ 10,11 4,9 . Potentially, researchers . et al. 1-8 12 - .
provided inTable 2.1 stakeholder engagement, and desired outcomes, are aims andobjectives clear with understood, easily defined, clearly focused, A well-craftedpurposeforengagementwillbe of conflict). itself (e.g. increasedandtrust,reduced learning levels process the of benefits the on focus stronger ing methodsofgoodpractice),thenthere maybea (seeking to establish a norm, setting a standard/defin- the otherhand,ifpurposeisprimarilynormative increased abundanceofaparticularspecies).On tobe a stronger focusonoutcomesoftheprocess (e.g. islikely there theories), scientific testing than withfactsoractualoccurrences(concerned rather stakeholders are primarily about pragmatic issues or data.Forexample,ifthereasons forengaging outcomes, such as reports, websites, newsletters, are thetangibleproducts neededtoachieve desired desired activities,outcomesandoutputs.Outputs stake- for holder engagementthatshouldbeusedtodrivethe purpose definite a have to essential is It research. include thosewithastakeintherevised scopeofthe research, before revisiting theirstakeholderanalysisto which they discussed and expanded the scope of the to identifykeyinformantsforscopinginterviewsin and Prell etal. 13 usedaninitialstakeholderanalysis 4,9 4,7,9,14,15 . Somereasons forundertaking : outcomes, aimsandoutputs. Thisinformationcan conducting engagementactivitiesandthedesired for the reasons consider to beneficial is it project, a ect progresses ismaintained ensure thatthefocusonachievingaimsasproj- important partoftheplanningprocess andhelpsto Identifying andclarifyingdesired outcomesisan Reasons forstakeholderengagement Table 2.1 ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ Leads toimproved riskmanagement. nities tolinkresearch more directly topolicyandpractice. createsopportu- and needs addressesinformation gaps, knowledge identifies base, knowledge to other areas. It also improves the relevance, value and depth of the research and broadens the Enable researchers toidentifycross-cutting issuesandascertainwhere research maybeapplied Provide equalrightsandopenaccesstoscientificknowledge(‘democratizingscience’). improve clarificationof‘common’language. Create new (or improved) communication channels, identify effective dissemination avenues and Gain accesstoresources ortoobtaininformationdata. sions from partieslikelytoeitheruseorbeaffectedbythe results ofthe research. Involve stakeholderstomakeiteasierobtainendorsementof,oragreement on,resulting deci- and society. makers policy science, between barriers overcome and conflict reduce help can This ‘needs’. be baseduponstakeholderviewsandenabledecision-makerstoconsidersocietal‘wants’ Aid the development of a transparent decision-making process and ensure policy decisions can more holisticapproach toaddressing potentialproblems, limitationsorconflicts. outcomes. Taking abroad spectrumofideasandthoughtsonboard enablestheadoptionofa Co-design projects with stakeholders that may assist with producing a clearer definition of desired ness ofemerging issues. Explore issues, share ideas and best practice, generate ideas and identify and raise better aware - Provide peoplewithanopportunity forpersonaldevelopmentthrough engagementactivities. ested in,research outcomes. Encourage a sense of ‘ownership’ of the project by those likely to benefit, be affected by, or inter support,andprovidegalvanize external aclearer understandingofthebenefits research. Gain trustandimprove working relationships, formnewpartnerships,create newnetworks, Raise awareness oftheresearch project. 4 . Intheearlystagesof objectives definedduringinitialscopingactivities. original the from defined be can project the of criteria desired outcomeshavebeenachieved.Thesuccess ect whenitwillbenecessarytoassesswhetherthe proj- the of phase ‘review’ final the in use of be also - 27 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 28 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook no benefit to the project then stakeholder engage- then stakeholder project the to benefit no project aims.Iftheproposed engagementpresents have, andwhetheritwillcontributeanythingtothe objectives canrealistically achieve,whatimpactitmay engagement activities. The scope considers what the from outcomes achievable defining in assist and lie ment determineswhere the boundariesofengagement and itscontext.The‘scope’ofstakeholderengage- determine thescopeandextentofengagement ment, anditsdesired outcomes, itisalsoimportantto In additiontoestablishingthepurposeofengage- nScopeandcontext under consideration, thepeopleinvolved, thepre- research project is unique and is shaped by theissues being addressed by the engagement process. Every of theengagement- background tothesubject The scopingphaseneeds toconsiderthecontext beneficial toallpartiesinvolved. and fit-for-purpose, comprehensive, be to activities funds canbemadeavailabletoenableengagement sufficient ensure will lifecycle project in on early ing ing thepotentialcostandtimerequirement ofengag- be driven by resource and time availability. Consider The extentoftheengagementmay, tosomedegree, How willthesuccessofengagementbemeasured? outcomes becommunicatedbacktothestakeholders? How are theoutcomesofengagementgoingtobeimplemented?Howandwhenwill How are thesebestaddressed? What are thepotentialrisksassociatedwithstakeholderengagementactivitiesataparticularscale? cial andotherresources contractors,andcostoftrainingforstaff])? [e.g.stafftime,costofexternal nal contractors,andtrans-disciplinarycollaboration)?Whatwillbethecostofengaging(bothfinan What additionalresources mightberequired tofacilitateeffectiveengagement(stafftraining,exter be collectedandoverwhattimescale? What typesofinformationwillneedtobegathered (quantitativeversusqualitative)andhowwillthis impact willthishaveonthescopeofplannedactivities? (see Figure 4.1),askedfortheiropinions,orinvolvedfullyinthedecisionmakingprocess? What How are stakeholderstobeinvolved-are theytobekeptinformedthroughout theproject lifecycle how canthesebeclearlyset? What cantheengagementrealistically achieveinthetimeavailable?Whatare thelimitationsand Important pointstoconsiderwhendefiningthescopeofstakeholderengagementactivities: - - stage holder shouldnotbeunderestimated atthescoping holder engagementtoboththeproject andthestake- costs, bothintermsoftimeandresources, ofstake- ment islikelynotappropriate ornecessary resources are available to carry out engagement to becomeinvolvedandascertainwhetheradequate exercises help identify stakeholders who might wish stakeholders that theengagementisof relevance tothepotential certain makes also context Defining efforts. previous ratherthansimplyduplicating porates lessonslearnt, process buildsuponprevious experienceandincor the contextalsohelpstoensure thattheengagement activities it will be appropriate to adopt. Understanding withinthe done be engagement process andareand cannot, likelytodictatewhich can, what affect processes, amongstotherfactors.Theseissuesmay history of the work, and relevant wider decision-making tively. effec- managed are they that ensure to consideration ing engagementneedtobeassessedandtakeninto 2,5 . Furthermore, risksassociated withundertak- 5 . 16 . Scoping - - 4 . The - engage withstakeholders? Are there any relevant activities, events or communication channels that could be used to What istherelationship status withstakeholdersorpotentialstakeholders? Do existingnetworksexist,and,ifso,howcanthesebeutilised? What wider decision-making processes that may affect the project need to be considered? What isthehistoricalcontexttoproject? What stakeholders,orstakeholdergroups, havebeenengagedinthepast? the objectives? How successfulwere the projects andwhatwere thekeyelementsinachieving orfailing What similarprojects have beenundertakenpreviously? activities: Important pointswhenconsidering the background and contextforengagement ✴ ✴ engagement soughtbytheresearchers: (see The objectivesofstakeholderengagementforanumberthecasestudyprojects holders Identifying reasonsto engage stake- 0 lobbying forbiodiversity protection. The frameworkfortheBESAFE and accessible findings make will that stakeholders and makers policy to relevant via policy briefsandastakeholder panelhasagreed to co-development of awebtool disseminated widely been have findings Early projects. study case through protection of biodiversity at different scales of governance and in different the contexts advocating for used arguments of effectiveness the on information gather to project, researchers are workingwithstakeholders inbiodiversityconservation meetingsand practicaldemonstrationevents.IntheFP7BESAFE international models intheBiodivERsAFIREMANproject. Participationwasencouragedthough involved in the development of scenarios to inform the design of fire management scenarios foragriculture inmountainregions ofEurope. Stakeholderswere also perspectives were involvedwiththedevelopmentofasustainabilityappraisal of differing with stakeholders project, BIOSCENE FP5 the In stakeholders. national sustainable resource use.Findingswere widelydisseminatedtocommunitiesand relationship withcommunitylivelihoodstoinformmanagementofreefs andmore- countries to gather data on the factors influencing the health of coral reefs and their pean forests. TheFP7FORCEproject workedwithcommunitiesinfourCaribbean adaptive models toanalyse the impacts of climate- and land-use-change on Euro- of waystointegrateexperienceandknowledgefrom forestry managementinto Involve: TheFP7MOTIVEproject researchers involvedstakeholdersinavariety could bebetterusedtomeetbiodiversityconservationobjectives. with stakeholderstoproduce policy-relevant documentstoadvisehowMBIs the management of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Researchers engaged was to inform policy makers about the use of market based instruments (MBIs) for Inform and for details) is briefly summarised below in relation to the level of level the to relation in below summarised briefly is details) for Appendix 1 Case Studies consult: One of the objectives of the BiodivERsA INVALUABLE project 29 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook project shown in Figure 1 shows how central stakeholders are in achieving the proj- ect goals.
VALUES BIODIVERSITY From what value Which type & level? system? ARGUMENTS • Components • Structure • For who? EFFECTIVENESS • By whom? • Recording CONTEXT • To what end? • Measuring • Policy-mix • What action • Stage in cycle • Governance • Geography • Economic situation GOAL
h a n d b o k
Figure 1. The BESAFE project framework (source: Bugter, R. BESAFE project: http://www.besafe-project.net) e n g a m t
✴ Collaborate : The FP7 HighARCS project worked with local communities and key stakeholders to produce integrated action plans to address conservation, liveli-
a k e h o l d r hood and policy concerns in Asian communities by focusing on the conservation s t
and sustainable development of highland aquatic resources. In the BiodivERsA 30 CONNECT project, researchers collaborated with a government agency in the Netherlands to develop research questions and a protocol to produce findings that directly informed policy processes about land use and natural-resource protection b i o d v e r s a in and around a freshwater lake. The BiodivERsA ECOCYCLES project collabo- rated with stakeholders to develop rational approaches to addressing a conflict over the management of rodent outbreaks on agricultural land. This also high- lighted research needs to develop evidence-based options, which led to further collaborative work after the project was completed. The FP7 HUNT project inves- tigated the ecological, social, economic and cultural aspects of hunting to under- stand the role of this activity in the sustainable management of biodiversity, and put in place National Consultative fora in each partner country whose remit was to inform the direction of the research programme and to ensure the relevance of the findings for policy and practice. ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ The long-termimpactandlegacywillbe: What hasbeenorwillbethemp ✴ ✴ ✴ The majorbenefitsofthestakeholderengagementare: research Perceived benefits ofstakeholder engagement to the ensure Beechforests are effectivelyconservedatthelocallevel interests are takenintoaccountwhenimplementingpolicyandforest managementto from stakeholdersandpolicymakerstoengageinadialogueprocess toensure divergent ness ofstakeholderstoshare theirknowledgewithresearchers. There isamutualinterest for policystakeholders.Inthepoliticalsciencecontext,BeFoFudependsonwilling- Natura 2000in Beech forests. Theresults of theresearch undertaken are of high interest BeFoFu dealswithapoliticallyrelevant andcontroversial topic–theimplementation of Why was stakeholder engagement important? protected areas, particularlyonprivatelyownedland,remains acrucialissue. 2000 Natura of financing The management. forestregarding interests stakeholder ing diverg- and conflicts by impaired been has 2000 Natura of process implementation addressed bytheEUNatura 2000networkofprotected areas. Across theEU, national activities at the European level, Beech forest conservation is predominantly additional challengesarisingfrom globalchange.Besidesvariousnationalandsub- for Beechforest conservation andmanagementinEurope, takingintoaccountthe The BiodivERsABeFoFuproject evaluatestheecologicalandinstitutionalbackground FORESTS FORTHEUTURE(BeFoFu) REASONS TO ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS: EUROPEANBEECH 0 beyond 2010. Contributing results tothediscussionondevelopment ofEUbiodiversitypolicy Greater knowledgeontheeffectsofEUbiodiversity policyatdifferent levels. Revealing thelikelyimpactsofclimatechange. strategies onBeechforest biodiversity. management and policies (local) different of effect likely the understanding better A It identifiespossibleavenuesforcommunicatingproject results. It offers an update about on-going policy processes related to Natura 2000 and forests. wider socialbenefitsfrom European Beechforests. scientific research, policy decisions, account for local stakeholder interests and realise embedded inandhowitcancontributetobetterknowledgethatbeusedinform It provides averygoodoverviewaboutthecurrent ‘politicalenvironment’ theproject is
Case study a c t oftheresearch?
31 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 32 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 16 15 14 13 12 11 2005. INVOLVE. 10 9 8 7 6 5 2007. REVIT. 2007. EDIT. 4 3 ACCOUNTABILITY 2 1 nReferences- 11 June2014]. NR0124, Defra,107 pp.Available from: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=NR0124_10262_FRP.pdf [Accessed and deliberativetechniquestoembedanecosystemsapproach intodecisionmaking:An introductory guide.DefraProject Code: FISH, R.,BURGESS,J.,CHILVERS, J.,FOOTITT, A.,HAINES-YOUNG,R.,RUSSEL,D.andWINTER,D.M.2011.Participatory brary/public/commrel/policy/oct2011stakeholderengagement.pdf [Accessed1September2012]. Australia: DepartmentofEducationandEarlyChildhoodDevelopment. 44pp.Available from: http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/eduli- DEPARTMENT OFEDUCATION ANDEARL ofEnvironmentalinto coastalplanningforclimatechange.Journal Management,881580–92. TOMPKINS, E.l.,FEW, R.andBROWN,K.2008.Scenario-based stakeholderengagement:Incorporatingstakeholders’preferences holder-Analysis-and-Social-Network-Analysis-in-Natural-Resource-Management.pdf [Accessed23April2014]. Society andNaturalResources, 22501-518.Available from: PRELL, C.,HUBACEK,K.andREED,M.,2009.Stakeholderanalysissocialnetworkinnaturalresource management. 259–275. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2006.00051.x/abstract [Accessed9June2014]. ing from doingparticipatoryruralresearch: lessonsfromofAgriculturalEconomics, thePeakDistrictNationalPark.Journal DOUGILL, A.J., FRASER,E.D.G., HOLDEN, J., HUBACEK, K., PRELL, C.,REED, M.S., STAGL,- S.and STRINGER, L.C. 2006.Learn review.pdf [Accessed23April2014]. http://sustainable-learning.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Stakeholder-participation-for-environmental-management-a-literature- SRI Papers,No.8,SustainabilityResearch Institute,UniversityofLeeds,25pp.Available from: REED, M.S.2008.StakeholderParticipationforEnvironmental Management:ALiterature Review. Technology, 332685–2692.Available from: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es980500g [Accessed11April2014]. CHESS, C.,PURCELL,K.1999.Publicparticipationandtheenvironment –doweknowwhatworks?Environmental Scienceand involve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/People-and-Participation.pdf June 2014]. Europe, 19pp.Available from: http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Five-Step_Guide_to_Stakeholder_Engagement.pdf [Accessed9 MORRIS, J.andBADDACHE,F. 2012.BacktoBasics:Howmakestakeholderengagementmeaningfulyourcompany.BSR ANDERBERG, S.2010.StakeholderInvolvementandDialogueinLUsTT.BriefingPaper, 19 pp. pdf [Accessed11April2014]. from: Available pp. 48 Cranfield, Management, JEFFREY aspx [Accessed24April2014]. http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Climate-Adaptation-Flagship/CAF-working-papers/CAF-working-paper-3. ment onClimateAdaptation.CSIROFlagshipWorking Paper, No.3,32pp.Available from: GARDNER, J.,DOWD,A.-M.,MASON,C.andASHWORTH, P. 2009.AFrameworkforStakeholderEngage- engagement_a_toolkit-2.pdf [Accessed11April2014]. kit. Torfaen CountyBorough Council,Torfaen, 38pp.Available from: http://www.revit-nweurope.org/selfguidingtrail/27_Stakeholder_ able from: http://www.e-taxonomy.eu/files/StakeholderReport1.pdf [Accessed24April2014]. http://www.accountability.org/images/content/2/0/208.pdf [Accessed11April2014]. Engagement. BeaconPress, Boston,156pp.Available from: CIATES. 2005. The Stakeholder Engagement Manual: Volume 2: The Practitioner’s Handbook on Stakeholder ACCOUNTABILITY standards/aa1000ses/index.html [Accessed9June2014]. . Dougherty Centre, Cranfield School of School Cranfield Centre, Dougherty , N. 2009. Stakeholder Engagement: A roadmap to meaningful engagement. Stakeholder EngagementinBiodiversityandEnvironmental Projects –component4.1.2BIS.Project Report,37 pp.Avail- Working Towards more Effective and Sustainable Brownfield Revitalisation Policies: Stakeholder Engagement – A Tool- People and Participation: How toPut Citizens at the HeartofDecision-making.61pp.Available from: http://www. , UNITEDNATIONS ENVIRONMENTPROGRAMME,andSTAKEHOLDER RESEARCHASSO- 2011. . AA1000 StakeholderEngagementStandard 2011.52pp.Available from: http://www.accountability.org/ Y CHILDHOODDEVELOPMENT. 2011.StakeholderEngagementFramework.Melbourne, http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dinamic-content/media/CR%20Stakeholder. http://sustainable-learning.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Stake [Accessed9June2014].
57, -
33 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 34 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook › Summaryofthethree stagesofstakeholderidentification › Stage3 › Stage2 › Stage1 stakeholders How toidentify diversity inmanaged grasslands Ecosystem serviceprovision from coupledplantandmicrobial functional Identifying stakeholders-Problems thatmaybeencountered Assess andprioritisestakeholders Identifying stakeholders ››
Case studies Part 3 35 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 36 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook process determines theoutcomesofanengagement Evidence suggests that participant selection strongly no stakeholders may be identified be may stakeholders no gain from engaging). In some cases, very few or even motivate themtobecome involved (i.e.whattheycan be abletocontributethe project butalsowhatwill all stakeholders,andconsider notonlywhattheymay In this first stage it is important to be inclusive, identify can influence, or may have an interest in the research consider all people, or groups, that are affected by, who In order toidentifystakeholdersitisnecessary nStage 1:Whoareyourstakeholders?- ingness orabilityofthestakeholderstoengage the objectivesofengagement,aswellwill- potential outcomesandimpacts,availableresources, Selection willdependuponthefocusofresearch, its to identify which stakeholders need to be engaged. next step in the stakeholder engagement process is Having establishedclearreasons forengagement,the nHowtoidentifystakeholders- means toimplementresearch outcomes strategic stakeholderswithpower, motivationand to addition in influence, of levels low have may who ing thosewithhighlevelsofinterest intheresearch tive representation of relevant stakeholders, includ- in collaboration withothercolleagues, organisations or alone, team research the by done be may tification participants andthatunrepresentative orrestrictive tion canincreaseandtrustbetween levelsoflearning representaeffective - that demonstrates that evidence 2-5 . Therefore, it is important to ensure effec- ensure to important is it Therefore, . relevant stakeholders❞ 6 . Stakeholderiden- and understand 3 . There is categorise ❝ 1 .
Identify, 6 .
three stages have to considered be can identification Stakeholder no groups or individualshavebeenmissed. Thismay sessed regularly throughout theproject toensure that The stakeholder identification process should be reas- have astakeinthoseissues more-comprehensive information about who might the scopeofissuesbeingconsidered, andprovide refine and define help can itself process identification are not missed. Participation of stakeholders in the and cross-sectoral stakeholders,toensure keygroups of engagementare tobeadopted. role oftheengagement, and ultimatelywhichmethods what levelofengagementisrequired, thetimingand be considered bytheproject teaminorder toascertain The outcomesfrom thisthree stageprocess canthen holders. Stage 3:Developanunderstandingofyourstake- Stage 2:Assessandprioritisethestakeholders. stakeholder groups. Stage 1:Identifyallpotentialstakeholdersand outcomes, andmayevenleadtoincreased conflict participant selectionmayleadtofewerpositivesocial 3 : 3 . 5 . stakeholder categories likely to relation in advance, in identified are holders Alternatively, following the ex-ante approach, stake- sentatives of each stakeholdergroup may needtobe with stakeholders, as only a small number of repre- useful if there are very limited resources for engaging associated with theresearch. Thiscanbe particularly tatives are present from eachmaingroup atevents be usedasachecklistto help ensure thatrepresen - views laterintheproject. Thecategorisationcanalso of stakeholdersforconductingquestionnaires orinter the outsetifthere isaneedforstratifyingsample be usefultocategorisestakeholderslikethisfrom research needs andprioritieschangeoverthecourseof engaged astheresearch progresses orasstakeholder involve identifyingnewstakeholdersthatneedtobe stakeholders are identified follow a‘snowballsampling’approach untilnonew identify othernewstakeholders.Researchers may turn in who identified, are they as stakeholders new typically an iterative process, eliciting feedback from is stakeholders of identification the approach, ad-hoc stakeholders more systematically may be used to select participants to start mapping gender, religion orplaceofresidence). Secondarydata tion thatcouldhelpcategorisestakeholdersbyage, data sources (e.g.censusdata,providing informa- cation ofstakeholdersisoftendoneusingsecondary identifi- initial the approaches, both Using ‘ad-hoc’. systematically identifying stakeholders: ‘ex-ante’ and cycle. Broadly speaking there are two approaches to project’sthe of entire throughout the influence areaof fashion, asfarpossible,byconsideringallaspects It isusefultoidentifystakeholders in asystematic they haveopposingviews. left outoftheengagementprocess simplybecause not are conflict of sources potential be to considered important toensure thatgroups orindividualsthatare Itis arise. could that conflicts potential identify help who are likelytooppose theresearch, asthismay ing inotherdisciplinesand/orgroups orindividuals work- scientists with dialogue into enter to beneficial funders, policymakers,localcommunities) users, data (e.g. actors different of functions or roles specific consider or researchers) academics, groups, relevance (e.g.publicsector, private sector, voluntary helpful toconsiderparticularsectorsorgroups of 7 . Intheearlystagesofproject itcouldbe 7,8,12 3,10,11 . Forexample, it may be . 8-10 . Followingthe 13,14 . Itmay - Example categoriesinclude holders andfurtherrefine theircategorisation stakeholder per category)to check formissingstake- their categories with stakeholders(e.g. with onekey holders mayendhere, or teamsmaywishtoverify invited toevents.Theprocess ofidentifyingstake- ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ holder couldinclude Other usefulmethodsforidentifyingkeystake - Local communities Business andindustry organisationsNon-governmental (NGOs) ment agencies) policy groups (e.g.European institutions,environ- policymakersor other nationalorinternational makers andadvisers(local,national,international); departments,politicians,policy Government data (e.g.historical records, mediaarticles) tify suitable stakeholders; assessing secondary Developing a‘mindmap’that canbeusedtoiden- about whomayhaveaninterest intheresearch Consulting with colleagues to share knowledge in similarlocations been involvedinsimilaractivitiesorthoseworking Brainstorming withotherorganisations thathave The generalpublic The media Students Educators across different disciplines disciplines; Scientistsandresearchers working Scientists andresearchers workinginrelevant Professional groups (e.g.vets,surveyorsetc.) Landowners andmanagers 15 : 7,12 : 9 . 37 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 38 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook ✴ ✴ ✴ one stakeholder identifies further stakeholders until noadditionalnewstakeholdersare further identified identifies stakeholder one Using ‘snowballsampling’techniques,whereby interest tocomeforward ment process and encouraging individuals with an Initiating self-selection by promoting the engage- census information) statisticsanddata(e.g. Utilising government that couldbe contactedforinterview. A snowballmethod wasthenusedtobuild upalistofotherindividuals inthematrix existing informants(e.g.people from localorganisations knowntotheresearchers). viduals were identified before commencing fieldwork, based on prior knowledge and community (e.g.business owners, farmers,civilservants,etc.).Where possible,indi- the in people of groups other as well as operators), tour and fishers as such users, the rangeofpeopleandlivelihoods withineachcommunity(e.g.coralreef resource fieldwork. the throughoutOne methodtoidentifypeopleforinterviewincluded usingmatricestodetermine continued also activity this but collection, data to prior phase scoping the during completed and planned carefully was stage identification these untilgeneralconsensuswasreached amongstparticipants.Thestakeholder ies were, eitheronmapsorbyidentifyingphysicaldemarcations, anddiscussing collection. Thisprocess includedaskingpeoplewhere theythoughttheboundar to determinetheboundariesofcommunities,and thusthearea includedfor data nity boundaries and keystakeholders.Information was collected from stakeholders Prior to commencing fieldwork, a scoping phase was undertaken to identify commu- dependence oncoralreefs inmultiplecommunitiesacross fourCaribbeancountries. The FP7FORCEproject includedanin-depthstudyoflivelihoodandcommunity necessary. who were abletotracethemostsuitableindividuals,andmakeintroductions where soby did consulting colleaguesandstakeholdercontactsfrom previous projects ormeetings and affairs, Foreign for ministry French the and (AFD) Development for For example,INVALUABLE researchers soughtstakeholdersfrom theFrench agency then identify who further contacts until a contacts, sufficient group is selected or no current further people are identified. by identified are individuals where approach stakeholder partners as a platform to identify new stakeholders using a ‘snowball’ other suitableparticipants.TheBiodivERsAINVALUABLE project alsousedformer participating inBESAFE.Laterontheproject, stakeholderswere askedtosuggest participated inaprevious research project whethertheywouldbeinterested in in aresearch project. TheFP7BESAFEproject beganbyaskingstakeholderswho engage to opportunity the favourably more view will stakeholders field, their within study projects (see identification for a project and these were an important starting point for all the case Pre-existing networksare hugelyvaluableforbeginningtheprocess ofstakeholder IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS 0
Case studIES Appendix 1 for details). If researchers are known and trusted ✴ ✴ councils, emergency servicesetc.). other organisation (e.g. local authorities, town and forums usedbygovernment Consulting with who represent relevant elementsofsociety and agencies networks groups, specific identify Utilising existinglistsoforganisations inorder to - benefits forengaging.Atemplateofthismatrixcanbedownloadedfr stakeholder potential and engagement, for reasons categorisation, identification, stakeholder of Example Table 3.1 ers It can be usefulto tabulate information on stakehold- ute totheproject andwhy theymightwishtobecome contrib- would stakeholders identified the how gorise ensures thatresearchers explicitlyconsiderandcate- group stakeholders(e.g. by sectororexpertise)and 14 . Doing this enables researchers toorder and charity Environmental Local business Local authority Stakeholder NGO nesses Private sectorbusi- maker policy Government partner) NGO, potential general public, government dept Category (e.g ., tise toproject. resources andexper tial contributionof available data,poten- Better accessto resources toproject. tial contributionof expertise andpoten- Sharing technical research outputs. ensure relevance of policy interfaceand Strengthen science- stakeholder(s) involve the Reasons to when relevant. explain whynotengagingwithsomestakeholders to engagewiththeproject. Applicants should also to involvethem,andreasons whytheymightwish details of thetypespotential stakeholders, reasons involved. Table 3.1 shows an example containing - om http://www.biodiversa.org/577. future projects. Opportunities forpartneringin publicity through engagement. produced. Increased local Interest inusingthenewdata ability ofoperations. Improving efficiencyand profit- Responsibility opportunities. Publicity andCorporateSocial the engagementprocess. potential newcustomersthrough Possibility ofnetworkingwith transparency ofdecisionsmade. scientific knowledge.Better policies baseduponrigorous Opportunity todevelopbetter (benefits) want tobeinvolved Why thestakeholder may 39 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 40 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook or stakeholdergroup needstobeinvolvedthesame to thenecessityofengagement.Noteverystakeholder yse stakeholdersinorder toprioritisetheminrelation engagement. Thesecondstageistoassessandanal- isations, alongwithanindicationofthereasons for of all relevant stakeholders and stakeholder organ- detailed above should generate a comprehensive list The first stage of the stakeholder identification process stakeholderS- nStage 2:Assess,anal Who willbecriticaltothefinaldelivery? Which partiesare likelyto bethemostinfluential? consulted? Whoneedstobeinformed? Which stakeholders is it essential to involve? Who is it preferable to involve? Who needs to be Who islikelytohaveanegativeviewoftheresearch? Which groups orindividuals maybeabletoprovide relevant information,equipment orresources? these mayhavebeenidentifiedinStage1)? Are there stakeholdersthathavebeeninvolvedinsimilarprojects onprevious occasions(someof affected, maybeinterested inthe results ofthe research? the directly of not research? outputs although the Who, by affected be areto individuals likely Which who needstobeinformed? the by research? affected so from be If Arebenefit or will thereemergingthat policies existence in or Who isresponsible formaking decisionsthatmightaffectthe research? Important pointstoconsiderwhenidentifyingstakeholders: yse andprioritise- critical toinvolve to contribute and which will be affected, and therefore project it is possible to establish which might be best considering therelevance ofthestakeholdersto of stages the research orwhenworkingwithanothergroup. By different at relevance differing of be may degree, oratthesametimeandstakeholder 13 . ees f neet n influence/relevance and interest of levels is tocategorisestakeholdersinrelation totheirrelative ers insomeway. Themostcommonlyusedapproach holders; mostinvolvefurthercategorisingstakehold - There are manywaysofanalysingormappingstake- plots stakeholder influence (i.e. whether they can they whether (i.e. influence stakeholder plots 3.1 necessarily havinghadprevious experienceofstakeholderengagement. This guidance allowed researchers in the different case studies to follow a project protocol without rised according tothewaysinwhichtheymightwantbeinvolveddevelopingToolbox. and thestakeholderanalysiswasalsousedtoidentifypotentialendusers,whowere thencatego- One oftheobjectivesMOTIVEwasproduction ofanAdaptiveForest ManagementToolbox, of whoshouldbe‘involved’,consulted’andinformed’. typology the to according classified further were Stakeholders policy?’. to connections important example ‘how will stakeholders be affected by the project results?’ and ‘does the stakeholder have A set of guiding questions was used to establish the importance and influence of stakeholders, for ✴ ✴ ✴ initial actionswere: were categorisedinthree stages.Thetablebelowshowsthetemplateusedinproject. The who stakeholders of identification the aid to prepared was document guidance a Europe, across studies case involved which project, MOTIVE FP7 the In engagement. for individuals specific tise teams mayneverhavecapacitytoengagefullywith.Therefore, itisoftennecessarytopriori- Identifying stakeholdersoftenresults inacomplexlistofpeopleandorganisations thatresearch Assess andpriortsestakeholders 0 e.g. Privatesector Prioritising themaccording totheirimportanceto,andinfluenceover, theproject. Identifying theirinterests and roles inrelation totheproject Creating alistofstakeholders Stakeholder B Stakeholder A Case StudY Stakeholder (by sector) Person B Person A Contact/ position 16-18 . Figure Consultant Roles and manager interests Owner/ the stakeholderinproject. of interest the against outcomes), the by affected be research or block the research, and whether they will the influence positively and contributions useful make Involved/consulted engagement Informed Level of Importance Influence High Low 41 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 42 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook ✴ ✴ the highestlevel(‘collaborate’): through themiddlelevels (‘consult’,and‘involve’)to ‘level’ ofengagement,from thelowestlevel(‘inform’), ence on,theproject. The fourboxeseachrepresent a influ- low or high and in, interest low or high a have Stakeholders are plotted according to whether they be madeasearly possible inthe research process. should effort therefore and research the in group this As such, particular effort may be necessary to engage but may be difficult to engage in the research process. project, the of success the over influence significant resources toengage.Becauseofthis,theymayhave but havelittleinterest inthe research orlowcapacity/ may bemarkedlyimpactedbytheeventualoutcomes. relevant information,permissions and resources, or most beneficial to engage. They may be able to supply be to likely is it which with those are influence) high – has beenadaptedfrom workconductedbytheNational HealthService(UK) the project. Theboxesprovide detailsofthelevelsengagement.Figure assigned to acategoryaccording totheirlikely contribution and interest in are Stakeholders interest. against influence stakeholder Plotting Figure 3.1 and theUniversity ofEdinburgh Stakeholders inthe‘collaborate’ o ae ihy influential, highly are box Those inthe‘involve’ HIGH LOW INFLUENCE holder needs. tailoring communicationstomeetstake- adequately updatedasandwhenrequired, Monitor thesestakeholdersandkeepthem Inform ensure nomajorissuesare arising. informed andmaintainregular contactto Keep thesestakeholdersadequately Involve LOW 7 . box (highinterest H IGH INTERS excluding themfrom the research process. for justification a as used often is group this by held more influential participants. The low level of influence them toengageasequalsintheresearch process with attention tosecure theirengagement andtoempower ered ‘hard toreach’, andthatmightwarrantspecial the marginal stakeholdersthatmayalsobeconsid- are often These stakeholders. influential more other with alliances forming by influential become may they cantly help the project and deliver impact; however, signifi- to capacity the lack they research, the of ive support- they are definition by although and influence them inmuchdetailortoengagewiththem. research over limited project resources there islessneedtoconsider influence or in outcomes anditcanbeargued thatwhenthere are interest little have ✴ ✴ Those inthe‘consult’boxhavehighinterest but low overwhelm themwithtoomuchinformation. and toaddressbutdonot theirconcerns, mation andinteractiontokeepthemupdated Provide thesestakeholderswithenoughinfor Consult effort tokeepthemsatisfied. support oftheproject, andmakethegreatest their fullhelp,create partnerships,galvanize project andmustbefullyengagedwith.Enlist These stakeholdersare essentialtothe Collaborate Those inthe‘inform’boxare stakeholderswho T 19
- ✴ ✴ ✴ groups, forexample: tailor levels of stakeholder engagement to different Using thisapproach, it isthenpossibletobetter however, betailored tostakeholderneeds. discovering potential solutions. Information must recognisinging alternatives, opportunitiesand them inunderstandingtheproblem, identify- with balancedandobjectiveinformationtoassist incorporated intodecisionmaking. understood, considered and,where appropriate, to ensure and aspirations are that their concerns throughout the project lifecycle (see Involve – work directly with interested third parties of theirarea ofinterest. overwhelm stakeholders with information outside outcomes ofaproject. Care shouldbetakennotto decisionmaking,anddesiredanalysis, alternatives, on relevant aspectsofthe design,methodologies, adequate informationtointerested third parties Consult Inform HIGH LOW INFLUENCE – adequately updateinterested third parties – obtainfeedbackfrom andprovide Inform Involve LOW SH2 SH5 Figure 4.1) H IGH SH3 SH1 =Stakeholder 1). reflected by the size of the circle surrounding the stakeholder (e.g. Figure 3.2 INTERS ✴ tion tothesizeandplacementofcircles. rela- in displayed clearly be to engagement of benefit simultaneously considered andenablestherelative this styleofapproach allowsallthree factorstobe and thedesired aimsoftheengagement.Adopting on theresearch project, thestakeholdersselected, expertise. The choiceofcomponents to mapdepends circle around eachstakeholderdenotingtheirrelative placed on an interest-influence matrix, with the size of are stakeholders five which in example hypothetical size given to each stakeholder ables may be represented using colours or circle/font est intheresearch. theseorothervari- Alternatively inter and influence relative their to relation in plotted Individual stakeholders or stakeholder groups may be stakeholders remain fully satisfied. of identification preferred solutionsoroutcomestoensure these the and methods alternative of sion makingprocess, including thedevelopment als, orgroups, inrelevant aspectsofthedeci- Collaborate – work in partnership with individu- Consult Collaborate T
Interest-influence matrix, with relative expertise relative with matrix, Interest-influence SH1 1 . Figure 3.2 provides a SH4 - 43 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 44 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook or conflicts between stakeholders. For this reason, For stakeholders. between conflicts or the nature oftheirinterest intheproject oralliances gorisation andprioritisationofstakeholders,suchas many otherfactorsthatmightusefullyinformthecate- criticised for being simplistic. For example, there are been have matrices interest-influence tool, mapping Although itisthemostcommonlyusedstakeholder
Table 3.2
An extendable interest-influence matrix with examples of additional columns that may be added to capture more detail about each stakeholder than is typically possible using graphical techniques. A template of this matrix can be downloaded from http://www.biodiversa.org/577
Name of Interest What aspects If interest is Key Influence Comments on influ- Key Organisa- (High (H)/ of the research L/M, how messages H/M/L ence (e.g. times or contact(s) tion Medium (M)/ are they likely might we from your contexts in which and best way Low (L)) to be inter- motivate research for they have more/less of contacting ested in? engagement this group influence over the them with the outcomes of your research? research)
Reed contexts or at different times). An example is given in given is example An times). different at or contexts different in influence less, or more, holds stakeholder a whether considering (e.g. ascribed is that influence those interests anddocument reasons forthelevelof ence, butalsoattempttocharacterize the nature of influ- interestand of levels consider only not that ces’
et al. 3
propose theuseof‘extendable matri- of usersthatmakeupthecentre ofthemap,and developing amindmapisidentifyingthemajorgroups in step first The (an exampleisgiveninFigure 3.3 ). stakeholders, forexampleconstructingamind-map A numberofvisualtoolsmaybeusedtohelp map Table 3.2. C Pa ouncil rish National Crop Shooting Restaurant T rust Club C C P Bor ouncil C ounty ubs / Fa ouncil ough rmin Co Livestock
Fa nv s Bike Hire Stor g rming Ce enience F ntre e ruit Orchards C A Fa ompanies Pr uthorit C Renewable Estate L Wa ompanies rming ocal ivat Energy te r F e Businesses ish Fa y O ther rmin Anglers C g ompanies C Landowners C Utilit oach / Wa ompanies lkers y Tr ain Bene ciaries Regular Economic Users L ocal Schools Operators Hotels T B&B our ect ing to the degree they can affect or be affected by a research proj- Figure 3.4 Forestry Commission Figure 3.3 Stakeholders in Ecosystem Po 8 Infrastruc . Users Users L tential ocal Exper W C Green ollec ild F towards theouteredges then progressing towards greater detailasyoumove (Figure 3.4). research the by affected be or affect can they degree tothe according them classifies that diagram’ bow Buckles ts ood tors ture C onsultants Rainbow diagram for classifying stakeholders accord - Pr Example ofstakeholdermindmap,adaptedfrom In of Ecological O Users terests Exper essional ther 8 recommend placingstakeholders ina‘‘rain- Catchmen Mountain ts Bikers W Users 15 ider A . cademics Independen Exper Horse Riders t NGO ts t ’s Po Regular 15 Users O Users Users tential Students . Alternatively, Chevalierand ther Researchers Wa Universit lk ing Clubs y C P onser Ar ublic Health tists NGO NGO vation Day Canoeist from City Bird C Tr ommunit ippers Wa Universities Recreational Schools/ s tching Divers y 45 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 46 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook Ability undertaken byUniversityofEdinburgh with them.Thefollowinghasbeenadaptedfrom work engage whenconsideringhowandto their motivations,interests, expertiseandcapacityto ers, it is helpful to obtain a greater understanding of Having beguntoprioritisetherelevant stakehold- nStage 3:Understand yourstakeholders- ✴ consider: vance to, a project, the project team should always In order toconsiderastakeholder’s interest in,orrele- and definitionsforthefourlevelsofengagement. necessary toagree mutually acceptableterminologies also be may It groups. different the into themselves process andprovide opportunityforthemtoassign appropriate toinvolvestakeholders inthemapping full transparency isneeded itmaybeconsidered more could impactworkingrelationships. Incaseswhere assumptions beingmadeaboutthemandhowthis it isimportanttoconsiderhowtheymayreact tothe holders were toviewmapping diagramsandtables open to stakeholder scrutiny. For example, if stake- tant tokeepinmindwhetherthisprocess willbe When identifyingstakeholdersforinclusionitisimpor project? stakeholders: team shouldconsiderwhenunderstandingrelevant ✴ ✴ ✴ What interest doesthe stakeholder have inthe 20 ect? holders orbetweenstakeholders andtheproj- potential for any conflict arising amongst stake- views bepositiveornegative? Isthere the about theproject anditsoutcomes,willthese What viewsare thestakeholderslikelytohold possess thatmayberelevant totheproject? stakeholders different the do knowledge What already existbetweenstakeholders? project and the stakeholders? Do relationships Is there anexistingrelationship betweenthe andprovides somekeypointstheproject 7 andAccount- - project? ✴ ✴ ✴ engagement. 4 and5ofthisHandbookontimingmethods times oftheproject. ThisisdiscussedfurtherinParts different at stakeholders particular with may necessary be of engagement levels different that remember and towhatextent.However, itisalsoimportantto of stakeholderstheproject willneedtoengagewith, types the of assessment first clear a provides holders Using theprevious tools to mapandprioritisestake- of the potential impacts or effects the research may research the effects or impacts potential the of different with engage and stakeholders; contactinformation; and anassessment approach to best how about information conflicts); or coalitions (e.g. holders For example: identifying any important relationships between stake- stakeholders. with effectively engage a rangeoffactorsthatmayhelptocategoriseand save time.Suchmatricescanbeextendedtoconsider ers maywishtocombine these intoasinglematrixto (Table) approach. 3.2 matrix Research- est–influence shown inTable 3.3.Thisbuildsontheextendedinter lated; anexampleofhowthiscouldbeapproached is The typeofinformationdescribedabovecanbetabu - ✴ ✴ holder betotheproject and why? the stake- of engagement would beneficial How by theproject? affected or impacted be stakeholder the may How What influence can the stakeholder have onthe have stakeholder the can influence What cal, political,time,informationorknowledge)? (e.g. technical,physical,linguistic,geographi- barriers to participation and/or engagement and howcouldthisbeovercome? Are there any Is there awillingnesstoengage;ifnot,why reach certaingroups orindividuals? tion andwillthisneedtobeadaptedinorder to What are theappropriate meansofcommunica-
- have onthestakeholder ment required. Thestakeholdersthemselvescouldbe list ofrelevant stakeholders,andthelevelsofengage- The completedtableshouldprovide arepresentative and howthismayinfluenceengagement. groups different of priorities and values the identify nities andrisksofengagingwithcertain stakeholders, stakeholders. Thesemethodshelptoclarifyopportu- of groups different between and within practices or or organisations that may play an important role in diffusing knowledge individuals specific identify to and different stakeholder groups interact with one another, have been categorised in order to understand how methods are generallyemployed oncestakeholders (discussed furtherinPart7ofthisHandbook).These stakeholders between conflicts analyse and assess stakeholder perceptions and values,methodsto ods include those to analyse social networks, map this should researchers wish to do so. These meth- depth, there are arangeofmethodsavailabletodo ment. Whilstthere israrely timeavailabletodosoin can beextremely useful intheprocess ofengage- Understanding relationships betweenstakeholders 1,7,19,21,22 . engagement, becomeclearer. and anypotentialbarriersthatexistwhichcouldinhibit to engage,typesofsuitableengagementactivities, standing ofthestakeholders,appropriate stage(s) engagement process. Bydevelopingasoundunder engagement required and/or the timing and role of the holders’ process canbeusedtoconsiderthetypesof the projects. Theoutcomesofthe‘identifyingstake- cating thevaryinglevelsofengagementrequired in This analysisprocess goes somewaytowards indi- communicated of theresearch ortheoutcomeswhichneedstobe matter orissues;there may beashiftinthedirection arise toengageoverpreviously unforeseen subject holder groups may request involvement; a need may newstake- team; project the by identified originally those to project the of stages different at involvement reasons, including:stakeholders mayrequest greater odically throughout theproject cycleforanumberof to understandstakeholdersshouldbereviewed peri- anopen and transparent working relationship. Thetableused establishing for method effective an be to they agree withthedetails entered; thismay also prove consulted for their views (when appropriate) to ensure 13 . - 47 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 48 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook
Table 3.3
Understanding your stakeholders. Examples of typical stakeholders and possible overall levels of engagement have been provided. The overall level of engagement will depend on the results of the mapping exercise. Stakeholders can be grouped according to the overall level identified and/or the level can be depicted through the use of certain colours or type face, as shown in this example matrix. A template of this matrix can be downloaded from http://www.biodiversa.org/577
Relationship Knowledge of Views on the Best means of Willingness to Capacity to Stakeholder Existing relationship with other the project project communication engage engage stakeholders
Government policy
makers
Scientists from
same discipline Collaborate
Landowners
Involve NGOs
Businesses
Students
Scientists from
Consult different discipline
Local community
General public
Inform Media stakeholder IDENTIFICATION- nSummar ✴ STAGE 3:UNDERSTAND YOURSTAKEHOLDERS best waysofcommunicatingwiththem. edge andattitudestowards theresearch, willingnessandcapacitytoengage Seek informationaboutstakeholders'relationships withortherstakeholders,knowl- ect, duringthe stakeholderidentification process. influence and expertise of stakeholders with their interest and commitment to the proj- ‘stakeholder fatigue’.To dealwiththisissue,researchers mayneedtobalance the of commonpurposeamong thegroups. Itwassuggested thatthiswaspartlydueto NCF, which presented a barrier to strengthening relationships and achieving a sense dissemination. There were frequently changes ofrepresentatives participating in the tries whoseremit wastomeetannuallycontribute toresearch developmentand A NationalConsultativeForum(NCF)wassetupineach oftheresearch partnercoun- to which individuals from stakeholder organisations are invited, can help mitigate this. given where is carefulidentification, thought stakeholder strategic how explained and of maintainingtheinvolvementstakeholdersover the courseofaresearch project, a simpleprocess. Aresearcher from theFP7HUNT project highlightedthe challenge from thosestakeholderswho are mostrelevant to the research. Butthis is not always the three stagesoutlinedinthisHandbook,canhelpidentifyandmotivateengagement dynamics from biodiversityresearch. Doingacareful stakeholderanalysis,following ing. There are numerous examplesof‘stakeholderfatigue’,andchallengingpower challeng- be can stakeholders with engagement effective getting actually practice, In that ma Identifying stakeholders –Problems 0 ✴ STAGE 2:ASSESS,ANAL should collaboratewith,involve,consultorinformthem. you if decide and influence and interest their to according stakeholders Categorise
Case study y ofthethreestages of- ✴ ✴ ✴ STAGE 1:WHOAREYOURSTAKEHOLDERS? y beencountered Re-assess whohasastakeinyourresearch regularly throughout theresearch cycle. approach tosystematically indentifyallrelevant stakeholders. new stakeholdersiterativelybasedonrecommendations from existingstakeholders) Use ex-ante (identifying stakeholders in predefined categories) or ad-hoc (identifying with asmallnumberofcross-sectorial stakeholders. Identify stakeholderswithresearch teamonlyoridentifystakeholdersincollaboration YSE ANDPRIORITISESTAKEHOLDERS
49 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 50 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook land and microbiALfunc Ecos 0 ✴ ✴ stakeholders wereinv How manygroupandindividual ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ fied? What differentt ✴ ✴ ✴ How werestakeholders identified? representative rangeofmanagementandnaturalconditions. Research conductedatthree sitesintheFrench Alps,Austria,andtheUK, provides a can provide, andthereby thelivelihoodanddevelopmentpotentialforlocaleconomies. potential to fundamentally shift the ecosystem services that these agro-ecosystems gen transformationprocesses andsoilfertilitymaintenance.Thesechangeshavethe plant speciesandfunctionaldiversity, soilmicrobial activities anddiversity, soilnitro - manuring, mowing and grazing, or conversely management intensification, has altered The BiodivERsAVITAL project studiesmountaingrasslandswhere abandonmentof with biodiversityconservationandmaintenanceofeconomicallyviableproduction. ecosystem services,suchascarbonstorageandprotection ofwaterquality, along ing changesinlegislationandpolicy, European agriculture ischallengedtoprovide Given increasingfortheenvironment, political andpublicconcern result- Local beneficiaries:35. 23 (non-agriculturalsector). Regional experts:22(agricultural sector), Producers (e.g.farmers). Local beneficiarieswhoare consumers(e.g.farmersandinhabitants). conservation, tourismorruraldevelopment)andact as decisionmakers. NGOs that represent consumers of their sectors ofactivity (e.g. agriculture, nature Regional institutions. institutions. Regional expertsworkingforgovernmental from theVillar d’Arènemunicipality. farmers local eight with stage second a and sectors representeddifferent who with stage first experts a regional involved development scenario the France In productionconventional/ alternative etc.). differing farm structure characteristics (full-time/ part-time, traditional/ modern, For scenarioworkshopsheldinAustria,farmerswere selectedbasedupon were selectedbyreputation orrecommendations. Regional experts andlocal stakeholders for the ecosystemservice assessment
Case study y stem serVIcepro ypes ofstakeholders wereident- tional divers ol vision fromcoupledlanT ved? France), VITAL project. d'Arêne (HautesAlpes, farmers from Villare Role playinggamewith y inmanaged grass-
© Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, VITAL project 22 2007. REVIT. ACCOUNTABILITY 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 nReferences- pdf [Accessed11April 2014]. from: Available pp. 48 Cranfield, Management, JEFFREY engagement_a_toolkit-2.pdf [Accessed11April2014]. kit. Torfaen CountyBorough Council,Torfaen, 38pp.Available from: http://www.revit-nweurope.org/selfguidingtrail/27_Stakeholder_ images/content/5/4/542/AA1000SES%202010%20PRINT.pdf [Accessed23April2012]. 2012]. ppt&sa=U&ei=baxXU7OhNorX7Aak_oDgDA&ved=0CCAQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNH2c9oTIkxH6hOsoPTu6sLBtVhzFA [Accessed23April https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/scr/documents/screngage. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (UK).2009.StakeholderEngagementGuidelines.PowerPointpresentation. Available from: 2014]. ronmental Management, 28(1), 47-60. Available from: DE LOPEZ,T. T., 2001.StakeholderManagementforConservationProjects: ACaseStudyofReamNationalPark,Cambodia.Envi- EDEN, C.andACKERMANN,F., ofStrategic Management,SagePublications,London. 1998.MakingStrategy:TheJourney USA. LINDENBERG, M.M.andCROSBY Forestry Commission,Edinburgh. Available at:http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-5xmds8 [Accessed8November2013]. FORESTR [Accessed 30April2012]. Engagement. Environs ManagementLtd,UK.Available from: http://imcore.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/trust-guide-final-2011.pdf WHYTE, H., LE TISSIER, M. and HILLS, J. 2010. POUND, D.2004.StakeholderDialogue–agoodpracticeapproach toparticipation.Training Manual.DialogueMatters,20pp. holder Engagement.Environmental Science&Policy,22,100–111. JOLIBERT, C. and WESSELINK, A. 2012. Research impacts and impact on research in biodiversity conservation: Influence of Stake- able from: http://www.acera.unimelb.edu.au/materials/publications/gilmour0609.pdf GILMOUR, J.andBEILIN,R.2007.Stakeholder Mapping for Effective Risk Communication.AustralianCentre forRiskAnalysis.Avail- ship offiveAustralianabalonefisheries. MarinePolicy, 35(5), 692-702. GILMOUR, P.W., DWYER, P.D. and DA 259–275. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2006.00051.x/abstract [Accessed9June2014]. ing from doingparticipatoryruralresearch: lessonsfromofAgriculturalEconomics,57, thePeakDistrictNationalPark.Journal DOUGILL, A.J., FRASER,E.D.G., HOLDEN, J., HUBACEK, K., PRELL, C.,REED, M.S., STAGL,- S.and STRINGER, L.C. 2006.Learn Available from:[Accessed31March http://omec.uab.cat/Documentos/coop_internacional/00110.pdf 2014]. CHEVALIER, J.M. and BUCKLES,D.J.2008.SAS2:AGuide to Collaborative Inquiry and Social . Sage Engagement Publications, Stakeholder-Engagement-Guidelines-University-of-Edinburgh [Accessed30April2012]. UNIVERSITY OFEDINBURGH.2008.Stakeholderengagement.7pp.Available from: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/54409298/ 2014]. proposals. 10pp.Available from: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/application/howtoapply/pathwaystoimpact/ NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL (NERC). 2010. Guidance for Applicants: Pathways to impact for research grant ofEnvironmentalJournal Management. drylands. global in management from land Evidence sustainable outcomes? processes their decision-making affect participatory of DE VENTE,J.,REED,M.S.,STRINGER,L.C.,VALENTE, L.C.,VALENTE, S.,NEWIG,J.(inpress). Howdoesthecontextanddesign 2014]. processes. STANGHELLININ, P.S.L. 2010.Stakeholderinvolvementinwatermanagement:therole ofstakeholderanalysiswithinparticipatory and-why-A-typology-of-stakeholder-analysis-methods-for-natural-resource-management.pdf [Accessed9June2014]. Management, 90,1933–1949.Available from: http://sustainable-learning.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Who%E2%80%99s-in- 2009. Who’s inandwhy?Atypologyofstakeholderanalysismethodsfornaturalresource ofEnvironmental management.Journal REED, M.S.,GRAVES, A.,DANDY , 19,197–214.AvailableGovernance from: http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/44744/1/604559410.pdf [Access11April2014]. effective? and – participatory,multi-level governance: Environmental 2009. O. FRITSCH, and J. NEWIG, June 2014]. Europe, 19pp.Available from: http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Five-Step_Guide_to_Stakeholder_Engagement.pdf [Accessed9 MORRIS, J.andBADDACHE,F. 2012.BacktoBasics:Howmakestakeholderengagementmeaningfulyourcompany.BSR . Dougherty Centre, Cranfield School of School Cranfield Centre, Dougherty , N. 2009. Stakeholder Engagement: A roadmap to meaningful engagement. Y COMMISSION.2011.PublicEngagementinForestry: atoolboxforpublicengagementinforest andwoodlandplanning. Water Policy,12,675-694.Available from: http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/01205/wp012050675.htm [Accessed9June Working Towards more Effective and Sustainable Brownfield Revitalisation Policies: Stakeholder Engagement – A Tool- 2008. . AA1000 StakeholderEngagement Standard 2011.52pp.Available from: http://www.accountability.org/ , N.,POSTHUMUS,H.,HUBACEK,K.,MORRIS,J.,PRELL,C.,QUINN,C.H.andSTRINGER,L.C. , B.L.1981.ManagingDevelopment:thePoliticalDimensions.KumarianPress, West Hertford, CT, Y , R.W. 2011. Beyond individual quotas: the role of trust and cooperation in promoting steward- http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dinamic-content/media/CR%20Stakeholder. A Step-by-Step Guide through the Theory, Process and Practise of Stakeholder http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs002670010206 [Accessed 9 June [Accessed31March 2014]. Environmental Policyand [Accessed31March 51 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 52 biodiversa st akeholder engagement stra tegy › with stakeholders When toengage project lifecycle Mapping stakeholderroles todifferent stagesofthe When toengage ››
Case study Part 4 53 biodiversa st akeholder engagement stra tegy 54 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook most-appropriate contributionsthateach stakeholder stakeholder of benefits the engagement, itisusefultoconsiderthe timingofthe maximise to order In after thedecisionhasbeen made arrive thedecision with consistent are that findings ardize existingopinionsorpolicypositionsifresearch times, research maysimplybeusedtojustifyorjeop- makers (e.g.apestordiseaseoutbreak), andatother bydecision- faced challenges specific address help election manifestos).Atothertimes,research may ties forpolicy-makersmayemerge (e.g.feedinginto mately tobeusedformulatepolicy, newopportuni- example, atcertaintimesduringresearch thatisulti- research isusedinthedecision-makingprocess. For from knowledge that way the affect also may Timing are likelytobeperceived asrelevant bystakeholders. always influence the extent to which research findings ent stakeholders, timing (whether good or bad) will to feed into the events and issues of relevance to differ Although muchcanbedonetoadaptresearch outputs resources, forboththeproject andthestakeholders. and time of terms in costly be would outcomes, final the wholeproject, from inceptiontodisseminationof the time.Involvementofallstakeholdersthroughout discrete timesthroughout theproject, ratherthanall times. Moststakeholdersare likelytobeinvolvedat different at stakeholders of contributions actual and the lifecycle of theproject, depending on thepossible throughout times different at vary to likely are ment covered inPart5.However, actuallevelsofengage- Part 3ofthisHandbook.Methodsforengagementare engagement with different stakeholders are covered in Ways ofidentifying,mappinganddecidingonlevels nWHENtoENGAGEWITHstakeholders- and stakeholdergroups, includingwaystoadapt times toengagewithdifferent stakeholders ❝
Assessing themostbeneficial as theproject develops ❞ 1 . - holders. the level and timing of involvement of particular stake- influence also might this and possible, are area study requirement, especiallyifnewprojects inthesame tionships withstakeholdersmightbeanimportant holder-led monitoringisundertaken.Longertermrela- because ofanadditionalphasefundingorifstake - might continuebeyondtheinitialfundingperiod,either are a partoftheresearch process. Inaddition,projects modifications and learning which in exist might different order,a loops have feedback and overlap, or might stages in reality view; simplified a is This 4.1. The research project lifecycleisrepresented inFigure involved atalaterstage. with disseminatingorusingresults willmainlybe will beinvolvedatinception,whereas thoseinvolved holders assisting in early development oftheproject vary astheproject progresses. Forexample,stake- stages oftheproject, keepinginmindthatroles may ers are expected to play can beassigned to various The desired contributions or roles that stakehold- and how it will impact on the outcomes of the project. for whateverreasons, andhowthiscanbemanaged possibility oftemporaryorcompletedisengagement, impact oftheresearch. Itisalsousefultoassessthe adopt; andwhentheseare criticaltothesuccessand might maketowards the project; theroles theymight managing this setout. risks associated withlossofengagement andwaysof with the engagement and assessed, be not gaining also can stakeholders specific of impact The be identi- fied. can beneficial most be might roles these cycle where the research in stage the defined, roles possible their and identified are stakeholders Once OF THEPROJECTLIFECYCLE - Mappingstakeholder n rolestodifferentstages- communications Development of e xchange &data Knowledge sharing Interpr re etation of sults Identification information or research of new needs analysis Data stage ofaproject. roles thatstakeholdersmightmakeortakeineach Table 4.1summarizesthekindsofcontributionsor stakeholder engagementare showninbold. desired roles, butthemostimportantstagesfor these stages depending on the type of project and cle. Stakeholderscouldbeengagedatanyorallof lifecy- project a of diagram Simplified Figure 4.1 development Concept collection Data knowledge e Research design& planning T raining xchange 55 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 56 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook ert, 2011 Definitions of possible stakeholder roles/contributions during the life cycle of a project (adapted from Jolib- Table 4.1 Before Project stage after During/ During during Before and After 2 ). ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ Stakeholder role orcontribution Conflict resolution, if relevant Assist indefininganddevelopingtools Review project success,includingstakeholderengagementapproach tion indataanalysis Prediction andmodelling–informingdevelopmentofscenariosmodels,orparticipa- Data provision, includingcapturingnewdata(monitoring) Assist withtrainingofotherstakeholdertoenhancedeliveryorparticipation Networking andawareness raisingwithnon-contributorystakeholders Co-design anddevelopmentofconflict resolution approaches, if relevant Defining project plans,includingstakeholderengagementplanning Provision ofresources –forexample,equipment,funding,stafftime Establish agreements onaccesstostudysites Advise onknowledgeexchangerequirements Highlight possiblerisksandpotentialforconflictstoarise limitations Identify possiblescopeoftheirowncontributions,including motivation, andassociated approachHelp definethebestgovernance forstakeholderengagement Identify otherpotentialstakeholdersandpossibleroles fying usefulpotentialoutcomesandcommoninterests project the define to projectHelp and concept design/research strategy, identi- including Develop stakeholder-led monitoring andnetworkingbeyond lifeoffundedproject Identify future information,toolsandresearch needs Review project success,includingstakeholderengagement approach and television) newsletters, books,guidelines,socialmediaandthe generalmedia(newspapers,radio Publicity, promotion, via channels such as websites, academic materials, research reports, Advise ondataexchangerequirements strategies) Implementation ofresults –testing Define, developandhelpdeliverknowledgeexchange activitiesandpublications outputs oftheresearch (e.g.tools,newmethodologies, ment, canbehelpful. a draftplan,whichallowsmore systematicassess- plan theircontributionsandsharinginitialideasusing It is important to work with stakeholders to assess and throughout theproject cycle. stakeholder group maywell carryoutmultipleroles and inothersituationsanindividualstakeholderor stakeholder may be identified to undertake some roles one than more instances some In identified. be might sarily beappropriate forevery project, andotherroles in identified roles the of all Not ✴ ment wascategorisedaccording tothree broad levels: the typeofrole theymayplayintheresearch (see Part3ofthisHandbook).Engage- and project the in stakeholders of influence and interest the understanding included appropriate foreachstakeholdergroup basedontheirstakeholderanalysis, which Researchers ontheFP7MOTIVEproject decidedwhatlevelofengagementwouldbe Assess stakeholder roles research. the influence may they which to extent the and project the in role their of aware are The expectationsofstakeholdersmustbecarefully andearlymanagedtoensure they them, which could not always be accommodated within the constraints of the project. holders viewedtheproject asanopportunitytopursuecertainavenuesofinterest to This issuewasencountered aftertheFP7HUNT meet therequirements ofstakeholders. proposal is written, there can be limited flexibility to adapt the research programme to exercise toallowstakeholderinputintoproject developmentwhere possible.Oncethe during the proposal writing phase. It is advisable to carry out a pre-proposal scoping holder inputatanearlystage,butthiswasnotpossibleduetolimitedtimeandfunding Other projects indicated that theywouldhavelikedtobeen able tohavestake- able toinfluencethedesignof research programme. engagement gavethestakeholdersasenseofownershipproject, astheywere by astakeholderfrom thePeakDistrictcasestudyinEnglandwhofeltthatthisearly involved stakeholdersattheproposal writingstage.Thiswasviewedverypositively as earlyintheproject aspossible.Researchers ontheBiodivERsAFIREMANproject Most researchers from thecasestudiesrecognised thevalueofengagingstakeholders Plan earl WHEN TO ENGAGE 0 Involve indesignand implementation
Case studIES y engagement Table 4.1willneces- more timeandresources willberequired. and conflict in stakeholders with dealing when differ to together allow exchangeofviews.Timingengagementmight stakeholders different bringing as well as conflict, avoid and relationships develop help to with singlestakeholdersorgroups mightberequired ods willbeneeded.Forsometasks,separatemeetings build trust,andabroader rangeofengagementmeth- ple related towildlifemanagement, itwillbecriticalto purposefully tacklingcontroversial research, forexam- ers actuallytake.Insomeprojects, especially those engagement andtheroles thatsomestakehold- consideration thatcancomplicatethetimingof However, stakeholderinteractionisanimportant project received funding.Here, stake- 57 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 58 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook ✴ ✴ to time-scaleofdeliveryresults. the issuebeingaddressed, aswellmanagingstakeholderexpectationswithregards This highlightstheneedtoensure stakeholder engagement istimedtocoincide with about thepotentialforusingresearch indecision-makingamongcertainstakeholders. strategies before researchers were abletoprovide results, thisledtodiscouragement However, during the project lifecycle stakeholders had to take decisions on pest control to accommodatethiswasbeneficialforstakeholder–researcher relations. ence to hold them more frequently. The fact that there was flexibility within the project prefer a expressed they and stakeholders with discussed was this meeting, first the It was originally proposed that stakeholder meetings would take place annually, but in important issueforstakeholders,there wasahighlevelofinterest andparticipation. on the relationship of outbreaks with land use and climate at a time when this was an the faceofanticipatedoutbreaks. Astheresearchers were conductinginvestigations stakeholders andthere wasanurgent needforimproved managementstrategiesin outbreaksmanaging of means The sourcea is) still (and was strongof among conflict tions thatcauseconsiderablecrop damageandposeathreat tohumanhealth. Spain, changesinagriculturallandusehaveresulted inoutbreaks ofrodent popula- critical for the BiodivERsA Ecocycles project. In the agro-steppe areas of Northern makes successfulengagementmore likely. Thetimingofstakeholderengagementwas this stakeholders, of agendas and interests the with well fits research of timing the If research proje Plan thetimngofengagement throughoutthe essary burden onparticipants, thereby avoiding‘stakeholderfatigue’. stages of the project making the process more efficientdifferent and targeted,at reducing unnec- engaged were stakeholders way this In runs. later model of orinformed results the about of development stages specific during consulted be to preferred tive forest managementand agreed tobeinvolvedintheirdevelopment,whileothers holders hadknowledgethatwasdirectly relevant totheproposed models foradap- Stakeholders were given achoiceabouttheirrole intheengagement.Somestake- Consult aboutkeyelementssuchasscenariosandindicators,orfordatacollection Inform abouttheproject andits outputs. t - 1 nReferences- 2
[Accessed 23April2012]. ESEE, 18pp.Available from: http://www.esee2011.org/registration/fullpapers/esee2011_c3e403_1_1304967722_4161_2164.pdf JOLIBERT, C.2011.StakeholderEngagementinEUResearch:.Conference bringingsciencetobearonbiodiversitygovernance WEISS, C.H.andBUCUVALASs, M.J.1980.SocialScienceResearch andDecisionMaking.ColumbiaUniversityPress, NewY ork. 59 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 60 biodiversa st akeholder engagement stra tegy › Matchingmethodstolevelsofengagement › Engagementskills › Practicalmethodsnotes › Types ofengagementmethod engagement Methods for Understanding historicalevents ››
Case studies Part 5 61 biodiversa st akeholder engagement stra tegy 62 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook engage with different stakeholders and stakeholder groups purpose another inaparticularcontextandfor used for, and why one might be more suitable than and typesofmethodsbeingused,whattheyare being The keytosuccessisunderstandthebroad range ✴ by environmental organisations andprojects in thissectionincludetheonesmostcommonlyused being continually developed. The methods described being used by different projects and new methods are stakeholders. There are manyengagementmethods they are co-defined and possibly co-designed with the with thoseneedsinmind;whichusuallymeansthat they meettheneedsofstakeholdersandare designed methods are considered forengagementaslong tory (two-way)orinformative(one-way).Informative Stakeholder engagement methods can be participa- nTypesofengagementmethod- outcomes andachievethepurposeidentifiedfor tify whichmethodsare mostlikelytodeliverthese outcomes from aproject (seePart2)canhelpiden- Initial assessment with stakeholders of the desired take place,andtheexpectedrole ofthestakeholder(s). timing ofwhenengagementactivitiesare intendedto objectives, therequired levelofengagement,the The methodsusedforengagementdependupon ❝ nMethodsforengagement these canbecategorisedas: techniques are listedbelowbutbroadly speaking of these details finer stakeholders, and researchers between engagement two-way effective facilitate to
of techniques isparticularlyusefulduring theinitial ers aboutissues linkedtoresearch. This collection dialogue andgatheringinformation withstakehold- OPENING OUTtechniquesforopening up dniy n dvlp h mtos ht il e sd to used be will that methods the develop and Identify 2 at different stagesinthe lifecycleoftheproject. ❞ . A wide range of techniques are available 2 . ✴ ✴ engagement process aim. and severalmethodscanbecombinedtoachievean stakeholders. More thanone methodisoftendesirable the needs,capacityandexpectationsofrelevant context. Methodsshouldalsobeselectedtomeet choose therightone(s)forparticular purpose and particular strengths and weaknesses; thekeyisto esting or relevant findings for further research or research further for findings relevant or esting inter particularly prioritising example for findings, and stakeholdersindecisions basedonresearch number oftechniquesthat canengageresearchers a are There findings. research on based actions start closingdownoptions anddecidingupon explored, andanalysed,itisoftennecessaryto DECIDING afterissueshavebeenopenedup, clear orare questionedbystakeholders. their work, such as where assumptions are not refine further to how about ideas with researchers research outcomes.Feedbackcanalsoprovide and givethemgreater ownershipovertheeventual help keepstakeholdersinterested intheprocess can findings preliminary on feedback early getting ers. Giventhelengthofmostresearch projects, stakehold- with findings preliminary analyse and EXPLORING techniquesthatcanhelpevaluate needs andinterests ofstakeholdersbetter. the fit to adapted being are work of programme of afundedproject, where theresearch goalsand writing a funding proposal, or in the early phases development of initial research questions prior to phases ofaresearch project, eitherduringthe - 1 . Allengagementmethodshave - ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ n ✴
OPENING OUTTECHNIQUESINCLUDE: creating ‘stations’ around theroom where partici- or onlinediscussion boards, oringroup workby requests forinformationonsocialmediaplatforms ideas orinformation,forexample viaresponses to There are avarietyofways togetparticipantsLIST the issues. key issuesandoverlapsorconnectionsbetween purpose asmetaplans,helpingparticipantsidentify VENN DIAGRAMScanbeusedforasimilar be usedtostructure subsequentgroup activities. this provides a summary of the key issues that can possible foreveryonetoexpress theirviewsand names each ofthegroups. Withintenminutes,itisusually and circles finally and necessary) where are happywiththegrouping (makingchanges summarises eachgroup, checkstheparticipants lar orlinkedideastogether. Thefacilitatorthen place themonthewall,grouping identical,simi- paper. Participantsthentaketheirnotepaperand groups), andaskedtowriteoneideaperpieceof with fewer pieces ofnote paper being used inlarge group; the of size the on depending five, and two between (usually papers of note number fixed a When usingaMETAPLAN, brainstm.html Mind Tools website:http://www.mindtools.com/ of brainstormingtechniques can befoundonthe further developedlater. Ausefulguidetoarange not havebeenexpressed otherwise,thatcanbe a numberofnewandcreative ideasthatwould the ideas may not be useable, but there may be diately relevant oracceptable. Assuch,manyof imme- appear not may that ideas out filter to use pants tosuspendthenormalcriteriatheywould short phrases, the technique encourages partici- ipants tothinkrapidlyandexpress theirideasin identify initialideasfrom a group. Bygettingpartic- BRAINSTORMING techniquescanhelprapidly be usedthroughout theentire research process. ing, analysinganddeciding.Thesetechniquescan INTEGRATING action. techniques canbeusedforexplor participants are given - ✴ ✴ ✴ n EXAMPLE: EVALUATE RESEARCHFINDINGSINCLUDE,FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO EXPLORE AND CRITICALL
viewed duringsubsequentbreaks. picture, thenotescanbeleftdisplayedwallsto contributed. Forthosewhowantamore complete gives everyoneagoodideaofwhathasbeen points. Althoughnotfullycomprehensive, this report onwhatothergroups haveaddedtotheir station theystartedat,canberequested to can bedecreased. Onceparticipantsreturntothe for difficult groups to add new points, so the time per station increasingly becomes it continues, expressed by previous groups. As the activity butions, listingtheirownideasbeneaththe They canthenqueryorbuilduponprevious contri- to read the contributions of the previous group(s). a group reaches anewstation,theyare giventime ideas were contributed by previous groups. When pen, itispossibleforparticipantstoseewhich the next.Ifeachgroup is givenitsowncoloured to contributeonestationbefore beingrotated to groups as there are stations) and given a fixed time assigned togroups (with thesamenumberof In theCAROUSELtechnique,participantsare stations astheyseefitintheirowntime. facilitated orallowparticipantstocontributeall metaplan (discussedabove).Thesegroups maybe around themesthatemerged from abrainstormor topic orissue.Stationsmayforexamplebebased pants canlistinformationorideasonaparticular mindtools.com/pages/article/newISS_01.htm be foundontheMindTools websites:http://www. stakeholders. A useful guide to mind-mapping can diagrams) canquicklycapture andlinkideaswith concept mapping,spray diagrams,andspider MIND-MAPPING techniques(alsoknown as tion. cards into different piles based on their categorisa- ideas oncards andaskingparticipantstosortthe ple, thegrouping stageofametaplan,orputting on pre-set criteriaorbasedonsimilarity. Forexam- sort orgroup ideasintothemes,forexamplebased CATEGORISATION techniquesaskparticipantsto EXPLORING TECHNIQUESTHAT ENABLE Y 63 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 64 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook ✴ n ✴ ✴ ✴
INCLUDE: CLOSING DOWNANDDECIDING TECHNIQUES This canlead tobiasedresults andthere islittle cult toensure anonymityduringthevoting process. diffi- it make can settings group most in VOTING points inthepastorfuture. Participants maythenwritecommentsatvarious pants orientatethemselvesalongthetimeline. or historicknownfuture events,tohelppartici- and/ years specific marking and present the from line maybedrawnhorizontallyonpaperstarting ways toconstruct timelines. For example, atime- ect planningwithstakeholders.There are various that haveastrong temporal dimension orfor proj- future events,thisisparticularlyrelevant toissues sion inrelation tohistorical,plannedorhopedfor TIMELINES canbeusedtohelpstructure discus- tools.com/pages/article/newTMC_05.htm able ontheMindTools website:http://www.mind- issues beingresearched. More informationisavail- opportunities andthreats astheyrelate tothe systematically aboutthestrengths, weaknesses, SWOT ANALYSIS encouragespeopletothink solutions. anticipated impactsoroutcomesofimplementing of coloured paper(‘fruits’)canbeusedtorepresent circles Additionally, implemented. first being solution maybedependentuponanother from branchestoothershowhowone potential solutions are written with links drawn of thetrunk,branchesare drawn,alongwhich but thisshouldnotgettoocomplex.Atthetop element of linking may be done between roots, root causesmayleadto other root causes,soan root causesoftheproblem alongeachroot. Some tree trunk.Participants draw roots, writingthe a tree isdrawn,withthe problem writtenonthe and solutionstoaproblem. Asimplepicture of analysis visualiseslinksbetweentheroot causes assessing howallissuesare linked,problem tree sis needstobekeptsimpleandbrief.Ratherthan intimidating forsomeparticipants,orwhere analy- the complexityofamind-mapmaybeconsidered it canbeused.Itmayusefulinsettingswhere It isasimplertoolandtherefore limitedintheway mind-mapping. to similar is mapping) cause-effect PROBLEM TREEANALYSIS (alsoknownas ✴ ✴ ✴ desired, create arankedlist. number ofcountersassignedtoalloptions,andif are preferred, anditisrelatively quicktototalthe results. Itisthenpossibletoidentifywhichideas participants totheoptionstheyprefer, thusbiasing participants assigning more countersthanother as thenumberofoptions)thisprevents certain ters (atminimumthisshouldbethesamenumber are normally provided with a fixed number of coun- ers, stonesorcrosses marked in pen). Participants that they can assign to different options (e.g. stick- cises, participantsare givensomeformofcounter require furtherexploration.Inprioritisation exer ularly popular(ornot)byparticipants,whichmay partic - be to considered are that options identifies towards aparticularoption.Prioritisation exercises participants toexpress the strength oftheirfeeling PRIORITISATION enabling by from ranking differs preferred, where inreality theyare not. that mid-rankedoptionsare viableorsomewhat considered viable. Additionally, ranking may imply situations where only a limited number of ideas are popular orunpopularandthismaybeimportantin areparticularly that options between differentiate prove toberevealing. Itisalsonotpossibleto the discussionsthatthisexercise stimulatesmay a particularrankingcanbechallenging,although order. Gettingconsensusamongstparticipantsfor RANKING canbeusedtoplaceideasinrank voting preferences. room toexplore reasons behindstakeholders ment options,andevaluation. representation ofevaluation criteriaandmanage- the process involves context or problem definition, Broadly, options. decision of dimensions different rated tounderstandtherelative valueplacedon quantitative andqualitativedatacanbeincorpo- priorities, tobesystematicallyevaluated.Both and environmental criteria, including competing dimensions orcriteria.Itallowseconomic,social issues andmakingdecisionsthatinvolvemultiple Modelling) isadecision-supporttoolforexploring Multi-Criteria AnalysisorDecision MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION (alsoknownas - ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ TIONS: PROMOTING DIRECT/PRO-ACTIVE INTERAC- niques thatcanbeexplored, including: There are manyotherstakeholderengagementtech- THE RESEARCHPROCESS: APPROACHES INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS IN integrate scientificandlocalknowledge. participants toinputdata,mapfocalareas and Participatory mappingtoenableresearchers and smart phoneapplications). Citizen science approaches to monitoring (e.g. ing ofstudysitesorresearch processes. visits tofacilitateshared dialogueandunderstand- events (e.g.training,games).Fieldorlaboratory Practical demonstrations,includingparticipatory Talks orlectures. linked totheresearch. shops orconferences focussedonrelevant issues ing, including social events. Stakeholder-led work- Workshops, focusgroups andothertypesofmeet- Informal contact. forums). ing groups, advisorypanels, multi-stakeholder Knowledge exchange groups (including steer Questionnaires andsurveys. One-to-one meetingsandinterviews. - ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ HOLDERS: GENERATING PRODUCTSUSEFULFORSTAKE- PROJECT ANDITSRESULTS: TOOLS TOINCREASEAWARENESS ONTHE tions). Press releases (includingFrequently AskedQues- fact- or leaflets sheets). Videos. Newsletters andbulletins. brochures, (including Posters and forums). Social media (including online discussion groups online games). Websites (includingblogs,onlineconsultations, discuss locationsandissuesofimportance. enable participants to monitor, communicate or Participatory photography(photosurveying)to stand issuesengageindiscussions. audiences andenableallstakeholderstounder to all accessible more findings research make to Use ofprofessional storytellers andmusicians policy (e.g. briefs). publications Stakeholder-specific Popular publications. Databases. Guidelines forstakeholders. - 65 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 66 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook this Handbook). 7 of Part (see project FIREMAN BiodivERsA the in inter-stakeholder conflict diffusing for and ing disseminated inthefocalcommunities.Asimilarapproach wasusedforbothinformationgather which encouragedpeopletomovearound andinteract.Thesewere thenpublishedinreports changes theyhadexperiencedorheard about,andthenarrangingthepaperonatimelinewall, events andchangesofimportance.Timelineswere created byaskingpeopletowritedownthe Historical theCaribbean. in timelines were developed withstakeholdersatbothcommunityandnationalleveltocapture key reefs ofcoral health the influencing factors the about information Thiswasoneofasetapproaches takenbyresearchers ontheFP7FORCE project togather perspectives heldbystakeholdersandhowtheseare connectedtopastevents. rary studyofanecosystem,suchaprocess mayalsohelpresearchers understand thevaluesand well asrevealing information thatmaynotbepublishedelsewhere oroverlookedinacontempo- drivers that have influenced local biodiversity is to discuss historical events with stakeholders. As researchers. One way of gathering information about the current state of the environment and the Stakeholders will oftenhavehadalonginvolvementwiththearea andissuesofinterest to UNDERSTANDING HSTORIC 0 ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ers: tists and practitioners, using different methods of engagement and contributions from stakehold- worked toensure theproject washighlyrelevant forforest andconservationpolicymakers,scien- conservation and management under the Natura 2000 network across Europe. The research team understand thepolicy, socio-economicandecologicalbackground andprocesses ofbeechforest collaboration between5universitiesandresearch institutesoverEurope. Theaimwastobetter In 2010, the BiodivERsA project Beech Forest for the Future (BeFoFu) started as an international eUROPEAN BEECHFORESTS FORTHEUTURE project results andhelpedjointlydevelop possibleconclusions for policymaking. A stakeholder workshopwasheldand stakeholdersfrom about 10EUcountriesevaluated on possiblepolicyrelevant conclusions. ers received informationonproject results andwere provided withtheopportunitytocomment A secondround of‘Delphi’interviewswasconducted withabout50stakeholders.Stakehold- ronmental NGO. from theEuropean Commission,European Forest OwnersassociationandaEuropean Envi- of thestakeholderengagementactivities.TheAdvisory Board wasmadeup of stakeholders ect progress andresults. TheoutputsoftheAdvisoryBoard were usedto informthedesign A StakeholderAdvisoryBoard wasestablishedthatenabledstakeholderstocomment onproj- that were reviewed bytheproject team. important datasource. More than200stakeholderswere involvedintheseveralcasestudies Social scienceempiricalresearch wasconductedandstakeholderswere viewedasthemost tions, andidentifiedstakeholderexpectationsoftheBeFoFuproject. 2000 inBeechforests inseveralEUcountries,contributedtotheformulationofresearch ques- involved about50stakeholders.Thiswasusedtoprovide aninsightintothepoliticsofNatura There wasaninitialround of‘Delphi’interviews(seepracticalmethodsnotesbelow)that
Case studIES AL EVENTS - sional facilitation is notavailable, so it may beneces- an earlystage.In many casesthe budget for profes- event. Suchcostsneedtobefactored intoprojects at well astheamountoftimenecessarytoprepare foran with theexpertiseandreputation ofthefacilitator, as a full day eventwith over 100participants. Prices vary to 4000 Euros fora small event,up to 10,000 Euros for facilitation can be expensive, ranging from around 800 involves in-depthengagement.However, professional actors, etc. Effective facilitation is key to a project that councillors, brokers, communicators,artists,positive facilitators, workshop as such engagement; effective members orusingprofessionals whocansupport ties soitisworthconsideringtrainingforconsortium activi- engagement asa of effectiveness act the to can limitation This communications. non-scientific sionals withexperienceinengagementpracticeor Research consortiafrequently donotincludeprofes- nEngagementskills- ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ stakeholder engagementactivities: contain guidanceonhowtoconductthefollowing from theBiodivERsAwebsite.Thepracticenotes frequently usedmethods are availabletodownload A collectionofpracticenotesonaselectionmost nPracticalmethodsnotes- Scenario analysis Writing apolicybrief Participatory mapping Organising stakeholderworkshops Interviewing stakeholders ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ teams oronsuitableprofessionals withexperience. mation onopportunitiestoworkwithotherresearch the BiodivERsADatabase,mayprovide usefulinfor iat, theBiodivERsApartnersandother resources, like with therelevant expertise.TheBiodivERsASecretar theme orsecuringcontributionsfrom stakeholders with otherresearch teamsinterested inacommon ities isworthconsidering.Thismightmeanworking expertise andcostsofstakeholderengagementactiv- Working withotherpractitionersinorder toshare any likelycoststobeincludedinproject applications. for allowing support, professional or training specific engagement isnecessaryforestimatingtheneed carried outearlyintheproject. Earlyconsiderationof the research team,orensure thatfacilitationtrainingis sary toincludesomeonewithfacilitationexpertiseinto Co-developing research outputswithstakeholders Facilitating workshops. Multi-criteria decisionanalysis Social media outcomes andgeneratedata Enabling stakeholderstomonitorresearch Delphi method Making andcommissioningvideos - - 67 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 68 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook that thestakeholders are toplayhave beendeter of engagementhavebeen established,andtheroles levels overall identified, been have stakeholders Once * otherlevelsforwhichthemethodisalsorelevant. ** mostappropriate levelofengagementforaparticularmethod. Examples ofmethodsandtheirassociatedlevelsengagement Table 5.1 of involvement, methods havebeencolour-coded asfollows: levels different illustrate to order In lifecycle asstakeholderroles change. one stakeholdertoanotherandthroughout theproject of thisHandbook.Levelengagementwillvaryfrom Part3 in aredefined of engagement levels Different nMatching methodstolevelsofengagement Collaborate: Involve: Consult: Inform: mostbasiclevelofengagement involved indecisionmaking discussion orinteraction sion making. specific questions are asked, but not full- not but asked, are questions specific more opportunityfordiscussion, butnot full involvement,oftenincludingdeci- Steering group Practical demonstrations Questionnaires/surveys Workshops Town Hallmeeting interviews One-to-one meetingsand Multi-stakeholder forums Lectures Social media Website ** ** ** Inform - ** * * * * * ** ** Consult be selected. mined, theappropriate methodsandtheirtimingcan ment are provided inTable 5.1. methods andtheirmostappropriate levelsofengage- at to publications on awebsiteornewsletterare mostlikelytobeused specific stakeholder example, For for. of thelevelengagementtheyare mostappropriate Methods ofengagementcanbeconsidered interms Involve orCollaboratelevels.Examplesofsome Inform, andaworkshopcouldbeusedtoengage ** * ** ** ** ** * * * Involve ** ** * ** * * * * * * Collaborate - 2005. INVOLVE. 3 2 2007. REVIT. 1 nReferences- Examples ofstakeholdersandmethods,basedonappropriate levelsofengagement Table 5.2 of engagementandmore thanonemethodforeach ment required. Mostprojects willinvolvevariouslevels be selectedforaproject based onthelevelofengage- Table 5.2provides anexampleof howmethodscan Local Business Landowners Govt advisors Stakeholders engagement Method of ment Level ofengage- Media Forestry Commission,Edinburgh. Available from: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/toolbox [Accessed31March 2014]. FORESTR involve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/People-and-Participation.pdf engagement_a_toolkit-2.pdf [Accessed11April2014]. kit. Torfaen CountyBorough Council,Torfaen, 38pp.Available from: http://www.revit-nweurope.org/selfguidingtrail/27_Stakeholder_ Y COMMISSION.2011.PublicEngagementinForestry: atoolboxforpublicengagementinforest andwoodlandplanning . Working Towards more Effective and Sustainable Brownfield Revitalisation Policies: Stakeholder Engagement – A Tool- People andParticipation:Howtoputcitizensattheheartofdecision-making.61pp.Available from: http://www. Website Inform x Newsletters x x x x Questionnaire Consult engagement theyare associated with. not havetobeengagedineveryactivityatthelevelof level ofengagementrequired. Eachstakeholderdoes x x x [Accessed31March 2014]. shop Work- Involve x x x meeting One-to-one x x 3
Group Steering Collaborate x 69 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 70 biodiversa st akeholder engagement stra tegy › Theengagementtable:share, adaptandupdate › Practicalities,feasibilityandimplementation › Theengagementplanningtable of theengagement Planning thedetail Be prepared toadapt Be aware oflocalculture andcustom Think abouttheexpertisewithinresearch teamandplanaccordingly processes policy and agendas external within fits engagement stakeholder the how Plan ››
Case studies › Theengagementtable:share, adaptandupdate › Practicalities,feasibilityandimplementation › Theengagementplanningtable Part 6 71 biodiversa st akeholder engagement stra tegy 72 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook take thefollowingintoconsideration: ✴ ✴ ✴ you intendtocarryout ment process, andtoconsiderthefulllistofactivities engage- the planning effectively start to time now is It occur. will partlydeterminewhentheengagementislikelyto that therole, orroles, thatthestakeholderwillplay proposed therole eachstakeholderwillplay. Note suggested appropriate methods forengagement,and the identified have stakeholders, assessedthelevelofengagement, will you 5, to 1 Parts Following nPlanningthedetail oftheengagement Think aboutwhatexpertiseyouhaveandplan and berealistic (don’t underestimate). Estimate likely costs (time and money) accurately, but todoitmore effectively. Target youractivities–itmaybebettertodoless, about waterresources andecosystem services. about localplanning andalsousedthem toinformlarger programmes government consultation public a project in the inclusion in for partner findings the communicated general publicforchanges inandaround afreshwater lake.Agovernment-agency BiodivERsA CONNECTproject provided ananalysisofthesocialvaluesheld bythe the interest ofstakeholdersintheproject. Resultsfrom aDutchcasestudypartofthe results willcontributetoanevidencebasethatinformsdecisionmaking increase the how and context policy current the example, for Understanding fits. project the of theresults havinganimpact,itisnecessarytounderstandthewidercontextin which To increase therelevance ofengagementactivities forstakeholdersandthelikelihood PROCESSES FITS WITHNEXTERNALAGENDAS ANDPOLICY PLAN HOWTHESTAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 0
Case study 1 . Atthisstage,itisimportantto ❝ To elaboratetheengagementplan and definetheactivities❞ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ nal experts,andifso,doyouhavethefunds? accordingly. Doyouneedtoinvolve/employexter or activitieswhere availableandappropriate. Try tomakeuseofotherpre-existing approaches stakeholders. influential and important most the on concentrate low costmethodsandactivities,ifnecessary Where choiceshavetobe made,usehighimpact/ (positive ornegative). Take intoaccountpossibleunexpectedoutcomes orpolicyprocesses.external appropriate, toenableitinformanyrelevant Time yourresearch, orsomeofitsoutputs,where -
- and conducted at a different level, particularly as the as particularly level, different a at conducted and In someinstances engagementmaybe more frequent stakeholder. particular a for identified engagement of not everyengagementactivity needstobeatthelevel being adoptedaswellthe stakeholderinvolvedand ment dependspartlyonthe methodofengagement It is important to recognise that the level of engage- play throughout aproject. stakeholders may, andoftenwill,havemultipleroles to and thelevelofengagementtobeadopted.Notethat ment activitiestakeplace,themethodofengagement, the stakeholderwillplay, thetimingofwhenengage- researcher tobringtogetherinformation on therole(s) oped a‘matrix’(Table 6.1),whichenablesthe For thepurposesofthisHandbook,wehavedevel- nTheengagementplanningtable research. the of phases key all for present be could researcher the that and early identified be spending asinglelongerspellonsite.Thisensured thatpotentialproblems could ing withstakeholdersinmultiplesitesshouldplanregular shortervisitsratherthan communities in different Asian countries, recommended that a researcher that is work- Researchers from theFP7HighARCSproject, where there were severalcasestudy maintained across countries. monitored bythesocialscientist,whoensured thatabroadly consistentapproach was experience instakeholderengagement.Theengagementaspectsoftheproject were ment plansbasedontheguidelines,withoutnecessarilyhavingagreat dealofprior Each ofthetenpartnercountriescarriedoutstakeholderanalysesandwrote engage- part ofadedicatedworkpackageon‘stakeholderinteractionsanddecisionmaking’. stakeholder engagementguidelinesproduced byanexperiencedsocialscientistas holders intheproduction ofmodelsforadaptiveforest managementbyworkingfrom Researchers ontheFP7MOTIVE project (seeAppendix1)successfullyengagedstake- avoid negativeoutcomes. during engagement, a professional facilitator may help achieve the best results and negotiated be to conflict of level high a is there if example, For process. engagement including peoplewithgoodfacilitationexperienceontheresearch teamtooverseethe the extentandnature ofthe stakeholderengagementtobedone,itmayworthwhile better equipped to design effective stakeholder engagement processes. Depending on Projects thathaveinterdisciplinary research teamsincludingsocialscientistsare often RESEARCH TEAMANDPLANA THINK ABOUTTHEEXPERTISE WTHNTHE 0
Case studIES involved has beenaccepted by those who are planned to be the desired outcomes, and that the proposed timing adopted are realistic andappropriate fordelivering It isimportanttoensure thatthemethodsbeing only needtobeinvolvedwithactivitiesthat‘inform’. projects, whereas lateronthesamestakeholdermay ment mayonlybenecessaryintheearlystagesof fall intothe‘involve’category, butthislevelofengage- lifetime oftheproject. Forexample,astakeholder may role astakeholdermayplaycanvarythroughout the results andoutcomes. employed can all have agreat impact on the overall location, timing,number of meetings,andmethods 2,3 CCORDINGL . Itshouldalsoberemembered thatthe Y 73 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 74 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook
Project Timescale Before Before/ During During/After After making). full discussionorinteraction; Involve –more opportunityfordiscussion;Collaborate–involvedtosomeextentin full decision engagement outlinedinParts 1and3(Inform only aguide,asthetimingmay varydependingontheproject. Themethodscanbecolour-coded according tothe‘level’of Notes: Project timescale (top row) indicates the most likely stage atwhicheachmethod would be applied.However, this is During of thismatrixcanbedownloadedfrom http://www.biodiversa.org/577. Example of a matrix that can be used when planning activities for different levels of engagement. A template Table 6.1. holders are Engaged Influence/ HowStake- Areas ofandLevel Roles ofStakeholders/ Project Design Research questions/ Research strategy/ Networking Project Revision Recommendations/ Advice/ Prediction/ Modelling Monitoring data, money, contacts)– Stakeholder (equipment, Resource Provision by Training ect Finding Implementation ofProj- Beneficiary Data user/Recipient/ Feedback to Stakeholders Dissemination of Results Communication and Research Questions Identifying Future
Stakeholders Government policy makers or advisers –
most basiclevelofengagement; Consult National/international policy makers/groups (e.g. European institu- tions, environment agencies) Non-governmental organisations Business / Private Sector
General public
Local community – specific questions are asked but not Users (e.g. practitio- ners, data users) Students Interpreters (science communicators, medi- ators, facilitators) Media Landowners Other ✴ ✴ ✴ practicalities: The followingquestionscanhelpwithconsidering identify anyconstraints. both timeandmoney, andwillallowtheresearcher to eration ofthecostsengagement,interms the planisfeasible.Thisshouldalsoinvolveaconsid- ties oftheengagementbeingproposed toestablishif stakeholders, itisimportanttoconsiderthepracticali- Before developingthematrix further, orsharingwith nPracticalities,feasibilityandimplementation- available? Whatwillitcost? time this Is required? be will time staff much How for different parts ofit? be responsible to people different Who willberesponsible fortheengagement–are ing preparation andreviewing andanalysis? Are thetimeframesforeach activityrealistic, includ- discussions. in thecommunitiesstudiedittendedtobemenorolder peoplethatwoulddominate based ongenderandage,tobringasmanyinterests aspossibleintotheresearch, as men. Focusgroups intheFP7HighARCSproject (seeAppendix1) were differentiated of acommunitywhere itisnotcustomaryforwomentospeakinthepresence of In manycountriesforexample,separatediscussions must beheldformen andwomen countries where theresearchers mightbeunfamiliarwithsomeaspectsoftheculture. This isanimportantconsiderationforanystakeholderengagementconductedin BE AWARE OFLOC 0
Case study AL CULTURE ANDCUSTOM ✴ ✴ ✴ need toupdatetheengagementtable. The responses tothesequestionsmayresult inthe and costs? might different options mean to overall time-scales needs tochangeduringtheprocess, andwhat gencies needtobeincludedincaseengagement restrict the engagement process? What contin- or affect customs or culture local the might How feedback tostakeholders? ing information,includingrecording andproviding costs associated with communication and publish- Are theirexpensestobe covered? Are there other Are stakeholderstobereimbursed fortheirtime? provision ofdocuments,etc.? costs, includinghiringvenues,makingphonecalls, desired/required)? Whatare theadministrative What are expertise (if the costs of using external
© Nguyen Phuong lihoods. involvement in familylive- project todiscusstheir group intheHighARCS nam takepartinafocus Boys (aged9-15)inViet-
75 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 76 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook ✴ ✴ constraints. Forexample,stakeholdersmay: on theiravailabilityorhaveparticulardemandsand and when. Stakeholders may also have different views them withsomeclarityoverwhatwillbeundertaken, be shared withstakeholdersandfunders,toprovide matrix hasbeenrevised where appropriate, itshould Once thepracticalitieshavebeenconsidered, andthe n method, perhaps remotely. place, and therefore prefer to engage by a different tion where theengagementisexpectedtotake theloca- orreaching to, travelling difficulty Have holder groups. Prefer nottointeractwithotherparticularstake- a one-to-onebasisratherthaningroup situation. Request thattheengagementtheyundertakeison The BE AWARE OFLOC 0 influences arguments around biodiversity. for engaging witheachgroup were thusdesignedwithanunderstandingofhowculture Approaches wereinvolved. levels governance multiple and arguments different over the proposed expansion of Bialowieza National Park, where different groups used local environmentalists,residents foresters and between conflict therewas Poland, in processes. For example, in one case study about the management of Bialowieza forest argumentation their understand to groups stakeholder different requiredfor be would vocabulary and approaches different that emphasised themselves stakeholders the tion contexts and different social groups. In the first stakeholder meeting for BESAFE, for biodiversityprotection across arangeofEuropean geographicalareas, conserva- One of the aims of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of different arguments An awareness of different cultures was of direct relevance in the FP7 BESAFE project. engagement table: share,
Case study AL CULTURE ANDC USTOM ✴ ✴ and whenrequired. adaptable and document, whichcanbeamendedandupdatedas flexible a remain should matrix The engagement ismore appropriate. of or method, level, different a that suggest May Be unabletoengageatthetimeproposed. adapt and © Grzegorz Mikusinski study area. BESAFE case forest - Bialowieza update- 3 2 1 nReferences-
Flagships/Climate-Adaptation-Flagship/CAF-working-papers/CAF-working-paper-3.aspx [Accessed23April2014]. tion. CSIROClimateAdaptationFlagshipWorking Paper, No.3,32pp.Available from: http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/ GARDNER, J.,DOWD,A.-M.,MASON,C.andASHWORTH, P. 2009.AFrameworkforStakeholderEngagementonClimateAdapta- April 2014]. http://www.immi.gov.au/about/stakeholder-engagement/_pdf/stakeholder-engagement-practitioner-handbook.pdf [Accessed11 book. National Communications Branch oftheDepartmentImmigration and Citizenship, Belconnen, Australia,37pp.Available from: AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT(DEPARTMENT OFIMMIGRATION ANDCITIZENSHIP).2008.StakeholderEngagement:PractitionerHand- guidance/impact-toolkit/ [Accessed29November2013]. ECONOMIC SOCIALRESEARCHCOUNCIL (ESRC). Undated.Impacttoolkit.Available from: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding-and- reviewed andimproved. be can plans engagement stakeholder so project research the into flexibility build to important is It processes. the into stakeholders new bring to made were efforts and felt thattheconservationofbiodiversityinterest wasnotadequatelyrepresented, ation oftherepresentation of stakeholder interests. Forexample,inonecaseitwas Another exampleofbeingadaptivefrom theHighARCSproject wastheongoingevalu- understanding ofthestakeholderdynamicsineacharea. between groups ofstakeholders. Arangeofmethodswasneededtogainagood in termsofthelocalplanningprocesses underwayandthealliancescompetition engagement approachmore as theylearnt aboutthesituationineachcasestudyarea management ofaquaticresources inthree Asiancountries.Researchers adaptedtheir ipatory ranking,toworktowards theformulation of integratedaction plans forthe ‘Delphi method’(seepracticalmethodsnotesinPart5),focusgroups andpartic- project evolves.TheFP7 HighARCSproject usedarangeofapproaches such asthe the as purpose for fit remain they ensure to used are methods engagement what in flexible remain to advisable is it activities, engagement stakeholder planning When BE PRE 0
Case study ARED TO ADAPT
77 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 78 biodiversa st akeholder engagement stra tegy › Constructingaconflicttimeline › Conflictmanagementtools › Analysingconflict › Stakeholderperspectivesonconflict › Conflictswithandbetweenstakeholders:typescauses conflict stakeholder Managing Managing conflict ››
Case studies Part 7 79 biodiversa st akeholder engagement stra tegy 80 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook is notnecessarilythecase.Conflictshouldbeviewed itwill that result innegativeconsequencesforaproject, butthis often is conflict of perception initial The issue whichtheyare unabletoagree upon isation, and is often due to differing perceptions on an als, conflict can stem from key actors within the organ- factors. Becauseorganisations actthrough individu- multiple partiesandmayariseasaresult ofmultiple or parties two involve may Conflicts knowledge. and values, historicevents,environmental conditions, frameworks, economies, societal structures, cultural factors suchaslegalsystems,politicalandinstitutional on depending vary may conflict of type or level The been putforward byGordon One of the simplest conflict classification systems has AND CAUSES- Conflictswithand betweenstakeholders: typES n everyday interactions does not have to be negative; it is simply a part of Conflict conflict. of level some experience will teams It islikelythatatsometimebiodiversityresearch guide to order in analysed be can conflicts how Understand nManagingstakeholder conflict personal conflicts (withintheindividual), inter-per or anotherpartylessefficient party obstructor, insomeway, maketheperformance one of actions party. the when anytime arises Conflict another by affected negatively feels party) particular begins whenanindividual or group(s) (representing a that a process as defined be can conflict A isations. als, betweengroups ofindividualsandbetweenorgan- the different levelsofconflict andtheir rootcauses. actions neededtofindlong-term resolution. ❞ ❝ Identifythetypesofconflictthatcanarise, 1 . Itcanoccurbetweenindividu- 5 1 anddistinguishes intra- . 1 . as both functional manage conflict by using techniques to reduce or toreduce resolve it techniques using by and conflict toanalyse has manage it that find may team project A dialogue tobreak down. between stakeholders,oftencausingrelationships or ing opinionsorneedsresult in negative discourse organisation), inter-group (between different groups) different (between inter-group organisation), a restricted group), intra-organisational (withinan sonal (between individuals), intra-group (conflict within a partofproblem they are contributingtothesolution,ratherthanbeing effective For problem solvingitisimperative that eachparty feels problem. a solve to together working there shouldbelesshostilitybetweenpartiesthatare The fundamental difference being that, unlike a conflict, isto conflicts explain themasaproblem thatneedstoberesolved. orsolving to reducing step first The sional councillors/brokers willbeimportant. ing intheteamorplanninginvolvementofprofes- a research project, then having the right skills or train- research thinking, innovativesolutionsandenhancedimpactof conflict, when managed well, can lead to new ways of 2 3,4 . Dysfunctional conflict arises when conflict- when arises conflict Dysfunctional . . When conflict is likely to be an issue for issue an be to likely is conflict When . - 1 . and dysfunctional. A functional of strength of feelings,canreveal: that careful design ofquestions,including assessment coupled withquestionnaires. Poolmanetal. be gathered through interviews or workshops, perhaps understand theirviews.This typeofinformationmay ers may become embroiled in conflict it is important to In order tounderstandreasons whycertainstakehold- nStakeholder perspectivesonconflict ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ typology their of respect in categorised be also can Conflicts and inter-organisational (betweenorganisations). The causes of conflicts are numerous; Moura and Moura Teixeira numerous; are conflicts of causes The In addition,conflictscanalsobedefinedas more reliable toobtain data. studies orfurther facts, of clarification additional through resolved be often can conflicts data and factsmayhavebeenmadeavailable,such Insufficient conclusions. different reaching ments ofdataorfactsthatresult ininvolvedparties assess- differing from result conflicts Cognitive is difficulttoenvisageafeasiblesolution. it and defined, clearly not are involved parties the by held values unquantifiable, are variables tives, defined,iftheyhaveunclearobjec- ill or Fuzzy lem. ies andconstraintswithclearsolutionstotheprob- Well defined, if they have clearly defined boundar something occursthatchangesthestatusquo. when arises conflict the when conflicts, Latent people. Hidden conflicts, where itisonlyknownby certain Open conflicts,where itiseveryone’s knowledge. 1 broadly definethemaincausesofconflict: 1 : 6 : 2
suggest - ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ resolution ortermination finally and abatement, maintenance, controlled lation, esca- initiation, conflict: every to stages five arethere stage oftheproject andevolvetothenext.Ingeneral, one in arise may and nature in dynamic are Conflicts parties. or objectives are at odds with those held by other when onepartybelievesthattheirinterests, needs Conflicts over objectives, needs or interest arise mediation viaathird party. and canoftenberesolved through negotiationor ality orbehaviourofstakeholderrepresentatives relationships stemfrom theperson - of Conflicts moral principlesthatare not negotiable. Root causes of these conflicts are usually ethical or views aboutvalues,typesofbehaviourandnorms. conflictsresult from adivergence of Normative solved through conflict management techniques. conflicts These often costs. are financing and tion, benefits sharing, resource allocation or re-distribu- Conflicts of objectives or interests often apply to happen inthe future; indi- vidual stakeholders andwhattheywould prefer to affect policies how of perceptions Current or aspirationsfrom theproject; Levels ofinterest intheproject andindividualgoals the socialstructure. relative position and power of stakeholders within social, legalandeconomicarrangements,the in which society is structured in terms of cultural, conflicts often arise due to the way Structural problem. the same to address approaches different adopt processesoccurwhenparties over Conflicts 1,7 . - 81 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 82 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook ers, andanunderstandingofhowtheyoperate; et al. Matrix forcategorisingstakeholdersinto‘HighDedication’and‘Lower(adaptedfrom Poolman Table 7.1 ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ tions); areas ofconflict; selves withinaproject or activity; project results Interactions and power relations among stakehold- interest totheproject team;and stakeholders possess,orcangather, whichisof The typeofdata,information,andknowledgethat Why particular views are held (reasons for percep- perceptions perceptions How stakeholdersmayviewpotentialissuesor Different roles stakeholders envisage for them- envisage stakeholders roles Different on useof 2 Opposite ). Atemplateofthismatrixcanbedownloadedfrom http://www.biodiversa.org/577 Similar Potential blockersof likely toparticipate Stakeholders most and becomepart- project success certain changes. High Dedic Critical to ners. ation to projec goals likely toparticipate Stakeholders most Potential criticsof become partners. and maypossibly certain changes. Non-critical accommodate stakeholdergoalsandperceptions sary toadjusttheobjectivesofproject inorder to reactions toaproject. Insomecasesitmaybeneces- makes itpossibletoascertainpotentialstakeholder projects objectives. Developing this type of matrix have the power or means to facilitate or hinder the that are deemed‘critical’ are thosewhoare likelyto their interests, goalsand perceptions. Stakeholders can becategorisedas‘dedicated’islikelytodefend and perceived goals(see Table). Astakeholderthat 7.1 rised dependingupontheirperceptions oftheproject becatego- can interests stakeholder identified The are compatibleordivergent. ✴ t The degree towhichstakeholder viewsandideals who willnotbecome immediately active. Potential ‘blockers’ difficult toengage. Valuable potential partners whoare Critical L ower Dedic Stakeholders who become involved. Stakeholders that initial attention. do notneedto do notrequire ation Non-critical 2 . element ofaproject asit helps to: The FAO ✴ ✴ ✴ conflict couldpotentiallyarise ences betweenstakeholdersexistsanddetectwhere holder activity and interactivity to identify where differ stake- toassess is important It that are conflict. the thefactors feeding and exists that conflict of type onthe depend will resolvable are conflicts Whether nAnal for resolution. conflict, which can help determine effective actions Identify root causesandcontributingfactorsof Ascertain theimpactsofconflict. Clarify andprioritisetheissuestobeaddressed. 8 The followingquestionscouldhelpinanalysisofconflict(adaptedfr conflict. the resolve to opportunities best the are what and involved, are stakeholders which exist, that conflict of types the discover to posed be can that questions numerousareThere ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ n Once theconflicthasbeenidentified: Identifying theconflict: tt ta cnlc aayi i anessential is analysis conflict that state Summarised processforassessingconflict Who isinvolvedwiththeconflict? Is there sufficientinformationavailableabouttheissues (why/whynot)? How didtheconflictarise? What are thepossiblereasons fortheconflict? What conflictsmayariseinthefuture? What conflict(s)currently exist? ysing Conflict o o o o What kindof power dothedifferent actors have? What are theirinterests in theconflict? For howlonghastheconflictbeengoingon? What issuesorinterests are ofsignificantconcern? 2 . - - ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ stakeholders to address existing and future conflict. develop problem solving andanalyticalskillsof Establish rapportwithstakeholders;andhelp conflict. Assess theabilityofexistinginstitutionstomanage decide whatfurtherinformationisrequired. and conflict the about information existing Collect holders andtheirwillingnessabilitytointeract. Gauge thenature ofrelationships amongststake- Determine stakeholder motivations and incentives. om Poolmanetal. 2 ). 83 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 84 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ conflict speaking analysis should generally but conflict, analysing There is no single set of rules of procedures for conflict. to focusupon theproblems thatare causingthe exchanges ofinformationwill enablestakeholders Be undertakeninaparticipatory manner, as entire the process. throughout refined and reviewed Be and political). Examine thewidercontext(e.g.social,economic, ers dealwitheachinadifferent way. perceptions or emotions, but because stakehold- It isnotbecausefactsare more importantthan and reason is a vital element of resolving conflicts. Separate opinionfrom fact,asbalancingemotions regarding thesources ofconflict. Collect andunderstandabroad rangeofviews ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ Possibilities forresolving orreducing conflict: How willresolutions bemadesustainable? Will partiesfrom outsidethe conflictinggroups betolerated? Can conflictbe resolved within thegroupassistance? withoutexternal What kindofagreements couldbetoleratedbyconflictingparties? 8 : o o o o o o o o Are there otheroptionalsolutionsavailable? What happensifagreements are nothonoured? What hasbeenconsidered bindinginprevious conflict resolutions? Would awrittenagreement besufficient? Who wouldbeasuitableoutsideparty? How couldanoutsidepartybecomeinvolvedinconflict resolution? Are thegroups abletoworktogether? What are thehistoricalrelationships betweenconflictingparties? . . How mightitbepossibletogetgroups tocollaborate? Why/why not? again the results, should thesamestrategy beapplied strategies that have already been applied, what were toconsider is important it conflict addressing When differences. resolving at aimed efforts resist therefore would and conflict from benefit would that parties are settle a conflict. It is also vital to find out whether there if thepartiesdonotrecognise theneedtomanageor viduals or groups to resolve differences may be difficult correctly identifyrelevant stakeholders.Gettingindi- engaging allinvolvedparties;therefore itiscriticalto consensus amongstakeholdersisdependentupon Building issues. wider by influenced to is conflict the if andattempting effective complex, be not may events isolated as them manage often are Conflicts and reliable informationtosupportresolution. ofaccurate amount sufficient a constitute will what it isimportanttoidentifywhatworthknowingand better. However, not all information will be useful so assumed thatthemore informationgathered the often is It case-specific. highly is analysis conflict in Keep in mind thatthe amount of information required 8 . Should an assessment of previously applied
understand thehistoricaleventsthattookplacelead- better to order in timeline conflict a construct to team In someinstancesitmaybehelpfulfortheproject nConstructingaconflicttimeline- management tiation andmediationtechniquesfornaturalresource are presented inAppendix1basedon uses, specific for adapted be can which tools, Three nConflictmanagementtools- able outcomes, or outcomes that are deemed not to fit strategies reveal that these activities yielded unfavour sessions withstakeholders. tions; orasaidsforfacilitatingdiscussionsgroup ques- defining and thoughts structuring of way a as n ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ 8 PRACTICAL WA . They can be used in two different ways: Once participants feeltheyhavedisclosed allevents,verifytheinformation anddates. matter iftheyare listedinchronological order atthis stage). post orpriortothoseevents thathavebeendisclosedviatheinitialnarrative(it doesnot Repeat thisprocess andgatherrelevant detailsforalloftheeventsthattook placeeither Ask participants to identify the events that lead to the conflict and the dates they occurred. Under eachheadinginsertacolumnfordatesand column forevents. under separateheadings. conflicts different the down write narrative the via obtained information the upon Based the narrativehavebeenfullyunderstoodandrecorded correctly. of details all ensure to verified be information the request then should team project The information and setting out the sequence of events and noting down the various conflicts. As the group narrates the story a member of the team should begin structuring the flow of oped, goingbacktotheearliestpointthatgroup isabletoremember. devel- has conflict the how of story the narrating begin to group stakeholder the Invite YS TODEVELOPACONFLICTTIMELINE the FAO nego- - situation andhowitarose. the help clarify also may This conflict. the to up ing need tobeadopted. with thedesired objectives, thenanewapproach will with different groups ofstakeholdersseparately. more be may appropriate it tools and apply conflict to tools incertainsituationscouldcreate, orworsen, It isimportanttokeepinmindthatusingparticular 85 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 86 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook provider, mediator) must decidetherole theywishtoplay(e.g.information or not,ifengagingisdeemedappropriate theteam activities conflict resolution in involved become to ate appropri- is it whether decide and conflict the of ics The project team must fully appreciate the dynam- need tobeviewedfrom asocialscienceperspective. that conflicts are between people, and the issues may Therefore, theproject teammustbeabletoappreci- ers and,insomeinstances,possessingcertainbiases. in mindthatscientistsmaybeviewedasstakehold- keep must team project the conflict, managing When managed accordingly stakeholder expectationsare takenintoaccountand are considered anddealtwithappropriately, andthat stakeholders, thecost,time,risksanduncertainty and ensure that when the team is communicating with tive thatprojects conduct clearandrelevant science it isimpera- conflict with deal effectively to order In ✴ consider usingthefollowingtypesofquestions: When participantsare happy withthetimeline,initiateagroup discussion.Y 9 . 9 o o o o o . It is important to remember events? these by affected parties the of needs or issues interests, the were What Why havesomepartiesbehavedinacertainway? How haveeventsimpacteduponrelationships betweenstakeholders? Which eventshavehadthemostimpactonconflictandwhy? throughWhat hasbeenlearned theexercise?
parency atitscore trans- have must conflict involves that process ment managed. ers andthewaygroup interactionsordynamicsare lar attentiontothehierarchy ofpowerstakehold- information. Suchprocesses willhavetopayparticu- on equalfootingandmakedecisionsbasedgood stakeholders inawaythattheycandiscussissues processes mustbedesigned to includeallrelevant stakeholders (includingtheresearchers), theirgoals and negotiatearesolution key for the management of conflict, in order to discuss Two-way engagement,ormaintainingadialogue,is to achieveconflict resolution maintain objectivity, andremain patientwhenseeking ate andconsiderawidevarietyofviewsinterests, available evidenceanduncertainties 11 makingitclearthepositionsof 10 . Inparticular, anengage- 9 . ou may 10 . Engagement 12 , ✴ ✴ ✴ tion). Thefollowingelementscontributedtothesuccessofproject: publica- of time the at issue this over conflict re-emergenceof a been has there that culminated intheagreement ofamanagementprotocol (althoughitshouldbenoted approach tomanagement through sustaineddialogueandinformationprovision that biodiversity. Theprojectconfrontations wassuccessfulinturning intoamore rational on effect detrimental a having farmers by how poisons outbreaks of use to due managed, be should about stakeholders between conflict established an was there and Spain.Outbreaksin Northern result incrop damageandposearisktohumanhealth, land agricultural an including sites European different in outbreaks rodent influencing The BiodivERsAEcocyclesproject (seeAppendix1)conductedresearch onthefactors allowing discussionandnegotiationtobeginfrom apositivestartingpoint. all participants feel they have the opportunity to contribute their views reduces tension, that ensuring and fundamental is trust of atmosphere an Creating conflict. reduce to Experiences from casestudies indicatethatrelatively simplemeasures can betaken Measures to reduceonflic MANAGING CONFLIC 0 Vole outbreaks cancauseconsiderabledamagetoagriculturalland,asshowninthe image ontheright. to theconflict,whichwashelpfulfordiffusinginter-stakeholder tensions. not knowntothestakeholderspriorproject andwasviewedasan‘outsider’ The researcher facilitating the discussionswithinnationalconsultative forum was solved bycontributionsfrom allparties. improved when the problem was presented and discussed as a shared one to be where there were uncertaintiesandknowledgegaps.Stakeholderrelations were The researchers were veryopenandtransparent abouttheevidencetheyhadand after themeeting,therefore theformulationofproblem wasshared. tion onthesubject.Thenoteswere thencirculated tothestakeholdersforcomment At the first meeting each stakeholder was given an allocated time to state their posi-
Case study
© Leticia Arroyo T t
© Leticia Arroyo 87 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 88 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook MANAGING CONFLIC 0 resolution, forthestakeholders. failed to lead to improved understanding of the issues, or find a route towards conflict by somestakeholdersthatthesemethodswere overlycomplexandacademic and (see methodguideinPart5ofthisHandbook)toexplore theseissuesanditwasfelt upland Scotland.Theresearchers usedscenarioanalysisandmulti-criteria to address complexissues,suchasdeermanagementandcompetinglandusesin ence. However, there about the use of certain research wasalso a warning methods sion ofcommonchallengesbetweencountrieswasviewedasaconstructiveexperi- tative forums that guided the research conferences. and during international Discus- issues underlying conflicts surrounding game management during the national consul- bringing stakeholders together in a non-threatening atmosphere to talk about the A stakeholderontheHUNT COMPLEX METHODS workshops. views were heldtoallowstakeholdersfullyexpress theirviewspriortothescenario development and sustainability appraisal of future scenarios.Semi-structured inter mountain areas were soughttoparticipateinaseriesofworkshopsfocusingonthe on issuesaboutsustainable development, farming andcountryside management in In theFP5BIOSCENEproject, stakeholderswithverydivergent andoftenstrong views allow v there isalanguagebarrier. or conservation agenda and treatedpart of a government with mistrust, especially if Without localconnections,there isadangerthatresearchers canbeviewed asbeing tively neutralwhichhelpedcreate trusttowards theresearch amongstcommunities. tators. Theseindividualswere trusted,wellknownbycommunitiesandviewedasrela- ency. Inthiscase,itwasnecessarytoworkalongsidelocalpeoplewhoactedasfacili- about thissensitiveissueemphasisedtheimportanceofbuildingtrustandtranspar local livelihoodpriorities.Researchers whoengagedlocalcommunitiesinresearch and objectives conservation between conflict is there where Africa, in consumption A casestudywithintheFP7HUNTproject researched thedrivingforces ofbushmeat CREATING TRUST
Case studIES oices to beheard project Scotlandcasestudyexpressed thevalueofsimply AN EXA T CERBATE PROBLEMS
© Nils Bunnefeld HUNT project. investigated in the hunting activities one oftheupland Grouse shooting, - - 5 4 3 2 1 nReferences- 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 GORDON, J.R.1996.Organizational Behaviour:ADiagnosticApproach (5 [Accessed 21November2013]. [online] PhDdissertation,MasseyUniversity. Available from: http://learningforsustainability.net/research/thesis/thesis_ch7.html ALLEN, W.J. 2001.Working Together forEnvironmental Management:therole ofinformationsharingandcollaborativelearning ment. Proceedings oftheAustralia-PacificExtensionConference, GoldCoast,Australia.12-14October, 2,367-370. catch- Creek Lockyer the in study case A management: Y. catchment ORLANDO, integrated in resolution conflict of role The 1993. in full/toolkit/docs/I%2002%20Stakeholder%20and%20Conflict%20Analysis_MLA.pdf Analysis, Conflict and Stakeholder 2009. A. ANDREINI, M.,SCHUETZ,T. andHARRINGTON,L.(Eds),SmallReservoirsProject. Available from: http://www.smallreservoirs.org/ SENZANJE, and M. MUNAMATI, M., POOLMAN, bitstream/1822/17572/1/Managing%20Stakeholder’s%20Conflicts.pdf [Accessed22November2013]. E. andOLOMOLAIYE,P. (Eds).Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. In: Conflicts. Stakeholders Managing 2010. C. J. TEIXEIRA, and M. H. MOURA, tion? SALAFSKY resources. Science,302,1915–1916. ADAMS, W.M., BROCKINGTON, D., DYSON, J., and VIRA, B. 2003. Managing tragedies: understanding conflict over common pool 2013]. tion, 28 (2), 100-109. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534712002169 [Accessed 6 December conflicts. conservation managing and Understanding 2012 R.J. GUTIERREZ, WATT,and J.D.C., A. REDPATH, S., YOUNG, J.,EVEL ss/2010/10.10.2010/redpath/presentation_redpath_10.pdf [Accessed6December2013]. for Environmental Sustainability, UniversityofAberdeen.Centre Available from: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/public-events/archiv/alter-net/former- Aberdeen Aberdeen: Presentation. PowerPoint Conflicts. Conservation Managing 2010. REDPATH, S., November 2013]. Natural Resource Management.Rome,Italy. Available from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/A0032E/a0032e00.pdf [Accessed27 FOOD ANDAGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OFTHEUNITEDNATIONS (FAO), 2005.NegotiationandMediationTechniques for GROTON, J.P. disputeresolution 1997.Alternative intheconstructionindustry., 52(3),49–57. DisputeResolutionJournal Confl_ADB_ENV-132E.pdf [Accessed19November]. Caribbean. the and America Latin in management coastal integrated for F. building RIJSBERMAN, consensus and management Conflict 1999. [Accessed 23March 2014]. Biological Conservation, 144, 973–978. Available at: , N.2011.Integratingdevelopmentwithconservation:ameanstoconservationend,ormeanendconserva- Resource AalysisReportforInter-American Development Bank, Delft,Nederland. Available from: http://www.mungo.nl/ Y , A.,ADAMS,W.M., SUTHERLAND,W.J., WHITEHOUSE,A.,AMAR,LAMBERT, R.A.,LINNELL, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320710002697 286-316. Available286-316. th Edition).Prentice Hall,NewJersey, USA. Construction StakeholderManagement,CHINYIO, from: at:http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/ [Accessed5November2013]. Trends inEcologyandEvolu- Small Reservoirs Toolkit. In: 89 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 90 biodiversa st akeholder engagement stra tegy › Stagesofevaluation › Whentoevaluate? › Whattoevaluate? › Benefitsofevaluation engagement evaluating the Monitoring and Post project monitoring Evaluation oftheengagement process ››
Case studies Part 8 91 biodiversa st akeholder engagement stra tegy 92 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook results oftheevaluationare tobeusedandapplied process. Itistherefore important toconsiderhowthe evaluated ortheoutcomesandimpactofengagement be processto engagement is the that of effectiveness of engagementlargely dependsonwhetheritisthe research funders used toprovide evidence of value for moneytothe the project design and methods of engagement way as the purpose of the engagement determines help determinetheevaluationdesign–insame engagement. The purpose of the evaluation can no single,orsimple,way, ofevaluatingstakeholder Rather like the whole engagement process, there is tive. proven effec- not) has perhaps (or has what reflect on also betakenthroughout theengagementprocess to Broadly speaking,there are twotypesofevaluation relevant results recognizable, achievable,describable,tangible,and reflecting conflict) with projects in or engagement of stakeholders (especiallyinprojects withhighlevels Ideally, indicatorsforevaluationshouldbeagreed with is veryimportant fromtaken and learning the experience for the future Assessing the effectiveness of the engagement under nMONITORINGANDEVALUATING THEENGAGEMENT from theoutset,inplanningstages the engagement process and should be considered toring andevaluationisanecessaryimportantpartof tion hasbeenused.Therefore, someformofmoni- to demonstratestakeholdershowtheirparticipa- process andresearch outputs,oritcouldbeused ❝ Monitorandreview theengagement throughout the process, andevaluate boththeoutcomesand 4,5 2 1 . Theapproach takentoevaluation theprocess oftheengagement toconsider , evidenceofvaluefortheresearch . Forexample,evaluationmightbe whether ornotithasbeensuccessful.❞ 3 . Timeshould 1 : 6 1 - . . ✴ ✴ did, ordidnot,work. illustrate whyandhowthe engagementprocess focus groups andobservation,todescribe more qualitativemethods,suchasinterviews, Formative evaluationmaybeparticipatory, using engagement during the course of the research enabling projects toadaptfeedback to enhance the research cycle(e.g.BowenandMartens ation maybeembeddedinactivitiesthroughout engagement infuture research. Formativeevalu- engagement process, sotheycandobetter researchers from andstakeholderstolearn the Formative evaluation may be designed to enable may takesometimetoachieve be undertakenatalaterstage,assomeoutcomes undertake this. Thisdatacollection may have to range of a and statistical methodsmayneedtobeemployed met been have targets specific data willneedtobecollecteddemonstratethat ment process havebeenadopted.Therefore, stakeholders howtheircontributionstotheengage example forauditpurposes,ortodemonstrate where there isaneedforaccountability, for Summative evaluationtendstobeused them outcomes ratherthantheprocesses thatledto of engagement, because they focus more on the nature dynamic and fluid often the understand to approaches, however, canhavelimitedcapacity 5 ). 7 . Summative - 10-12 8,9 ), .
2. 1. through toundertakingtheengagementandconsider all toconsider aspects of the engagement process, from planning, needs process final the and stages Evaluation needstobeconsidered intheplanning nWhentoevaluate?- areas The evaluationprocess oftenconsidersthree nWhat toevaluate?- ✴ ✴ ✴ ment engage- evaluating to benefits of number a are There nBenefitsofevaluation- 2 1 to prove the value and benefits of the activity, the and of benefits and value the prove to Evaluation provides evidence, which can be used necessary. approach and to make changes and improvements where adopted the on reflect to opportunity Evaluation throughout the process provides an in definingaimsandoutcomesmore clearly. measure success. Therefore, evaluation can help how togoaboutachievingobjectives,and researchers focusonwhatneedstobe achieved, ect itcanhelpwithplanningengagement.Ithelps If evaluation is done from the very start of the proj - 2 2,13,15 , whichinclude: future engagementprocesses? for and why?Whatlessonscouldbelearned reasonable? Whatworkedwellandlesswell, ods selectedappropriate? Were thecosts The process ofengagement.Were themeth- ment process beenmet? have theaimsandobjectivesofengage- The successoftheengagement.Forexample, : - engagement fulfilled the aims of the stakeholders the of aims the fulfilled engagement and the process, it is also important to consider if the As wellasconsideringtheimpacts,outcomes 3. ✴ ✴ p o osdr h eauto poes t different at process stages (seeTable 8.1). evaluation the consider to up ing theoutcomes.Anevaluation tablecanbedrawn ment process anditsoutcomes. and totakeintoaccounttheirviewsontheengage- to understandmore abouttheimpactofproject engagement process and will enable the project team If evaluation is undertaken well it can improve the 3 engagement activities. well andcantherefore beusedtohelpinformfuture Evaluation allowsyoutoconsiderwhathasworked the project. holders where theirparticipation hascontributedto Evaluation canbeusedtodemonstratestake- demonstrate valueformoney. to provide arecord ofachievements.Itcanalso there beenanyunexpectedoutcomes? stakeholders andalsoontheresearch)? Have What impacthastheprocess had(onthe 16,17 13,14 , . 93 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 94 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook to bemadewhere appropriate ornecessary changes enable to and purpose, for fit is engagement reviewed throughout theprocess toensure the Engagement activities should be monitored and and the engagement process upon theaimsanddesired outcomesoftheproject early onyoucanensure thattheevaluationisbased of aproject. Byconsideringtheprocess ofevaluation Evaluation playsanimportantrole rightfrom thestart become more refined, making them more measure- more them making refined, more become considering evaluationattheoutsetyouroutcomes n n nStages ofevaluation- A simplestakeholderengagementevaluationtable(availabletodownloadfrom theBiodivERsAwebsite) Table 8.1 ing whethertheengagement isgoingasplanned process as you undertake the engagement. Establish- where improvements might needtobemadethe or evaluation discussions canbeusedtohelp identify Methods suchasattendance forms,feedbackforms understand whythingsare working,ornot ties. Ifchangesneedtobemade,itisnecessary because oftheoutcomessomeengagementactivi - or engagementprocess havechanged–perhaps is particularlyimportantifanyaspectsoftheproject Stage 2:Throughouttheprocess–on-goingevaluation Stage 1:Fromtheoutset ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES PLANNING BENEFITS/ PROCESS WHAT DOYOUWANT TO 16,18 KNOW? . It may be that by 13 . 20 . This WHAT EVALUATION METHODS WILL YOUUSE? final project impactandbuildsocial relationships facilitating further discussionsthatcan improve the ship andresponsibility fortheprocess ofengagement, in theengagementprocess mayalsoenhanceowner state ofaffairsfollowingtheengagement important ifyouwanttoseethere isachangeinthe to have data to compare against. This is particularly baseline databefore theengagementbeginsinorder In addition,itmaybenecessarytocollectsome able andachievable including the stakeholders needs toincludeallthoseinvolvedintheprocess, informed andupdated feel involved inthe process, andhelps to keep them scales. This enables the stakeholder to continue to them, especiallyinprojects whichhavelongtime- feedback tostakeholderswhennotengagingwith It isalsoimportanttomaintaincontactandgive or expected particular usewhenthingsare notgoingasplanned cult-to-reach ornewstakeholdersandmaybeof diffi- engaging first when useful particularly be may 15 . 1,13,15 HOW WILLTHEEVALUATION 19 . Participationofstakeholders . BE CONDUCTED? 17 . Thismonitoringprocess 13,19 . 5 . -
information onwhathashappenedtotheirinput,and whether In evaluatingtheprocess, itisnecessarytoconsider proposed nextsteps involved, toadvisethemoftheoutcomesandany courtesy tofollowupwiththestakeholderswhowere been employed.Itisbothgoodpractice and common where theirinputthrough theengagementprocess has tant toensure thatstakeholders are abletoidentify appropriate and fit for purpose. In addition, it is impor but alsowhethertheprocess ofengagementwas objectives, and aims its fulfilled has engagement the whether only not consider should evaluation final The ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ n n the process of evaluation refine help can questions following The Evaluating theprocess Stage 3:Finalevaluation ment? Will/should stakeholdersbeinvolvedintheassess- tiveness oftheengagement? What methods can be used to determine the effec- Costs were reasonable. Methods were appropriate, andsuccessful; ate forthestakeholders; Levels of participation were considered appropri- 16,17 : 15 : ✴ project. throughout and early the from questions gained such been asking have would benefit The evaluationwasdonelate intheproject andtheresearcher emphasisedthatgreater process. the on reflect to researchers allow to themes following the under questions evaluation of stakeholder engagement was carried out in each case study country with stakeholders usingtheadaptiveforestry modelsproduced intheproject. Thus,an tee whetherandhowthestakeholderengagement hadincreased thelikelihood of In theFP7MOTIVEproject, researchers were asked bytheproject evaluation commit- EV 0 commitment of stakeholderschangedthroughout theproject?) Level ofengagement andrepresentation (e.g.hasthelevelofparticipation and
ALUATION OFTHEENGAGEMENT PROCESS Case study 1,21 . Thisfeedback might include - ited atalaterdate. particular engagementexercise mayneedtoberevis- ect. Therefore theconclusionsaboutsuccessofa perhaps sometimeaftertheculmination of theproj - take alongtimebefore the outcomesare achieved, engagement processes is thatitmaysometimes An importantfactortoconsiderintheevaluationof what difference ithasmade. ✴ ✴ opportunities forassessmentandevaluation. more require might conflict for potential with projects outcomes canbeadequatelyanalysed.Forexample, including a range of formal methods to ensure that the perceptions. Insomeprojects itmightbeworthwhile test to specifically designed meetings or interviews assess- from ment ofwillingnesstoengage,feedbackforms, engagement, of effectiveness the on There are manymethodsforcapturinginformation assessment? What valueare stakeholderslikelytoplaceonthe priate fortheassessmentprocess? Are there otherstakeholdersthatmightbeappro- 95 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 96 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook Different research teams may use slightly different use slightly tables (e.g. RCUK may teams research Different be downloadedfrom http://www.biodiversa.org/577 indicators andmeasures thatcanbeusedtoevaluate aims andobjectivesoftheengagementtodevelop engagement process itisimportanttoconsiderthe When evaluating the outcomesandimpact of the Example ofatableforevaluatingoutcomes(adaptedfrom Warburton etal. Table 8.2 n are allequallyvalidinhelpingdevelopthethinking Evaluating theoutcomes the generalpublic stakeholders and To betterinform GOALS/ PURPOSE ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ 13 uflig bsns ne) ‘ins fr ups’ uaiiy etc., be monitored?) usability, forpurpose’, ‘fitness need), a business fulfilling (e.g.howwilluse,uptake,valuetothesector(i.e. making decision and Influence and acommonpurposefortheproject agreed andunderstood?) Engagement aimsandmethods(e.g.was the role of stakeholders clearly defined understand theperspectivesofothers,orhelpedwithconsensus-building? andcollaboration(e.g.hasengagementallowedstakeholderstobetter Learning Uptake and use of project outputs or tools,theiroutputs,willbeusedbystakeholders? ) in this stage of evaluation; these in thefuture Willingness toparticipate and awareness Increased understanding POSSIBLE INDICATORS date interviews atalater process, andfollow-up interviews afterthe Questionnaires and the process pants before andafter interviews withpartici- Questionnaires and HOW TOOBTAIN DATA (e.g. do we know where/when/how the models be usedtohelpconsidertheinformationrequired and demonstrateoutcomes.Anevaluationtablecan ment required toevaluatetheoutcomesofengage- 13 . ) 1 other factors ment activity, ratherthanany are asaresult oftheengage- and willingnesstoengage, That boththeawareness, IMPORTANT ASSUMPTIONS ). Atemplateforofthistablecan ) 1,13 . 5 4 3 2 1 nReferences- FAZEY June 2014]. Health Promotion, International DIXON, J.andSINDALL,C.1994. ApplyingLogicsofChallengetotheEvaluationCommunityDevelopment inHealthPromotion. NR0124), 107 pp.Available from: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/38121/[Accessed31March 2014]. Deliberative Techniques toEmbedanEcosystemsApproach intoDecisionMaking: Anintroductory guide . (DefraProject Code: FISH, R.,BURGESS,J.,CHILVERS, J.,FOOTITT, A.,HAINES-YOUNG,R.,RUSSEL,D.andWINTER, D.M.2011.Participatoryand ber 2013]. from: DUNCAN, S.andSPICER,2010.TheEngagingResearcher. Careers Research andAdvisoryCentre (CRAC)Limited.Available 29 November2013]. INVOLVE.government. Available from: http://www.involve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Making-a-Difference-.pdf [Accessed WARBURTON, D., WILSON, R. and RAINBOW, E. Undated. Making a Difference: A guide to evaluating public participation in central http://old.certh.gr/libfiles/pdf/MOBIL-110-ENGAGING-RESEARCHER-by-DUNCAN-PP-20-Y , I., EVERL throughout thelifeofprojects. ing meansofsecuringthelegacybiodiversityresearch shouldbeaconsideration to secure continuingsupport forimplementationfrom higherlevelinstitutions.Find- In poorcommunitieswithfewresources, suchasthoseinHighARCS,itisnecessary project. Certain aspects have successfully been taken forward whileothers have not. each casestudyarea and hasmonitored theirimplementationsincetheendof the research project. TheFP7HighARCSproject produced integratedactionplansfor ers itisimportanttoputinplacemechanismsmonitoritsusebeyondtheendof stakehold- by use future for project a by produced is tool or output specific a Where Post projec 0
Case study Y , A.C., REED, M.R., STRINGER, L.C., KRUIJSEN,J.H.J., WHITE, P.C.L., NEWSHAW, A., LIN, J., CORTAZZI, M., participation intheprotection oflocalfisheriesintheHighARCSproject. promote to with resources used China in village fishing froma Stakeholders 9 (4), 297–309.Available from: http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/4/297.short [Accessed9 t monitoring
-2010.pdf [Accessed29Novem- © Professor Shimming 97 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 98 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 9 8 7 6 11 10 21 20 19 18 2007. REVIT. 2005. INVOLVE. 17 16 15 14 13 12 outputs/Download/8bd5e33f-6803-4fa4-88f4-681f41c30331 [Accessed23March 2014]. environmental management.Environmental Conservation.Available from: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/my-esrc/grants/RES-240-25-0012/ J., GREGSON,LOWE,P., MORTON, S.andTREVITT, C.inpress. KnowledgeExchange:areview andresearch agendafor PHILLIPSON, J.,BLACKSTOCK,K.L.,ENTWISTLE,N.,SHEATE, W.R., ARMSTRONG,F., BLACKMORE,C.,FAZEY Journal ofHealthResearchJournal andPolicy, BOWEN, S.andMARTENS, P.J. 2005.TheNeedtoKnowTeam. DemystifyingKnowledgeTranslation. from Learning theCommunity. March 2014]. miology andCommunityHealth, BOWEN, S.andMARTENS, P.J. ofEpide- 2006.AModelforCollaborativeEvaluationofUniversity–CommunityPartnerships.Journal ing EmpoweringPartnershipsforInterprofessional Care.ofInterprofessional Journal Care, 17(4),363–375. MCWILLIAM, C.L.,COLEMAN,S.,MELITO,C.,SWEETLAND,D.,SAIDAK,J.,SMIT, J.,THOMPSON,T. andMILAK,G.2003.Build- pp. Available from: http://www.accountability.org/images/content/2/0/208.pdf [Accessed11April2014]. Stakeholder EngagementManual:Volume 2:ThePractitioner’s HandbookonStakeholderEngagement.BeaconPress, Boston,156 ACCOUNTABILITY ALLAN, C. and STANKEY agementTool.pdf [Accessed23March 2014]. Support Program, Washington DC.Available from: http://www.fosonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/AdaptiveMan- SALAFSKY March 2014]. Australia. March 2014]. rate_site/ifc+sustainability/publications/publications_handbook_stakeholderengagement__wci__1319577185063 [Accessed11 business in emerging markets. 201 pp. Available from: INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION (IFC).2007.StakeholderEngagement:Agoodpracticehandbookforcompanies doing March 2014]. Report-45_Ch7_Monitoring-the-success-of-stakeholder-engagement-Literature-review_Larson-and-Williams.pdf [Accessed23 Cooperative Research Centre, AliceSprings,Australia,251–298.Available from: http://www.nintione.com.au/resource/DKCRC- and BRAKE, L. (Eds), LARSON, S.andWILLIAMS,L.J.2009.Monitoring the successofstakeholder engagement: Literature review. InMEASHAM,T.G. Climate%20Adaptation/CAF_WorkingPaper03_pdf%20Standard.pdf [Accessed6December2013]. tion. CSIROClimateAdaptationFlagshipWorking Paper, No.3,32pp.Available from: http://csiro.au/~/Media/CSIROau/Flagships/ GARDNER, J.,DOWD,A.-M.,MASON,C.andASHWORTH, P. 2009.AFrameworkforStakeholderEngagementonClimateAdapta- and-guidance/impact-toolkit/ [Accessed29November2013]. ECONOMIC ANDSOCIALRESEARCHCOUNCILS(ESRC).Undated.Impacttoolkit.Available from: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding- engagement_a_toolkit-2.pdf [Accessed11April2014]. kit. Torfaen CountyBorough Council,Torfaen, 38pp.Available from: http://www.revit-nweurope.org/selfguidingtrail/27_Stakeholder_ involve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/People-and-Participation.pdf Forestry Commission,Edinburgh. Available from: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/toolbox [Accessed5April2013]. FORESTR org.uk/ke-guidelines [Accessed29November2013]. LIVING WITHENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE(LWEC). 2012.LWEC KnowledgeExchangeGuidelines . Available from:http://www.lwec. 2014]. RCUK. Available from: RESEARCH COUNCILSUK(RCUK).2011.Evaluation:PracticalGuidelines.AGuideforEvaluatingPublicEngagementActivities . plinary_research_programs [Accessed9June2014]. www.researchgate.net/publication/251677741_Framework_for_participative_reflection_on_the_accomplishment_of_transdisci- the accomplishmentoftransdisciplinaryresearch programs. Environmental Science&Policy, LEFROY,C.M., BREEN, R.J., STIRZAKER, H.P.D.J., CRESSWELL, ROUX, and E.C. reflection on participative for Framework 2010. Y COMMISSION.2011. , N.,MARGOLUIS,R.andREDFORD,K.H.2001.AdaptiveManagement:atoolforconservationpractitioners.Biodiversity Working Towards more Effective and Sustainable Brownfield Revitalisation Policies: Stakeholder Engagement – A Tool- People andParticipation:Howtoputcitizensattheheartofdecision-making.61pp.Available from: http://www. , UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, and STAKEHOLDER RESEARCH ASSOCIATES. 2005. People, Communities and Economies of the Lake Eyre Basin, DKCRC Research Report 45. Desert Knowledge http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/publications/evaluationguide.pdf [Accessed 31 March , G.H. 2009. 60, 902–7.Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566062/ [Accessed23 Public EngagementinForestry: atoolboxforpublicengagementinforest andwoodlandplanning. Adaptive Environmental Management: A practitioners Guide. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, 10(4), 203–11.Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16259686 http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corpo- [Accessed31March 2014]. 13, 733–741.Available from: http:// , J.A.,INGRAM, [Accessed 23 The 99 100 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook different biodiversity research contexts: understand howstakeholderengagementworks in to capture a range of the following characteristics to reading project websitesandreports. We attempted a to capture range ofproject contextswhichwedeterminedby selected were studies case final The their engagementexperiences. and stakeholderswouldhavefresh recollections of completed orthatwere ongoingsothatresearchers focussed onprojects thathadeitherrecently been case studythanoneofthoseoriginallyselected.We more-suitable a as project the in later identified was BiodivERsA andonefrom EUFP5(BIOSCENE)which FP7, EU by funded all were ten final The LIFE+. and BiodivERsA, Darwin,Defra,DIVERSITAS, EUFP7, of arangefundingorganisations. Thesewere databases at project looking by identified were ects ment (seeTable A1.1fordetails). Short-listed proj- research withvaryinglevelsofstakeholderengage- teen selected projects that conducted biodiversity Ten casestudyprojects were usedfrom alistofeigh- engagement inpracticebiodiversityresearch andto ies are toprovide illustrative examples ofstakeholder The aimsofthestakeholderengagementcasestud- ✴ ✴ n n Methods Aims socio-economic conditions. Socio-economic: case studies cover a range of developing world. Geographic: case studies in Europe and in the holder engagementinbiodiversityresearch Approach usedtodevelopcasestudies demonstrate thedifferent stagesinstake- Appendix 1 a setofguidesaboutbest-practicemethods. draw onthemethodsusedinthesestudiestodesign ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ Interviews withresearchers using thefollowingquestions: We carried out semi-structured telephone interviews to elaborateontheeffectivenessofcertainmethods. and provided additional insights from other projects working on a range of biodiversity research projects One of the FIREMAN stakeholders had experience of which theywere engagedwithbiodiversityresearch. and HUNTtogiveustheirperceptions ofthewaysin ers from three oftheprojects: FIREMAN,CONNECT study projects. We alsointerviewedfourstakehold- We interviewedaresearcher from eachofthetencase holders, 2)engaging stakeholders? What methods didyouusefor1)selecting stake- ment inthisproject? What were thepurposesofstakeholderengage- enced bydifferent levelsofconflict. influ- were researched being issues The Conflict: level. communities tonationalandinternational engagement over different spatial scales from local Spatial scale:casestudiescarriedoutstakeholder ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ ✴ Interviews withstakeholders it williftheproject isstillongoing)? that effects lasted beyond thelifeofproject (or do youthink have engagement stakeholder Did engagement? What was the overall impact of stakeholder well didstakeholderengagementovercome this? Were project how the and there in areasconflict of ties? difficul- overcomethese to done was What these? experience and how successful/unsuccessful were What methodsofstakeholderengagementdidyou At whatstagewere youinvolvedintheproject? Why didyougetinvolvedwiththeproject? outcomes? improve to differently done have you would What and objectivesmet? ment andhowdidyouassessthis?Were theaims What wastheoverallimpactofstakeholderengage- overcome these? were stakeholderengagementmethodsusedto Were project how the and there in areasconflict of How didyoudecidewhentoinvolvestakeholders? overcome thesedifficulties? what were thereasons forthis?Whatwasdoneto What methodswere successful/unsuccessful and ✴ stakeholder perspectivesonthemall. methods usedsowecouldnotincluderesearcher and entire scopeofthecasestudyresearch projects or views were limitedinlengthandcouldnotcoverthe of approaches tostakeholderengagement.Theinter ensure thattheHandbookpresents adiverserange ers andstakeholdersare alsoincludedasguidesto that were notdiscussedbycasestudyresearch- interviews and project documents. Certain methods commonly discussedmethodsinthecasestudy The methodsguideswere designedbasedonthe been editedaccordingly. the casestudyfeature boxesinthetext,whichhave were giventheopportunitytoprovide commentson each project isshowninTable A1.2.Research teams discussed withresearchers andstakeholdersfrom ects. A summary of the general topics and methods methods commonlyappliedinthecasestudyproj- ered toevaluatetheuseofarangeengagement of stakeholder aspects engagement covered. Similarly, informationwasgath- different the for evidence of the BiodivERsAdraftHandbookandthusprovide structure the reflect to as way a such in collated sis wasusedtoanalysethetranscripts.Material professional transcription service. Acontentanaly- Interviews were recorded and then transcribed by a ently toimprove outcomes? differ done been have should think you do What - - 101 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook 102 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook
Table A1.1
Case study projects (*stakeholders were interviewed for these projects)
PROJECT FUNDER DURATION WEB-LINK DESCRIPTION REGION Europe, Central/ 1/1/2012- Integrating valuations, market and policies for biodiversity INVALUABLE BiodivERsA South America, 31/12/14 http://www.biodiversa.org/492 and ecosystem services Europe, Asia Evaluating the ecological and institutional background for 1/5/2010 - BeFoFu BiodivERsA beech forest conservation and management , taking into Europe 1/5/2013 - http://www.befofu.org/ account challenges arising from climate change Study into the role of plant and soil microbial diversity in the 1/1/2009 - provision of ecological services in semi-natural grasslands, VITAL BiodivERsA http://www.project-regards.org/ Europe 1/1/2013 VITAL/VITAL_ProjectSummary.html and the impacts of agricultural practices on these relation- ships. 1/12009- Highland Aquatic Resources Conservation and Sustainable HighARCS EU FP7 http://www.wraptoolkit.org/proj- Asia 21/12/13 ect_overview.php Development 1/5/2009- MOTIVE EU FP7 Models for Adaptive Forest Management Europe 20/4/13 http://motive-project.net/ 1/9/2011- Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Arguments for our BESAFE EU FP7 http://www.besafe-project.net/ Europe 31/8/2015 index.php future environment Interacting impacts of land use and climate change on 1/3/2009- Europe: case study Ecocycles BiodivERsA ecosystem processes: from cyclic herbivores to predators of 1/3/2012 http://www.biodiversa.org/126 Northern Spain conservation concern Europe: case study 1/1/2012- North-west delta CONNECT* BiodivERsA Linking biodiversity and ecosystem processes 31/12/2014 http://www.biodiversa.org/489 landscape (Ijselmeer, Netherlands) 1/1/2010- FORCE EU FP7 Future of reefs in a changing environment Caribbean 31/5/2014 http://www.force-project.eu/ 12/01/2002- Scenarios for reconciling biodiversity conservation with BIOSCENE EUFP5 http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/ Europe 11/30/2005 projectpages/bioscene_page.htm declining agricultural use in the mountains of europe 1/11/2008- HUNTing for Sustainability: research on the wider meaning HUNT* EU FP7 Europe and Africa 30/4/2012 http://fp7hunt.net/ of hunting 1/3/2009- Fire management to maintain biodiversity and mitigate FIREMAN* BiodivERsA Europe 1/2/2013 http://www.biodiversa.org/127 economic loss PROJECT FUNDER DURATION WEB-LINK DESCRIPTION REGION Europe, Central/ 1/1/2012- Integrating valuations, market and policies for biodiversity INVALUABLE BiodivERsA South America, 31/12/14 http://www.biodiversa.org/492 and ecosystem services Europe, Asia Evaluating the ecological and institutional background for 1/5/2010 - BeFoFu BiodivERsA beech forest conservation and management , taking into Europe 1/5/2013 - http://www.befofu.org/ account challenges arising from climate change Study into the role of plant and soil microbial diversity in the 1/1/2009 - provision of ecological services in semi-natural grasslands, VITAL BiodivERsA http://www.project-regards.org/ Europe 1/1/2013 VITAL/VITAL_ProjectSummary.html and the impacts of agricultural practices on these relation- ships. 1/12009- Highland Aquatic Resources Conservation and Sustainable HighARCS EU FP7 http://www.wraptoolkit.org/proj- Asia 21/12/13 ect_overview.php Development 1/5/2009- MOTIVE EU FP7 Models for Adaptive Forest Management Europe 20/4/13 http://motive-project.net/ 1/9/2011- Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Arguments for our BESAFE EU FP7 http://www.besafe-project.net/ Europe 31/8/2015 index.php future environment Interacting impacts of land use and climate change on 1/3/2009- Europe: case study Ecocycles BiodivERsA ecosystem processes: from cyclic herbivores to predators of 1/3/2012 http://www.biodiversa.org/126 Northern Spain conservation concern Europe: case study 1/1/2012- North-west delta CONNECT* BiodivERsA Linking biodiversity and ecosystem processes 31/12/2014 http://www.biodiversa.org/489 landscape (Ijselmeer, Netherlands) 1/1/2010- FORCE EU FP7 Future of reefs in a changing environment Caribbean 31/5/2014 http://www.force-project.eu/ 12/01/2002- Scenarios for reconciling biodiversity conservation with BIOSCENE EUFP5 http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/ Europe 11/30/2005 projectpages/bioscene_page.htm declining agricultural use in the mountains of europe 1/11/2008- HUNTing for Sustainability: research on the wider meaning HUNT* EU FP7 Europe and Africa 30/4/2012 http://fp7hunt.net/ of hunting 1/3/2009- Fire management to maintain biodiversity and mitigate FIREMAN* BiodivERsA Europe 1/2/2013 http://www.biodiversa.org/127 economic loss
Table A1.2
A summary of the topics covered and methods discussed during interviews
PROJECT TOPICS COVERED AS REGARD STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT METHODS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT DISCUSSED
INVALUABLE Barriers to engagement, expectations Policy briefs, newsletters Analyse management and conservation strategies, assess climate change Delphi Interviews, stakeholder advisory board, workshop, website, BeFoFu impacts, understand policies and political structures, evaluate impacts of project leaflets, publications market-based instruments, and develop policy recommendations Develop conceptual model of relationships functional diversity and ecosys- Workshops, focus group discussions, role-playing games, expert tem service delivery, determine how management changes alter the services interviews, publications, project leaflets VITAL agro-ecosystems can provide, and demonstrate impacts on development potential for local economies. Stakeholder representation, monitoring of management plan implementa- HighARCS tion Delphi method, participatory mapping, Project stakeholder engagement protocol, stakeholder identification, social MOTIVE learning, expectations Co-development of climate-forestry models with stakeholders Snowball stakeholder identification, stakeholder input to research direc- BESAFE tion, local culture Co-development of web-based tool, policy briefs, workshops Planning outputs of research, managing conflict, barriers between science Co-production of adaptive protocol for management, consultative Ecocycles and management forum CONNECT Informing government decision making Co-design of choice experiment for specific environmental context Scoping activities, systematic stakeholder mapping, bounding communi- Community workshops, interviews, construction of historical time- FORCE ties for stakeholder identification lines BIOSCENE Stakeholder identification according to views, managing conflict Semi-structured interviews, scenario analysis workshops Managing conflict, assessing long term change in stakeholder relations, HUNT continuity of engagement, language differences between researchers and National Consultative fora, scenario analysis, multi-criteria decision stakeholders analysis Conflict management, benefits of international meetings for stakeholders International project conference, scenario analysis, workshops with FIREMAN and field based meetings field demonstrations, historical analysis 103 biodiversa st akeholder engagement handbook Copyrights
Photographs Cover page: Path to the Lac des Vaches looking towards the Aiguille de la Vanoise, Vanoise National Park, Savoie, France, August. By Benjamin Barthelemy/ naturepl.com Part 1 (p.9): Lowland bog landscape seen from the air. South Estonia, Europe, October 2010 by Sven Zacek/ naturepl.com Part 2 (p.25): Danube Delta fisherman Florin Moisa shaking weed off traditional fyke nets, Danube Delta, Romania, June 2013. By Lundgren / Wild Wonders of Europe/ naturepl.com Part 3 (p.35): Two farmers in a traditional horse drawn cart near Codrii Reserve, Central Moldova, July 2009 By Wild Wonders of Europe/Geslin/ naturepl.com Part 4 (p.53): Cornflowers (Centaurea cyanus) and poppies (Papaver rhoeas) growing on fallow fields near Orvieto, Umbria, Italy. June 2010. By Paul Harcourt Davies/ naturepl.com Part 5 (p.61): Balearic Green Toad (Pseudepidalea balearica / Bufo balearicus) in profile. Mallorca, The Mediterranean. By Bert Willaert/ naturepl.com Part 6 (p.71): Carpet of Bluebells (Endymion nonscriptus) in Beech (Fagus sylvatica) woodland, Micheldever Woods, Hampshire, England, UK, April. By Guy Edwardes / 2020VISION/ naturepl.com Part 7 (p.79): Bank vole {Clethrionomys glareolus} portrait in snow. UK. By Jane Burton/ naturepl.com Part 8 (p.91): Sheep in a field near the Dorset Gap, Dorset, UK June 2012. ByDavid Noton/ naturepl.com Icons p.8: Group designed by Lucian Dinu from the thenounproject.com p.15: Fence, Public Domain, available at thenounproject.com p.24: Question designed by Anas Ramadan from the thenounproject.com p.33: Communication designed by Mister Pixel from the thenounproject.com p.34: Crosshair designed by Ryan Beck from the thenounproject.com p.40: Vote designed by Luis Prado from the thenounproject.com p.47: Agreement designed by Stephanie Wauters from the thenounproject.com p.52: Hour Glass designed by Arthur Shlain from the thenounproject.com p.59: Clock designed by Cris Dobbins from the thenounproject.com p.60: Gears designed by Hubert Orlik–Grzesik from the thenounproject.com p.70: Architect designed by Luis Prado from the thenounproject.com p. 78: Tug of war, Public Domain, available at thenounproject.com p.86: Arrow designed by Michael Harman from the thenounproject.com p.90: Compass, Public Domain, available at thenounproject.com layout Layout by Angélique Berhault, Belgian Biodiversity Platform/ BELSPO - 2014 Partners BiodivERsA2 partners
Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité (FRB), FRANCE [coordinator] Fonds zur Forderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FWF), AUSTRIA Belgian Science Policy Office (BELSPO), BELGIUM Bulgarian National Science Fund (BNSF), BULGARIA Estonian Research Council (ETAG), ESTONIA Agence National de la Recherche (ANR), FRANCE Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement Durable et de l’Énergie (MEDDE), FRANCE Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)/ Projektträger im Deutschen Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt e.V. (PT-DLR), GERMANY Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), GERMANY Ministry of Rural Development (VM), HUNGARY Research Council of Lithuania (RCL), LITHUANIA Nederlandse organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), THE NETHERLANDS Research Council of Norway (RCN), NORWAY Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), PORTUGAL Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (MINECO), SPAIN Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS), SWEDEN Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), SWEDEN Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (MFAL), TURKEY Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), UNITED KINGDOM Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), UNITED KINGDOM Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), UNITED KINGDOM The ERA-NET promoting European research on biodiversity
For further information on this report, contact: Helen Baker ([email protected]) or Matt Smith ([email protected]) The templates mentioned in this report and the annexes can be downloaded from http://www.biodiversa.org/577 For further information on BiodivERsA funded projects, refer to http://www.biodiversa.org/75 More information on the BiodivERsA database is available at http://www.biodiversa.org/8 BiodivERsA is funded by the The ERA-NET promoting European research on biodiversity European Commission