The strategic role of stakeholder mapping and engagement on KEE development

The strategic role of stakeholder mapping and engagement on KEE development

Indonesia - 29 May, 2019

Directorate of Essential Ecosystem Areas Management (BPKEE), Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF), as part of their role to provide norm, standards and guidance to regional government, have been in the process of developing guidance on stakeholder mapping (SM) and engagement (SE) on KEE (Essential Ecosystem Areas) development. On Tuesday, 28 May 2019, Director of Tropenbos Indonesia, Edi Purwanto was invited by BPKEE to present his ideas on this issue, his inputs during the meeting is summarized below.

KEE is conservation outside of legal protected areas, it is largely located in production landscape (APL), therefore the designation and formalization scheme are highly dependent on the truth intentions of key stakeholders.  

Refer to the steps of KEE development, the SM&SE are conducted after KEE potential site is identified, this process is mainly based on natural based criteria.  SM&SE are the follow up process which aim to identify stakeholders which have access and control over KEE proposed areas, analyze their power and interest which be a basis to design strategic interventions of SE to ‘engineer’ their vision towards KEE management scheme.  This work should be conducted by KEE initiator, which could be province or district government, local champions (land-based business which commit to sustainability) or civil service organizations (CSO/NGO).

Stakeholders identification should be conducted thoroughly (as to avoid exclusion of important players), where the detail agenda, interest, needs and influences  (including near future development) of each stakeholder should be well understood by KEE initiator. This is not always easy, especially when dealing with general corporate attitude which highly protective on information.  

The listed stakeholders (government, corporate, local community and NGOs), either proponents or opponents are  subsequently assessed based on its influence (power) and interest and classified into four groups, i.e. key players, context setter, beneficiary and crowds. The most common tool used to visualize this, is to place the stakeholders in a matrix with two different axes (see below).


diagram interest.png


Number and type of stakeholders may vary with KEE management objective, for instance KEE for wildlife corridor might have larger and diverse stakeholders compared to biodiversity park (Taman Kehati). 

The placement in the different quadrants should be carefully assessed on the basis on de factointerest rather than de jure, for instance, Environmental Agency at District level might not support KEE, since the Regent (Bupati) prefer to quick economic win investment. 

The thorough stakeholder’s analysis helps toidentify a tailor-made approach for SE.  For instance, the stakeholders in quadrant B might be the key proponent and being good partner to promote KEEs, or as they are opponents, could be targeted stakeholders for lobby and advocacy. Stakeholders in quadrant D are probably targeted stakeholders for awareness, capacity building and empowerment to make them understand with KEE opportunities, while in A might be important to be friend for positive influence or consult to avoid negative influence. The stakeholders in quadrant C are the least important but there might be a need to keep them informed, this could be agencies which have indirect relation with KEE but their involvement may raise legitimacy, or may use media (newspaper, television) to promote KEE. 

The SE approach should be ideally conducted through door-to-door communication. After reaching a certain point of understanding which could take months or years, then they could be invited to sit together todiscuss future development of KEE and opportunity to manage the areas collaboratively through negotiation, coordination and collaboration. If the results are promising then the process could be proceeded with developing multi-stakeholder platform, which is pre-requirement for KEE formalization. Ifthe situation is reversed, then KEE may not be the right management option, otherwise this will only waste precious resources(EP).