Commentary on the Process
Because of the short time between the start of the Waipaoa project and the preparation of this report, it is not yet possible to determine whether a multistakeholder approach will be successful in the long-term in providing the community with useable strategies for dealing with externally imposed change. Any final evaluation is still premature.
At this point, however, it is useful to discuss the way the principles underlying the multistakeholder approach were used in the Waipaoa example and how they were modified to meet the needs of the participants.
Rural communities are often (perhaps normally) based on discrete eco-systems. Therefore change will often be related to the environment and responses to change must also take the environment into account. There are many examples (in New Zealand, Britain and Canada, for example) of processes of environmental rehabilitation which have begun using some form of political boundary as ‘the community’, but which have been forced to recognise the interdependencies between the chosen community and wider environmental processes, normally related to the ecosystem of the overall catchment.
However, while the ecosystem may, on the face of it, be a logical basis for understanding certain environmental processes, these processes do not necessarily coincide with either political boundaries or with relevant social, or cultural linkages. Any environmental management plan, therefore, needs to be relevant to the specific locality and its particular needs and must be flexible rather than prescriptive to allow for full community participation and commitment. For these reason, the definition of community (as discussed earlier) needs to be made carefully to ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to be included.
This was so in this particular case study. For example, some residents located outside the catchment were included in the project because of their emotional, perceptual and other links to the community and because their experience and viewpoints outweighed any conceptual advantages of limiting the work to a specific physically determined region.
Although inclusiveness is fundamental to the multistakeholder approach, the Gisborne study has not (as yet) included all major Maori groups in the process (because interests important to them have not been identified by the wider community process) and has not included the Gisborne Council. These groups were however, included in initial project meetings. Some Maori groups and the Council have indicated that they will participate in future. As well, because of the nature of the initial consultations and the advice received from different agencies, there was an initial bias in favour of organised groups rather than individuals. During the process the Project Team attempted to identify and co-opt individuals who might represent residents not associated with formal organisations. Small group meetings also had this as one of their objectives.
Comprehensiveness is also fundamental to a multistakeholder approach. But, as the issues are inter-related and interdependent, solutions are not easily found. Understandably perhaps, many of those involved in the Waipaoa project seemed overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues. Rather thananalyse the issues as a whole, a number of people believe that further discussion is either unnecessary or unproductive and that immediate action should be taken to solve one-off problems. They believe that there is sufficient knowledge as to what is needed and that the Council should just ‘get on and solve’ the problems. The Working Group is now endeavouring to meet these demands for immediate action, while initiating a project to ensure that all factors are properly taken into account and simplistic ‘solutions’ avoided.
This leads into the need for long-term perspectives. The success of the first completed stages of the project can only realistically be measured if the actions identified now can be implemented over the next few years. This will need the active and continuing participation of all stakeholder groups. Specifically:
- the District Council will have to support the project;
- the Working Group needs to have access to information about the environmental, social and economic factors relevant to change. This may involve more and different agencies supporting the Working Group; and
- responsible agencies will have to pay attention to the outcomes and recommendations from the Working Group.
If these steps occur, the community will own the process. Without that the process is unlikely to be successful.
There are also a number of practical lessons to be learned from the project:
- full participation of all interests was not achieved (specifically of Maori and of ‘flats’ farmers). This could have been because one ‘obvious’ underlying issue, that of sustainable land management, was not raised in consultations and thus not addressed. Researchers in the future might need to be more directive in their presentation of issues in cases where their own analysis has led them to wider conclusions than those raised by the community itself;
- a number of participants expressed concern at the short notice given for meetings. For rural people a month or more notice may be necessary;
- community meetings are an important tool to ensure that even the most isolated of communities are involved in the process;
- follow-up meetings were poorly attended. This could have been that information distributed through the mail was sufficient after an initial meeting and discussion. Possibly, second and third meetings for the whole community should only be called if there is new information to present or new issues to be discussed;
- additionally, it could have been that this project just did not interest sufficient people from all the possible communities. It is not unreasonable to have asymmetric levels of interest between different communities with competing demands on their time;
- the need for the stakeholders to ‘own’ the process was reinforced as the facilitation team based outside the region did not generally have an entree into informal community networking, which is an important means of passing information and forming opinions;
- some communities (particularly women and Maori) seemed to have completely different interests in and solutions to problems from those expressed by dominant or mainstream participants. It may be that there is a need to develop processes to ensure that these alternative views are heard.
The Way Ahead
All participants recognised that merely identifying a vision, obstacles to achieving that vision and solutions to these obstacles is insufficient. There needs to be follow-up in the form of a wide circulation of information, the inclusion of a larger circle of participants and, most importantly, the project needs to be advanced to the next stage. This would require a further working group to prepare background material and, again, wide community consultation.
A Working Group (a multistakeholder group) has met twice and begun to prepare a strategy to deal with the issues of concern. This group has refined the vision, developed goals and identified detailed and specific objectives and actions. The strategy will use the community’s already identified social and economic issues to address sustainable land use. This process is continuing.
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
