Quality of communication processes

The decision-makers engaged with science in a process of knowledge co-production during the NFEPA project. This occurred primarily through a variety of face-to-face activities except for the final stages of product development which happened via emails between teams and individuals concerned (project leader pers comm.). A detailed list of the suite of activities involved is summarised in Table 12. Many activities were undertaken by small (<10 people) groups of experts invited to contribute by the lead project team (Nel et al., 2016). These teams consisted of experts from both the science and policy domains and they were responsible for applying expertise from these domains to develop science-based products that could be applied within the legal and policy settings that existed at the time.

When asked about their engagement with NFEPA, most interviewees could not recall the specific types of workshops they had participated in but many (9 out of 16) did recall the process of providing input by commenting on maps or GIS data layers. This type of process was about eliciting the expert tacit knowledge of participants. For example:

NFEPA14 “they had all these maps laid across different tables. So people would just draw on those maps if I remember correctly and add data”

NFEPA17 “So we’d sit and pore over maps and highlight and make marks and drawing on the map and they were later captured and translated”

NFEPA05 “I was part of a smaller group actually reviewing it [sensitive fish area maps] and saying why did you pick this river, I’ve surveyed there, I think you can get a better area that’s representing more species or an area that’s less impacted”

The types of knowledge that interviewees were providing in these circumstances included: the distribution of species and their biology, the level of impact in their local ecosystems, and the potential for future impacts from planned developments, water extraction, etc. For some, their engagement with science through NFEPA project consisted solely of attendance over several days at these types of knowledge co-production workshops. However, these same people may have also kept up to date with the project via reading project newsletters and subsequently using the products.

Another mechanism for engagement in NFEPA by a smaller cohort of people was through its governance structure. Two interviewees were involved at this level and their engagement

108

seemed to represent a mixture of engaging with science content and project management. They mentioned providing guidance on the strategic direction of NFEPA (such as alignment with institutional requirements) and providing other expert input (such as advice on key individuals or groups who should be invited to participate). Such participants likely contributed a complex suite of knowledge including: how their institutions function; past, current and future policy; and management levers, constraints, opportunities, etc coming from experience in the sector. While they may not have had as deep engagement in the science underpinning the project as the technical teams, the involvement of such senior experts seemed to create legitimacy for the NFEPA processes and outputs which these influential people could then communicate to others within their institutions.

Improving access to knowledge

As discussed earlier, accessibility of science may relate simply to being able to retrieve it. These and other aspects of accessibility can be improved through processes of communication. Arguably a key value of the NFEPA project was to make both science and practitioner knowledge more accessible by pulling together both published information and tacit knowledge into usable outputs. In other words, one value of engaging through communication can be eliciting and capturing tacit knowledge and then making it more accessible to decision-makers: “So by being involved I was able to keep abreast of the latest information that’s going to become available” (NFEPA13). The project team has estimated that over 1000 years of collective scientific and policy experience contributed to co- production of NFEPA products (Nel et al., 2016). With the passage of five years since project completion it also appears that the products from NFEPA may be more accessible to participants than those who did not participate:

NFEPA08 “for the local guy on the ground, if he wants to use it he needs to know which table to go to and what to look up. Because it is actually not that straight forward”

NFEPA14 “I think the extent to which they can actually apply it I think is being limited by their own technical inabilities”

In other words, people who engaged with the science and contributed to knowledge co- production also learned about how products like the atlas work and so may be better able to use them. This is discussed further under outcomes.

109

Values related to dialogue and deliberation

Engagement with science through communication in NFEPA was not only about eliciting participants’ tacit knowledge or expert opinion. Interviewees recounted how they could make suggestions and disagree with each other. For example:

NFEPA11 “it was a very wide consultation and we sat around the tables and we talked. And this one said this, and that one said no, no remember this and remember that, oh yes I forgot about that, that kind of thing you know”

NFEPA08 “So the guys were really into it, they would ask you questions that challenge you as well you know, make you think”.

Some interviewees described discussions around the maps where people would question other’s claims and these would need to be justified. This type of observation indicates that the type of input from experts elicited through dialogue may be different than other methods of elicitation (such as individuals filling in a written proforma) through the processes of making and questioning claims.

Engagement through dialogue and deliberation was also mentioned by eleven out of sixteen interviewees as a mechanism that facilitated learning and understanding: “some of the stuff you can never understand from a document” (project team member transcript). Such processes were also noted as being enjoyable by some as it was “time out” from routine activities, could be stimulating or could provide a sense of personal satisfaction from being able to contribute their experience and knowledge.

Power to influence processes and outputs or other motivations to engage?

The governance groups (steering committee and technical reference group) had the greatest influence on how the NFEPA project was run (project leader pers comm.). While most interviewees didn’t feel they influenced the processes of the project, they were generally positive about the way it was run (particularly its inclusive nature) and felt they did or could have influenced the outputs:

ROC “What if any influence did you have on the NFEPA project’s process and outputs?”

NFEPA17 “It’s probably more on the output than the process. I think the process they had a plan and they had a system so it wasn’t really process”

Interviewees were specifically asked why they got involved in the NFEPA project (Appendix C) but the opportunity to get outputs they wanted wasn’t evident in any of the replies. This

110

may have been because the type of output (a conservation plan to identify freshwater priority areas) had already been decided upon. Instead the South African decision-makers expressed a variety of motivations to engage. One interview summed up many of the responses “I think there’s a number of reasons—it speaks to your value system.”(NFEPA08). Nine out of the eighteen interviewees mentioned personal motivations to engage and the most common personal motivation related to wanting to protect the environment. The next most common reason was that it was part of their job description, although many of these interviewees also had a professional interest in what was being done in the project. Related to this, others felt engagement would enable them to do their job better.

The process of knowledge discovery

Knowledge co-production projects like NFEPA with a high degree of participant engagement with science explicitly or implicitly involve decisions about which sources of knowledge will be included and which technical approaches used. Conservation planning and identifying high priority areas for conservation is one scientific method that can be applied to biodiversity management. It is beyond the scope of this work to evaluate the appropriateness of this approach, suffice to acknowledge others exist and disengagement of some scientists and water resource planners was based on differing opinions as to the necessity for and validity of the conservation planning approach. The choice of the conservation planning approach was beyond the scope of NFEPA project co-design. As one interviewee noted: “that was in the hands of the scientists” (NFEPA06). However, within the framework of developing a conservation plan, a broad suite of knowledge was captured by the NFEPA project including a range of existing data sets and a range of experience and expertise from those engaged. The overwhelming impression from the interviews is that the project represented an inclusive process and a significant effort to incorporate both published and tacit knowledge (within the limitations of who engaged described in section 4.4.3). So within the pre-determined frame of developing a conservation plan, the knowledge discovery process was felt to be inclusive and comprehensive.

4.4.6 Resources available for engagement

The evaluation framework proposed in Chapter 2 predicted that engagement activities may be valued if they provide decision-makers with resources (over and above knowledge) that enable them to engage with science. One aspect of project resourcing that was explicitly valued by seven out of sixteen (non project team) interviewees was the work done by the

111

team running the project, their capacity, commitment and reputation. The team were conscious of the risks associated with participant burn out and so tried to optimize engagement activities for maximum benefit and take on other tasks themselves (Nel et al., 2016). The capacity of the team was based on years working in both science and policy within the water and environment sectors:

NFEPA17 “the people working on the project had a lot of respect and they knew what they’re doing. So there wasn’t a need to question the science and the methodology”

NFEPA12 “It was a very professional team. I really think some of the best facilitation on break away groups and special group discussions”

Another asset of the project team was the institutional affiliations of its members. For example, SANBI acts as a bridging organisation in South African environmental management. As described by one member of the project team: “they as an organisation had the legitimacy to get all the provinces and many national government departments together. You know they would call a meeting and people would come because it’s SANBI”. While the positive views of the project team described by interviewees may not be shared by all NFEPA participants, having a well-connected, well respected and consultative project team is likely to encourage both engagement by decision-makers and good processes such as open dialogue.

4.4.7 Outputs

NFEPA interviewees were not asked directly about the project’s outputs (Appendix C) however, interviewees displayed a familiarity with the products (particularly the atlas) even if they didn’t use them. Outputs were the most commonly co-referenced topic with text about both the institutional and societal outcomes from NFEPA. This indicates that when people think about the outcomes of the project it is often in relation to the fate of the products that came out of it. A common view of the outputs was expressed by one as: “So to me it wasn’t a perfect product but it was the best we had by far” (NFEPA17). In other words, the products represented the best that could be produced at the time. Positive aspects of the products were often related to their relevance and utility, for example the GIS format which allowed them to be used concurrently with other tools. Reasons cited for not using the products included: lack of a mechanism in the workplace by which to apply them; lack of accuracy (particularly in the wetlands layer); lack of necessary technical skills to use them; and lack of legislation requiring their use.

112 4.4.8 Direct outcomes

Individual or personal outcomes

Engagement with science through the NFEPA project led to a range of personal outcomes for interviewees. At a personal level, several felt a sense of satisfaction in being able to contribute to what they felt was a worthwhile endeavor: “on a personal level I feel I also contributed back to the field of science” (NFEPA13). A common individual outcome with a more direct link to increased institutional capacity was learning: “the learning curve was very steep in the beginning” (NFEPA03). People learned about both “pure” science such as how conservation planning works, and “practical” science such as the threats to ecosystems in a particular region. Another component of learning described by interviewees was the origins of the products, how they were developed and how they worked. This was of benefit to participants because they could decide in an informed way if and how to use the products. In addition, several interviewees mentioned that this in-depth understanding of the project and its outputs translated into them being advocates of the project to others and, in some cases, instruction of others in how to use the tools. For example:

NFEPA09 “in the process of being exposed to that stuff it equipped me with enough knowledge about the NFEPA to go out and start looking for the opportunities where it could be fed in.”

NFEPA13 “the benefit of being involved in the project from its development stage—in the sense of the stakeholder meetings—is that we got to understand a lot more of the project to implement it.”

These types of outcomes mean decision-makers who engaged may have an increased capacity to do their job. An added benefit for those who sponsor such projects is that participants also have greater capacity to use outputs in an informed way and they can also act as advocates for their use among peers.

The learning that occurred through the NFEPA project was not confined to the science. Interviewees also learned about how people working in the same domain but from different institutions thought about shared issues, how they approached those issues, what their knowledge needs were etc.

NFEPA18 “those engagements with field ecologists, aquatic scientists I found it enriching coz it afforded me the opportunity to apply my mind into other aspects of freshwater that I would never have had an opportunity to engage in considering I was basically a GIS modeler.”

113

NFEPA05 “the project was really a good stepping stone for me to just get my head around what the conservation issues are, what the biodiversity issues are, which species are threatened, why they’re threatened, why we need a mapping product for conservation and ja.”

Learning by decision-makers was about new facts and skills but also stimulating new ways of thinking about how they do their work. Cognitive processing was sometimes stimulated by dialogue: being asked to justify a position, hearing a perspective that challenged their own or re-thinking issues at a different scale such as challenges of applying concepts at a national rather than provincial scale:

NFEPA14 “it definitely did stimulate some thoughts as to other opportunities that one could maybe look beyond what they are busy with”

NFEPA01 “As a scientist you’re taught to think critically and you’ll get a greater sum of the parts if there’s engagement. And everybody contributes…and providing they sort of listen carefully and constructively to the other person’s opinion”

A shift in thinking is likely a crucial first step to a range of other outcomes but one that might be hard to measure.

Finally, building professional networks and trust are outcomes manifest at the individual level but may also increase a decision-maker’s institutional capacity. One example of this outcome was described by a consultant who participated in the project alongside government officials who in their daily work had responsibility for assessing his work. The shared experience of participating in the NFEPA product development was of value as they had developed a mutual understanding of what recommendations based on the NFEPA products meant. More generally, it seemed that creating and maintaining professional relationships may not have been a large benefit of engagement in this case because of the relatively small pool of people involved in freshwater conservation in South Africa who have long connections and strong bridging organisations to support these: “I don’t feel like it broadened my network substantially coz I think we’re a fairly small pool to start with” (NFEPA09). Less experienced and more remotely located people may have benefitted most in this instance.

Institutional outcomes

Thirty-seven potential use cases for NFEPA products have been documented and twenty five of these had been implemented three years after project completion (Nel et al., 2016). During the course of eighteen interviews five years after project completion a broad range of applications were also described (Table 13). This extensive adoption of NFEPA outputs is

114

Table 13: Examples of where NFEPA products have been used that were mentioned in interviews.

Examples where outputs have been used Sector/jurisdiction

Water reserve determinations ie water needed for conservation Water/ national

Water resource planning Water/national

Water resource classification Water/national

National Water Resource Strategy Water/national

Used to help determine Ecological Importance & Sensitivity Water/national Feeds into decisions about where to locate dams Water/national

Informed wetland reserve method Water/national

National Drought Management Strategy ?

National Biodiversity Assessment report (2011) Environment/ national

National river ecosystem accounts Environment/ national

National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Environment/ national

National Park management Environment/ national

Rehabilitation planning in Working for Wetlands Program Environment/ national

Water use licence applications Environment/ provincial

Used to assess development applications e.g. mining Environment/ provincial Used to develop provincial biodiversity conservation plans Environment/ provincial Informs decisions about activities allowed in nature reserves Environment/ provincial Integrated Catchment Management Strategy Environment/ provincial Used to prioritise catchments for alien vegetation clearing Environment/ provincial Informs decisions about permits to stock alien fish Environment/ provincial

Helps prioritise data collection Environment/ provincial

Strategic water resource areas Research

Environmental Impact Assessments Private (consultants)

likely a function of both time since completion of the project (allowing for their dissemination and use), plus the concerted effort by the project team to promote implementation. In broad terms, products were used to: inform a range of plans and strategies to manage natural resources sustainably; assess various threats to freshwater ecosystems such