gc21.giz.de€¦ · Web viewActually in spite of the fact that the Valley was declared as a protected area by the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture in 1974, and a Priority Site for

MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSE (MOOC) BY THE ELD INITIATIVE ‘OPTIONS AND PATHWAYS FOR ACTION: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT’

4thTeam Assignment, week 7

Colliguay Local Engagement: Potential Regional – and National – Scale-Up

Stakeholders’ Engagement Plan

Team Latin America:Jennifer SchultzAndreas GuentherAnnick VerstraelenMiguel Ángel Gómez Rozo

° June 2015 °

Final Assignment TEAM LA

1.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION2.1 Background and Justification

2.1.1 Central ChileThe study area is located in Central Chile with almost 8,5 million people,

is home to nearly half of the Chilean population (INE-Chile 2014), mostly concentrated in the cities of Santiago, Valparaíso and Viña del Mar. The region is characterized by a semi-arid Mediterranean climate hosting mainly dry forests, shrub lands and high share of agricultural and pastoral areas. While the region is part of one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots, the dry forests, which host high levels of biodiversity, are threatened by land use conversions, fire wood collection and extensive cattle grazing. The region contributes with an important share to Chile’s agricultural production, not only for national demand but also and especially for export products such as avocado, wine and juice production. Hence, in the recent decades forest cover - which has been historically reported to be the predominant land cover type - has been reduced to about 9% of the studied region, found mainly as remnants in the mountain ranges.

2.1.2 Primer: Colliguay ValleyDespite the rarity and global importance of Chile’s Mediterranean

ecosystems, less than 0.8% of them are currently protected (Lara et al., 2010). Amidst that important ecosystem is the Colliguay Valley which is characterized for being one of the great remnants of sclerophyllous forests in central Chile (Echeverría et al. 2010). Actually in spite of the fact that the Valley was declared as a protected area by the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture in 1974, and a Priority Site for Biodiversity Conservation in 2002 (CONAMA and PNUD, 2005), at present Colliguay Valley’s forests are not under any kind of legal protection (Schiappacasse et al. 2012). Variables such us the families’ low income and the lack of alternative livelihoods would be determining extractive use patterns of the forests in the area. In turn, these extractive patterns could explain the degradation that the forest has suffered. Besides, those patterns are the ones that are repeated throughout the most part of the rural communities of central Chile (Echeverría et al. 2010). All this human induced changes have resulted in a spatially heterogeneous mosaic of vegetation, including some xerophytic plant species. At present, the Valley contains dryland forest at different successional stages. On one hand, remnants of sclerophyllous forests can be found in drainage corridors and on steeper slopes with 75-100% of canopy cover (Schulz et al. 2010). On the other hand, anthropogenic savanna (also known as “espinales”) is the predominant vegetation type and covers most of the lower hillsides and plains. This type of


2


vegetation is mainly formed by the spiny legume tree Acacia caven, and is the result of clearing and degradation of the sclerophyllous forest (Schiappacasse et al. 2012).

In such a context and considering the great importance of the valley – watershed – this territory has an outstanding potential to work on it as a restoration primer especially considering that the use patterns and market failures that have been recognized in that territory that determine to some extent the current situation in it are also true to most of central Chile as stated mainly for most part of the rural communities. From quite a primer the possibilities to scale-up strategies to overcome problematics1 as the ones pointed out by Schiappacasse et al. (2012) are presumably positive.

The work carried out mainly by Schiappacasse et al. (2012) and Echeverría et al. (2010) give us clear pathways towards restoration options that are central to our present stakeholder engagement proposal while we capitalize the tools and inquiries used by those authors as wells as its recommendations. One of the main recommendations done by them is that regarding PES:

[…] one step forward is the creation of new markets for natural capital restoration […]. Payments for Environmental Services (PES) have precisely attracted increasing interest as a mechanism that can translate external, nonmarket values of the environment into real financial incentives for landowners to provide such services (Engel et al., 2008). Future policy efforts in Chile should focus on developing PES programs on a large scale; to date, no PES have been implemented in Chile.

(Schiappacasse et al. 2012)

Nevertheless, it shall not be forgotten that the range of mechanisms of this kind is more diverse than the “payments” per se and can and may be broaden to approaches such us Benefit Sharing Mechanisms or Reciprocate (Water) Agreements. This type of approaches are crucial, for its operative logic aims to both local, regional and even national involvement, which is in the end one of the most important features to be addressed by this Engagement Plan Proposal.

On top of this the proposal seeks to overcome perverse incentives that have encouraged exotic trees plantations or give subsidies that disturb the search for mechanism such as the ones that this proposal pursues, diminishing the urge to look for strategies that are not based on the nation’s wealth but precisely on Stakeholders’ Engagement. Such perverse incentives have been implemented traditionally by the Chilean government through laws such as the Decree Law 701 that has been applied since 1974 (Schiappacasse et al. 2012) being reinforced by the Law 19.561 that modified it (CONAF 2015a) and which is likely to be continued by the new law of Forestation Promotion (CONAF 1 […] (i) lack of effective economic incentives for landowners to carry out restoration (as we discussed above), (ii) high cost of forest restoration, and (iii) the fact that most goods and services derived from ecological functions do not provide direct revenues to forest owners because they are currently non-market services, negatively affects dryland forest restoration. (Schiappacasse et al. 2012)


3


2015b). Nevertheless, according to Echeverria (2015) there’s a slight threshold of advancement towards actual restoration in laws such as the one lead also by CONAF but with a significant support and impulse coming from grassroots and local organizations, the “Ley sobre Recuperación del Bosque Nativo y Fomento Forestal” (MINAGRI 2008)2, endorsed in 2008.

Beyond all of this, there is a conflict towards restoration due to the eminently extractive productive activities that actually contribute slightly less than the 40% of the families’ income in the Colliguay valley3. Hence the need of developing alternative livelihoods that rather than degrading the forest encourage and support diverse forms of restauration is paramount. This is precisely what lies at the core of the proposal:

1) The engagement of local stakeholders is crucial in order to realize effective restauration;

2) The Ecosystem Services of those forests are an actual good (ergo service) that benefits regional stakeholders;

3) There’s an actual ‘short-circuit’ between the local and the regional stakeholders;

4) The local stakeholders are in need of alternative livelihoods in order to re-connect with the forest’s non-extractive services for survival and fulfillment of their fundamental needs far beyond the satisfiers they use for this4.

The just provided list shall never be overlooked considering that is precisely in the fact that the Ecosystem Services are not only for the locals but also for the region that the path towards restauration is strengthened by putting the stakeholders – local or regional – into a win-win perspective: restoration represents a benefit to their livelihoods: a common interest.

2 Law on Native Forest and Forestation Promotion.3 La venta de carbón se presenta con el mayor aporte porcentual al ingreso (9,6%) siendo, a su vez, la actividad que engloba a una mayor cantidad de encuestados con respecto a las demás actividades, seguido por la venta de hojas de boldo la que contribuye con 8,8% al ingreso familiar […]. La venta de leña y de miel representa un 7,7 y 7,8% respectivamente del ingreso; la tierra de hojas aporta con un 5,9% siendo marginal con respecto a los productos ya mencionados […]. Factores como el bajo ingreso de las familias y la falta de alternativas productivas estarían determinando estos patrones de uso eminentemente extractivos. A su vez, estos patrones extractivos son los que explicarían, en parte, la degradación que ha sufrido el bosque. […] (Echeverría et al. 2010)4 We have organized human needs into two categories: existential and axiological, […] Being, Having, Doing and Interacting; and, on the other hand, the needs of Subsistence, Protection, Affection, Understanding, Participation, Creation, Leisure, Identity and Freedom.There is no one-to-one correspondence between needs and satisfiers. A satisfier may contribute simultaneously to the satisfaction of different needs, or conversely, a need may require various satisfiers in order to be met. Not even these relations are fixed. They may vary according to time, place and circumstance. For example, a mother breast-feeding her baby is simultaneously satisfying the infant's needs for Subsistence, Protection, Affection and Identity.


4


Figure 1. Maipo River Basin(MAPA 2014)Hydrography, legal Sections and users present in the Maipo River Basin. The Colliguay Valley inside the red dasched circle. Actually the valley functionally belongs to the Maipo’s Basin and thus it runs from East to West and then to the South, towards the Metropolitan Area /Region and away from its municipality (Quilpue) and its region (Valparaiso).

As a matter of fact, and when revising the role of the Colliguay valley in the ‘universe’ of central Chile, and specifically that of Santiago and their interests, it is found that the “micro” watershed is a headwater of the great Maipo River hence, headwater of the Estero-Puangue (see Figure 1, p. 4) sub-watershed, opening wide open the opportunity of engaging “wealthy” SHs – in power and also monetarily – to pinch in some form of PES, BSM or RWA.

Towards the enlargement of the Engagement Process thus, the SHs involved, it shall be recognized the following bond between the forest protection and the water, locally as well as regionally:

“[…] forested landscapes have a direct impact on water storage and quality, which is now a precious and scarce commodity […]. As the threat to forests and watersheds increase, it is more important than ever not to work in silos. We must collaborate at all levels of government, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, tribal communities, utilities, academia, and a variety of community-based groups. We must leverage all of our resources to be most effective in those endeavors.”(Pimlott 2015)

2.2 Project ApproachThe project intends to engage local stakeholders in restoration initiatives

that may gather up lessons that shall have the potential to be scaled up to broader scales (regional, national) and have an impact on policies on that matter:


5


There is no possibility for the active participation of people in gigantic systems which are hierarchically organized and where decisions flow from the top down to the bottom.[…]Processes that nurture diversity and increase social participation and control over the environment are decisive in the articulation of projects to expand national autonomy and distribute the fruits of economic development more equitably. (Max-Neef 1991)

Therefore, the current proposal has a marked “Highly-Participatory – Bottom-Up” drive. Hence, each and every single step of the proposed process is evidently lead by techniques consequent with such a drive.

2.3 Objectives2.3.1 Main objective

Develop new mechanisms in order to give sustainability to restoration initiatives of Chile’s Mediterranean ecosystems in central Chile departing from a local stakeholder engagement/commitment and involving regional and national stakeholders

2.3.2 Subsidiary objectives1) Determine the most important Ecosystem Services at the local level

(Colliguay valley) and its associated impact at the regional scale;

2) Develop capacity and awareness on the importance of the Ecosystem Services provided by the Colliguay valley locally as well as regionally;

3) Propose alternative – sustainable – livelihoods for the local communities that are compatible with forest restoration;

4) Connect locals to improved Value Chains giving to the developed alternative livelihoods a greater importance and return.

5) Establish a clear connection between local and regional lessons learned with the national governmental entities (e.g. Ministries, General Directions) in order to translate them into policies (“Local-Knowledge-Fed-Policies”).


6


3. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS & SELECTIONUndoubtedly, the keystone of an engagement plan is the ‘Track-and-

Spot’ of a common interest. Based upon findings of Schiappacasse (et al. 2012) and Echeverría (et al. 2010) that common interest may be, preliminarily, tracked and spotted.

Indeed Schiappacasse (et al. 2012) carried out a [CV] survey in which the respondents were handed a list of the key ecosystem services that the forest provides to local people5:

(i) Control of soil erosion and reduction of sediment accumulation in the Valley’s streams;

(ii) Water regulation for better freshwater provisioning during the summer;

(iii) Nectar from native species for honey production; (iv) Recreation and tourism opportunities, and;(v) Provision of non-timber forest products (e.g. medicinal plants).

Near to 70% declared water scarcity as their main concern for the near future followed – quite far, over 10% – by forest overexploitation. Undeniably, dramatic reductions in annual precipitation have been detected in precipitation records of central Chile over the last century (Schiappacasse et al. 2012). Accordingly, building upon the recommendations of the two scientists a restoration scenario aimed at improving water regulation to ensure freshwater provision during the summer in the study area, was designed:

(i) Recovery of an 80m wide strip of riparian vegetation along the primary water courses in the Valley. […];

(ii) Human and livestock exclusion from the buffer strip area by fencing the restoration areas […];

(iii) Reestablishment of native vegetation by multi-species planting, in which the species selected to be planted are those that showed the best results […];

(iv) Three site conditions were considered for the design of the plantings in the buffer strip area: north-savanna site, southsavanna site and open site. […];

(v) […] multiple aim of providing not only stream protection, but also the other ecosystem services stated in the survey. Hence, the tree species selected for the restoration scenario are multipurpose.(Schiappacasse et al. 2012).

And such water-driven restoration strategies are not only beneficiary for the local communities, but also for the regional stakeholders. It shall not be forgotten that such connectivity cannot be assured right out of the box, nevertheless, it is important to assume that the benefit downstream may be

5 This list of services was based on a workshop with local landowners, regional government representatives and scientists and on a preliminary survey that was carried out during that workshop.


7


proven with state-of-the-art groundwater-modeling: one that’s carried out on the field and not only remotely-estimated.

Having a reasonable risk that the benefit downstream is – easily – to be proven, it can be accounted for one – the main – common interest: Water regulation for better freshwater provisioning: locally and regionally. Of course, such a – common – service is directly linked to the control of soil erosion and reduction of sediment accumulation. Thus, two variables as stated by Schiappacasse and Echeverría can be summarized as one priority within the common interest:

Water Quantity, Quality and Opportunity

Those are also stated as prioritized by the locals6 in Echeverría's (et al. 2010) manual of restoration based upon primers in Colliguay’s Valley not to mention that Schiappacasse (2015) declares that currently the communities in the area are getting organized around the fundamental need of guaranteeing their water rights, reinforcing the decision of taking this as our common-interest-process-tip-off.

This is our starting point but is solely that: a starting point; some sort of goal. The recognition of the other services will help in further steps of the engagement process to figure out how underlying actions and activities may also contribute to win-win scenarios where the benefits are shared thus, Benefit Sharing Mechanisms.

Then, a further analysis of the stakeholder sparkled by these assumptions that are to be checked by the engagement process itself, was conducted. For it the extended list of Ecosystem Services was applied but the first two were given a mayor weight:


(ii) Water regulation for better freshwater provisioning during the summer.

This panorama delivers a clear scenario to frame an analysis towards the different steps of the Stakeholders’ Analysis and Selection.

3.1 SHs’ IdentificationThen, a further analysis of the stakeholder sparkled by these

assumptions that are to be checked by the

The SHs identification has been driven by the ES derived from the inquiries “in-situ” carried out by Schiappacasse and Echeverría that, as argued, has led to pinpoint a common-interest-process-tip-off. Thus, the SHs related to that common interest, the “Water Quantity, Quality and 6“1. Mantención de los cursos de agua/ 2. Protección de los suelos” (Echeverría et al. 2010)


8


Opportunity” that in turn are strongly related to the restoration and conservation of the degraded land: the Dry Forest.

Nevertheless, a broader range of SHs has been recognized in an attempt to address those that may be important in further engagement steps and consequently with the main objective of “departing from a local stakeholder engagement/commitment and involving regional and national stakeholders”.

In the following pages the list of stakeholders recognized mainly from secondary sources but also the information obtained from interviews with Echeverria (2015) and Schiappacasse (2015).


9


Stakeholder Name

Type of Stakeholder Scale Description Relationship to the land Intere

stInfluen

ceShort Name

Government1 Ministry of

Agriculture Government National Prioritize to reduce the inequity in agriculture

while conducting it towards an inclusive growth; a growth that implies an added economic, social, environmental and cultural value in the rural context.Action Lines: 1) Reduce Inequity; 2) Develop sectorial productivity and competiveness; 3) Protect Water Resources; 4) Restore the fito- zoo-sanitary capacities of the country; 5) Improvement institutional capacity.

Governs land use such as agriculture and forestry endorsing policies on that matters; One of their lines of action is precisely to "Protect Water Resources" and under it is the National Forest Corporation (CONAF) thus, has an important role on the most important issues regarding the restoration/conservation of the land: Forest + Water, and the associate services. Besides, it has a wide range of specialized offices that have an important relation towards the protection of the forest (e.g. Land-Water-Livelihoods-Poverty nexus).

3 4 MINAGRI

2 Ministry of Environment

Government National Regulating, planning and applying environmental policies and programs; 4 "environmental" departments: 1) Natural Resources and Biodiversity; 2) Information and Environment Economics; 3) Air Quality and CC; 4) Environmental Education and Communities' Participation. - disseminates information through the environmental information system (SINIA)

Their department may endure specific roles in a SH Engagement Initiative, especially that of "Environmental Education and Communities' Participation". Besides its coordination of international climate change adaptation programmes (REED+) and designation of national biodiversity strategy may be instrumental mobilizing international SHs for restauration of the Dry Forest.

5 3 MMA

3 Ministry of Economics, Promotion and Tourism

Government National Promote the modernization and competitiveness of the country’s productive structure, the private initiatives and the effective action of the markets, the innovation’s development and the strengthening of the country’s economy internationally in order to achieve sustained growth, sustainable and with equity, by means of the formulation of polices, programmes and instruments.

Supposedly and according to the sources there is no investment on restoration issues nevertheless to integrate this ministry could be instrumental as they may have the influence necessary to develop "polices, programmes and instruments" for forest restoration and IWRM. Besides the sub-secretary of tourism or the one of “minor” size enterprises may support the development and strengthening of the local (alternative) livelihoods that are instrumental for the environmental management.

1 5 MEFT

4 Ministry of National Property

Government National Ministry which focuses on the natural and historical Chilean heritage. Plays a fundamental role in crucial matters such the land ownership as well as the property's ownership not to mention the implementation of policies aiming to increase development and achieve total abatement of poverty. - Manages the Integrated National Territorial

Land ownership and it's commitment on the abatement of poverty are two important variables towards the dry forest restoration/conservation considering the profile of the majority of the local land owners and the urbanizing pressures in the primer area (Colliguay Valley).

2 4 MNP


9


Information System (SNIT) Besides it maintains an actual cadastre of land tenure.

5 National Water Direction (Dirección General de Agua - DGA)

Government National Serves all water related issues under the Ministry of Public Works (MOP), responsible for water use planning, management and allocation such as developing natural water resources, defining recommendations for water use, regulating the distribution of water rights, researching and monitoring water quality

The most urgent matter in the primer zone is water due to rainfall regime alterations (CC). They connect directly with the "Comite de Agua" as they are moving towards regularizing their water rights. Besides they are responsible for water resources conservation and thus with forms fo green infrastructure that may accomplish that, ergo the Forest. Also through responsibility for management and allocation of water such as developing natural water resources, hence forest cover in watersheds should be of substantial interest for water Quantity, Quality and Opportunity.

4 4 DGA

6 Ministry of Agriculture: Regional Secretary

Government Regional (states) Carries out regional activities e.g. of the Ministry of Agriculture and coordinates regional inter-sectorial collaboration

Are the linkage to the "ground", i.e. the valley and it's people of the duties of the respective Ministry.

4 4 SEREMI-MA

7 Ministry of Environment: Regional Secretary

Government Regional (states) Carries out regional activities e.g. of the Ministry of Environment and coordinates regional inter-sectorial collaboration


5 3 SEREMI-MMA

8 Ministry of Economics, Promotion and Tourism: Regional Secretary

Government Regional (states) Carries out regional activities e.g. of the Ministry of Economy and coordinates regional inter-sectorial collaboration

Are the linkage to the "ground", i.e. the valley and it's people of the duties of the respective Ministry. 2 5 SEREMI-

MEFT

9 Ministry of National Property: Regional Secretary

Government Regional (states) Carries out regional activities e.g. of the Ministry of National Property and coordinates regional inter-sectorial collaboration


3 3 SEREMI-MNP

10

DGA: Regional Secretary

Government Regional (states) Carries out regional activities e.g. of the DGA and coordinates regional inter-sectorial collaboration


5 3 SEREMI-DGA

11

National Forest Corporation (CONAF)

Government National Private forestry services under the Ministry of Agriculture

Direct relationship - governs protected areas and supports the protection of biodiversity (in the National system of State-owned Protected Wildlife Areas (SNASPE), - executes forest legislation, - carries out forest monitoring and extension services regarding forestry, - supports sustainable forest management for the supply of ecosystem services, - carries out climate adaptation strategies (REDD+)

4 3 CONAF

12

Forestry Institute (INFOR)

Government National to local studies

Research and technology Institute under the Ministry of Agriculture

Supports forestry related information on environmental, economic and social aspects, - knowledge transfer for small to medium forestry producers

4 1 INFOR

1 Agrarian Innovation Government Local: small to Innovation Agency under the Ministry of Promotes innovation in the agrarian, 4 1 FIA


10


3 Foundation (FIA) medium scale funding mechanisms

Agriculture forest and food sector, - supports small + medium scale enterprises in sustainable innovation processes

14

Agrarian Policies Office (ODEPA)

Government National service and international representation / negotiation agency

Serves the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Planning

Collaboration in the development of land related policies especially in the agrarian sector, negotiation of inter-national treaties e.g. in the agrarian sector, concerning climate change adaptation and biodiversity protection, elaboration and dissemination of data on agriculture and food production, - harmonization of inter-sectoral policies

3 2 ODEPA

15

Institute of Agrarian development (INDAP)

Government Execution of regional to local mechanisms

Agrarian development support under the Ministry of Agriculture

Direct financial support for landowners to restore degraded land. Executes an incentives system for sustainable use of soils and supports the regeneration of degraded soils (Programme SIRSD-S)

- provides agrarian extension service

3 2 INDAP

16

Centre for Information on Natural Resources

Company supporting the Government

National Generate and manages geospatial information about natural resources and productive capacities, supports decision making in the agrarian sector and rural/urban development

Provides environmental analysis, soil and land maps and supports decisions by spatial data and models, strong expertise in land issues such as degradation and suitability analysis for different land uses

1 2 CIREN

17

Region, Valparaiso (V)

Regional The second most important Region in Chile. To which

The colliguay Valley lays on this Region 3 3 Region V

18

Santiago de Chile Local/Regional Capital City of Chile For ist location nearby the big city, the valley is used for country side challets of the people of Santiago representing a great urban presure on this "peace of land" nowadays.

2 4 Region M

19

Quilpue Local Government

Local Local Government to which the Colliguay Valley administratively belongs

2 2 Quilpue

Private sector: smallholders20

Pastoralists Private local Small scale land owners. Their cattle is sort of a saving which is used in times of finantial need as they sell it in order to have extra money

Use of the land for grazing of their cattle shifting from one location to another, contributing to the land through manure, conflicts with landowners on the use of the land, through migratory activities

3 2 Pastoralists

21

Farmers Private local, small holders Small scale land owners. Their crops are essentially for subsistence

Primary source of activity, depending on the activity, the land owners have the biggest impact on the land through different land uses, and as such will be of main concern to engage in the process; importance of forestry land use for bee keepers is primordial

3 2 Farmers


11


22

Vacation Homes Owners

Private Local People from Santiago that bought a lot nearby to spend holidays and vacations

Actual owner of pieces of land in the area 3 3 Vacation O

23

Tourism Workers Private Local Small owners of land in the zone: Inhabitants of the area getting of advantage of eventual income related to the migration of the Vacation Homes owners to the area.

Knowledge of the area, torurims attractives and the floating population of the vally (besides the actual one). 2 3 Tourism W

24

"Fundo" Owners Private Local Owners of a big piece of land producing diverse agricultural goods

Using land and water at a mayor scale, not to mention the employment of a rather big number of inhabitants of the area. Dependent of the ES of the forest.

2 4 Fundo O

25

"Fundo" Workers Private Local Inhabitants of the land 2 2 Fundo W

26

Wine Producers Private Local Small producers of handcraft wine Using land and water at a small scale. Dependent of the ES of the forest. 4 3 Wine P

27

Rural Water Committee

Civil Society Local Inhabitants and land owners of the area organized in order to get their water rights regularized

Due to the weather changes they are increasingly and slowly understanding the vitak role of the forest when it comes to water thus, an important potential force for the restoration/conservation of it.

5 4 Comite Agua

28

Bee keepers Private Local Inhabitants of the land This Livelihood had decreased associated to the change of the rainfall regime. The habitat provided by the forest and the water production of it is paramount for them

3 2 Bee-K

29

"Extractors" Private Local Inhabitants of the land The 40% of the income of the zone comes from this activity that has a negative inpact on the environment as they extract logs for firewood and charcoal, besides Boldo leaves and the so called "leaves-soil".

3 2 Xtract

Private Sector: Business30

Emiliana organic vineyards

Private (Agri-business) Local Organic wine producer

http://www.emiliana.cl/

Organic wine producer in the central valley- interested in natural pollination 4 2 Emiliana

31

Corporación Chilena de la Madera

Private (Timber Industry)

National Trade association that gathers around 170 timber industry Stakeholders, covering more than 55% of the hectares planted in the country and 85% of the timber exports.They state that they have “a firm commitment with the sustainable development, undertaking several action for the care of the environment, the communities around the companies and their workers”.

In attention to the huge business that the timber market represents and that there is a global demand (thus, pressure) for certificated wood they have committed to, due to pressure from FSC Chile to restore over 45.000 Ha of woods therefore, there’s a potential to stream capital them to restore the Colliguay valley.

4 5 CORMA

32

Avocado Association Private (Agri-business) Regional Comité de Aguacates Hass de Chilehttp://aguacatehass.es

Avocado fruits are dependent on pollination by bees, hence dependent on natural habitat such as forest

4 3 Avocado

3 Codelco Private (Mining) Regional to local The mayor Copper Producer in the world. Has Cu Mine in the south East region of 2 4 Codelco


12


3 Work in 8 regions and among them the 5th: Valparaiso (Andina and Ventanas operations)

the (general) study area making great impact on the environment beginning with the water resources.

34

ENERSIS (Rio Maipo) Private (Energy) Regional/National Company self-proclaimed to be a distributer and retailer of “sustainable energy”

www.enersis.cl

Due to its arguable commitment with the environment and the people besides the fact that they distribute energy in the 5 regions of the study area they must be involved in any forest restoration as part of social responsibility – internal – schemes and or PES approaches. Furthermore the Colliguay valley is part of the subwatershed of the Maipo's river Estero Puangue thus, there's an actual connection with the Water Resources of the Watershed they use to produce their energy

2 4 ENERSIS

35

Empresa CMPC Private (Cellulose/Paper)

Regional Leading Company in Latin America in the production of forestry products, cellulose, paper and “tissue products”.

www.cmpc.cl

Making direct use of the land for their plantations and thus of the water for those plantations and also for their production they do have a mayor stake on the land and their resources. "Obliged" to restoration of native forest due to CORMA and FSC commitments.

3 5 CMPC

36

EMBOTELLADORA ANDINA

Private (Beverages/Spirits)

Regional/National Coca-Cola’s bottler

koandina.com

Being the bottler of the Coca-Cola co. and regarding the huge returns of such a company besides their immense use of water for the drinks themselves and also for the factories functions. On top pf that Coca-Cola has reportedly being linked to water funds (e.g. Colombia) investing big amounts of money to protect water resources and other strategies for that.

2 5 Coca-Cola

37

AGROSUPER Agroindustry Regional/National Agrosuper is the main Chilean “animal protein” producer, also importing many of their goods.

www.agrosuper.cl

The production and consumption of the company of vast amount of food to fed their animals (poultry, fish) up to the actual use of territory for their cattle or the cattle of the farmers they buy to.

1 4 AGROSUPER

38

SALFACORP Private (Construction) Regional/National SalfaCorp is the largest and one of the most important Chilean companies in the sector of construction and real estate.

www.salfacorp.cl

Being on top the largest in the country even expanding to many LA countries their activity and return place a major impact on the landscape (urban pressure / non-metallic mining)

2 3 SALFACORP

39

MASISA Private (Forestry/Wood) Regional/National One of the most important wood products including many manufactured and is currently the second largest company of its sector (after Brazilian Duratex)

Making direct use of the land for their plantations and thus of the water for those plantation and also for their production they due have a mayor stake on the land and their resources.

3 5 MASISA


13


www.masisa.cl "Obliged" to restoration of native forest due to CORMA and FSC commitments.

40

NESTLÉ CHILE Private (Food manufacturing)

International nestle.cl The giant corporation makes a huge impact on the way certain plantations and food products are traded. Their demand of row (food) materials must be involved and considered.

1 4 Nestlé

41

VIÑA CONCHA Y TORO

Private (Beverages/ Spirits)

National to Regional Is the largest producer of wines from Latin America and is one of the global leaders in its field. It is headquartered in Santiago, Chile.

www.conchaytoro.cl

At the scale they do their impact on the landscape is considerable, nevertheless it shall be considered their dependency on water, pollinators and climatic issues even.

2 5 C&T

42

INVERSIONES AGUAS METROPOLITANAS

Private (Basic Services/water)

Regional AM’s sanitation subsidiaries provide the services of catchment of raw water, the production, transportation and distribution of water, and the collection, treatment and final disposal of sewage, to a universe of approximately 8 million people in several regions such as the Metropolitan Region.

iamchile.cl

Depending directly on the water production – major ES of the forests – besides the impacts associated for the catchment of water not forgetting the transportation. Thus an important and Influent Stakeholder for the case study, remember that the Colliguay is part of the Maipo River Watershed thus, producing water for the Metro-area.

3 4 IAM

Civil society: NGOs43

TERRAM NGOs National Chilean NGO http://www.terram.cl/ Promotes sustainable development, involved in reforestation projects in the project area

2 3 TERRAM

44

AIFBN - Bosque Nativo

NGO National http://www.bosquenativo.cl/ Association of forest engineers for Native forest protection 5 2 AIFBN

45

CODEFF Biodiversity protection and reforestation in the Valparaiso Region 4 2 CODEFF

46

WWF NGOs International + National

International NGO with National office These NGOs have a main focus on climate change and land restoration, including reforestation in Chile

3 3 WWF

47

The Nature Conservancy

International + National + Regional

International NGO with National office works with local communities, government agencies, private corporations and members to conserve and restore the extraordinary and diverse Mediterranean areas

3 3 TNC

48

World Resource Institute

International International think tank influencing national decision makers and business

3 3 WRI

49

FSC Chile International + National

FSC-CHILE is a association of persons, organizations and companies that constitute the national office of the Forest Stewardships Council, FSC, in Chile, acknowledged as national initiative since 2005 and as national office since 2010

Under the "umbrella" os FSC International is influential in determing prameters, standards and restitution initiatives and policies that generates pressure on the timber industry.

4 5 FSC-Chile

50

IUCN International + National

International NGO with National office Nature Conservation and sustainable land use 3 3 IUCN


14



15


As it might be seen in the comprenhensive list above, it has been the goal of it pinpoinzt as many satkeholders as possible. Nevertheless, it should be highlighted the fact that the local stakeholders, “Private Private sector: smallholders”, and the Governmental ones where the main focus; the “Private Sector: Business” was identified roughly in mayor industry ranking websites and it will be an important part of the engagement process to identifymore accuratelythose, since they are supposedly an important part to finance the initiative and such are around the world important SHs in PPP schemes. As for the “Civil society: NGOs” it came also from information from webpages besides some minimal information from the interviews that brought two. Note that the “Rural Water Committee” was regarded as part of the small holders obeying to the fact that it is rising just now and is not actually organized as such.

3.2 SHs’ CategorizationAs the engagement process is meant to be highly-participatory and

thus, as bottom-up as possible, consequently with the fact that is a “Local Engagement” with “potential” to be Scaled-Up “Regionally” and “Nationally” it has been decided to use tools such as the Q-methodology and 4R-tool (e.g. fine-tune stakeholders mapping and analysis) in the engagement process itself. Nevertheless, to get a first understanding of the importance of the potential stakeholders and as a selection basis for the Stakeholder Engagement Plan, an influence-interest-matrix was chosen as methodology. This top-down allowed making a preliminary selection of the most important SHs potentially interested to participate in the first steps of the engagement process.

All of the above listed and described SHs where given a punctuation on Interest and Influence according to the background of the project thus, all of them were placed in the matrix enabling the very fists analysis of the SHs with the announced emphasis on the local and the regional.

In the next page, the Matrix is to be found.


16



17


Figure 2. Interest-Influence Matrix categories(Authors 2015)

As it might have been foreseen the key-SHs for the case are strongly related to water and forest (e.g. DGA, Comité Agua, IAM, FSC Chile, CONAF, R-CONAF-V) and already actually covering a range from local to national. Since the approach is “Highly-Participatory-Bottom-Up” although some of the smallholders are outside the upper right box (key-stakeholders) it has been decided that all of them shall be engaged from the very beginning. Also as a strategic approach, the regional office of the Ministry of Economy (SEREMI-MEFT) is also to be engage right from the first day as it may be influential in creating or helping to incise on the national level looking for investment mechanisms. As a matter of fact, the categorization delivered by the Interest-Influence Matrix provided also some criteria that, when crossed with the background and approach of the project, contributed to the Prioritization.

3.3 SHs’ PrioritizationThe first filter to shorten the long preliminary list of SHs was, as

announced, given by the Interest-Influence Matrix. Indeed, the key stakeholders along with the “marginal” smallholders and the SEREMI-MEFT where chosen to be analyzed under other tool that is also top-down but as it happened with the categorization tool used (I-I Matrix) it was implemented to have a preliminary overview of the SHs towards the first steps of the engagement process, but has to be fine-tuned and confirmed in-situ by actual participatory tools; the same one even but as part of workshops and group dinamics. The tool in regard is the Actor-Linkage Matrix, which can be found in the next page:

Manage CloselyKeep Informed

Monitor Keep Satisfied


18



19


Government Agencies Private sector: Smallholders Private sector: Business NGOs 1 3 5 6 12 13 14 15 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 35 36 40 43 47 48 50

Stakeholder Name

MINA

GRI

MMA

DGA

CONA

F SE

REM

I-MA

SERE

MI-M

MA

SERE

MI-D

GA

SERE

MI-M

EFT

R-CO

NAF-V

Re

gion V

Pa

storal

ists

Farm

ers

Vaca

tion O

To

urism

W

Fund

o W

Fund

o O

Wine

P Be

e-K

Comi

te Ag

ua

Xtrac

t CO

RMA

Avoc

ado

ENER

SIS

CMPC

MA

SISA

IAM

W

WF

TNC

FSC C

hile

Gove

rnm

ent A

genc

ies

1 MINAGRI ↔ φ ↔ ↔ ↔ φ )( ↔ Ə )( ↔ )( )( )( ↔ ↔ )( ↔ )( ↔ ↔ )( Ə Ə Ə φ φ ↔ 3 MMA ↔ φ Ə Ə ↔ Ə )( Ə φ )( )( Ə )( )( Ə )( ↔ ↔ Ə Ə ↔ Ə Ə Ə Ə φ ↔ ↔ 5 DGA φ φ φ φ Ə ↔ )( ↔ φ Ə Ə )( )( )( Ə ↔ )( ↔ Ə φ ↔ ↔ φ φ φ φ φ )( 6 CONAF ↔ Ə φ ↔ φ φ )( ↔ φ Ə ↔ )( )( )( Ə )( ↔ ↔ Ə ↔ )( )( )( )( )( φ φ ↔ 12 SEREMI-MA ↔ Ə φ ↔ φ )( )( ↔ φ )( ↔ )( )( )( ↔ ↔ )( ↔ )( ↔ ↔ )( ↔ ↔ )( φ φ ↔ 13 SEREMI-MMA ↔ ↔ Ə φ φ ↔ )( Ə φ )( )( Ə )( )( )( ↔ ↔ ↔ Ə Ə ↔ Ə Ə Ə Ə φ φ ↔ 14 SEREMI-DGA φ Ə ↔ φ )( ↔ )( ↔ φ )( ↔ Ə )( )( Ə )( )( ↔ )( Ə Ə Ə Ə Ə Ə )( φ )( 15 SEREMI-MEFT )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( φ )( φ φ φ φ )( )( )( 17 R-CONAF-V ↔ Ə ↔ ↔ ↔ Ə ↔ )( φ Ə )( Ə )( )( )( )( )( ↔ Ə Ə )( )( )( )( Ə φ φ ↔ 18 Region V Ə φ φ φ φ φ φ φ φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )(

Priva

te Se

ctor

: Sm

allho

lder

s

21 Pastoralists )( )( Ə Ə )( )( )( )( Ə )( φ Ə φ φ )( φ φ ↔ φ )( )( )( )( )( )( φ φ )( 22 Farmers ↔ )( Ə ↔ ↔ )( ↔ )( )( )( φ )( φ φ )( φ φ ↔ φ )( )( )( )( )( )( φ φ )( 23 Vacation O )( Ə )( )( )( Ə Ə )( Ə )( Ə )( φ )( )( φ φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( 24 Tourism W )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( φ φ φ φ )( φ φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( 25 Fundo W )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( φ φ )( φ φ φ φ )( φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( 26 Fundo O ↔ Ə Ə Ə ↔ )( Ə )( )( )( )( )( )( )( φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( 27 Wine P ↔ )( ↔ )( ↔ ↔ )( )( )( )( φ φ φ φ φ )( φ ↔ φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( 28 Bee-K )( ↔ )( ↔ )( ↔ )( )( )( )( φ φ φ φ φ )( φ φ φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( 29 Comite Agua ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ )( ↔ )( ↔ ↔ )( )( )( )( ↔ φ φ )( )( Ə )( )( Ə )( φ )( 30 Xtract )( Ə Ə Ə )( Ə )( )( Ə )( φ φ )( )( φ )( φ φ φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )(

PS: B

usin

ess

32 CORMA ↔ Ə φ ↔ ↔ Ə Ə φ Ə )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( ↔ ↔ )( Ə )( ↔ 33 Avocado ↔ ↔ ↔ )( ↔ ↔ Ə )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( φ )( )( )( 35 ENERSIS )( Ə ↔ )( )( Ə Ə φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( Ə )( )( )( )( )( ↔ Ə )( )( 36 CMPC Ə Ə φ )( ↔ Ə Ə φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( ↔ )( )( ↔ )( Ə )( ↔ 40 MASISA Ə Ə φ )( ↔ Ə Ə φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( ↔ )( )( ↔ )( Ə )( ↔ 43 IAM Ə Ə φ )( )( Ə Ə φ Ə )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( Ə )( )( φ ↔ )( )( Ə )( )(

NGOs

47 WWF φ φ φ φ φ φ )( )( φ )( φ φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( Ə )( Ə Ə Ə Ə φ φ 48 TNC φ ↔ φ φ φ φ φ )( φ )( φ φ )( )( )( )( )( )( φ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( φ φ 50 FSC Chile ↔ ↔ )( ↔ ↔ ↔ )( )( ↔ )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( ↔ )( )( ↔ ↔ )( φ φ

Legend: ↔ Cooperation φ Complementary )( Ignorance Ə Conflict


20


3.3.1 SHs RelationshipsThere some aspects that can be highlighted when analyzing such a

chart. First for the generalities:

1) Disconnection between the Smallholders and the Business : The Matrix used 4categories being one of them the “ignorance” variable. And precisely that is what can be seen in chart big spreads of ignorance, a disregard of the ones with the others and thus a “fail” in the chance of connecting investors with the communities or as they were called for the analysis “smallholders”.

2) Potential conflict between the Governmental Agencies and the Business: Due to their jurisdiction, both territorial and of responsibilities, that are potentially antagonistic to the business interest.

3) Disconnection of the Ministry of Economy (Regional Secretary) and all the other SHs:A potential problem as it is intended for them to be a bridge from the local to the national level.

4) Potential Cooperativeness of the “Comité de Agua” with Regional Authorities: It is presented the Water Committee as positive force well received among the regional authorities.

3.3.2 Key-Stakeholders The panorama showed by the tools applied delivers some hints in the

path to take and the Key-Stakeholders to achieve the project’s objectives.

Stressing the importance of the method to approach the engagement (Highly-participatory–Bottom-up) and acknowledging that they lack of power and even the “right amount” of interest (arguably knowledge) all of the local “smallholders” are to be the main priority. Following this and consequently their relations to both the regional government and the business that are directly related to the forest-water binomial on the territory. In fact those SHs to be “managed closely” are for the project the “KEY” ones. The “marginal smallholders” – out of the “manage closely” category – and the SEREMI-MEFT have been prioritized too, as argued, in line with the project’s objectives.

On top of this, it has been developed some criteria of priorization that will be applied regarding the development and results of the engagement process itself and thus of the Highly-participatory–Bottom-up tools and methods:

a) Direct engagement: stakeholders have a positive attitude towards the project and show willingness to engage in the project activities: forest restoration, protection of land features, water conservation, etc. - these stakeholders will be actively engaged and take part in


21


some/ all project activities. They will be the first actors to pilot activities and demonstrate the activities and their impact/ changes over the project implementation. They will have an important role in the dissemination of results and impact largely in the success of the project at local as well as regional, and national scale. The interaction of the project with these pilot actors will be mostly focussing on training and capacity building of the competences required for implementing the project activities; full engagement during the whole project period regarding project information, progress and outcomes/ results; and being the lead stakeholders in disseminating the results of the activities, sharing their experiences with peers and other stakeholders in the project.

b) Indirect engagement: in this group of stakeholders, two categories of stakeholders are distinguished, although they will be treated/ engaged in the same way, mainly being informed of the projects progress and invited for dissemination of project results and outcomes:

Stakeholders having a positive to neutral attitude towards the project, but will not be engaged directly in the project due to (1) engagement in different activities that are not the main scope of the project; or (2) no direct interest to engage in the project activities (slow deciders). These stakeholders can, based on their positive attitude towards the project, be fast adaptors of the project activities and/or ambassadors, once convinced of the success stories of the project implementation.

Stakeholders having a neutral to negative attitude towards the project, and hence show no willingness to engage, and rather work counterproductive towards the success of the project. The reason why these stakeholders need to be engaged in the progress of the project is to shift their perceptions from a negative one towards a neutral and if possible even positive one through direct dialogue and demonstration of the progress and achieved changes due to project implementation activities.

c) Policy engagement: policy stakeholders, at local as well as higher levels, will be engaged with a specific focus on policy interventions that will create a conducive environment for the project as well as similar projects in the field of forest and land restoration. This means that they will be specifically addressed with messages regarding policy, legislation and regulation (particularly policy development, reformulation and implementation).


22


4. COMMUNICATION PLANBefore planning your communications, start by understanding the current perceptions of stakeholders and assessing current communications methods. You would also need to understand the strengths and limitations of existing communications infrastructure before making and executing your plans. (KPMG, CPA, and CFC 2013)

And this precisely in line with what’s proposed here. According to the “Highly-Participatory-Bottom-Up” process it a premise of it to have always a deep understanding of the context which can only be attained by interacting continuously with the SHs. Also the communication must be agreed and developed with them; and this is to be done at every level.

4.1 Areas of Common Interest The Background of the project went quite some times over the point of

spotting a “common-interest-process-tip-off” and it was argued before, it happened to be the water:

Water Quantity, Quality and Opportunity

Now, under such a tip-off variable there are a number of areas of interest that represent a win-win scenario:

1) Securing groundwater recharge areas while restoring the dry forest represents benefits on all the water variables (Quantity, Quality and Opportunity) both locally and regionally thus there is the key interest of the so called smallholders as well as from the business (e.g. IAM, ENERSIS) but also for the metropolitan region;

2) The path initiated by the protection of recharge areas can easily be broaden to (water-driven) erosion issues triggering stream conservation and restoration and once again the first step toward that would be the restoration and conservation of the vegetation i.e. Dry Forest. As long as this is so the run-off velocity will decrease, the deeper aquifers will also be recharged and the water downstream will be receiving less sediments: again a benefit for the business such as IAM or ENERSIS;

3) The restoration of the forest and thus restoration of the seepage with an impact on water both locally and regionally represent also the restoration of a habitat for birds and bees important for pollination issues: on the one hand the locals will see their bee-keeping restored (diminished by the droughts) and agroindustry plantations nearby will be benefited by that pollination (e.g. Avocado; Fundo);


23


4) To restore forests is important to fulfill FSC standards. The timber industry is obliged right now to restore over 45 thousand hectare of native forest as that of the valley bit the corporation (CORMA) and the single companies (CPCM; MASISA) have a strong potential interest on the restoration (without asking whether they are truly commited or not, at the beginning); To make such a restoration feasible the alternative-non-extractive livelihoods are instrumental. Another win-win scenario;

5) The interests of the different governmental offices goes one at the time with most of them and in turn, their complementariness is crucial: obvious from the Water Direction (DGA) or the forest corporation (CONAF). But beyond that the one of the Ministry of Agriculture as such regarding its committement to “reduce Inequity” or “develop sectorial productivity and competiveness” not to mention the obvious environmental benefits (an affair of the corresponding ministry) all of which only can be attained by working hand-in-hand with the locals.

Further interests, the “common ones”, can and are to be found when developing the process and that will fed the communication logics to achieve the restoration of the dry forest.

4.2 Type of LanguageThe language to be used in the process needs to arise from the SHs

themselves: first of all, that language should be built by them and thus out of the one-on-one contact and also out of workshops were common-consensus terms will be searched and found. The process will engage common people, experts on their land and context, but does “streams” the state-of-the-art scientific terms and vocabulary. The process will also engage entrepreneurs that similarly to the local are expert on its reality their business but not in forest restoration or water issues. Simple language is a typical approach, but further beyond that, a consensus-language.

Nevertheless, it is important to generate languages that might be used with specific groups such as “earnings and return” for the business or “more water, food and money” for the locals. But then again, these are only generalizations and such “languages” can only be achieved by the process itself.

4.3 Format of Communication There is an array of communication formats that will depend on the

scale and stakeholders that are been address. Of course, as the process develops the format will be unified as, to make the process transparent it will be important that each and every individual involved has access to any kind of information, data or new there is.


24


The next section will the communication mechanism and there in the diverse communication formats will be mentioned and, when needed, briefly discussed. This addresses the different moments of communication too.

4.4 Communication Mechanisms and Timming

All of the mechanism that are about to be listed and briefly described have to confirmed by the participatory-bottom- process itself, thus by the participants, the Stakeholders.

4.4.1 Meetings and other type of encounters with affected landownersThe process as planned has called for this kind of approach. This is type

a communication that shall be given periodically and goes parallel to general meetings and activities. For this will be important to have a working force that’s very near to the population, and all of the local recognize as positive to them. Is important to note that this is, as seen in the plan itself, the first way to approach the key-stakeholders as recognized in the SHs’ analysis, thus such a communication ‘means’ will have a higher “work-load” but it will be specially important to build trust at the very beginning of the process. The sympathy and respect is the format to be used, words and simple photos can also be used.

4.4.2 Meetings with (PS) Business and Governmental AgenciesThis also of the family of the communication approach just described.

Just like with the landowners is important the one-on-one contact and interaction with the business and organizations: meetings with key SH’s to discuss the project, its effects on the community, and how does such a project may be of benefit to them, is instrumental. Here is also true the fact that this will be an approach used intensively at the beginning but also repeated periodically. The sympathy and respect is the format to be used, words and simple photos can also be used. In this case some cartography might be used but its effectiveness should be evaluated after the first few experiences.

4.4.3 WorkshopsThis is a platform to exchange information in the understanding that

everybody is “teacher” and everybody is “learner”. Its development is also “highly-participatory” and highly-dinamic-ly planned. Long presentations or lectures shall be avoided. The knowledge must be built by them. The activities of such workshops may include:

Transect Walks;


25


Partipatory maps; Rich Images; Participatory puzzles;

The product of those exercises are going to be used for further discussion.

4.4.4 Information Centre Such a place right in the restoration area gives “Institutionality” to the

process, but further than that, enable people living nearby to discuss any questions or concerns they might have; and to find out information about the scheme and its latest developments.

4.4.5 Magazine/ComicFull of graphic information so that no one is left out of the

communication with littles texts. The publication could be out every semester, but its periodicity will also be agreed among the SHs. The comic version can be great for the kids, very important, as it is argued at the “educational visits” below.

4.4.6 Newsletter and Radio BroadcastBoth containing the same information a short piece of news shall be

prepared and come out every other month. Will gather the outcomes of the diverse activities and workshop and may also summarize relevant news not produced directly by the process.

4.4.7 Media/press releasesWhen ever some important achievement is reached it shall be

publicized. This is good regarding visibility thus, (arguably) transparency but also for fund-raising. This is also important looking for national impact – international even –.

4.4.8 Third-parties’ publications The research related to the area or simple independent press releases

should be encouraged.

4.4.9 BriefingsWritten and verbal briefings will be given to identified groups of people,

for example councillors, at key stages of the project. This can add up to the advocacy phase.


26


4.4.10 Educational visits to schoolsTo raise awareness among the children will be important, as many

experiences have showed that the influences that they can generate is driver of change of views and attitudes of the adults and even the elderly.

4.4.11 OpeningsThe visibility can never be underestimated. It is important also for the

political engagement. It shall be carefully managed to avoid that political visibility to be used “empty-caned” showing up for photos and to cut the ribbon but without actual engagement on the process.

4.5 Communication Material One important variable is the importance that could bring to the project

to make it into a brand; or at least the valley itself, in case the “COLLIGUAY Alliance”:

Figure 2. Colliguay Alliance. Quick sketch using the Alianza BioCuenca © Logo

(CorpoNor 2015)To create a brand is instrumental to engage the private sector and to have regional and national impact.

Such an image could also be important for the ownership of the project, of the territory by the “smallholders”.

Besides this, it’s important to address the issues as it was announced very graphically and shortly, executively is you may.


27


Figure 3. Colliguay Alliance’s Newsletter. Quick sketch using a Aquafondo© newsletter (AQUAFONDO 2013)


28


5. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN5.1 Approach towards a stakeholders

participatory process5.1.1 Phase 1: participatory scoping phase

As already mentioned during the stakeholders analysis, the project will include a participatory scoping phase in the first year of interventions, to be able to establish the bottom-up participatory approach this stakeholders engagement project is set out to follow. This participatory scoping phase is meant to establish a direct relationship with most of the key stakeholders and/or stakeholder representative groups through personal meetings and direct communications. The main aim for this phase is to gain trust, develop understanding of the stakeholders towards the project as well as get a good/ correct understanding of the stakeholders and their needs/ interests in the project. Once this is established, through a variety of methods including semi-structured interviews and check-listed focus group discussions, the project and stakeholders will have good idea of each others intentions, and that will facilitate the participatory approach during the project implementation.

5.1.2 Phase 2: Stakeholder engagement during project implementation

Even during implementation, the project team is conscious of the importance of unforeseeable changes in project development. To be really able to intervene in a participatory manner, project activities need to be adjusted to actual needs, this means they need to be flexible and even tailor-made towards the needs of a specific locality, a village, a river bank, or even a street. Hence, the project will use a multiple option approach that is adjustable to local and temporal needs. During the annual stakeholders workshop, success stories as well as changes in the environment (natural, social , economic and policy) will be discussed and the needs and interests of stakeholders will be redefined to validate the necessity and validity of specific activities in addressing the current prevailing issues regarding the restoration of forest and land in the Colliguay valley, and the region as a whole. If need be, the project interventions will be redirected in order to address the current situation. This flexibility is quite demanding on the project in terms of insecurity regarding budget needs but guarantees the most sustainable outcome as the project will be carried by the stakeholders actual needs and not the donors demands reflected in stakeholders willingness to engage in a specific domain.


29


5.2 Time-line for stakeholders engagement5.2.1 Starting point for stakeholders’ engagement

The set-up of the project requires that stakeholders shall be engaged in the project from day 1, actually even before project implementation, during the design and set-up of the project, since it are the stakeholders that set the agenda and determine the priorities for interventions. Hence, the project starts with a six-month inception phase, where the necessary collaborations can be established with key-stakeholders and target areas for intervention in the first pilot phase can be identified. During this phase, multiple interactions with stakeholders will take place from individual meetings to focus group discussions with specific groups of stakeholders (mostly smallholders and representative organizations). These meetings will lead to the adjustment of the stakeholders map as well as the preliminary design of workshops in later stages of the project.

5.2.2 Actual time-lineDate/ duration (+ flexibility)

Project implementation – restoration process (objectives, expected outputs, deadlines, etc.)

Engagement process (discussion and activities including communications)

YEAR 1 INCEPTION PHASE STAKEHOLDER SCOPINGBeginning of the project – July 20156 month period

Fine tune the scope of the implementation (forest and land restoration project with a water-driven tip-off) based on inputs from stakeholder consultations during the Stakeholder scoping phase.

Establish direct engagements with specific stakeholders/ stakeholder groups for successful project implementation.

Stakeholder scoping phase with:- individual meetings with stakeholders at local level (informal conversations/ semi-structured interviews);- individual meetings with stakeholders at regional level (informal conversations/ semi-structured interviews);- individual meetings with stakeholders at national level (informal conversations/ semi-structured interviews);- focus group discussions (semi-structured interviews and checklists) with categories of stakeholders/ smallholders (farmers, pastoralists, beekeepers, tourism, etc.).

After six months – January 2016One-time

Kick-off workshop to present the project (see project description) and engage with stakeholders towards implementation.

Kick-off workshop where all stakeholders are identified categorised based on their own perceptions (confirmation of the findings from literature


30


event During the workshop the specific project activities will be determined and outlined in collaboration with the stakeholders, based on their perceptions, needs and interests.

review and individual consultations/ focus group discussions). During the workshop, the project is looking to engage with interested stakeholders towards establishing a collaboration for project implementation.

After the kick-off workshop – January 2016Second six months

Establishing the direction of the project based on the inputs from the stakeholders kick-off workshop and developing the pro-doc.

Starting with piloting of a limited number of interventions with key stakeholder groups in key areas:- control of soil erosion;- reduction of sediment accumulation in the valley's streams;- water regulation/ retention for improved provision of freshwater during the summer;- native species nectar for honey production; and - support for honey production for commercial purposes; - recreational opportunities;- tourism opportunities;- provision of non-timber forest products (e.g. medicinal plants).

Differentiated engagement with different stakeholders based on the categorisation as presented in 2.4.4. Direct stakeholders will be involved in every step of the way, as the implementation of the project will go hand in hand with the direct stakeholders. Indirect stakeholders will be kept informed about the progress through publications (leaflets, brochures), social media (website, facebook, twitter, etc.), and invitation to demonstration events (either workshops or field visits to direct stakeholders). For policy stakeholders, the same engagement platforms will be used as for indirect stakeholders, however there will be specific policy events, public private dialogues, where the stakeholders in the field will get the chance to directly communicate with the policy stakeholders and present their successes as well as their challenges in order for both stakeholders to work in a collaborative way towards a constructive and sustainable environment for interventions.

After one year – July 2016Yearly stakeholders workshop - annual event (two days)

Experiences of the different stakeholders towards different interventions will be presented in a two day workshop. The first day will focus on practical aspects, the second day will focus on policy environment to facilitate successful interventions.

The workshop is the ideal occasion to engage with all stakeholders at once, to present the progress in the project as well as to engage with stakeholders in different areas to boost collaboration with project interventions at different levels. Demonstrations will take place,


31


either the workshop will take place in the field, or field visits can be organised, as well as video material will be presented. Direct stakeholders will be engaged to present their testimonies on their experience with project interventions and good practices as well as challenges will be shared and discussed.

YEAR 2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION – FOREST AND LAND RESTORATION

LOCAL STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

July 2016 – July 2017

After the first piloting of specific interventions, more stakeholders will engage to start implementing interventions of a more diverse nature. This time, interventions will be integral and holistic and address the problem as a whole. Based on specific problem statements and needs of stakeholders, interventions will be locally adjusted towards the needs of a specific target group.

Differentiated engagement with different stakeholders based on the categorisation as presented in 2.4.4.A small working group will be established of direct stakeholders, who will get together on a quarterly basis, to present progress, discuss challenges and address strategic issues. In this working group, a small representation of regional and policy stakeholders will be present, to guarantee facilitation of scaling up towards year three of the project intervention.

After two years – July 2017Yearly stakeholders workshop - annual event (two days)

Experiences of the different stakeholders towards different interventions will be presented in a two day workshop. The first day will focus on practical aspects, the second day will focus on policy environment to facilitate successful interventions.The main outcomes of the workshop will be:- the status update on project implementation, including direction for future interventions which can be confirming the plan set out in the pro-doc as well as going against it, as stakeholders can identify more urgent needs or

The workshop is the ideal occasion to engage with all stakeholders at once, to present the progress in the project as well as to engage with stakeholders in different areas to boost collaboration with project interventions at different levels. Demonstrations will take place, either the workshop will take place in the field, or field visits can be organised, as well as video material will be presented. Direct stakeholders will be engaged to present their testimonies on their experience with project interventions and good


32


issues that need to be addressed;- success stories for replication and scaling-out to other areas as well as scaling-up to regional level; - policy issues that will be addressed through policy advocacy interventions (see Project implementation year 3).

practices as well as challenges will be shared and discussed.Specific focus will be given to policy issues that need to be addressed and policy stakeholders will be engaged in a collaborative and constructive manner in order to achieve the best collaboration towards establishing a constructive environment for future interventions towards the „Land and forest restoration“ -project

YEAR 3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION – FOREST AND LAND RESTORATIONPOLICY ADVOCACY

REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGEMENT

July 2017 – July 2018

Where the focus in the second year was mostly on local interventions, the third year will look at regional actions as well as possibilities to expand nation-wide.

Moreover, a specific amount of time/ resources will be invested in policy advocacy to address the bottlenecks in policy, legislation and regulation as identified in the stakeholders workshop. Specific activities that can be part of this policy advocacy campaign are development of policy briefs, direct engagement with policy stakeholders, meetings and participation in policy organs (as there are committees to develop policies), capacity building of other stakeholders on legislation and regulations for policy implementation.

Differentiated engagement with different stakeholders based on the categorisation as presented in 2.4.4.The working group will be expanded with more stakeholders at regional and national level, as well as establishing smaller sub-groups focussing on a particular locality, including all relevant stakeholders thereto.

If required, deemed needed by the stakeholder workshop, a particular working group on policy can also be established with practictioners from the field and policy stakeholders to bridge the communication and information coming from the project.

After three years – July 2018Yearly stakeholders workshop - annual event

Experiences of the different stakeholders towards different interventions will be presented in a two day workshop. The first day will focus on practical aspects, the second day will focus on policy environment to

The importance of the third stakeholders workshop will be to identify the needs for future interventions, to establish a plan for bridge funding and eventually other funding for continuation, geographical and/


33


(two days) facilitate successful interventions.The main outcomes of the workshop will be:- the status update on project implementation, including direction for future interventions, particularly for requesting follow-up funds for a second phase;- success stories for replication and scaling-out to other areas as well as scaling-up to regional level; - policy successes that have been achieved through the project.

or thematical expansion.

YEAR 4 PROJECT DISSEMINATION OF SUCCESS STORIES AND CONTINUATION

STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGEMENT – SUSTAINABILITY

July 2018 – July 2019

The fourth and final year will focus mostly on sustainability of project interventions: how valid are the interventions and can/ will activities continue when funding ends?

The main focus of the project will be on knowledge management and communication of the results internally to stakeholders as well as externally to donors and other interested parties for follow-up of project activities and/ or out-scaling to other areas with simila agri-climatological characteristics.

Differentiated engagement with different stakeholders based on the categorisation as presented in 2.4.4.The working group will be continue to function, yet a shift in their focus will be observed towards identifying the need for continuation of the project, similar interventions and going hand-in-hand with that, the required additional funding for the new project(s).

After four years – July 2019End of project stakeholders workshop - annual event (multiple days)

Experiences of the different stakeholders towards different interventions will be presented in a two day workshop. The first day will focus on achievements of the four year project, the second day will focus on a future for similar project(s) and if possible, new projects (with the required funding) can already be presented to the stakeholders.

As the project has been working on follow-up funding for the second phase, it is the hope of the project team that where ever and whenever an actual need was identified, a phase II project could be developed and obtain additional funding. These project(s) than will be presented to the stakeholders. A new stakeholder analysis will have to be done towards the


34


new objectives of the project(s) as other stakeholders might need to be included in new project(s).

All in all, the project activities will be determined in collaboration with the stakeholders and hence, flexibility in the project design is required. However, specific key topics to increase stakeholder consultation and engagement are identified and will be communicated with stakeholders on a gradual basis as presented below to really gain the trust of stakeholders, and allow them to get a buy in into the project activities and it’s implementation. They are the key determinants of to progress and success of the interventions. The project is designed to facilitate the project activities but based on the internal drive coming from key stakeholders that will increase sustainability after project phase-out.

As such different thematic (technical) pathways are identified to achieve the main objective of the project, i.e. to develop new mechanism in order to give sustainability to restoration initiatives of Chile’s Mediterranean ecosystems in central Chile departing from a local stakeholder engagement/commitment and involving regional and national stakeholders. The pathways, so far identified and currently forming the basis for further project development, are as per identification of eco-system services by Escheverria:


(ii) Water regulation for better freshwater provisioning during the summer;

(iii) Nectar from native species for honey production; (iv) Recreation and tourism opportunities, and;(v) Provision of non-timber forest products (e.g. medicinal plants).

These thematic pathways can as such, based on the technical background and knowledge, be incorporated in the project design as they are different in content but will be addressed through a similar approach of consultation, engagement, and information and support towards project activities implemented by local, regional and national stakeholders.

5.2.3 Local stakeholders’ engagement – year 2Specific focus in the project design will go to capacity development

cycles and required clinics as such. As such, and to guarantee the voices of all stakeholders are heard and well captured, several workshops and working groups with regular meetings are established through the project.

Thematic interventions Forest and Stakeholde


35


land restoration

rs engagement

Meetings with different stakeholders (individual/ focus groups) resulting in report presenting and analyzing the outcomes

Local problems and needs

Feedback meeting: stakeholders workshop, to validate the analysis, finalise report on “Local problems and needs”, generate communication materials to use during implementation

Local problems and needs

Capacity building clinics based on the capacity development cycles

e.g. Water Cycle, Forest restoration, ecosystem services, …7

Working days on project progress, including conclusion and reporting on the outcomes of the working days. Feedback in this case will be provided through communication materials developed for dissemination and presentation of the recommendations in the Annual stakeholders’ workshop where they will be validated.

Analysis of restoration and alternative livelihoods

5.2.4 Regional stakeholder engagement – year 3At the regional level, a similar approach will be followed as at local

level, although topics that will be discussed will be of a broader nature, addressing regional issues and challenges and coming up with solutions at a regional scale. Here it is important for local stakeholders to clearly represent their points of view, their opinions and their problems, hence this engagement will be done in the third year, after building local capacities in understanding their needs and requirements towards the regional and national levels, as to clearly air their demands and engage in this higher level stakeholders on an equal basis. Identified topics to be addressed at this level (currently) are in general: “Regional problems and needs” and more specific “Environment and (alternative) livelihoods”.

5.2.5 Policy advocacy – year 4In the final year, when policy issues are identified at local, regional and

national level, the project will focus on engaging with policy stakeholders at all

7 To be determined in collaboration with stakeholders depending on their actual needs, different topics will be presented during the stakeholder workshop based on the six categories as identified in the project descriptions (Chapter 2: Stakeholder mapping and analysis).


36


three levels, through a well designed advocacy campaign. As it is too early to determine which policy issues will be highlighted through stakeholders consultation based on the interventions that the project is focusing on, the project will only be able to present policy advocacy alternatives (activities) that might or might not be relevant at that time. The key policy issues will be identified during the annual stakeholder workshop of year 3, and will guide the implementation of policy activities in year 4.

Possible actions that can be included in the program are:

A public private dialogue, including practitioners (private sector, smallholders and researchers) together with policy stakeholders/ government stakeholders, a forum where policy needs and policy gaps can be discussed and an action plan with stakeholders engaging themselves towards implementation will be developed;

1) Leaflets and brochures for information sharing of key issues at wide range;

2) Capacity building clinics on policy issues for local and regional stakeholders;

3) Presentation of policy and research/ project findings to parliamentary committees to get buy in for follow up activities;

4) Link with the chairpersons of specific committees to engage with the relevant ministries;

5) Meetings with key policy stakeholders;6) Participation in policy development organisms like planning and

policy committees;7) Participation in policy working groups of donors and/ or

government ministries as well as local government authorities (region, district, villages);

8) Establishment of policy working groups for civil society organizations as a specific stakeholder category focusing on smallholders (as a vulnerable group).

The aim of the policy interventions is to get local and national support towards the “Land and forest restoration”-project and similar projects and create an enabling environment that will allow the replication of the project to a larger area (project area expansion outside of the Colliguay valley) and even to other regions within Chili (outside of Central Chili).

5.3 Effective communication during the stakeholder engagement

“Ongoing sustained communication has been stressed as key to avoid “stakeholder fatigue” and stakeholder frustration” (Reed 2008) is crucial, as also experience shows that evidently the stakeholders get quite


37


annoyed whenever there's no continuous communication thus tools and strategies to pursue a constant communication giving news and updates is vital. Actually, the mechanism listed and described above are thought in a way that there is permanent communication and spread of information. In the next few lines this will be stressed:

5.3.1 Communication at the start of the engagement process

The beginning of the process is crucial to build trust. How to build trust when there anonymity? Maybe the answer that is not possible thus, it has been foreseen that the first step sparkle the engagement is to get to know the people behind the problematic or the ones who are called to make feasible the processes to attain the goals. That is why in at the very beginning to go door-by-door meeting and having other type of encounters is a keystone that will allow the process be triggered by the views and opinions of the people: the farmers, the tourism workers, the “fundo” workers, the vacation homes owner too. The technician of CONAF or DGA the director of department of the regional secretary. The accountant, the manager, the CEO. It’s important to knock at each person’s door at talk to them see whether the assumption are right or wrong.

Building upon those first contacts it will be easier to call for focus groups and then for workshops and other activities to generate information, build capacity and agree upon starting points.

5.3.2 Communication during the engagement process

Once the process has ignited a so called “critical mass” which is already interested and committed, or at least intrigued for the process and the “fuss about it” it will be most likely that there will be some – or a lot – information that shall be spread. Then, mechanisms as those of the “Magazine/Comic”, the Newsletter and Radio Broadcast or the Briefings. All of those key to keep the “public” interested and up to date.

After a year of the process, an Information Centre can be set as the engagement and/or intrigue should be rolling and thus a place where the information lies will attract the local Stakeholders at the uppermost of our key SHs. And there will more information and results to prepare Media/press releases. Is possible that fter a year simple intervention or initives can have their Openings. The process will also in 2nd and 3rd years will have produced


38


dynamics that can be showed to children a wider public and the Educational visits to schools will take place.

All of this does not means that going door-by-door will disappear but as earlier explained those will be diminished given the dynamics that process should have taken. Also the workshops and all its associated tools will be still important to discuss bottle-necks or to seek for more and new solutions or financing sources.

5.3.3 Communication over what's nextThe information centre will be instrumental in keeping the

information flowing as it is intended to be the “authorized journalists of the Colliguay Alliance”. The process should have gained such a drive that the people that has built on their capacities and are aware and benefiting from the forest’s services are the one that use the tolls and mechanism running to deliver their communication not only in their valley, but regionally and also nationally.

5.4 Requirements for successful facilitationThis should include a clear statement of intended outcomes and

assumptions behind planned activities, with leeway for tailoring activities and revising intended outcomes following stakeholder inputs. This principle is crucial if the intention of the stakeholder participation is to build ownership of the research process and reciprocal trust between stakeholders and researchers, and between different stakeholders. Inclusion of highly skilled facilitation throughout the engagement process also needs to be considered at this stage.

The intention of this project is clearly to engage in stakeholder participation in order to build ownership of the project and reciprocal trust between stakeholders and project, as well as between stakeholders themselves, as clearly stated in the intended outcomes and assumptions behind the planned activities. Also resulting in leeway for tailoring activities and revising intended outcomes following stakeholders inputs during annual stakeholders workshops. Inclusion of highly skilled facilitation throughout the engagement process is primordial at this stage of the project design. With a project of this magnitude, and considering the multi-stakeholders involvement in engagement process as well as implementation process, a qualified and multi-disciplinary team is necessary to guide the project development in good direction. Apart from their specific technical qualifications, specified below, all of the project team members should be eloquent in communication and facilitation processes with stakeholders. Hence the basic competences that need to be accrued, are in short to have excellent communication and interpersonal skills, on top of:


39


Keeping an open mind; Allowing room for flexibility within the workshop and even within the

project implementation (direction as well as timeframe), as well as clarifying how much flexibility there is;

Outlining a few options to make the engagement process flexible and adaptable to stakeholder inputs;

Ensuring everyone listens to, understands and respects what everyone else is saying;

Identifying possible elements to build a common language; Maintaining a level of interpersonal trust between stakeholders and

between stakeholders and project team; Reducing the impact of power struggles, elite capture and conflicting

interests between participants over the discussions; Setting up mechanisms that will guarantee the continuation of

stakeholder engagement processes beyond the scope of the original project.As already outlined above, different technical skills and expertise will

also be required. Hence, the project team will consist of:

(i) A multi-stakeholder expert , strong in engaging with stakeholders of all type through a multitude of approaches and methodologies (from interviews to focus groups to workshops) in order to establish them working towards a common goal for successful project implementation;

(ii) A forestry, natural resources expert , with technical knowledge on sustainable ecosystems, experience in forest restoration processes as well as the local (national) legal context with regard to natural resources and forests in particular;

(iii) A water resources management expert , with experience in watershed management and smallholder projects;

(iv) A policy expert , with experience in policy development, diverse interventions addressed through advocacy campaigns and engaging with high-level policy makers (regional and national) towards addressing bottleneck issues for stakeholders; and finally,

(v) A highly skilled (local) discussion facilitator , who needs to have excellent communication and interpersonal skills, and be well acquainted and familiarised with the 4E-appraoch by Aaltonen and Kreutz (2009), meaning that he/she needs to know how to be Encouraging, Enabling, Exemplifying and Engaging. This person will only be engaged during the annual multi stakeholder workshop, as well as during specific stakeholders meetings, as there are the working groups on policy and thematic subjects.


40


6. ENGAGEMENT PLAN FINANCING6.1 Funding

In this task, you will propose the sources of funding needed for your Stakeholder engagement process described in Assignment 3. This also can include follow up funding and how likely they are to materialize for both research and engagement processes.

6.2 BudgetDate/ duration (+ flexibility)

Project implementation – restoration process (objectives, expected outputs, deadlines, etc.)

Engagement process (discussion and activities including communications)

YEAR 1 INCEPTION PHASE STAKEHOLDER SCOPINGBeginning of the project – July 20156 month period

Fine tune the scope of the implementation (forest and land restoration project with a water-driven tip-off) based on inputs from stakeholder consultations during the Stakeholder scoping phase.

Establish direct engagements with specific stakeholders/ stakeholder groups for successful project implementation.

Stakeholder scoping phase with:- individual meetings with stakeholders at local level (informal conversations/ semi-structured interviews);- individual meetings with stakeholders at regional level (informal conversations/ semi-structured interviews);- individual meetings with stakeholders at national level (informal conversations/ semi-structured interviews);- focus group discussions (semi-structured interviews and checklists) with categories of stakeholders/ smallholders (farmers, pastoralists, beekeepers, tourism, etc.).

After six months – January 2016One-time event

Kick-off workshop to present the project (see project description) and engage with stakeholders towards implementation.During the workshop the specific project activities will be determined and outlined in collaboration with the stakeholders, based on their perceptions, needs and interests.

Kick-off workshop where all stakeholders are identified categorised based on their own perceptions (confirmation of the findings from literature review and individual consultations/ focus group discussions). During the workshop, the project is looking to engage with interested stakeholders towards establishing a collaboration for


41


project implementation.After the kick-off workshop – January 2016Second six months

Establishing the direction of the project based on the inputs from the stakeholders kick-off workshop and developing the pro-doc.

Starting with piloting of a limited number of interventions with key stakeholder groups in key areas:- control of soil erosion;- reduction of sediment accumulation in the valley's streams;- water regulation/ retention for improved provision of freshwater during the summer;- native species nectar for honey production; and - support for honey production for commercial purposes; - recreational opportunities;- tourism opportunities;- provision of non-timber forest products (e.g. medicinal plants).

Differentiated engagement with different stakeholders based on the categorisation as presented in 2.4.4. Direct stakeholders will be involved in every step of the way, as the implementation of the project will go hand in hand with the direct stakeholders. Indirect stakeholders will be kept informed about the progress through publications (leaflets, brochures), social media (website, facebook, twitter, etc.), and invitation to demonstration events (either workshops or field visits to direct stakeholders). For policy stakeholders, the same engagement platforms will be used as for indirect stakeholders, however there will be specific policy events, public private dialogues, where the stakeholders in the field will get the chance to directly communicate with the policy stakeholders and present their successes as well as their challenges in order for both stakeholders to work in a collaborative way towards a constructive and sustainable environment for interventions.

After one year – July 2016Yearly stakeholders workshop - annual event (two days)

Experiences of the different stakeholders towards different interventions will be presented in a two day workshop. The first day will focus on practical aspects, the second day will focus on policy environment to facilitate successful interventions.

The workshop is the ideal occasion to engage with all stakeholders at once, to present the progress in the project as well as to engage with stakeholders in different areas to boost collaboration with project interventions at different levels. Demonstrations will take place, either the workshop will take place in the field, or field visits can be organised, as well as video material will be presented. Direct stakeholders will be engaged to present their testimonies on their


42


experience with project interventions and good practices as well as challenges will be shared and discussed.

YEAR 2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION – FOREST AND LAND RESTORATION

LOCAL STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

July 2016 – July 2017

After the first piloting of specific interventions, more stakeholders will engage to start implementing interventions of a more diverse nature. This time, interventions will be integral and holistic and address the problem as a whole. Based on specific problem statements and needs of stakeholders, interventions will be locally adjusted towards the needs of a specific target group.

Differentiated engagement with different stakeholders based on the categorisation as presented in 2.4.4.A small working group will be established of direct stakeholders, who will get together on a quarterly basis, to present progress, discuss challenges and address strategic issues. In this working group, a small representation of regional and policy stakeholders will be present, to guarantee facilitation of scaling up towards year three of the project intervention.

After two years – July 2017Yearly stakeholders workshop - annual event (two days)

Experiences of the different stakeholders towards different interventions will be presented in a two day workshop. The first day will focus on practical aspects, the second day will focus on policy environment to facilitate successful interventions.The main outcomes of the workshop will be:- the status update on project implementation, including direction for future interventions which can be confirming the plan set out in the pro-doc as well as going against it, as stakeholders can identify more urgent needs or issues that need to be addressed;- success stories for replication and scaling-out to other areas as well as scaling-up to regional level; - policy issues that will be

The workshop is the ideal occasion to engage with all stakeholders at once, to present the progress in the project as well as to engage with stakeholders in different areas to boost collaboration with project interventions at different levels. Demonstrations will take place, either the workshop will take place in the field, or field visits can be organised, as well as video material will be presented. Direct stakeholders will be engaged to present their testimonies on their experience with project interventions and good practices as well as challenges will be shared and discussed.Specific focus will be given to policy issues that need to be addressed and policy stakeholders will be engaged in a collaborative and


43


addressed through policy advocacy interventions (see Project implementation year 3).

constructive manner in order to achieve the best collaboration towards establishing a constructive environment for future interventions towards the „Land and forest restoration“ -project

YEAR 3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION – FOREST AND LAND RESTORATIONPOLICY ADVOCACY

REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGEMENT

July 2017 – July 2018

Where the focus in the second year was mostly on local interventions, the third year will look at regional actions as well as possibilities to expand nation-wide.

Moreover, a specific amount of time/ resources will be invested in policy advocacy to address the bottlenecks in policy, legislation and regulation as identified in the stakeholders workshop. Specific activities that can be part of this policy advocacy campaign are development of policy briefs, direct engagement with policy stakeholders, meetings and participation in policy organs (as there are committees to develop policies), capacity building of other stakeholders on legislation and regulations for policy implementation.

Differentiated engagement with different stakeholders based on the categorisation as presented in 2.4.4.The working group will be expanded with more stakeholders at regional and national level, as well as establishing smaller sub-groups focussing on a particular locality, including all relevant stakeholders thereto.

If required, deemed needed by the stakeholder workshop, a particular working group on policy can also be established with practictioners from the field and policy stakeholders to bridge the communication and information coming from the project.

After three years – July 2018Yearly stakeholders workshop - annual event (two days)

Experiences of the different stakeholders towards different interventions will be presented in a two day workshop. The first day will focus on practical aspects, the second day will focus on policy environment to facilitate successful interventions.The main outcomes of the workshop will be:- the status update on project implementation, including direction for future

The importance of the third stakeholders workshop will be to identify the needs for future interventions, to establish a plan for bridge funding and eventually other funding for continuation, geographical and/ or thematical expansion.


44


interventions, particularly for requesting follow-up funds for a second phase;- success stories for replication and scaling-out to other areas as well as scaling-up to regional level; - policy successes that have been achieved through the project.

YEAR 4 PROJECT DISSEMINATION OF SUCCESS STORIES AND CONTINUATION

STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGEMENT – SUSTAINABILITY

July 2018 – July 2019

The fourth and final year will focus mostly on sustainability of project interventions: how valid are the interventions and can/ will activities continue when funding ends?

The main focus of the project will be on knowledge management and communication of the results internally to stakeholders as well as externally to donors and other interested parties for follow-up of project activities and/ or out-scaling to other areas with simila agri-climatological characteristics.

Differentiated engagement with different stakeholders based on the categorisation as presented in 2.4.4.The working group will be continue to function, yet a shift in their focus will be observed towards identifying the need for continuation of the project, similar interventions and going hand-in-hand with that, the required additional funding for the new project(s).

After four years – July 2019End of project stakeholders workshop - annual event (multiple days)

Experiences of the different stakeholders towards different interventions will be presented in a two day workshop. The first day will focus on achievements of the four year project, the second day will focus on a future for similar project(s) and if possible, new projects (with the required funding) can already be presented to the stakeholders.

As the project has been working on follow-up funding for the second phase, it is the hope of the project team that where ever and whenever an actual need was identified, a phase II project could be developed and obtain additional funding. These project(s) than will be presented to the stakeholders. A new stakeholder analysis will have to be done towards the new objectives of the project(s) as other stakeholders might need to be included in new project(s).


45


Based on the stakeholder engagement plan and the processes included in Assignment 3, you can design a budget table detailing the required resources you need over the implementation time (e.g. quarterly or yearly). These resources could include (but not only) general operations, logistics, personnel, administration expenses… etc. This task is feasible if no sources of funds can be secured.


46


7. MEASURES OF SUCCESSTo include measures of success in the Stakeholders Engagement Plan

at an early stage helps to define the direction and priorities of the project (implementation process) alongside the engagement process. The intention is to have a clear outlined framework for evaluating the Engagement plan at different stages and draw lessons upon implementation. These measures of success address the research process and the engagement process as well as their outcomes and to measure to what extend the objectives have been achieved.

Monitoring and evaluation of actions taken as part of any process (implementation or engagement) within an implemented project, can help identify what works and what does not, to what extent it has worked, and inform the compilation of lessons learnt and establishment of good practices, particularly in the event of a project that starts at local scale, with the intention of expanding towards regional and even national level, like this project is. Moreover, evaluation can be a very concrete way for stakeholders to hold the project team accountable for leading and implementing actions. When evaluating stakeholders engagement processes, two questions prevail as crucial to the general perception of success towards project implementation. The first question is whether or not the project implementation has been successful, objectives have been met and expected outcomes reached. The second question is measures the success of the stakeholders engagement process itself.

As both project team as stakeholders will be engaged in the evaluation process, in order to guarantee the participation as one of the primary priorities for the project and its’ approach, four categories of measures of success, or as we can also say evaluation criteria, are presented, two are identified based on the content they evaluate, the two others based on the respondents that give feedback/ input towards the evaluation criteria, resulting in the table as shown below.

Type of evaluation\ Type of respondent

Outcome-based indicators and criteria (focus on the implementation process)

Process-based indicators and criteria (focus on the engagement process)

Project team - Project indicators based on the result chain

- Measure usefulness of the selected project activities to potential end-users

- Measure knowledge

- Measure stakeholders participation in workshops and implementation activities

- Number of stakeholders actively engaged toward the


47


accumulation and new understandings of thematic topics

project for its whole duration

Stakeholders- Public

sector- Private

sector- Smallhol

ders- Civil

society/NGOs

- Researchers

- Measure increase of general knowledge on land degradation in Mediterranean climate

- Measure confidence of stakeholders in their own knowledge and skills for expression and communication around issues in national or international debates

- Measure how strongly it served their major interests.

- Measure motivation of participation (over time)

- Measure increase/ decrease of communication between different stakeholders

-

The definition of success and identification of measures of success will be collaboratively discussed at the start of the stakeholder engagement process, during the kick-off workshop. Such a discussion allows for measures of success to be chosen and established jointly by the project team and the stakeholders in order to capture the wide range of interests of the different parties. In this collaborative bottom-up process, it is very important to be aware of the interests of the different parties right from the start, and also to engage stakeholders in the process of monitoring and evaluation, this will create and increase their sense of ownership towards the project. Hence, during the kick-off workshop, the measures to success and evaluation criteria, including applicable indictors, will be presented and prioritized by all stakeholders.

The overview lists of both outcome-based and process-based evaluation criteria that will be used as a reference during this stakeholder participatory moment for monitoring and evaluation are given here below:

1) Outcome based evaluation criteria presented in the kick-off meeting:- Empowerment and ownership of the process and its outcomes;- equity;- trust;- learning and information exchange;- better accepted decisions;- better quality decisions made by stakeholders in their daily lives and for

policy stakeholders in policy decision making and development processes;

- fairness;- consensus;- aims and outcomes achieved;- influence and impact of engagement on outcome;


48


- clear understanding of the project objectives by the stakeholders;- Including project indicators, which will measure the achievements of the

project goals and objectives through its’ implementation and the selected activities, like there are:

o the level of improvement in livelihood conditions of the stakeholder groups/ categories;

o the level of promotion of sustainable biodiversity management;o the level of increase in PES through project interventions;o etc.

2) Process based evaluation criteria presented in the kick-off meeting:- Early engagement of communities in the process; - identification, analysis and systematic representation of relevant

stakeholders;- continued engagement of communities throughout process; - clear objectives set out and agreed by stakeholders at the start of the

process;- relevant methods chosen and tailored to the context, participants and

level of engagement;- highly skilled facilitation of the process;- integration of local and scientific knowledge;- open and meaningful information exchange and interaction with face--‐

to--‐face discussion;- transparency, trust and fairness;- appropriate resource availability to enable participants to fulfill their

role;- structured decision making process;- cost-- effectiveness;- unbiased and independent management of the process;- equality among stakeholders;- competent management throughout process;- access to project initiator throughout process;- access to communities through appropriate structures (e.g. traditional

authorities);- flexibility in methods and an ability to respond to issues as they arise;- commonly agreed and locally appropriate definition of community.

The selection of different evaluation criteria will mainly depend on the understanding and meaning stakeholders give towards the stakeholder engagement process as well as the project implementation. To build this common understanding the project can guide the stakeholder workshop in facilitation towards a common understanding but leaving room for own interpretation shall not be ignored. This will specifically be given the necessary attention through weighing of the importance of indicator criteria in order to establish the overall measures of success towards project achievements that are carried, measured and validated by stakeholders and project alike.


49


REFERENCES AQUAFONDO, Secretaría Técnica del Fondo del Agua para Lima y Callao. 2013.

‘Generación de Conocimiento’. Aquafondo. http://www.aquafondo.org.pe/pdf/3cuencas_Generacion_de_conocimiento.pdf.

CONAF, Corporación Nacional Forestal. 2015a. ‘DL 701 Y Sus Reglamentos’. Governmental. CONAF - COrporación NAcional Forestal. http://www.conaf.cl/nuestros-bosques/plantaciones-forestales/dl-701-y-sus-reglamentos/.

———. 2015b. ‘Nueva Ley de Fomento Forestal’. Governmental. CONAF - COrporación NAcional Forestal. http://www.conaf.cl/nuestros-bosques/plantaciones-forestales/nueva-ley-de-fomento-forestal/.

CorpoNor, Corporación Autonoma del Valle del Cauca. 2015. Alianza BioCuenca. Digital photo. http://www.corponor.gov.co/gel32/images/Logo.jpg.

Echeverria, Cristian. 2015. Chile Central y el Valle de Colliguay: Entrevista Semi-estructurada vía Skype.

Echeverría, C., I. Schiappacasse, R. Urrutia, M. Cárcamo, P. Becerra, C. Smith, and M. Homgren. 2010. ‘Manual de Restauración de Ecosistemas Degradados Para La Conservación de La Biodiversidad Y El Desarrollo Rural En La Zona Semiárida de Chile Central’. Proyectos REFORLAN, CONYCIT Valdivia, Chile.

KPMG, Singapure, Australia CPA, and Singapure CFC. 2013. ‘Stakeholder Communications: The Toolkit’. KPMG International. https://www.kpmg.com/SG/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Advisory-RC-Stakeholder-Communications-Toolkit.pdf.

MAPA, Maipo Plan de Adaptación. 2014. ‘Esquema Cuenca Maipo’. http://maipoadaptacion.cl/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/esquema_cuenca_maipo.png.

Max-Neef, Manfred. 1991. Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections. Vol. 1. New York / London: Apex Press.

MINAGRI, Ministerio de Agricultura. 2008. Ley Sobre Recuperación Del Bosque Nativo Y Fomento Forestal. http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=274894.

Pimlott, Ken. 2015. ‘Managing Forest Health for Water Resources’. Water News. Maven’s Notebook. http://mavensnotebook.com/2015/05/13/managing-forest-health-for-water-resources/.

Reed, Mark S. 2008. ‘Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review’. Biological Conservation 141 (10): 2417–31.

Schiappacasse, Ignacio. 2015. El Valle del Colliguay y Chile Central: Entrevista Semi-estructurada vía Skype.

Schiappacasse, Ignacio, Laura Nahuelhual, Felipe Vásquez, and Cristian Echeverría. 2012. ‘Assessing the Benefits and Costs of Dryland Forest Restoration in Central Chile’. Journal of Environmental Management 97: 38–45.

Schulz, Jennifer J., Luis Cayuela, Cristian Echeverria, Javier Salas, and José María Rey Benayas. 2010. ‘Monitoring Land Cover Change of the


50


Dryland Forest Landscape of Central Chile (1975–2008)’. Applied Geography 30 (3): 436–47.


51