Building Partnerships for Conservation in the Waitaki/Mackenzie Basins

Will Allen 1 , Kerry Brown 2 , Tony Gloag 3 , Jim Morris 4 , Karen Simpson 5 , Jane Thomas 6 & Rob Young 2

1 Landcare Research,P.O.Box 69, Lincoln
2 Department of Conservation, Wairepo Road, Twizel
3 Buscot Station, Omarama
4 Ben Avon Station, Omarama
5 Balmoral Station, Twizel
6 Killermont Station, Omarama

[Reference as: Allen, W., Brown, K., Gloag, T., Morris, J., Simpson, K., Thomas, J. Young, R. (1998). Building partnerships for conservation in the Waitaki/Mackenzie basins. Landcare Research Contract Report LC9899/033, Lincoln, New Zealand.]

Abstract: An initiative to improve relationships between the Department of Conservation (DOC) staff and local landholders in the Waitaki/Mackenzie basins was facilitated by Will Allen (Landcare Research, Alexandra) in winter 1998. This project was funded by the DOC Twizel Area Office to increase the involvement of local landholders within the Black Stilt (Kaki) Recovery Programme. This report has been co-authored by DOC Area Office staff, local landholders, and the Landcare Research facilitator. It reviews the outcomes of the activities undertaken through this exercise and points the way forward.

Background

Relationships between the Department of Conservation and landholders in the Waitaki/Mackenzie basins have been strained for some time. More recently, the ways in which local conservation values have been dealt with through the development of local district plans have contributed significantly to this tension. In response to these issues some landholders have taken the step of denying DOC access through their land, preventing staff from carrying out activities related to the black stilt and other conservation projects. Many important black stilt habitats are on farmed or adjoining land, and farmer support is important if recovery tasks at these sites are to be achieved and conservation benefits obtained.

Against this background the Black Stilt (Kaki) Recovery Programme provided funding for a relationship improvement initiative, which aimed to bring landholders and local DOC staff together to resolve differences, improve understanding, and achieve better access for management. This process involved separate pre-workshop discussions with individual landholders and DOC staff, and two 'looking to the future' workshops involving both local DOC staff and members of the local farming community. Subsequent to these workshops a conservation open day was jointly organised by DOC staff and landholders.

Building relationships for conservation

Pre-workshop perspectives

Prior to the "Looking to the future' workshops, discussions were held with a number of local landholders on an individual basis and DOC staff as a group to help gauge the level of support for this initiative, and to help establish the direction that should be taken.

Landholder views

While the landholders talked with were not selected at random, they covered a range geographically from Omarama to Burkes Pass. They also covered a spectrum in their relationship with DOC, which could be described as ranging from supportive/neutral through to one farming family who did not at that time allow Department staff on their land. In all cases, the responses were very similar. The main points raised can be summarised as follows:

Department of Conservation views

Two meetings were also held to provide Twizel Area Office DOC staff with an opportunity to talk about issues as a group without landholders present. Most staff were able to attend both of these meetings. The main points raised can be summarised as follows:

It needs to be stressed that the individual comments reported above should not be taken at face value or quoted outside the context in which they were made. The important point about the preceding discussion is that it indicates areas of DOC/farmer communication and relationships that could be improved.

Common to both groups was the acknowledgement that the conflict that surrounds these issues takes a personal toll on the people involved. At the least, these involve landholders giving up time to try and deal with them, and in many cases the worry that this causes also takes a personal toll on landholders and their families. Similarly it is difficult, for some local DOC staff who are trying to do specific local conservation jobs (to which they have a very strong personal commitment) to have to 'wear' the frustrations of landholders with DOC at other levels over which they have no control or even contact. Although these reactions are not commonly talked about they are nonetheless very important to the way landholders and DOC staff see these issues and, in turn, can affect their future relations and responses to each other.

All those involved in these pre-workshop discussions agreed that a facilitation exercise to reduce general conflict would be useful. It was pointed out that it would need to involve 'farm families', not just 'landholders'. It was also seen as a way for landholders and DOC staff to get to know each other, especially 'over a few drinks at the end'. In regard to the overall benefit most saw this exercise as a useful starting point, in the sense that relationships have to be worked at: 'they are not one-off problems to be solved'.

'Looking to the future' workshops

The mediation exercise itself comprised two DOC/farming community workshops, which were titled as 'Looking to the future'. Two separate meetings, at Tekapo (3 June) and Omarama (4 June), were held to cover the area geographically. Although both workshops were different in terms of the detailed discussion that took place, they did follow a common outline. These workshops were co-facilitated by Will Allen and Gay Pavelka. Having two facilitators provided the resources to enable both parties to undertake some exercises separately, which proved useful for generating ideas, reflection, and debriefing.

Workshop summary

Both workshops began, and continued for some time, with a wide-ranging discussion of issues that have an impact on current DOC/farmer relationships. In this regard there was a clear acknowledgement that a number of these issues could not be resolved without additional input from groups and organisations not represented at these workshops. Key among these issues was the forthcoming district plan, both in terms of the problems it has caused and how it so vividly illustrates the need to establish appropriate consultation processes at the start of such exercises - not the end. A number of other ideas were also widely discussed including the need to look at: (a) a range of options for protecting conservation values; (b) involving the community; and (c) developing appropriate processes for dealing with issues such as access, personality conflicts, weed control, etc.

However, by providing an opportunity for people to talk about their angers and frustrations, and to get to know each other better, these workshops provided the opportunity to identify areas of common ground. This included a recognition that both groups had worthwhile knowledge to share, a desire to work together through a 'collaborative' or 'partnership' approach wherever possible, and a common commitment to both conservation and the local area. Perhaps most importantly, participants at both workshops publicly expressed their desire to work more closely together. A number of suggestions for subsequent actions that would help this progress were suggested. At the time of writing this report two of these initiatives had already been taken up. These were:

A full list of suggestions made during the workshops can be found in the workshop minutes (Allen et al. 1998a p. 17). In addition to those above they included:

Workshop reflections

Collectively, these separate discussions and the workshops highlight that there are both opportunities and barriers (see Tables 1a & 1b) that need to be recognised by staff at the Twizel Area Office, as they seek to develop closer working partnerships to manage local conservation issues. Equally, these potential opportunities and barriers need to be recognised by farming families as they look at how collaborative approaches can be more commonly adopted. By sharing issues such as these, the potential working group as a whole can then discuss possible ways around the barriers, and ways in which land managers and agency staff can best participate in collaborative ventures.

Table 1a Opportunities for conservation partnerships facing the Twizel Area Office
  • There is a lot of common ground shared between local farming families and Twizel DOC staff, particularly around their commitment to work for local conservation issues and the good of the Upper Waitaki/Mackenzie basins.
  • There are a number of individuals in both groups who have demonstrated their commitment through these workshops to putting effort into developing closer working relationships. As these begin to show benefits, group dynamics will enable this effect to spread.
  • The Area Manager is highly respected within the local community, and will be instrumental in initiating efforts to develop stronger DOC/community working relationships.
  • The recent DOC restructuring will enable the development of closer contact between Area Office staff and the local community.
  • The Twizel Area Office has more resources to put into developing stronger community links with the recent appointment of a Community Relations Officer.
  • There is a big potential for improving relations by sharing information. For example, within the black stilt project DOC should involve interested landholders in evaluating the rationale for the current plan and invite their suggestions on improving it for this coming season (i.e. make them a stronger part of the project if possible). Other projects could also use this approach.


Table 1b Barriers to conservation partnerships facing the Twizel Area Office
  • There are a number of past examples of conservation-related issues that have adversely affected relations between landholders and the Department. In some cases these may have been unrelated to local staff, but the consequential breakdown in relations and trust can affect Department staff as a whole. Past history is one of the most important influences on community attitudes.
  • Not all staff or farming families have participated in the workshops and subsequent open day.
  • A lack of knowledge on the part of both landholders and DOC staff of each other's areas of expertise, operations, and challenges.
  • While the respect accorded the Area Manager can be regarded as a strength, the fact that so few DOC staff have developed similarly strong community relationships is also a weakness that needs to be urgently addressed.
  • Although the Department is committed to building community involvement in conservation and using a partnership approach wherever possible, this area still needs more organisational support.
  • Resource limitations are still a problem in terms of staff time, budgetary constraints, and lack of appropriate personal communication training.
  • Lack of staff continuity making it difficult for local landholders to 'get to know' them as individuals.

As evidenced by discussions during the workshops, the current district planning process is a major factor affecting relations between the Department and local landholders. Tenure review is another significant and ongoing process, which is seeing property rights being negotiated throughout much of the high country. As a result of exercises such as these, relationships between landholders and DOC are likely to be in a state of flux for some years to come. This will inevitably have an overriding impact on farmer/DOC staff working relationships at the local level, even when these are on issues primarily unrelated to these contentious processes (e.g. black stilt recovery).

Nonetheless, as these workshops demonstrated, there is still lots of potential to improve working relationships and the effectiveness of conservation solutions in regard to local issues. Key to this, as both parties noted, is the development of stronger personal relationships. 'It's easier to talk to someone that you know, and say hi to when you meet in town', was the way one participant put it.

Black Stilt and Project River Recovery open day

An open day held in August 1998 was in direct response to landholder recommendations made at the Tekapo "Looking to the future' workshop. It was organised jointly by landholders and DOC and centred on the history, successes and issues, faced by the Black Stilt and Project River Recovery programmes. Included in the day were visits to the aviary site and the Tekapo Delta. The response to this day was very positive and provided a pilot for future events on a regular basis.

This type of event allows the development of both personal and working relationships between the participants. Although potentially an event that would happen two or three times a year, it provides an excellent basis to initiate and develop such relationships which can then carry on into more regular day-to-day contact. It was suggested that the next open day be held on a landholder's property.

The way forward

In summary, the key themes that came out of both these workshops were the expressed desires by both parties to develop more collaborative (or partnership) approaches to conservation management, and in so doing to improve relations and build up 'trust'. This call is in line with DOC's goals of encouraging informed community participation in conservation decision making, and actively involving individuals, groups, and organisations in managing conservation. It is also something that as a district, we have some experience in, and there are already examples to use.

However, although these partnerships have been developed by the efforts of individuals (be they DOC staff or landholders) as part of their efforts to address a particular problem, the lessons learnt have not always been documented for others to use. There is, accordingly, a need to review some of these successful examples and the mechanisms by which they were achieved in order to help develop future approaches.

Local landholder and DOC co-operative approaches

There have been several examples of co-operative approaches developed in the Waitaki/Mackenzie basins over the past 8 years. These include:

Different mechanisms for dealing with different issues

The Department and landholders clearly need to identify a range of different mechanisms that can be used to deal with issues of different magnitude and complexity. There is clearly a substantial difference between pursuing a collaborative approach to improve an already well-functioning situation, and resolving an existing conflict. In the latter case the need for effective facilitation of meetings and expert mediation of conflicts is definitely greater. Suggestions here include:

WE need to get together and work out strategies that work for us.

Learning from others: key steps to successful collaboration

The idea of government agencies and communities working together to develop conservation management strategies is by no means new, and there are many examples of partnerships which exist in various forms in a number of countries. While successful approaches are those that have been individually tailored to each situation, there are some common elements that make these collaborative approaches work. A number of guides for those interested in reading more about the lessons learnt through many of these initiatives are listed in the full report (Allen et al. 1998a). However, as a starting point for reviewing the examples of local initiatives outlined above, a brief summary of key points distilled from these overseas lessons is provided here.

Partnership approaches in summary

Loosely defined (there is no generally accepted definition), these collaborative approaches refer to situations in which some or all of the relevant stakeholders are involved in a substantial way in management/decision-making activities. The underlying basis behind these approaches is that the goal of effective conservation is beyond the reach of any one agency or community. Neither party working alone has the resources, such as expertise, funds, labour, and authority, which are required to get the job done in the most effective manner. By working together, pooling resources and knowledge, the possibilities for conservation are maximised.

Also implicit in the term partnership is the concept of common good: the trust that it is possible to follow a course of action that harmonises different interests while responding, at least to some extent, to all of them. Typically such arrangements also are consensus-based with decision-making power being shared in some way among the various stakeholders. They strive to combine local knowledge with that of science, and stress negotiation rather than litigation in situations of conflict.

Establishing and implementing a collaborative planning exercise can be viewed as a three-phase process consisting of overlapping phases of pre-planning, planning, and change. These are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 The different phases involved in establishing a conservation partnership

In the pre-planning phase the initiating party sets out to identify the stakeholders and build up a healthy personal and working relationship with them. In the planning phase people get together and use appropriate processes for determining what needs to be done. And finally, change occurs as these plans are implemented and adjusted in the light of regular monitoring and evaluation.

Pre-planning

The foundation of any successful collaborative or partnership approach is the development of relationships that make it easy for people to talk about their needs, share information, and work together. Establishing this trust is one of the main reasons why successful participation processes take time. However, in a local situation such as in the Waitaki/Mackenzie basins it is fairly obvious relationships are not developed separately for each proposed working relationship. It is important to acknowledge that, just as with personal relationships, one of the most important influences on community attitudes is previous experience. On occasion, people are extremely reluctant to enter into a second participatory process ..... 'we've already tried that and look what happened!'.

What is required in terms of the district as a whole is for individuals from each group to get to know each other, and in particular to work and pay attention to building open and trusting relationships. During the workshops this point was highlighted by both landholders and DOC staff, and a number of suggestions were made that would help improve this situation. These included:

In general, participants noted that improved communication is the key to developing constructive working relationships and minimising conflict (see Table 2). Nonetheless, conflict can be a beneficial starting point in that it affords the opportunity for people to highlight the issues that they are dissatisfied or frustrated with. It also provides an opportunity for people to reassess their actions, and stimulates the search for new solutions.

Table 2 Some basic guidelines for communicating differences
  • Don't argue your position. Instead, simply state your needs and concerns.
  • Don't question the other person's values or logic. Instead, listen.
  • Don't make assumptions, interpret, or analyse the other position. Instead, ask for clarification.
  • Don't fight back or get defensive. Instead, ask them to clarify their criticisms.
  • Don't focus on personalities. Instead, focus on problems.
  • Don't fight for a single solution. Instead, encourage brainstorming new ideas.
  • Don't avoid confrontation or be submissive. Instead, stand up for your own feelings and concerns, but be open to others, too.

Planning

The strength of collaborative processes lies in the creative approach to problem solving that involving different groups can bring. Face-to-face negotiations allow the different parties to more fully explore the issues, and collectively come up with solutions that work. Constructive discussion and planning takes time, so there is a need to build enough time into the process for people to learn about each other, overcome their differences, and begin to 'speak the same language'. Then, more time is needed to resolve problems and disagreements.

Key points when discussing a problem situation are that ecological objectives should not be considered in isolation from community social and economic needs, and that these will not be identified without local involvement. Similarly, there is a need to note all the issues raised in these discussions, no matter how simplistic or controversial they may appear. And enough time needs to be given to consider all sides of the argument to avoid discussion becoming biassed towards more vocal or powerful interests. Key steps in setting collaborative goals, objectives, and action plans could involve some or all of the following:

    Identify the key environmental, economic, and social issues with input from landowners and local residents:
    Identify common motivations, interests, and concerns:
    • what is working now? what isn't working?
    • clearly and concisely state issues and problems.
    • use field trips as part of problem identification.
    • establish where community benefits and conservation goals might overlap.
    Identify common goals and objectives to address issues and problems, while giving consideration to factors such as:
    • does this group have the authority to make desired changes?
    • what other groups or individuals are already doing, to avoid duplicating efforts.

    Document the goals and objectives in writing:
    • clearly and concisely state goals and objectives.
    • quantify and qualify statements as much as possible.
    Prioritise challenges and opportunities:
    • are they workable?
    • is there a general willingness to tackle the issue?
    • how do costs compare to benefits?
    • start with a relatively small project that is highly visible and has a high potential for success.
    Jointly develop action plans and collectively delegate responsibilities for accomplishing goals and objectives.

Change

As people start doing whatever has been decided, it is important to provide opportunities and resources to evaluate progress on an ongoing basis. Constant re-evaluation is particularly important in long-term projects not only to ensure that the project stays on track, but also to help reinforce that continued involvement is worthwhile. Tracking successes can be combined with a number of other initiatives to avoid 'burn-out' and maintain enthusiasm and motivation among the different partners. A number of tips to help maintain continued involvement are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Maintaining enthusiasm and motivation for collaborative conservation approaches
  • start with small, manageable projects that are likely to be successful, or break major projects into manageable 'chunks'.
  • document and acknowledge positive change to give participants a sense that they are making a difference.
  • maintain a stable structure to reassure members that the partnership is accountable to them, and that something will get done.
  • build on sources of community pride.
  • demonstrate that the benefits of collaboration will offset any loss of autonomy -- for example, make explicit what member organisations and individuals stand to gain; identify specific benefits.
  • continually revisit/stress successes, achievements.
  • make it fun -- have a social hour after meetings; plan social events.

Collaborative conservation management should not be seen as the development and strict application of a plan, or set of rules: rather it is a process that requires ongoing review and improvement. Its most important result is not a management plan, but a working partnership, capable of responding to changing needs in an effective way.

Finally, it must be remembered that partnerships should be flexible, and designed to grow. There is no need to involve reluctant stakeholders in the beginning, and in some cases it may be that new stakeholders only get identified along the way. What is important is that the partnership can change to accommodate this growth. Community involvement helps create ownership, and accordingly a feeling of accomplishment in working together to solve a problem. This group dynamic will, in turn, encourage other individuals to participate both from the community and government agencies.

Training needs

The training needs identified here all relate to the development of skills and processes that can more effectively help both groups to work together, and deal with communication, collaborative approaches, and change management. It is suggested that local land managers be advised should any of these courses be provided locally. This could be done through the Area Office newsletter.

There are a number of courses that provide training in specific areas, which are useful for working in community-based and participatory situations. Skills include active listening, assertive communication, negotiation, facilitation, relationship building, and conflict resolution.

Terms such as 'partnership', 'participatory', 'consultation', and 'community-based' are notorious for meaning all things to all people. The opportunity to attend workshops in this area would be useful for community leaders and key DOC staff who are likely to initiate or manage these sort of processes, so that they can develop a broader understanding of collaborative group processes and the range of outcomes that can be expected.

Working with people can be stressful; this is equally true for landholders and agency staff. Talking about your problem to someone else often helps, but sometimes the problem is too hard to resolve. Providing the training, which would give a number of people in the workplace or community a basic understanding of debriefing skills, can provide effective assistance in this regard.

Concluding comments

Working together is both challenging and rewarding. As the Department and local communities pursue this path there are several points worth remembering:

Recommendations

The main outcome of this exercise was the common appreciation of the need for Twizel Area Office DOC staff and local landholders to build on the groundwork developed through the 'Looking to the future' workshops and subsequent activities and seek to develop closer working relationships. The recommendations here will help contribute to this, and are presented in order of priority.

The Department staff need to involve willing landholders in helping refine current solutions around the sharing of information and perspectives in relation to local conservation programmes such as the Black Stilt and Project River Recovery. Similarly, landholders should seek to more closely involve DOC Twizel Area Office staff in local Landcare Group discussions and activities. Attention should also be paid to identifying areas where community benefits and conservation goals overlap (e.g. ecotourism and black stilt recovery efforts). To help with this process it is also recommended that staff at the Twizel Area Office work jointly with local landholder representatives to:

Identifying and documenting what has worked and why, will provide lessons to guide the promotion of the establishment or expansion of partnership approaches in the future.

It was stressed by both DOC staff and landholders that they need to find approaches that work locally and are agreed on by both parties. Suggestions have been included in this report, and these now need to be taken further and discussed at forums such as landcare meetings.

Building on the success of the August open day it is suggested that DOC commit to running these 2/3 times each year. These should be planned and organised jointly with landholders, perhaps alternating between Tekapo-, Twizel-, and Omarama-based venues.

While it is recognised that 'working with people' is not for everyone, it is important that the Twizel Area Office supports key staff working in this area by providing ongoing training opportunities in group process and collaborative-problem-solving skills. These skills are equally important for land managers who wish to promote these approaches.

A final recommendation was developed at the 'looking to the future' workshops:

Because it is impossible to separate the ecological aspects of conservation management from related social aspects (involving adjacent land uses, local communities, and other sectors), it was felt that DOC, as a primary employer of graduates, could work to encourage university and other appropriate ecological training courses to provide an introduction to the importance of the social context in which our ecological problems and issues are found.

Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank the Twizel Area DOC Office for providing funding and time for this project, and Gay Pavelka for co-facilitating the workshops. We also acknowledge the in-kind contribution from all those who attended the workshops at their own time and expense.


Footnotes:
The formatting in this document has been amended to fit that of this website. Some sections have been amended to minimise duplication, and the appendices have been admitted.

Your feedback or comments about any of the material on this, or related, pages is welcomed. Please feel free to contact Will Allen EmailSend email to Will Allen

Page last updated: Friday, September 14, 2001

Research areas

Communication and dialogue Evaluation and reflection Indigenous knowledge and values Knowledge management for integration Social aspects of ecosystem management Supporting collaborative approaches

Programmes & OBIs

Building capacity for sustainable development Integrated Catchment Management Low–impact urban design & development Te Tapoitanga Māori: Growing Regional Māori Tourism

Tools & Services

Collaborating with iwi Stakeholder analysis Team–building evaluation guide

Related areas

Community engagement with low–impact stormwater management Integrated Catchment Management Lifestyles & Consumption Maintaining and restoring wetlands project Perceptions of urban intensification

Publications

Publications & presentations

Resources

Collaborative learning research publications

Media releases

Research builds bridge over troubled water

Past Events

Conference: IntSci - Integrated science for sustainability. e-conference Workshop: Sustainability Appraisal Conference: NZ Association of Resource Management conference, and Motueka ICM AGM.