The World Bank/CBNRM Initiative

Case Received: February 10, 1998

Author: Charles Tambiah

E-mail: c/o mtsg@e-net.com.br

A common aspect of community-based conservation programs is the presence of multiple stake-holders operating at multiple-levels, and at varying distances from the targeted resource. With sea turtles, a group of animals that whose life cycle connects land and sea, there are very few locations where they are not interacting with people. In many coastal locations throughout the developing world local communities utilize sea turtles, and in others development along the coast impacts adversely various stages of the complex life cycle of these animals. The current endangered or threatened status given to all species of sea turtles worldwide, has brought about an increase in the number and intensity of conservation programs being implemented.

A variety of different approaches are currently used to promote sea turtle conservation, and community-based programs is one such approach. The active participation of local communities who interact with sea turtles, and often depend on them for economic and cultural purposes, has been identified as invaluable to the success of managing these animals, especially in developing countries. While a majority of sea turtle programs will agree with this need, few have adopted participatory and collaborative approaches. Reasons for limited collaboration include the lack of an interactive approach through which to understand the various stake-holders involved, present and anticipated conflicts, and how best to collaborate with local communities in sustaining conservation programs.

During the past 12 years I have worked as a facilitator of sea turtle conservation initiatives, during which time I was fortunate to collaborate with 16 community-based projects in 10 countries. One of the outcomes of these collaborations is the development and testing of an interactive approach to understanding relationships between local communities and other sea turtle related stake-holders, and in forging more collaborative activities and solutions. The approach continues to evolve, and I share it in this paper with the invitation to comment on how it can be further improved.

A brief description of some of the collaborating community-based conservation projects provide examples of the common issues involved with sea turtle conservation, the challenges faced by the organizations implementing such programs, and the results following an interactive process.

For example, in Guyana the conservation project was established by an international NGO after concluding that the persistent decline in the numbers of nesting sea turtles was the result of persistent utilization by local communities. Through international funding, a few of the keys turtle fishing people were employed to patrol the beach with the greatest nesting concentration and to protect nesting turtles from fellow fishing-people. Despite great reductions in numbers of sea turtles killed on the protected beach, persistent and increased collection was reported from adjacent beaches, and the increased attention to the utilization of other wildlife resources.

Through an interactive process information on sea turtle biology, traditional utilization of sea turtles and beaches, food limitations in the local communities, and expected grievances were shared. The common goal of conserving the sea turtles for future generations was identified and the need for a compromise was established. A series of collaborative activities were identified, including alternative sources of meat, a voluntary moratorium on the slaughter of sea turtles, and a series of participatory and training activities for the benefit of the larger communities. While some agreements have flourished and others have yet to be implemented, while new collaborations have evolved along with new challenges and conflicts, the collaborative process initiated through the interactive process established over 7 years ago has continued.

In Jamaica, an interactive approach was used to bring together all related stake-holders to evaluate current relationships, clarify misunderstandings, establish responsibilities, and identify collaborative research and management activities that were necessary to launch a long-term conservation program for a particular bay area. And in Trinidad, such a process was used by community conservation groups to voice their concerns to government agencies responsible for sea turtle management, and to establish agreements on greater control and benefit to community members, as well as a more balanced responsibility to be shared by the government and the community groups. Providing correct scientific information to both stake-holders and clarifying misinterpretations of such information was an important prerequisite to identifying priority activities and those responsible for their implementation.

These examples, while being culturally and politically specific to individual locations, have the common theme of how to 1) understand the relationships between stake-holders, 2) bring the stake-holders together, 3) identify common goals and challenges, 4) understand individual needs, opinions and interpretations, 4) identify individual skills and resources, and 5) bring it together into a coordinated and equitable collaboration.

While the interactive process used at each location varied from each other in logistics and formality (determined by the politics and the cultural norms at each location), the broader approach and the kinds of activities that were pursued to bring about dialogue and collaboration evolved in a similar manner. The process has many steps and activities, some of them can take place sequentially, others simultaneously, and even as independent activities. For the purpose of sharing this experience with colleagues working on a variety of natural resources, I have presented this information in the broadest sense, such that any references I make to sea turtles can be easily substituted by a variety of other natural resources.

1. Identify a facilitator(s) or coordinator(s): The success of this process rests on the selection and participation of a good facilitator. The person acts as a neutral anchor, and in doing so bears great responsibility. S/He should be a person who is respected by all parties to the conflict, should be an excellent listener and a positive thinker, and should be impartial, sensitive, aware, and creative. S/He could also be a good source of information on sea turtle conservation, or other more specific issues at hand. The facilitator guides the development and implementation of the remaining seven steps of this integrated method; in essence s/he "facilitates" the resolution of the conflicts and the forging of collaborations.

2. Identify various groups with interests in sea turtle conservation (referred to as "interest-groups" or "stake-holders"): In a typical setting there are a variety of interest-groups, operating at a variety of levels, with different agendas and resources, and with varying distances from where the turtles actually are. Interest-groups can be categorized as follows: researchers, managers, educators, funders, utilizers, developers, and enforcers; or communities, NGOs, and government; or many other sub-categories under each of these groups. Compiling a complete list ensures that all interest-groups will be included in the process.

3. Identify individual positions and understand the backgrounds of these interest-groups: This can be done through one-on-one discussions or through group meetings. Using both techniques, if possible, can provide insight into the diversity of individual opinions within a group, which may not surface during group discussions. Group meetings can be used to facilitate the development of a clear group position on sea turtles, to identify what specific objectives the groups would like to see accomplished, and to identify what activities they would like to undertake to accomplish these objectives.

4. Invite for dialogue: Present the need and benefits of dialogue, and invite the stake-holders to convene at a neutral place and at a common time. Ensure participation by periodic encouragement and confirm adequate representation of each group. Often a location closest to the area and/or the resource being discussed has provided a more direct and connected dialogue. (Of course this would have to weighed against creating an advantage for one stake-holder over another.)

5. Conduct a collaborative workshop(s), at which I recommend that the facilitator do the following:

• Introduce the purpose of the meeting.
• Invite individuals to introduce themselves and the interest-group they represent. Facilitator introduces her/himself and is accepted by the rest of the participants.
• Establish ground rules or guidelines for conducting the meeting: Such guidelines encourage all present to participate fully and openly, to ensure equal status among participants, to direct attention to the problems not on the people present, and to understand that as much as there are problems there are solutions.
• Agree on basic objectives and an agenda for the workshop.
• Share aspirations, goals, and concerns (which are derived from information presented by representatives at the meeting and supported by information collected from the interviews conducted prior to the workshop). From this exchange the diverse groups involved will often recognize that they share a common ground with a common goal, a realization that makes a powerful first step towards communication and collaboration.
• Determine and establish a common goal: This is a critical step. Declaring a common goal brings people together and detracts from the tendency to separate each other by harping on differences. Often the common goal identified is simple: the continued availability and benefit from sea turtles.
• Develop a "social-map" (sometimes referred to as a sociogram): A social-map, a visual display of interactions and relationships, helps the participants to understand how stake-holders are connected to one another. Once the map has been made, the quality of the interaction among groups can be classified, and the cause of conflicts identified. Stake-holders now have a picture of where the tensions are and why, sometimes even identifying third party causes and those whose roots go deep into historical colonization. This understanding helps to identify strategies necessary for healing tense relationships and for strengthening healthy ones. Developing this map provides participants with an understanding of the complexity of the interactions, and being aware of this complexity is one of the greatest first steps in resolving a conflict.
• Conduct a role-playing exercise in which representatives of each stake-holder play the part of other stake-holders in mock interactions: This is a very effective tool for understanding the positions of fellow groups. In a variation of this process, each group speaks to all participants on each of the three positions, a pro position, a con position, and a median position (or another applicable separation of positions).
• Share scientific and technical information on sea turtles: This sharing of information develops a common understanding of sea turtle ecology, distribution, and research techniques. It also presents an opportunity for participants to share their own knowledge and experience about sea turtles and to clarify misconceptions and misinformation. A slide presentation could be an effective method for sharing such information.
• Share case-studies from other localities: Sharing the experiences from other locations and their use of the interactive process can help people involved in the process to appreciate their situation. It can be motivating and informative to know of conflicts, impacts, and resolutions from other locations. Again, a slide presentation can be very effective.
• Develop collaborative action plans and agreements (which contain objectives, activities, organizational responsibilities, needs, resources, and time-lines): It is important to work on smaller discrepancies and objectives first, complete them, and move on to greater issues. Each step solved adds to a stronger foundation for future resolution and collaboration. Each action or agreement can be developed by small working groups comprised of a member of each stake-holder, and presented to the larger group for discussion. Each working group can then combine their efforts into a final agreement.
• Exchange thanks, encouragement, commitments, and agreements.

6. Create follow-up and implementation mechanisms identified during the workshop or by mutual agreement.

7. Evaluate regularly, and act accordingly. Often revisiting the social-map and making changes to what was initially identified provides a continuous sense of accomplishment as well as periodic evaluation. Sub-groups could meet periodically to map progress, and the facilitator can continue to visit each interest-group in order to ascertain developing viewpoints, concerns, and recommendations. If resources permit, hold periodic collaborative workshop at which progress can be monitored and celebrated, new challenges identified, and agreements reassured.

8. Keep a "finger on the pulse," as in maintain close contact with all interest-groups and encourage continued communication between the groups. This activity can often be time- consuming but is a necessary part of maintaining dialogue and ensuring that the collaborations are still active.

Community-based conservation without the active participation and collaboration of local communities closest to the resource is often a recipe for increasing conflicts and resulting in unsustainability. Conflict, a given in any conservation situation, is inherent and challenging, yet full of opportunity. It is therefore invaluable to recognize the existence of conflicts and use their resolution in achieving greater collaboration and sustainability. In this paper I have described an interactive process that can assist in bringing together various stake-holders, including the local communities, in order to identify and resolve conflicts, and to foster an environment through which to promote collaboration, and eventually responsible conservation. No methodology is a panacea, no single process is applicable across the globe. Yet lessons learned and approaches developed through a variety of experiences, with the right adaptation to the cultural and political situation surrounding the resource and the stake-holders involved, can provide insight, information, and empowerment. These are the cornerstones of sincere community-based conservation, and that is our common goal.