Participatory monitoring and evaluation of joint management

in the Northern Territory: Challenges and Lessons

Central Land Council

Natasha Stacey & Arturo Izurieta

Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods

Presentation to National Native Title Conference 2011

• Partnership not equal in power, capacities and decision-making

• No or poor shared objectives for management• Past focus on biodiversity outcomes• Achieving social and cultural outcomes is relatively

new in NT park management• Communication poor (between and amongst partners)• Process can be as important as outcomes• Management has to be achieved in a cross cultural

partnership• Weak or absent monitoring and evaluation practices

(Armitage 2003, Olsson et al 2004, Berkes 2009, Cundill & Fabricus 2010, Plummer & Fennell 2009)

Issues to consider in joint management of Parks

How Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation (PME) can assist joint management

Contributes positively to management, trust building, & knowledge sharing through learning by doing.

Has a role in empowerment – addresses power imbalances.

Can look at how the partner arrangements work – how the processes are functioning in cross-cultural situations

So any monitoring should assess social, economic and biophysical outcomes, partnership arrangements and processes linked to cultural interests and rights of partners

(Bellamy et al 2001; Ross et al 2004, Plummer & Armitage 2007)Armitage 2003, Olsson et al 2004, Berkes 2009, Cundill & Fabricus 2010,

Bauman and Smyth 2007Mahanty et al 2007)

Project objectives:

• Identify whether participatory monitoring and evaluation enhances the benefits of Joint Management

• Determine how PME can be implemented cost effectively in a partnership with significant differences in perspectives and power

• How to scale up to all (27) Parks and Reserves in the NT.

‘Does monitoring and evaluation improve joint management?

The case of national parks in the NT’.

Project partners and parks

Central Land Council

Participatory monitoring & evaluation process

• Agreement• Identifying indicators together

ON COUNTRY CAMPS• M&E team

• Training on M&E and data collection• Interviews and documents

OFFICE AND ON COUNTRY

• Assessing joint management progress• Communicating results,•Validating results, actions

OFFICE AND ON COUNTRY

Park joint management themes• Governance • Managing Country (Cultural & Natural

Heritage)• Business operations, and • Managing visitors

Indicators and groups of indicators identified under each management theme.

12 common indicators identified for each Park.

Themes & indicators to monitor and evaluate

Themes Indicators

Governance (planning and making decisions together)

1. Satisfaction with representation and participation in the joint management meetings

2. Satisfaction with decision making process and planning

3. Effective communication: a. between partners b. amongst partners c. with other stakeholders.

Management theme Indicators

Managing Country(Natural Heritage )

4. Satisfaction with health of country (park) through fire management, weed control, feral control, protection of native species

5. Increased evidence of traditional knowledge together with western knowledge applied to park management.

Management Theme Indicator

Managing Country (Cultural Heritage)

6. Traditional owner satisfaction with protection of sites of cultural significance

7. Opportunities to visit country using joint management programs to support transfer of cultural knowledge to young ones

Theme Indicator

Business operations (jobs, training, business opportunities, money story)

8. Applicable training and skill-building opportunities and take up for traditionalowners and Park staff in :

a. governance/decision-making/planningb. park managementc. employment & economic business

9. Employment opportunities available andup take of these by traditional owners in parkmanagement as:a.      park rangers b.      community rangers c.      contractors (FEP or other mechanism)

d. cultural advisors/mentors

10. Traditional owner participation inbusiness enterprises associated with the

park (e.g. tour guides, cultural dancers, food/beverage vendors)

11. Sufficient and efficient use of resources allocated to meet annual operational plan regarding: a) financial; b) human; c) Infrastructure and equipment

Themes & indicators

Theme Indicator

Managing Visitors (Looking after visitors)

12. Parks, traditional owners and visitors (tourists, hunters, scientists) are satisfied with information provided (e.g. cultural, natural, safety, behavioural)

Common Indicators and Assessment (Jan 2008 – October 2009)

Indicators Flora River Watarrka East MacDonnell

Adelaide River

1. Satisfaction with representation and participation in meetings Not yet assessed

Mgt Plan

JMCMeetings

In between meetingsb) amongst partners

c) with other stakeholders4. Satisfaction with the health of country (park) 5. Increased evidence of use of traditional knowledge Not yet assessed

6. TO satisfaction with protection of sites of cultural significance field inspection

7. Opportunities to visit country to support transfer of cultural knowledge to youth

For TOs Governance

Park MgmtBusiness

9. Employment opportunities available and up take of these by TOs in park management10. TO participation in business enterprises associated with park

Equipment Infras and equip.

Infrastructure

Financial Finn. and human

Cultural Cultural

Natural, safety, behavioural

Natural, safety, behavioural

Hunters

For PWS staff

12. Parks, TOs and visitors are satisfied with information provided

3. Effective communication: a) Between partners

11. Sufficient & efficient use of resources allocated to meet annual operational plan regarding: a) financial; b) human; c) Infrastructure & equipment

Infrasand Equip.

8. Applicable training and skill-building and take up for TOs and Park staff

2. Satisfaction with decision making process and planning Not yet assessed

Human

VERY GOOD

GOODNOT SO GOOD

BAD

What Helps?Defined legal framework & joint

management principlesParticipatory monitoring & evaluation

supports the principles & practices of joint management and adaptive management of parks.

Long-term approach (e.g. staff, funds, equipment) to build capacity of partners and institutionalise joint management.

NT Parks governance coordinator position

What Harms?• Different perspectives on joint management and

what should be monitored as part of joint management recognising partner values and differences

• Consultation versus active participation of partners

• Unsolved disagreements amongst Aboriginal groups and Parks

• Miscommunication and poor information sharing amongst partners

What Harms…?• Limited human capacity to engage in joint

management by all partners (e.g. one governance coordinator for 27 Parks)

• Limited budget projections and adequate funds to support joint management to honour the 2005 agreement and principles

• Planning and management doesn’t include

country beyond the park boundaries “whole of country”

Acknowledgements

• Arrernte, Wardaman, Wulna, and Anangu traditional owners from the four parks

• NT Parks and Wildlife Service/NRETAS

• Northern Land Council• Central Land Council • Australia Research Council• Charles Darwin University

• Photos: A. Izurieta & NTPWS

More information:

Izurieta, A, N. Stacey, J. Karam and contributors (2011) Guidebook for Supporting Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Jointly Managed Parks in the Northern Territory, Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin.

Natasha.stacey@cdu.edu.au