Trialogue in National Ecosystem Assessments
The Trialogue is a methodology for the facilitation of multistakeholder engagement applied by the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Network (BES-Net). It goes beyond bridging the traditional science-policy gap and brings together the three communities of:
Practice
Policy
Science
including the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and indigenous and local knowledge holders.
Harnessing innovative facilitation techniques, the Trialogue creates a space for knowledge holders and stakeholders with a diverse set of expertise and experience – and who do not commonly communicate or collaborate – to join forces in addressing biodiversity and ecosystem services issues. The Trialogue enables knowledge-sharing, conflict management and joint decision-making. It is a gender-responsive and inclusive approach, fostering a constructive dialogue between, within and among stakeholder groups.
Why use Trialogues in a national ecosystem assessment?
Effective decision-making for the sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services requires cooperation between different stakeholders with complex power and interest dynamics. To achieve this, there would ideally be improved knowledge, information and data-sharing from multiple directions, including bottom-up and top-down systems.
The Trialogue encourages the identification, analysis and development of approaches to address the patterns that can either hinder or provide opportunities for collaboration between stakeholders involved in a national ecosystem assessment.
The national Trialogue is one of the most effective tools for engaging all stakeholders, and that enables knowledge-sharing and joint decision-making. The National Trialogue has added more value to the process as all knowledge holders, including scientific and Indigenous and local knowledge holders, were valued and taken on board from the initial scoping stage.
The national Trialogue is one of the most effective tools for engaging all stakeholders, and that enables knowledge-sharing and joint decision-making. The National Trialogue has added more value to the process as all knowledge holders, including scientific and Indigenous and local knowledge holders, were valued and taken on board from the initial scoping stage.
Effective decision-making for the sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services requires cooperation between different stakeholders with complex power and interest dynamics. To achieve this, there would ideally be improved knowledge, information and data-sharing from multiple directions, including bottom-up and top-down systems.
The Trialogue encourages the identification, analysis and development of approaches to address the patterns that can either hinder or provide opportunities for collaboration between stakeholders involved in a national ecosystem assessment.
The iceberg metaphor acts as an analogy to the stakeholder engagement approach applied during the Trialogue event.
The national ecosystem assessment may be considered a sailing expedition to build an understanding of the oceans (i.e. knowledge).
In this process, it is important not to damage the boat (i.e. the national ecosystem assessment)...
...on the issues hidden below the surface of the water and to be aware of any underlying forces or processes that could impact the boat.
The Trialogue helps people on the boat (i.e. the assessment team) navigate a safe and productive passage through the icebergs...
...while leveraging the benefits of the upwelling, bringing to the surface the opportunities for meaningful engagement of stakeholders.
It creates a trusted space for those with divergent views, cultures and interests to actively listen to each other and generate options that can overcome underlying conflicts. These options (e.g. policy options in the assessment) act like marine upwellings that provide nutrient-rich opportunities for finding common ground and new ways forward.
How do Trialogues strengthen stakeholder engagement?
The structure of a Trialogue depends on the type of engagement, which can vary based on the engagement’s objectives and expected outcomes. It also depends on the number and type of participants, their expectations, and the event’s format (e.g. in-person, virtual or hybrid).
The table below illustrates different levels of stakeholder engagement.
All the levels add value...
...yet the Trialogues are best suited to the last three columns:
Trialogues are most beneficial where the ecosystem assessment:
- Needs the framing of key policy questions from different stakeholders (i.e. ministries, non-governmental organizations, private sector, academia, indigenous peoples and local communities) to ensure they are policy-relevant.
- Can be enriched through the collaboration of stakeholders and knowledge holders who have different cultures, views and ways of understanding and engaging with biodiversity and ecosystem services. They bring in different types of knowledge, information and data. Through the Multiple Evidence Base approach, it is important to give a voice to those who may not be regularly heard or given a seat at the decision-making table (e.g. indigenous peoples and local communities, women and businesses), as their unique insights can contribute to innovative solutions and widen perspectives.
- Gains legitimacy by reaching a certain level of agreement and a common agenda for action.
How to organize an effective Trialogue?
It is recommended to analyse the strategically appropriate moments to hold a Trialogue at the beginning of the assessment to ensure the most effective planning with the support of the key resource persons. An impactful Trialogue hinges on the steps listed below.
|
TOP TIP The Multiple Evidence Base approach is the golden thread of the Trialogue. It supports mobilizing, translating, negotiating and synthesizing different types of knowledge, world views and experience to bring to the dialogue: natural sciences, social sciences, local and traditional knowledge.
For more information, read Practical Guidelines on working with Indigenous Peoples and Local Knowledge in national ecosystems assessment. |
In preparation for the Trialogue event:
Define the purpose of the Trialogue, setting its objectives and expected outcomes. This will help determine the most pertinent time in the assessment to hold the Trialogue event. The desired outcomes of the Trialogue are not only for the assessment team but also for the participants.
Example: A Trialogue could take place during the scoping stage to define, review or validate key policy questions.
Identify the key entry points in the national ecosystem assessment where key stakeholders and knowledge holders need to be engaged.
Example: A Trialogue could happen at the approval stage to validate the assessment’s findings.
Produce a background briefing document that sets out the context regarding knowledge on the issues to be addressed in the Trialogue to ensure equal access to preliminary information for all participants.
This process also allows for the identification of opportunities and contentious issues that need to be addressed and the voices that need to be heard during the Trialogue.
Design a purpose-led, context-sensitive agenda that supports the creation of approaches that enhance and ensure multistakeholder dialogue and help address any power imbalances.
Example: A session on the site visit, storytelling and/or case studies can be organized in the earlier part of the agenda to first make space for those who have local knowledge.
Conduct gender-responsive stakeholder analysis.
Example: The snowballing technique is used to identify participants that may not be easily accessible, such as indigenous peoples and local communities, and particularly women leaders.
Ensure proportionate representation from communities of policy, science and practice to enhance the provision of all perspectives.
Example: Fair representation may be considered in the number of participants when engaging speakers of the sessions, defining the list of participants, deciding on the division into groups for the breakout sessions, etc. If the Trialogue is taking place virtually, identify case studies to find success stories and bright spot examples of the indigenous and local community and/or private sector-led initiatives that shine a light on the theme of the Trialogue.
Define the purpose of the Trialogue, setting its objectives and expected outcomes. This will help determine the most pertinent time in the assessment to hold the Trialogue event. The desired outcomes of the Trialogue are not only for the assessment team but also for the participants.
Example: A Trialogue could take place during the scoping stage to define, review or validate key policy questions.
Identify the key entry points in the national ecosystem assessment where key stakeholders and knowledge holders need to be engaged.
Example: A Trialogue could happen at the approval stage to validate the assessment’s findings.
Produce a background briefing document that sets out the context regarding knowledge on the issues to be addressed in the Trialogue to ensure equal access to preliminary information for all participants.
This process also allows for the identification of opportunities and contentious issues that need to be addressed and the voices that need to be heard during the Trialogue.
Design a purpose-led, context-sensitive agenda that supports the creation of approaches that enhance and ensure multistakeholder dialogue and help address any power imbalances.
Example: A session on the site visit, storytelling and/or case studies can be organized in the earlier part of the agenda to first make space for those who have local knowledge.
Conduct gender-responsive stakeholder analysis.
Example: The snowballing technique is used to identify participants that may not be easily accessible, such as indigenous peoples and local communities, and particularly women leaders.
Ensure proportionate representation from communities of policy, science and practice to enhance the provision of all perspectives.
Example: Fair representation may be considered in the number of participants when engaging speakers of the sessions, defining the list of participants, deciding on the division into groups for the breakout sessions, etc. If the Trialogue is taking place virtually, identify case studies to find success stories and bright spot examples of the indigenous and local community and/or private sector-led initiatives that shine a light on the theme of the Trialogue.
During the Trialogue event:
Create a trusting and hospitable space for engagement.
Example: Consider changing the room layout if possible, applying a “carousel” type table allocation and a multisensory approach to learning by stimulating people’s five senses of sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing through music, stories, themed food and site visits/demonstrations (if the budget allows). People have the opportunity to bond and become champions for change when their emotions and a sense of purpose are engaged.
Apply innovative event facilitation tools and practices to safeguard quality time for meaningful dialogue.
Example: To this end, tools like OpenSpace Technology, World Café, Visualisation, Theory U, joint problem-solving and governance mapping could be applied. These techniques can be used in face-to-face events and adapted to virtual settings through multimedia tools, including Mentimeter and virtual whiteboard.
Run as a high-level event designed and advertized to attract senior policymakers, donors and the private sector. Prepare a policy brief, as this is a key tool for influencing decision-makers.
Example: This segment of the event could support the validation of the technical report and the Summary for Policymakers of the national ecosystem assessment.
Connect the comments and results of the sessions through the course of the Trialogue. The facilitator could show participants how a collective narrative is constructed, mapping out convergences and divergences as the conversations progress, providing shape for the report on the outcomes of the Trialogue and the actions needed going forward.
Example: The participants co-create and agree on the common agenda for the way forward with the assessment to ensure continuity in interaction and follow-up.
Create a trusting and hospitable space for engagement.
Example: Consider changing the room layout if possible, applying a “carousel” type table allocation and a multisensory approach to learning by stimulating people’s five senses of sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing through music, stories, themed food and site visits/demonstrations (if the budget allows). People have the opportunity to bond and become champions for change when their emotions and a sense of purpose are engaged.
Apply innovative event facilitation tools and practices to safeguard quality time for meaningful dialogue.
Example: To this end, tools like OpenSpace Technology, World Café, Visualisation, Theory U, joint problem-solving and governance mapping could be applied. These techniques can be used in face-to-face events and adapted to virtual settings through multimedia tools, including Mentimeter and virtual whiteboard.
Run as a high-level event designed and advertized to attract senior policymakers, donors and the private sector. Prepare a policy brief, as this is a key tool for influencing decision-makers.
Example: This segment of the event could support the validation of the technical report and the Summary for Policymakers of the national ecosystem assessment.
Connect the comments and results of the sessions through the course of the Trialogue. The facilitator could show participants how a collective narrative is constructed, mapping out convergences and divergences as the conversations progress, providing shape for the report on the outcomes of the Trialogue and the actions needed going forward.
Example: The participants co-create and agree on the common agenda for the way forward with the assessment to ensure continuity in interaction and follow-up.
|
TOP TIP The Trialogue helps to address divergent views and interests to enable collaboration and knowledge-sharing. It supports other activities, such as those described in the Communication Strategy. |
After the Trialogue event:
Monitor and share bright spot stories of change as a result of the Trialogue and post-Trialogue actions.
Example: Bright spots of change include the evidence of behavioural change or the broader impact of the assessment on communities or policies. Human-interest stories sharing the personal feedback and experiences of the Trialogue can effectively communicate this change.
Who can help organize the Trialogue?
The country assessment team is the body defining when a Trialogue should take place. Planning a Trialogue would ideally occur from the onset of the assessment and be reviewed throughout the assessment. The UNDP BES-Net team’s expertise can support the planning, methodological designing, training/support of local facilitators and on-site/virtual facilitation of Trialogues.
When should the Trialogue be applied in a national ecosystem assessment?
The Trialogue can take place at any stage of the assessment. It is useful to consider Trialogues as a stakeholder engagement methodology from the onset of an assessment and revisit its need and relevance throughout the assessment, particularly at the start of each stage (Scoping, Evaluation, Validation/Approval). It is also important to be mindful of the different stakeholders and the knowledge holders’ context, needs, interests and influence.
At the beginning of the assessment, it is recommended to analyse the spectrum of engagement appropriate for different types of stakeholders as a means to identify the purpose and objectives of different key moments of stakeholder engagement, which can be supported by a Trialogue or other approaches.
The Trialogue Matrix below provides the indicative list of strategic moments in which Trialogue events can be organized in the national ecosystem assessment process.
Built with Shorthand