Collaboration - Participatory Biological Monitoring Guidelines

Overview—All humans collaborate; it is part of our social nature. Generally we collaborate with those with whom we share much in common, but at other times we differ in many regards yet share some common interests. Collaboration helps pool intellectual and physical resources and converts potentially adversarial relationships into mutually beneficial ones. Participatory monitoring is inherently collaborative in the sense that we choose to work together to reach common goals. Successful collaboration depends upon understanding where our goals overlap with those of others, and determining whether it is worth our while to work together to achieve these common goals. Some of our sources describe collaboration as a spectrum with differing levels of relative responsibility and control that are arranged in categories such as, consultation, cooperation, collaboration, or co-learning; although each participant’s role often overlaps these categories and changes through time.

Incentives for collaborating vary widely. Sometimes participants in a monitoring program share many common interests. The Audubon Society’s international bird counting program (“The Christmas Bird Count”), conducted by volunteer bird-watching enthusiasts, is an example. Sometimes participants in a monitoring program have an economic interest in sustaining a resource. For instance, nontimber forest product harvesters (such as ginseng or mushroom collectors) might participate in agency monitoring of target species in exchange for access to the resource. Sometimes collaboration arises from adversarial circumstances such as frustration with litigation of natural resource management decisions or threats of legal mandates. In each case, a thorough and shared understanding of the reasons that motivate stakeholders to collaborate is essential to the success of the project. In this module’s discussion section we emphasize the need for clarity regarding reasons to collaborate, mention some forms of collaboration, list advantages, disadvantages, and barriers to collaborating, and suggest means to make collaboration work. Many of the essential elements of making collaboration work are detailed in subsequent modules.

Collaboration goals—Common reasons that managers might consider a participatory approach to monitoring include:

·         Stretching limited resources.
·         Building understanding among user groups.
·         Improving community relations.
·         Reducing conflict and litigation.
·         Providing educational opportunities.
·         Supporting community development.
·         Addressing public concerns.
·         Incorporating local or traditional knowledge into monitoring designs.

Once other stakeholders are involved, however, the spectrum of collaboration goals often expands to accommodate their unique interests and motivations. These will be explored in greater detail in the Incentives module, but examples include personal enrichment, economic self-interests, or influencing management decisions. If collaborations are to be successful, it is essential that all stakeholders reach a clear, explicit, mutual, and preferably written understanding of the purpose and focus of their collaborative effort before proceeding further.

Because collaborations that revolve around participatory monitoring might involve diverse stakeholders, beginning with broad “Vision statements” or “Mission statements” can provide a useful means of establishing common ground for proceeding to the more difficult tasks of developing specific goals, objectives, processes, and means.

Types of participatory monitoring—Collaborating with other participants to monitor biodiversity or other biological resources can be as simple as cooperating with “Jane Doe” to count the number of butterflies that migrate through her backyard or as complicated as a nationwide, volunteer-based, water-quality monitoring program (such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Water Quality Assessment Program). Some projects will involve participants through all stages of the project; others might only need participants to assist with data collection. Managers or scientists often initiate projects, but others could develop when a community approaches managers with monitoring needs. Some complex programs that coordinate many local projects can be tightly prescribed and centralized (such as the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program) while others are decentralized and open to innovation (such as the Canadian Community Monitoring Network). Reasons for collaborating can derive from mutual interest, job requirements, economic concerns, traditional uses, cultural identity, legal requirements, or unresolved conflicts. Collaboration can be initiated and sponsored by land management agencies and organizations, community groups, resource users, government agencies, non-government organizations or special interest groups. In the Literature Cited and Appendix 1 sections, we list a number of references and organizations that provide information on collaboration geared to particular interests or situations. Not only does participatory monitoring vary widely in the forms it can take, but it is always molded by the context in which it occurs, and is usually dynamic and evolving. The precise form of a particular participatory monitoring project will determine the constellation of advantages and disadvantages that are associated with collaboration. These considerations also vary by the participant’s perspective. Here we list some of the potential advantages and disadvantages of collaboration.

Potential Advantages

§ Work is shared.

§ Scope, relevancy, and efficiency of ecological monitoring is increased.

§ Efforts are coordinated and duplicate efforts avoided, participant competencies complement each other.

§ Collaboration entails an innovative and entrepreneurial approach to problem solving.

§ Collaboration focuses on problems and solutions rather than positions and advocacy.

§ Participants viewpoints and knowledge are identified, appreciated, and can inform and improve decisions.

§ Decisions made more effectively, are more durable, are more likely to foster action, and can be implemented.

§ Monitoring results are considered more credible by all stakeholders.

§ The process addresses ecological complexity and is integral to adaptive management.

§ All collaborators are accountable and responsibility is shared.

§ Participants become interdependent.

§ Stakeholders are empowered to potentially influence management decisions and policy.

§ The capacity of local participants is improved by enhancing their knowledge, skills, and abilities; by improving social relationships; and by developing leadership skills.

§ The capacity of local communities is enhanced through economic development, and by developing organizations that can sponsor or facilitate new community improvement projects.

§ Decisions are decentralized and power is shifted towards the stakeholders most affected.

§ Mutual understanding and trust are enhanced by a transparent process.

§ Greater understanding reduces conflict.

§ Public support for management decisions is increased.

§ Local communities develop a stake in ensuring forest resource use is sustainable.

§ Public appreciation of the importance of biodiversity is enhanced through education.

§ Power-sharing promotes social justice.

§ Monitoring is based on multiple sources of ecological knowledge (local, conventional, and traditional).

Potential Disadvantages and Barriers

§ Collaboration requires time, effort, mutual trust, and clear understanding to build effective communication.

§ Participants might lack familiarity with collaboration or opportunities for training.

§ The time and effort needed to create successful collaborations increases with greater levels of conflicting interest, mistrust, diverging values, or hidden agendas.

§ Needed time and effort also increase with projects of increasing scale or complexity.

§ Collaboration might require long-term commitments on the part of participants.

§ Important or essential stakeholders might not want to collaborate.

§ Collaborative decisions reached through an agreed-upon process might run counter to a participating stakeholder’s interest or agenda.

§ Collaborative decisions might reflect least controversial alternatives rather than most useful or effective choices.

§ Collaborative organizations might lack the authority to enforce their choices or decisions.

§ Concerns over validity of data collected by stakeholders with conflicts of interest could dissuade potential supporters.

§ Even after extensive effort, participants run the risk that collaboration might not meet the project goals.

§ Projects that fail can discourage other ones that would otherwise be more likely to succeed.

§ Divergent or irreconcilable interests, values, attitudes, perceptions, cultural paradigms, or agendas might exist among stakeholders.

§ Government policies, regulations, procedures, laws, and lack of political will can interfere.

§ Lack of institutional capacity, funding, staff, or resources can be an impediment.

§ Staff that experiment with collaboration can lack agency support in the form of job assignment, training, and advancement opportunities.

§ Training, organizational capacity, participant skills, or commitment to improvement might be needed.

§ Unrealistic expectations, or lack of immediate tangible results can be discouraging.

§ Lack of trust, discomfort, or commitment to group processes can impede progress.

§ Fear of inappropriate use or sabotage of results can discourage involvement.

§ Issues of ownership or custody might need to be settled.

§ Unequal power relationships among stakeholders can hinder interaction.

§ Educational, language, and literacy barriers or unfamiliarity with formal scientific methods can slow progress.

§ Labor relations and issues of compensation might need to be resolved.

§ Welfare, disability, or legal status can hinder involvement.

§ Perceived grudges for past or ongoing injustices might complicate communication.

§ An on-going collaborative monitoring process might lead to complacency about urgently needed action.

§ Agency personnel might be frustrated by continuous and conflicting public criticism, shifting management objectives, lack of appreciation and job insecurity.

§ Community resources, organizational capacity, participant skills, or long-term commitment might be lacking.

§ Participants might fear of regulatory reprisals from inadequate or poor quality data.

Weighing the advantages and disadvantages—The process of weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a participatory approach to monitoring entails determining which of the advantages, disadvantages, and barriers apply to your particular circumstances, determining how important each is, and deciding how difficult the barriers will be to surmount. A useful exercise to put the analysis in perspective is to ask: “Compared to what?” The current situation might include unmet goals, inefficient or unsuccessful management strategies, a non-holistic approach, continued contention or litigation, wasted time, government intervention, threatened livelihoods, legislative mandates, or harm to the resource. Put in this perspective, the status quo might be less acceptable than the risks that could accompany a collaborative approach. For suggestions on how to navigate these challenging decisions see the resources listed in the following Decisions module for methods that facilitate good decisions about complex issues.

Checklist—

¨ Who will document the collaboration goals of a participatory monitoring project and how?

¨ What seem to be the barriers to implementing a participatory approach for this project?

¨ How will the relative importance of each advantage, disadvantage, and barrier be determined?

¨ What process will be used to analyze the relative benefits and drawbacks to using a participatory approach to monitoring?

¨ What is the plan for minimizing the disadvantages and barriers and making the collaborative effort work?