Engaging the Public in Protected Area Stewardship more

Engaging the Public in Protected Area Stewardship: Concepts and Practices Prepared by: Stephen F. McCool Department of Society and Conservation College of Forestry and Conservation The University of Montana For the International Seminar on Protected Area Management August 2007 About this publication This publication was written to support a presentation to the Seminar and for the use of Seminar participants. It reflects the author’s experience in facilitating public engagement, his research on public engagement processes, his understanding of other research and his deep belief that it is the responsibility of protected area managers to engage publics that are impacted by their decisions. It is presented as a reflective document, not as a synthesis of the relevant literature The Protected Area Mission: Diversifying and Competing Goals P rotected area managers are under increasing pressure to provide a growing diversity of benefits from protected areas. Many protected areas were originally established as game reserves, hunting areas, even to protect scenic beauty, but now are expected to deliver a wide variety of ecosystem services, to alleviate poverty, serve as places for recreation and tourism, provide employment, generate revenue, not only for management, but also for local income. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with such a growing variety of expectations; but meeting all such expectations requires managers to hold a diversity of skills and technical competencies. In addition protected area organizations must have the funding, organizational and structural capacity to meet expectations. And there are inevitable trade-offs that occur because not all expectations can be optimized at Several factors influence the need for public engagement the same time. Engaging the public (and communities) has often been proposed as one approach to gaining political support, reducing opposition and sharing power in making decisions. This report addresses the idea of engaging publics in protected area stewardship decisions. It is based on my experience, research on public engagement processes, and a reading of the relevant literature. Manager Responsibilities Protected area managers have three fundamental responsibilities: 1. Developing and implementing a Vision involving: a. Preserving the natural and cultural heritage values contained within protected areas; b. Enhancing the quality of life of local residents; c. Providing for employment and income opportunities for local residents. 2. Finding a set of pathways (actions) to achieve the Vision in specific places 3. Monitoring the journey along the pathways to ensure the vision is achieved Of course, exactly how these responsibilities are stated vary from one place to another, but in general, protected area managers must address these three responsibilities in their planning, in their interactions with people affected and in their decisions. And, many people may disagree with my interpretation of the protected area manager responsibilities, but it is through a dialogue centering on these we can advance our mutual understandings. An Evolving and Dynamic Context Protected areas often exist within a contentious social and political setting, often within economies that are just developing, and in many cases with populations that have rising expectations about how protected areas can enhance their livelihoods. Protected areas exist within contexts that frequently can be characterized as: • • Dynamic, often contentious political debate, Groups vying and competing for “veto” power over protected area actions, Disagreements over goals of protected areas, Scientific uncertainty about cause-effect relationships, The power to plan and the power to implement plans are often distinct and separated, and Inequities in access to information. • • • • All this means that planning, and the public engagement that is inherently part of planning, must proceed in ways fundamentally different from approaches used in the past. Barriers to Achieving the Mission The expectations held by civil society, existing within the context above, are challenged by a number of barriers and social factors: Funding Political opposition Lack of trust Availability of competencies Institutional structures and policies The mental models of planning employed A procedural orientation Fundamental Decisions Requiring Public Engagement Protected area stewardship is about preserving things that are important to society—biodiversity, cultural heritage, scenic beauty, ecosystem services, recreation What is citizen participation? opportunities. These values are Sherry Arnstein defined it derived and evolve from society and many years ago (1969) as “the its continuing discourse with itself. redistribution of power that Therefore, an important proposition enables the have not citizens, underlying this discussion is that presently excluded from the public engagement is required political and economic throughout decisions and planning processes, to be deliberately processes, not necessarily at a few included in the future". distinct points. More specifically, these decisions deal with the application of values, hidden or explicit: Purpose and goals of the protected area – what values are to be preserved/managed? Framing problems and identifying issues Setting standards of acceptable change technical Identifying and choosing trade-offs among conflicting goals. Monitoring the outcomes of decisions. Thus, nearly every significant decision in the cycle of protected area stewardship involves values, and thus requires engagement of affected publics to determine what values will have priority and how they will be applied in any given situation. What Does All This Mean? Protected area stewardship is a “wicked problem”, representing a “messy” situation, requiring new approaches to planning, and understanding that problems never remained “solved” because of constantly changing contexts. Stewardship is “wicked” because of conflicting goals and scientific uncertainty; it is “messy” because problems and challenges are linked—how one problem is “solved” affects how other problems are solved. In a sense, the whole “problem” of planning needs to be reframed to consider planning and management as part of rather than separate from issues of governance, finance and public engagement. It means that old models of Sherry Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation public engagement which perceived it as distinct from planning are not adequate for the wicked and messy world of protected area stewardship. Protected area managers will need to address four questions about engaging the public: • • • • When should the public be engaged? Who (from the public) should be engaged? What process should be used to secure public engagement? How do we know if the public engagement was successful? When Should the Public be Involved? T raditional models of planning and public engagement viewed the public as holding limited expertise, of providing only information about preferences for management actions or the social and political acceptability of them. Planning was perceived as being “politically neutral”; by applying scientific and technical expertise, acceptable and efficient actions could be uncovered, and the efficacy of these actions would be self-evident. This meant that it would be appropriate to engage the public only at the beginning of a planning process in identifying issues of concern or toward its end to test the social acceptability of proposed actions. This model of planning assumed that it was an activity separate from management, and held distinct beginning and ending points. Such an approach is not adequate in the wicked and messy world of protected areas today. Planning must be long term and integrated with management with a focus on learning (to deal with uncertainty) and building a consensus (to organize social resources needed for implementation). Planning can be viewed as a kind of governance. As such, the planner is as much as a facilitator as a technical expert. In this sense then, planners assume that the public holds information of value—technical, experiential and anecdotal knowledge, preferences, and ideas—to the planning issue. In this sense then, the public is engaged throughout the planning process. But continuous engagement is also necessary for some other equally important reasons. For one, in democratic societies, there must be a sense of caring and responsibility about a protected area and its plan in order for the public to provide the political support for the funding and other resources needed for implementation (Lachapelle and McCool 2005; 2007). This sense of “ownership” is critical to implementation. Constituencies or Stakeholders? Constituency: A group served by an organization or institution; a clientele Stakeholder: a person or group that has an investment, share, or interest in something, as a business or industry. The term constituency is preferred to stakeholder because it implies a broader diversity of individuals and values affected by a protected area. Closely related to the sense of ownership is a need to construct a consensus about a proposed course of action. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement, but rather “a grudging agreement” from those segments that might be opposed to the plan—with other segments agreeing to the proposed actions. Again, without a consensus, it will be difficult to organize the resources needed for implementation. Who (from the public) Should be Involved? I n one sense, the answer to this question is everyone. But that response is not adequate in an era of contentiousness and complexity. One way to respond to the question is to announce a public meeting and then see who shows up—a traditional method of public meeting management in the US. But if an objective of planning is to design a future— determine the public interest— and figure out the pathways to it, then we need to be more assertive in designing a public engagement strategy. Every protected area has a set of constituencies. Each constituency has an interest in the values preserved and the consequences of management actions. Managers need to map out the various values and consequences, identify the constituencies affected and ensure that each constituency is represented. One suggested process for achieving consensus-from Wikipedia, the on-line encyclopedia In a sense, a political marketplace exists; and public engagement, to be effective, to ensure legitimacy of proposed actions, to develop ownership and to construct a consensus must function as a microcosm of that marketplace (Caulfield 1975). In a very real sense, planning in public venues is a negotiation process, and thus in highly politicized situations, there will be constituencies holding “veto power” over proposed actions; those constituencies, if they exist must be brought into the planning and public engagement process. In many cases, organizations exist that represent constituencies and their values and interests. Protected area managers involve these organizations primarily to ensure that values preserved by protected areas are accounted for in planning and not marginalized. What Process Should be Used to Secure Public Engagement? A variety of processes exist for collecting information from the public, such as formal hearings, public comment periods, “open houses”, surveys and interviews, informal meetings and field trips. There are many variations on these techniques. Addressing the question of process requires an understanding of the specific objectives of the public engagement strategy being employed and an understanding of the weaknesses and strengths of each specific technique. Sometimes formal hearings are required, where testimony is provided by various constituencies. Formal hearings are fine, but the people that participate in them tend to be more vocal and confident of their perspectives. People who have a more reserved personality may not want to participate in formal hearings and thus their voices and perspectives are not heard. Sometimes agencies have a public meeting in which participants rise and speak, but may limited by the agency to two or three minutes because of the large number of people wanting to speak. Equalizing speaking time may be an An emergent view of planning indicates that both technical planning processes and public engagement processes are fundamental to successful planning. attempt to be “fair” but it hardly is a process that leads to learning and understanding. As a general principle, agencies select a variety of public engagement techniques to ensure all constituencies and voices affected are heard, and to ensure the weaknesses of one technique are overcome by the strengths of another. How do we know if the public engagement process was successful? T his is an important question because it goes directly to the purpose of planning and public engagement. Sherry Arnstein (1969) addressed this question with her “ladder of citizen participation”—a classic in the literature of planning. As you can see, a fundamental question for a protected area managers is to ask what is the purpose of engaging the public. In the traditional, technocratic view of planning, success was measured as the production of a planning document (the first, and sometimes the only measure of success). Often, implementation of the plan is considered by planners and managers as a measure of success, but not necessarily by all constituencies of a protected area. In the emerging view of planning, which sees it as an exercise in governance, capacity building, developing the public interest and applying appropriate technical processes, there are a variety of measures of success, including writing a document and implementing it. These measures include:  Representation – are all constituencies and values “at the table”?  Relationships – does the process have legitimacy and build trust?  Learning – have participants, including managers enhanced their understanding of process, content and of each other?  Ownership – does the planning process create a sense of caring and responsibility?  Enhanced functioning – has the planning process increased the agency’s technical capacity to make and implement decisions? In contemporary protected area planning, success is highly dependent on a number of factors, including the commitment of managers, funding to do planning, institutional and organizational structures and environment, and most importantly a mental model that acknowledges the importance of public engagement. Some Lessons learned • • • • • • Engage public often and early Establish different and many opportunities for dialogue Planning is negotiation Clarify roles and expectations Process is critical to legitimacy Both technical and public processes are needed to work in concert Summary W hile planning will continue to contain an important technical component, that component alone is inadequate to address the complex, evolving challenges of protected areas of the 21st century. Too often public engagement is viewed as something added to planning, not an intrinsic part of it.A public engagement program that is intrinsically a part of planning will provide the foundation for successful public engagement. Friedmann's (1973) Theory of Transactive Planning provides a basis for public engagement. John Friedmann many years ago (1973) suggested that planning should be based on dialogue; the dialogue would involve both technical planners and the public working together to create an environment of learning. The learning would eventually lead to societal guidance—a vision of where to go and how to get there— around which those affected can construct a consensus. It is only with a commitment and a vision that successful planning can emerge. Cited Literature Arnstein, S R. 1973. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planning 35(4): 216-224. Caulfield, H.P., Jr. 1975. Politics of multiple objective planning in Proceedings of the Multiple Objective and Decision Making Conference. Idaho Research Foundation, Moscow, Idaho Friedmann, J. 1973. Retracking America. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York. Lachapelle, P.R., and S.F. McCool. 2007. Claiming ownership: A response to Manning and Ginger. Society and Natural Resources 20:193-198. Lachapelle, P.R., and S.F. McCool. 2005. Exploring the concept of ownership in natural resource planning. Society and Natural Resources 18: 279-285.