Framework for operationalising stakeholder accountability in rewilding projects
| Factor | Diagnose (what to check) | Practical actions (apply) | Indicators to track (simple measures) | Common risks | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resources | Longevity of funding; coverage of operations, monitoring, maintenance and administration; gaps in skills and data; balance of local and external support | Combine local, government and sustainability funding; set aside money for monitoring, operations and maintenance; build local skills; formalise partnerships with various stakeholders; recognise and value volunteers, in-kind support and scientific work | Number of years of confirmed funding; percentage of budget reserved for operations and maintenance; number of trained local staff and volunteers; estimated value of in-kind and scientific contributions | Short grants (mismatch); administration and monitoring not funded; dependence on external experts | Multi-year written agreements; include administration and monitoring in budgets; step-by-step local capacity plan; succession plan to transfer expertise locally; ensure accountability through reporting |
| Time | Seasonal work windows; time needed to obtain permits; species breeding and generation time; donor deadlines | Create a combined calendar for seasons and permits; set staged goals (species recovery, then habitat, then local capacity); plan on long-term horizons | Milestones completed within the correct season; percentage of permits obtained on time; progress against capacity-building milestones | Severe weather events; missed deadlines; donor cycles that do not match ecological timelines | Meet regulators before applying; add time buffers; keep a rolling work plan; set clear contingency triggers |
| Trust | Expectations for transparency; preferred reporting frequency; due diligence of funders; how the community views the project | Share both successes and challenges; organise field visits for funders and partners; agree on a small set of shared performance indicators; check funders' motivations to avoid reputational risk | Reports delivered on schedule; repeat funding rate; satisfaction checks with stakeholders; number of field visits or open days held | Heavy reporting burden; incentives that pull in the wrong direction; reputational risk from misaligned partners | Use light, common indicators; keep a shared audit trail; screen funders; set a clear communication protocol |
| Stakeholder dynamics | Who decides, who benefits and who may lose; access to private land; government control points; cultural identity and perceptions | Make an early map of roles and responsibilities; agree on how benefits are shared; sign access agreements with landowners; run cultural outreach and education | Roles and responsibilities documented; number of land access agreements; participation rates in meetings and activities; record of conflicts or grievances | Permit bottlenecks; capture of benefits by powerful actors; negative sentiment towards foreign experts | Name a government liaison; use an independent facilitator when needed; develop local leaders; hold regular coordination meetings |
| Factor | Diagnose (what to check) | Practical actions (apply) | Indicators to track (simple measures) | Common risks | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resources | Longevity of funding; coverage of operations, monitoring, maintenance and administration; gaps in skills and data; balance of local and external support | Combine local, government and sustainability funding; set aside money for monitoring, operations and maintenance; build local skills; formalise partnerships with various stakeholders; recognise and value volunteers, in-kind support and scientific work | Number of years of confirmed funding; percentage of budget reserved for operations and maintenance; number of trained local staff and volunteers; estimated value of in-kind and scientific contributions | Short grants (mismatch); administration and monitoring not funded; dependence on external experts | Multi-year written agreements; include administration and monitoring in budgets; step-by-step local capacity plan; succession plan to transfer expertise locally; ensure accountability through reporting |
| Time | Seasonal work windows; time needed to obtain permits; species breeding and generation time; donor deadlines | Create a combined calendar for seasons and permits; set staged goals (species recovery, then habitat, then local capacity); plan on long-term horizons | Milestones completed within the correct season; percentage of permits obtained on time; progress against capacity-building milestones | Severe weather events; missed deadlines; donor cycles that do not match ecological timelines | Meet regulators before applying; add time buffers; keep a rolling work plan; set clear contingency triggers |
| Trust | Expectations for transparency; preferred reporting frequency; due diligence of funders; how the community views the project | Share both successes and challenges; organise field visits for funders and partners; agree on a small set of shared performance indicators; check funders' motivations to avoid reputational risk | Reports delivered on schedule; repeat funding rate; satisfaction checks with stakeholders; number of field visits or open days held | Heavy reporting burden; incentives that pull in the wrong direction; reputational risk from misaligned partners | Use light, common indicators; keep a shared audit trail; screen funders; set a clear communication protocol |
| Stakeholder dynamics | Who decides, who benefits and who may lose; access to private land; government control points; cultural identity and perceptions | Make an early map of roles and responsibilities; agree on how benefits are shared; sign access agreements with landowners; run cultural outreach and education | Roles and responsibilities documented; number of land access agreements; participation rates in meetings and activities; record of conflicts or grievances | Permit bottlenecks; capture of benefits by powerful actors; negative sentiment towards foreign experts | Name a government liaison; use an independent facilitator when needed; develop local leaders; hold regular coordination meetings |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.