Presentation on theme: "Success factors. Success factor - definition A critical success factor is one that must be fulfilled in order for a project to succeed. This summary outlines."— Presentation transcript:
Success factor - definition A critical success factor is one that must be fulfilled in order for a project to succeed. This summary outlines the factors that have contributed to the Laponia Process’s success. None of the factors are ranked or prioritised – with one exception. One of the process’s critical success factors was without doubt the parties’ shared willingness to invest time, resources and dedication into seeing the Laponia Process to a successful conclusion.
Well-timed National and international policy and research: -The government report “A joint nature conservation policy” (2002) underlined the importance of dialogue and local participation and outlined a holistic perspective in which nature conservation work embraces both preservation and sustainable use. -The European Landscape Convention, ratified by Sweden in 2010, underlines the importance of people taking an active part in the evaluation and administration of the landscape. -In 2007 the UN adopted declaration on the rights which recognised the unrestricted right of indigenous people to self- determination. -In her work on how commons should be managed, 2009 Nobel Prize winner in economics Elinor Ostrom stresses the importance of growth coming from grass roots level.
Influencing factors In UNESCO’s decision 1996, the organisation recommended that Swedish authorities should continue to cooperate with the affected Samis concerned and strengthen the management plan for the area. After the periodic evaluation in 2006, UNESCO and the Swedish National Heritage Board (SNHB) highlighted the fact that the Laponia Process acted as an “excellent platform for continuing a working process where new administrative paths for the world heritage site could be tested.” In addition to these “international” requirements there were the parties’ own ambitions (as expressed in the petition) and the government‘s expectations and interests as expressed in the government assignment of 2007.
Preparatory process The preparatory work laid a foundation: -Each party could identify the basic issues they were prepared to fight for and areas of compromise. -The parties got to know each other’s strengths and weaknesses, which enabled them to develop strategies in preparation for the continued process work. The fact that the Laponia world heritage site work coincided with changes in other areas – the management of predators, for instance – was also significant.
Core values The Laponia Process’s core values were established by the parties before the petition was submitted to the government in June 2006: “The World Heritage of Lapland, Laponia, must be seen from a holistic perspective where the relationship between humankind and their surroundings are in focus. This holistic site is an indispensable heritage that will be handed over to the next generation. The Sami culture will continue and reindeer herding will use the landscape at the same time as new Sami occupations are carried out in accordance with the natural and cultural values that are forming the foundation for the justification of the World Heritage appointment. The cultural landscape, the national parks and the nature reserves will be protected and cared for in such a way that their values remain intact, and so that they can become an example in the nature and culture conservation institutions and a help for the development in municipalities involved. The experiences of the visitors’ are to be reinforced by suitable information and other efforts.”
Petition In the petition the Process parties requested that the government should: -Give Norrbotten’s County Administration Board the task of testing a new administrative form for the Laponia world heritage site for 2006-2009. -Task Norrbotten’s County Administration Board and SEPA to actively support the establishment of a locally grounded administrative organisation for the Laponia world heritage site by 2010; -Provide annual funding to the Laponia Delegation for its work during the trial period and for building up of a locally grounded world heritage administration. The parties had a common desire to create a locally grounded administrative organisation, produce a clear body of rules, form an administration plan for the site, develop a visitors’ centre and contribute to an improved infrastructure.
Mijá Ednam Interest group Mijá Ednam was the nine affected Sami organizations’ shared platform throughout the Laponia Process. It employed people to take part in the different working groups and its board was part of the Laponia Delegation. According to researchers Mijá Ednam is highly unusual in an indigenous context in having so many people joining forces and working successfully for so many years.
Mandate The people representing the parties had a considerable independent mandate to represent the interests of their organisations. In some cases the mandate was relatively open and long-term while Mijá Ednam, for instance, had a more limited mandate in individual issues. They gained that as a result of a comprehensive and well-developed grounding and dialogue work in the Sami economic organizations concerned.
Consensus Consensus in the Laponia Process: -all the parties’ views were treated with respect and diligence, -the decisions were based on proposals acceptable to all, -it created a sense of security and inclusion in the working groups and a long-term sustainability in the decisions, -the positive experiences have been passed on to Laponiatjuottjudus.
Equal terms The parties were able to participate on equal financial terms thorough funding provided by the state. All the parties had the opportunity to employ personnel or delegate responsibilities and to pay fees etc. for meetings. The consensus principle helped to ensure that everyone had “a voice” in the work groups. This has meant that reindeer herders and state officials, for instance, have collaborated on equal terms.
Key figures Some 80 people took part with varying degrees of scope, intensity and responsibility in the process. All were significant for the result. The work model and complexity of the assignment also meant that some people shouldered a bigger and more long-term share of the responsibilities (including notices of meetings, agendas and memorandum items, pre-meeting research, financial administration and relationship-building between the parties). The leaders who took a stand for the process work, gave mandates to their representatives and saw the process to its completion were also key people.
Willingness and resilience A successful collaboration required: -new work methods and a new approach, -that each party had more to gain than lose by trying again and that -this would probably be the last attempt for many years. In all, this meant that the parties had invested a great deal of trust in the Laponia Process, which in turn led to the work developing a unique resilience. The state wanted to take part in the work of creating a new joint administrative organisation and the change would not have been possible without the state’s participation.
Could we have done it any other way? The chosen form for organising the work, with five working groups, one drafting group and the Laponia Delegation, was too complex. At the same time the complexity meant that “many stones were turned simultaneously”, which may have had a positive effect on the final drafting and evaluation. This reflects the difficulties in defining an optimal process organisation once and for all. The intensity of the work made a tightly-knit group of the key actors. This was aided by the shared core values, which were significant for those who had taken part in defining them. This made some of the new process workers feeling slightly alienated and uncertain about how the work could and should be conducted. With a better awareness about how groups develop and a preparedness to introduce new members, this could have been avoided.