Lessons in Wildlife Conservation: Integrative Conversations and Collaborative Approaches

1. I wouldn’t start from here: Some lessons from the real world of wildlife conservation Felicity Edwards The CSE Group Michael Gibeau Parks Canada

2. Reasons to Participate Depends on who you are: Parks Canada – grizzlies were being debated in the press ENGOs – too many grizzlies were dying Business/user groups – scientists were hijacking the agenda

3. Preparing the Ground for the integrative conversations - Q sort as a prompt - Role of the champion – finding a decision maker who was willing to move forward • Role of MG • How Grizzly Bears were being managed • The need for learning new skills and skills upgrading (more on the second at the end)

4. Learning new skills: Mind Mapping Participants’ values • Power • Knowledge • Respect • Skill • Wealth • Well-being • Affection • Rectitude (Lasswell 1971) • Display of people’s values by mind mapping • People use them when they interact with each other • Used as a continual reference point

5. One mind map from the Banff case

6. Learning new skills: collaboration as a means to reach common ground CONSULTATION CONSENSUS Statement of Purpose Statement of Purpose To build consensus as a basis for decision. To build consensus as a basis for decision To inform and become informed. To inform and become informed To achieve stakeholder input, and buy-in. To achieve stakeholder input and buy- in To meaningfully involve interested parties To meaningfully involve interested parties. YOU WILL NOTICE THESE ARE THE SAME

7. CONSULTATION v. CONSENSUS Participants: “Advocates” Participants: Decision-makers Objectives: Hear the voices of many Objectives: Search for a single voice Activity: Make representations Activity: Find trade-offs and common ground Process: Predetermined by Process: Participant designed decision-maker Negotiation: Implicit Negotiation: Explicit Outcomes: “Many inputs” to Outcomes: “One input”a decision maker One recommendation by many YOU WILL NOTICE HOW THEY ARE DIFFERENT

8. Identify Goals Wonder why we are here? Look for information andresearch Describe Trends Look for more information Analyze Conditions Take a leap and discuss Make Projections Propose Alternatives Reach a conclusion look for more information Theory v. Real Worldwith thanks to Rich Wallace Define Problems Define ProblemsIdentify Solutions Identify Solutions

9. Presenting problem versus the “real” problem Participants Social Process Influences on Problem Orientation Bears are the problem Perspectives The railway is the problem Situations Values and Myths Strategies We don’t know enough is the problem Outcomes This IPS group isn’t working Effects Parks Canada won’t deliver

10. The “problems” of public policy problemsNavidGhaffarzadegan, John Lyneis, George P. Richardson 2008 The technical perspective: • Policy resistance from the environment: • Need to experiment and the cost of experimenting: • Need to persuade different stakeholders: • Overconfident policymakers: • Need to have an endogenous perspective:

11. What is the problem?With thanks to Dr. Susan Clarke The grizzly bears Trust and relationships Constitutive power of PC as land manager

12. Why difficult to make decision? Trust : To do what was agreed to Change with changing staff

13. Where are we now? - clarifying and sustaining the common interest. It takes people to see themselves and others in value terms rather than simply interests Some conclusions are: a. Common interests are not enough of a bedrock upon which to form a problem solving group b. Explicit reminding of the underlying values is needed c. Need a super-ordinate goal to which everyone buys in d. Clarity of what is really the problem may of may not help – depending on whether the group thinks it can do anything about it

14. The mythology of the “common ground” In the Banff case the land is managed by the Crown (or public lands in the US) An overriding issue is of power and how it is manifest • known but not wielded and/or • known and wielded as a large stick The working assumptions of the group in the Banff tried to address this issue of power by: • The ways in which information was used • By the ways in which decisions were made • By inclusion of the “landlord” as one of the parties in the room

15. Organizational Change • Starting out: experience shows that working in a collaborative group brings into sharp relief those participating organizations who are able to manage this and those who are not. • Organizational limiting factors: - Internal silos - Inability to recognize the differences of internal decision making structures - Getting too far ahead of your “constituents”

16. What is needed inside the participating organizations to enable this integrative approach to be successful? • Internal commitment • Clarity of the role of the representative as broker • Enough time to bring on board the folks back home • Understanding and clarity about how each organization works and what it needs

17. What can leadership look like in these situations? • Book Ends A. Pre-conditions: intelligence, tolerance for change, communication skills and a desire to lead B. Impact: presence, resilience and belonging

18. Elements of Leadership in the Banff case before IPS Group with IPS group • Meaning sparring in the media sparring in the group (purpose and strengths) 2. Managing energy getting “up” for the fight getting “up” for the debate (minimizing depletion, flow and restoration) 3. Engaging less engagement more (voice, ownership, risk taking and adaptability) 4. Positive framing skills not needed skills specifically learned (self awareness, learned optimism and moving on) 5. Connecting not worrying about it making it happen (network design sponsorship, inclusiveness)

19. Where are we now? How does a group remain engaged with changing circumstances? Short answer – it does not.

20. Ideas and thoughts appreciated Thank you