The Ramsar Convention's Outreach Programme - Reviewing & Action Planning III

Additional Guidance on Reviewing and Action Planning for Wetland Communication, Education and Public Awareness

134 This chapter represents a selection of practical aids to some of the tasks involved in reviewing and action planning CEPA activity. Many readers will already have a large tool-kit of such aids. This small selection is aimed at those with experience in different fields. A large literature on such techniques is to be found in texts relating to fields such as teaching and education, project planning and management, business planning, participatory approaches and social science fieldwork techniques. Ramsar Handbook 5 (Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2004b) includes a number of useful references about community participation. IUCN also produces a number of valuable resources and their catalogue is available on the Web at http://www.iucn.org.

135. The following selection of tools may be adapted for use in a number of different circumstances. The use of each is explained in relation to specific tasks that are likely to arise during planning or analysis of a CEPA review and when drafting a CEPA action plan. They are applicable at any level of operation. Each is cross-referenced to the sections in the text to which they might apply.

Explanation: The wetland problem is placed in the centre and issues connected to the problem are connected in sequence. The concentric circles can be used to indicate levels of operation (local community - local government administrative area – state – federal - regional - international), or the number of steps that an issue is removed from the central problem. In this way, a visual picture of the position of related issues and their connections can be easily built up. This in turn helps to identify key issues that connect a number of others and in this way can help to identify where priority CEPA actions may be directed. Such points of convergence can be highlighted and different symbols used to indicate different forms of CEPA application.

The ‘Awareness-to-Action’ chain is described in some detail in Box 11. It may be used to:

Explanation: By the simple addition of an index at each link in the chain, the function, or effect, of a CEPA activity or resource can be assessed and recorded in a standardised way. The position of the function of a CEPA activity, say, is assessed on the chain, and the appropriate index or indices, recorded. Of course, the method and its results can only be as good as the analysis it records, but the method has the advantage of avoiding long and non-standardised assessments of CEPA activity that can be very difficult and time-consuming to analyse. By providing an outline of the chain, with the indices to be used, respondents to questionnaires, or reviewers assessing case studies, for example, can produce a standardised set of assessments that can then be analysed collectively. Thus collection and analysis of review data, and a framework by which forms of CEPA may be agreed for priority actions, is facilitated.

The dartboard may be used for presenting and comparing summary review results about:

Explanation: The concentric circles represent different levels of operation. Radial divisions separate different sectors, actors, target groups or forms of CEPA, depending on what results are being presented. Total quantities are entered, allowing easy comparison between the factors being analysed. For example, to compare the CEPA effort in different sectors and at different levels in terms of the number of actors, review results in the form of total number of actors recorded in each sector at each level would be entered. Networking hubs can be identified by using the concentric circles to represent different frequencies with which organisations are in contact with others. In this case the radial divisions would be used to separate different types of organisation, or sectors, or levels of operation, for example. The concentric circles would represent frequencies of contacts, say at intervals of <5, 6-10, 11-25, and >25 per week, or per year, for example. The names of organisations that network with different numbers of organisations with a particular frequency can be placed accordingly. This information might be derived from questionnaire responses.

Explanation: A number of two-dimensional sets of information may be needed in the analysis of the review data and in action planning for future CEPA. For example, a list of CEPA issues against a list of actors providing relevant CEPA programmes; or a list of sectors and a list of priority actions to be undertaken by them. A matrix is a simple way of displaying a relationship between two such sets of information. Symbols or figures can be entered into the matrix, as appropriate. In the example shown, open and closed circles are used to indicate anticipated lead sectors for each identified priority action.

Explanation: A SWOT analysis involves recording the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats associated with the proposed idea or matter under analysis (proposed strategy, for example). Strengths and weaknesses may be thought of as internal factors, whereas opportunities and threats usually arise external to the project, idea or subject of analysis. A SWOT analysis facilitates the identification of rational solutions. The arrangement of the SWOT chart as illustrated below allows a range of consequences and possibilities derived from the analysis also to be recorded: if these weaknesses and these opportunities exist, so what? What are the possible consequences that follow from that particular combination and how might they steer a solution? SWOT analyses can be repeated for a number of possible ideas (potential strategies, say) and the results compared.

	STRENGTHS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.	WEAKNESSES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
OPPORTUNITIES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.	Consequences and possibilities of strengths combined with opportunities	Consequences and possibilities of weaknesses combined with opportunities
THREATS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.	Consequences and possibilities of strengths combined with threats	Consequences and possibilities of weaknesses combined with threats

Explanation: The underlying principle of ‘visioning’ exercises (and there are many versions) is that we will be unlikely to promote or catalyse constructive change for the future if we are unable to arrive at a collective vision of what that future should look like. The aim of the exercise is, therefore, to identify tangible differences between the situation now and what you imagine a better future to be, and then to identify ways in which the differences can be bridged. The following visioning exercise is based on one in Sterling, 1996. It can be used to consider the future of wetland conservation and wise use, the future of wetland CEPA provision, or any particular aspect of it (process, products, goals, for example), of education generally, or indeed any element of the future. In the present context, it might focus, for example, on the future of water education in the region and in the country under discussion. The exercise should be conducted for an agreed period into the future. It might be helpful to look 50 years ahead and then to repeat the exercise for the time at which the agreed action plan period is to end.

The first step is to consider the ‘probable future’: make a list of answers to the question, "Where do I think (water education) will be (50 years) from now?" Then make a second list of answers, in response to the question, "Where do I, personally, want (water education) to be (50 years) from now? This will help to raise issues in your mind about differences in the two visions, the scale of the differences and why they exist.

The second step is to record the tangible ways in which your personal vision of the future already exists. Then record how you think the remaining aspects of your own future vision might be reached, including a breakdown of the steps you consider would be necessary.

The final step is for the group doing the exercise (the action planning team, say) to come together and to use their personal notes, in discussion with the other group members, to clarify the future goals for wetland CEPA and then to identify tangible ways of reaching them. The starting point for planning how to reach the goals will be the ‘now’, as indicated by the review results.

Visioning can help to prioritise goals and strategies by highlighting the relative ease, speed and efficacy of certain approaches and by suggesting which ideas might be most readily received (commonly identified within the visioning group). Care should be taken though: consensus among group members of the difficulty of an approach does not necessarily mean that the goal, or strategy, is not wisely embarked upon. It may be that precisely because the strategy is difficult it has hitherto been neglected. Yet it may be the key to achieving priority goals and therefore worth serious consideration in a strategic planning context.

Explanation: This is a method for prioritising proposed actions or issues through consensus-building with stakeholder groups. It could be used when key issues have been identified from the review, and the review team wishes to prioritise them for action planning; or it could be applied to achieve the prioritisation of draft recommendations.

Step 1: Recruit the stakeholder group from amongst key stakeholders having a professional interest or responsibility, or a local knowledge of, the issues. The composition will depend on the purpose of the group and the tasks required of them. The stakeholder group is briefed in some detail about the CEPA review and action planning process and the purpose of the tasks to which they are to be applied. This briefing precedes the beginning of the process-proper. Each member of the stakeholder group is given a draft document in which is set out the key issues identified or draft recommendations, depending on the process in hand.

Step 2: Each stakeholder group member individually assesses losses, gains and the probability of an adverse impact occurring (= ‘costs’, ‘benefits’ and ‘risks’) of each issue/recommended action.

Step 3: Organisers convene a workshop at which all stakeholder group members discuss the draft document and discuss any omitted issues/actions. The group then collates their individual lists of costs, benefits and risks, and agrees a fully-inclusive list of costs, benefits and risks, as identified by the collective stakeholder group, for every issue/action presented.

Step 4: At the end of the workshop group members are briefed about the next stage. Before the next workshop they must consider individually what sort of criteria might be helpful for prioritising the issues/actions.

Step 5: Organisers convene a second workshop, at which the stakeholder group produces a fully inclusive list of final criteria, based on the ones they thought of individually and brought to the workshop. Group is briefed for the next task.

Step 6: Each group member must individually give each of the final criteria a ranking from 1-100 for its utility in assessing the priority issues/actions. These rankings are sent to the organisers, who calculate the top 10 criteria from the group and calculate the score (weighting) for each.

Step 7: Organisers convene a third workshop, at which group members work in small sub-groups and, using the top 10 criteria, assess each presented issue/action against each criterion. They agree a High/Medium/Low/not applicable assessment for each. The scores (High=3, Medium=2, Low=1, n/a=o) are totalled for each issue, multiplied by the criterion weighting and a total score produced for each issue/action. The issues/actions can then be ranked (prioritised) according to their scores. Actions are placed into groups, a group being defined by a split between any two adjacently-ranked actions that have total scores differing by more than 10. The group is briefed for the final workshop.

Step 8: Organisers send a final copy of the prioritised issues/actions to each group member, for them to consider prior to the final workshop.

Step 9: The organisers convene the fourth workshop, at which group members discuss the final prioritisation and work in small groups to agree the ranking. The exact rank order is not significant, but moving an issue/action between groups is. Members may decide to move an issue/action up or down to a new priority group, but if they do so, must move another one back in the opposite direction. All small-group members must agree to any changes. The full stakeholder group reassembles to discuss their decisions and the entire group must agree to any changes.

It is recommended to use this method on no more than 24 issues/actions and to involve the stakeholders in the process as early as possible. If possible, they should be involved in the generation of the list of issues/recommended actions to be prioritised.

The outline chart below summarises the process that was adopted to undertake a comprehensive national review of environmental education in Scotland, UK and from the findings to produce a national environmental education strategy. The work was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who established a Working Party for the task. The Working Group comprised 12 people, was funded by Scottish Natural Heritage, the statutory conservation agency for Scotland, and employed administrative support. The terms of reference for the Working Group, and a list of the contents of the document, follow the chart.

Terms of reference for the Working Group for Environmental Education in Scotland, established 1990:

Contents list from the final report of the Working Group for Environmental Education for Scotland. From The Scottish Office (1993) Learning for Life – A national strategy for Environmental Education in Scotland.

What this report is about
Chapter 1	The Development of Environmental Education in Scotland
Chapter 2	Review of Environmental Education in Scotland Central Government and its Agencies Local Authorities Schools Further and Higher Education and Training Commerce and Industry The Rural Sector The Built Environment The Voluntary Sector The Youth Sector The Arts The Media Religious Organisations Health Education Development Education
Chapter 3	Learning Contexts for Environmental Education Homes Community Recreation and Leisure Schools Post-school Education Workplace
Chapter 4	A national Strategy for Environmental Education The Basis of a National Strategy Key Needs and Mechanisms Strategic Recommendations Recommendations for the Secretary of State and Government Departments Recommendations for Various Implementing Bodies Implementing Recommendations Resources and Time Schedule
Looking Forward
Annexes	A: Working Group and Sub-group Members B: Terms of Reference for the Working Group C: The Working Group Process D: Seminars E: Key Events in the Development of Environmental Education F: Key Features of Environmental Education G: List of Consultees H: References I: Acronyms

Clark, J; Burgess, J; Dando, N; Bhattachary’ D; Heppel, K; Jones, P, Murlis; J and Wood, P (1998). Prioritising the Issues in Local Environment Agency Plans through Consensus Building with Stakeholder Groups. Project Record W4/002/1. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK

Downs, E (1992). ‘DE: a typology’. Unpublished thesis, Department of Environmental Management, University of Central Lancashire. UK

Fien, J (1993). ‘Ideology critique and environmental education’, in Fien, J Education for the environment – critical curriculum theorising and environmental education. Deakin University. Australia.

Hicks, D (ed.) (1994). Preparing for the Future: notes and queries for concerned educators. Adamantine.

Mayo, M (1997). Imagining tomorrow – Adult education for transformation. National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, Leicester, UK

Pimbert, M P and Pretty, J N (1997). Parks, people and professionals: putting ‘participation’ into protected-area management. In: Pimbert, M P and Ghimire, K B (eds) (1997). Social change and conservation. Earthscan

O’Riordan, T (1989). ‘The Challenge for Environmentalism’ in Peet, R, and Thrift, N (eds) New Models in Geography vol 1, Unwin Hyman

Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2004a). The Ramsar Convention Manual: a Guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), 3^rd ed. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.

Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2004b). Ramsar Handbooks for the wise use of wetlands. Handbook 5: Establishing and strengthening local communities’ and indigenous people’s participation in the management of wetlands. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland

Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2004c). Ramsar Handbooks for the wise use of wetlands. Handbook 6: Promoting the conservation and wise use of wetlands through communication, education and public awareness – The Outreach Programme of the Convention on Wetlands. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland. (The Handbook contains the text of the Convention’s CEPA Programme 2003-2008, as annexed to Resolution VIII.31 and adopted at the 8^th Conference of the Contracting Parties in Valencia, Spain, in 2002.)

Sterling, S (1996). Education for Sustainability: experience of change through education. Study Guide for the South Bank University MSc in Environmental and Development Education, Unit 7. South Bank University, London.

The Scottish Office (1993). Learning for Life. A national strategy for environmental education in Scotland. The Scottish Office, Edinburgh, UK

Communication
Communication is a two-way exchange of ideas. It involves the recipient of the information giving a reply. Therefore, it requires the information to be processed and responded to. Distributing posters, is not, strictly, communication. When discussing the means by which we are to achieve an educational or public awareness goal, it will be important to be precise about the intent of our actions.

Education
‘Education’ is often used as shorthand for ‘schooling’. It is much more than this, and occurs throughout life, in a range of different ‘contexts of learning’ (see also paragraph 35).

There is no consensus on its precise meaning, and the term should always be explored carefully, to determine the goals and processes intended in the ‘education’ being referred to. Important clarifying questions include, "Does the education relates to the life or context of the learner?", "Whose ideas and values are being assimilated?", "Will the result of the process be to build the capacity of the person involved, motivating and skilling them to act for themselves according to knowledge, understanding and ideas of their own?" Such questions are important, to determine what type of education is being discussed. Education can be academic, instrumental, centred on the person’s own needs, and so on. ‘Education for sustainability’ is a growth area of education, although again there is no consensus as to its meaning or exact goals. It is generally located at the interface of the natural environment and society, seeking to develop people’s individual and community capacities to live in a way that is both environmentally and socially sustainable.

‘Formal education’ takes place in schools, colleges and universities. ‘Non-formal education’ takes place outside of formal systems, but in organised groups, such as special interest or youth groups. ‘Informal education’ takes place outside of organised groups, such as in the family, or on personal visits to nature reserves.

Environment
Matters to explore are whether the ‘environment’ is envisaged as including the built environment, or only that of the natural world. Where along the continuum between pristine and ‘totally’ urban does ‘the (natural) environment’ being referred to, stop? What is ‘natural’? Even the most highly-prized protected areas are, in fact, modified by man. Indeed, it is often the practices of man that have created what we now perceive to be their valued characteristics. ‘Nature’ and ‘environment’ are human, socially-manufactured, notions. The Ramsar Convention explicitly includes man-made wetlands in its definition, and so has removed some of the ambiguity in this respect. Nevertheless, the Convention is centred on the notion of ‘wise use’, with its implicit reference to mankind’s potential to damage wetlands. The ‘environment’ is elusive and changing. It will frequently require clarification when discussing matters relating to wetland CEPA.

Impacts
These should be distinguished from the outputs and outcomes of CEPA activity. ‘Impacts’ are the more endurable changes that occur as a result of CEPA. They usually assume a status of normality: ‘this is how it’s done now’. For example, a deeply embedded change in attitude will result in normal practice being changed in the long term. Impacts come to exist independently of the original CEPA activity that generated or catalysed them. We can think of educational or conservation impacts.

Information
Information is susceptible to corruption, both intentional and otherwise. We need to consider whether the information is fact or judgement, and whose values are reflected in it. For information to inform, it must be assimilated. Information is encoded in symbols, for example in speech sounds and in the printed word. This encoding offers opportunities for distortion, and for changes in interpretation from the original intention. Posters, leaflets, trainers, and other media used for conveying information can effect distortion of the original. Information is not necessarily fact

Outcomes
Outcomes are the immediate and short-term effects of a CEPA activity. For example, Contracting Parties’ current reviewing and planning of CEPA activity is an outcome of Resolution VIII.31.

Outputs
The outputs from a CEPA activity are the physical products. These might be printed or audio-visual materials, trained professionals, new working partnerships, and so on.

Participation
Participation has become a widely accepted approach in many fields. Many forms of individual and group interactions are termed ‘participation’, and it will be important to clarify precise meanings in the context of CEPA work. Participation Guidelines have been published by the Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2004b). They provide a wealth of information, ideas and case studies focusing on participatory approaches as they relate to decision-making for the management of wetland sites. The same principles apply to wetland CEPA activities. Local community and indigenous people’s ongoing support is a critical component for the long-term success of wetland CEPA programmes.

A useful typology of participation (Pretty, 1994, cit Pimbert and Pretty, 1997) is summarised here, in modified form, to illustrate the issues and to serve as an aid to clarification for CEPA activities. This particular typology has been widely used in relation to environmental and community development programmes.

(Public) Awareness
Important distinctions are to be made between ‘awareness’, ‘knowledge’, ‘understanding’ and ‘information’. ‘Information’ was discussed above. See Box 6.

Strictly, to be ‘aware’ means to be cognizant of, to have knowledge of, or to be informed of.

Stakeholders
There are many definitions of what constitutes a ‘stakeholder’. In general, a stakeholder is understood to be anyone who holds an interest or potential interest in a particular activity, its products or impacts. The Participation Guidelines (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2004b) includes in its definition those who have a contribution to make to an activity. This approach rests on a consideration of their role, or functional relationship, to an activity. It is the relationship with the project that is the important factor to consider in determining who are the stakeholders. Their specific identities will come from that understanding.

The Convention considers that the terms "wise use" and "sustainable use" are synonymous.

In the context of CEPA, the terms ‘wise’ or ‘sustainable’ use will repay even closer scrutiny, as the agreement of their precise meaning will be important in identifying potentially incompatible aims for a CEPA programme or activity, or at least in identifying undisclosed meanings.

For further information about the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, please contact the Ramsar Convention Bureau, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland (tel +41 22 999 0170, fax +41 22 999 0169, e-mail ramsar@ramsar.org). Posted 16 April 2001, updated 10 May 2004, Sandra Hails, Ramsar.