1 / 19

Involving stake holders in sustainable land management - who, how and why?

Involving stake holders in sustainable land management - who, how and why?. Dr Alister Scott University of Wales Aberystwyth . Brief . Why involve? Who do we involve? How do we engage ?  How do we ensure that benefits accrue? A cautionary tale . Preliminary Lessons .

xena
Download Presentation

Involving stake holders in sustainable land management - who, how and why?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Involving stake holders in sustainable land management - who, how and why? Dr Alister Scott University of Wales Aberystwyth

  2. Brief • Why involve? • Who do we involve? • How do we engage ?  • How do we ensure that benefits accrue? • A cautionary tale

  3. Preliminary Lessons • Do not annoy my mother! • Research your community • Engage with all stakeholders/individuals with dialogue/feedback • Communicate your needsfrom the outset • Promote trust and mutual respect • Inadequate consultation is worse than none

  4. Academic discourse : • Theory vs Practice (Shepherd, 1998; MacDonald, 2001; Scott et al., 2004) • Techniques vs Policy (Scott and Bullen 2004; Fines, 1968; Lee 1990) • Government vs Governance (Woods et al., 2003) • Expert vs Public (Nicholls and Sclater, 1993; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1982 vs Penning Rowsell 1974; Burgess 1996) • Consensus vs Conflict (European Landscapes Conference, 2003 )

  5. The WHY • Because you have to vs wanting to do it • Current international/national policy climate • Community led projects create ownership and additionality. • Stakeholders have expertise and enthusiasm • Partnership promotes mutual understanding between agencies and public

  6. The WHO Stakeholders are not homogenous • Major elite (The powerful agencies ) • Minor elite (The NGOs usual suspects 1) • Individuals (The usual suspects 2) • The “other” (Excluded /unheard voices)

  7. The HOW http://www.irs.aber.ac.uk/als/netpage/lectures/ruralcommunitiesohp.html • Village Appraisals.  • Parish Maps  • Focus groups • Visioning • Participatory Appraisal • Planning for Real • Forums/Fora • Citizen Juries  • Search conferences • Delphi technique  • Village Design Statements BUT:

  8. Pre-requisites : Barriers to Participation • Consultation overload/fatigue • Lack of resources for participation. • Suspicion and distrust of consultation • Maslow’s hierarchy of needs • Lack of knowledge about issue(s) • Complexity of issue(s) • Lack of knowledge of available options • Media hijacking/abuse of issues

  9. Information Dispersal Decisions already taken Discussions Initial scoping Information Gathered from Agency agendas Surveys/Qaires Reactive responses Interaction Open dialogue Working groups Written consultation WHO IS INVOLVED Major Elite Minor Elite Public WHO PROVIDES INFORMATION Major Elite Minor Elite Public WHO IS INCLUDED IN POLICY Major Elite Minor elite Public The HOW 3D matrix model

  10. Information dispersal • Decisions already taken • Ongoing discussions • Initial scoping What type of information Major Elite Minor Elite Public Who receives it

  11. Information gathered from: Major Elite Minor Elite Public Who is providing information? • Agency agendas • Surveys/Qaires • Complaints What information is collected?

  12. Interaction Written consultation Working groups Partnership/Open dialogue Nature of interaction Major elite Minor elite Public Who is included/excluded

  13. Ceredigion Unitary Development Plan (Top Down)

  14. Top down multistage process Geared to objections

  15. Local Agenda 21(Bottom up) • Concerned individuals form Ceredigion LA21 group • Participation strategy - visioning exercise • Establishment of working parties • Consensus reports REVIEW: BOTTOM UP meets TOP DOWN • Formation of Ymlaen Ceredigion • Partnership structure • Develop sustainability strategy and directory • New grants/new initiatives

  16. Tarka: Top down meets bottom up? • Local Authority lead in partnership (TDAP) • Promote area under the SD/tarka theme AONB) • Information and discussion campaign • Tarka image : recreation/tourism as a gateway for rural development • Platform for Sustainable Development • New ventures and innovation

  17. Discussion • TOP DOWN: Limits the ability of SOME stakeholders to influence initial thinking and removes sense of ownership. CONFLICT/EXCLUSION • BOTTOM UP: Can be reliant on key individuals who pursue own interests with strong sense of ownership CONSENSUS/EXCLUSION • INTEGRATED : Professionals shape a joined up approach at the conceptual stage; INCLUSION/OWNERSHIP

  18. Themes for reflection • Consultation vs participation • Short term box ticking vs long term process • Facilitation vs imposition • Partnership vs competition • Integration vs specialisation • Inclusion vs exclusion • Conflict vs consensus

  19. Concluding thought There are many routes to the summit of Snowdon.

More Related