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.