1.6 Stakeholders

1. MCA Field Guide
2. MCA Field Guide Checklist
3. Phase 1: Feasibility Analysis Checklist
4. 1.1 Conservation targets are established
5. 1.2 Threats and strategies are determined
6. 1.3 Owners, managers, and users are known
7. 1.4 Laws and policies are supportive
8. 1.5 Organizational capacity is sufficient
9. 1.6 Stakeholders and their issues are identified
10. 1.7 Costs and financing are assessed
11. 1.8 Reporting has been completed

The viability of Marine Conservation Agreement (MCA) projects depends on the positions of a wide range of stakeholders. As such, all potential MCA projects require a clear identification of key stakeholders and their issues. Stakeholders include any group or individual who may directly or indirectly affect or be affected by, either positively or negatively, the MCA. In a simplified scenario, direct stakeholders are those who will be parties to the agreement while indirect stakeholders are those who will not be parties to the agreement, but may be affected by or who may affect the outcome of the agreement—either by contributing to or hindering its success. In reality, some stakeholders may not fall neatly into one of these two groups.

A simple stakeholder and conflict analysis needs to answer two fundamental questions: 

1. Who needs to be engaged? 
2. What existing and potential conflicts will need to be addressed?

Typical MCA project stakeholders include:

• Academic institutions
• Business groups and natural resource companies (e.g., fishing, mining, oil companies)
• Community and/or indigenous groups living in or near the site
• Cultural, social, and religious organizations
• Government agencies, such as those responsible for regulations, protected areas, natural resources (e.g., fishing, mining, energy), or public services
• Landowners in or near the site
• Multi and bi-lateral funders/donors
• Non-governmental organizations (local, national or international), such as those working in community development, conservation, human rights, and indigenous rights
• Subsistence, recreational, and commercial users of the area, resources, or ecosystem services

Direct Stakeholders

Once stakeholders are identified, they can be grouped into those that will be directly involved with the MCA (project partners) and those that can indirectly impact or be impacted by the agreement. Often, those who will be directly involved in the agreement are the right-holders—the owners, managers or users of the area, resources or ecosystem services. Direct stakeholders should understand the basics of the MCA strategy to avoid philosophical misunderstandings and procedural barriers as projects progress. Bringing all partners into conceptual agreement with the strategy and into a common understanding of the long-term consequences is essential.

For stakeholders who will be involved in the agreement, a necessary characteristic to assess is whether they can be a reliable party to an agreement.

Right-holders: When right-holders are potential parties to an MCA, the ability of right-holders to be effective conservation partners should be assessed. Right-holder characteristics amenable to direct partnership on MCAs include:

• Interest in engaging in an agreement
• Interest in conservation
• Tradition (cultural and religious factors) in resource management
• Effectiveness of decision-making structures
• Capacity to enforce rights
• Potential capacity to perform conservation actions

Other Entities: If direct stakeholders are communities, government agencies, or other organizations, the quality of their representation, their internal decision-making processes, and stability will be important factors. Questions to ask in this regard might include:

• Has a system of representation and decision-making been in place for a number of years, or is it fairly recent?
• Does decision making appear orderly or sporadic and inconsistent?
• Does leadership change often due to fundamental issues that cannot be resolved within the stakeholder group?
• Is the social structure stable (for example, a rural community of colonists composed of various ethnic or religious groups that recently settled in the same area)?
• Is the government unstable or unable to maintain consistent legislation that would affect an MCA?

Individuals: If direct stakeholders are individuals, their reputation from other dealings may offer clues about their reliability.

In all cases, if prospective parties to an agreement do not appear reliable, it is an indication that a successful, long-term MCA may be difficult to achieve. If conservation at a site is extremely important and local direct stakeholders are not sufficiently organized or reliable to establish an agreement, a decision may be made to assist in building local capacity.

Indirect Stakeholders

For stakeholders who will not be directly involved in an agreement, but may be negatively impacted by it, an assessment of whether the impacts can be managed responsibly is necessary. For those stakeholders who may negatively impact the agreement, specific strategies must be in place to ensure that their issues are understood and managed. In some cases, these indirect stakeholders may include various government agencies. As such, it is essential to understand how relevant levels of government operate and which agencies must be engaged. Indirect stakeholders may also include NGOs, activist organizations, trade groups, or others with social, economic, or environmental issues in the area. They too will need to be understood and engaged as necessary.

Regulatory Agencies

Regulatory agencies deserve special attention as they may be direct or indirect stakeholders. In either case, lead conservation organizations may have to request regulatory approval before MCA projects can proceed. As such, consulting with regulatory agencies early in the process is an important step. Lead conservation organizations must know whether regulatory permits will needed, if the permits can be obtained within needed time frames, and what conditions may be imposed on projects as part of the permit requirements. These permit conditions will often become points of negotiation with the land and resource owners as well.

Ocean and Coastal Issues: If in-water work (such as oyster restoration, eelgrass planting, or shoreline softening) is planned as part of the project, then several regulatory permits may be needed (such as shoreline development permits, 401 permits, dredge and fill permits in the United States). Early contact with regulatory agencies will likely expedite project approval in later stages. The appropriate regulatory agency can be difficult to determine. This toolkit provides Country Analyses and U.S. State Analyses that may help determine agency contacts.

Lease Issues: When prospective MCA projects include leases of publicly-owned land, it is common for leasing agency and regulatory agencies to be different. As such, multiple agencies will likely be involved in leasing and regulatory permitting processes.

Stakeholder Patience

MCA projects can take more time than similar upland projects due to real and perceived policy issues. If, as in most cases, the MCA project is a relatively new concept for the geography and entities involved, then time and patience will be required on everyone's behalf, including direct and indirect stakeholders, to allow issues to be resolved. For projects that set precedents, it may not be realistic to promise deliverables to partners or funders on a hard and fast schedule. A flexible, adaptive approach may be more successful.

Stakeholder Assessment Meeting

The basic steps for a stakeholder assessment include:

1. Organizing a small meeting with close partners (staff from the lead conservation organization, partner organizations, the community and applicable government agencies). This event should be at most a day long, attended by no more than 10-12 people. Products of this meeting should include:

Several participatory rural appraisal tools are available for undertaking these types of assessments in developing countries.

2. Following up with separate meetings (when needed) that include only government or community members, especially when conflicts or informal decision-making systems exist.

3. Assessing and developing resolution or management options for each potential conflict identified during the “conflict mapping.” Organizations should consider what is needed to resolve each conflict and how this might happen (e.g., traditional informal resolution versus “formal” approaches). In some cases conflicts may be intractable, in which case the MCA may not be feasible. The main product of this effort is a short document describing the conflicts found and strategies to address them.

Stakeholder information will provide a clearer picture of who is affected by or will affect the MCA and what the conflicts are to be resolved or managed. The product at the end of this process is a strategy defining how to work with each stakeholder.

Next Sub-step

After identifying stakeholders and their issues, the costs and financing options for MCA projects must be estimated.

Proceed to 1.7 Costs and Financing

Return to Top