DESIGNING PROJECTS IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD

BOX G
Example of engagement process to support transformation
Quito Dialogues – Multi-actor dialogues on scaling up biodiversity finance 5
Contributed by SwedBio at Stockholm
Resilience Centre
This is an example of how structured dialogue processes
can be used to support formal discussions
of issues which involve actors holding divergent
views and agendas.
In most international processes and negotiations
there are conflicting views based in real differences
in position. There may also be knowledge
and trust gaps that have to be understood before
solutions can be reached. The issue of innovative
finance mechanisms for biodiversity was one of the
most difficult points for the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) negotiations in 2010. Parties
could not reach agreement because some considered
that the institutional frameworks, market
regulations and safeguards were not elaborated
sufficiently. There was also a lack of trust and dialogue
between actors with different political views.
The SIDA-financed program SwedBio at Stockholm
Resilience Centre co-organized “multi-actor
dialogues” to support the formal negotiation of
financial mechanisms. They brought together
diverse groups such as United Nations and government
organizations, scientists, civil society
– including indigenous peoples and local communities’
organizations – and private sector actors.
The multi-actor dialogues were based on the conviction
that all the participants together can craft a
suite of solutions, rather than assuming there is a
single answer that fits all. This approach encouraged
active listening with the intention to understand each
other’s viewpoints, find meaning and agreement,
rather than listening to imposed positions, finding
flaws and making counterarguments. It was about
revealing assumptions for re-evaluation. According
to Yankelovich (2001) three distinctive features differentiate
a dialogue from a discussion:
5 From: “SwedBio. A knowledge interface on resilience and development
at Stockholm Resilience Centre”. Proposal to SIDA for
2016–2019 (2015).
1. Equality and the absence of coercive influences
2. Listening with empathy
3. Bringing assumptions into the open
Two international multi-actor dialogues were held
in Quito, Ecuador, to improve understanding of
resource mobilization and “innovative financial
mechanisms” for biodiversity, safeguards for
both biodiversity and social equity, mainstreaming,
and valuing biodiversity, ecosystem services
and functions. The dialogues discussed different
worldviews underlying conflicts, contributed to
enhanced understanding and clarified areas of
convergence and divergence in preparation for
negotiations under the CBD.
The intention of the Quito dialogues was not to
draft formal recommendations, but to enhance
mutual understanding of various perspectives
and so prepare for the upcoming negotiations.
Areas of convergence identified and generated
through the Quito dialogues included the need
for country-specific financing mechanisms and
policies, safeguards and appropriate governance
structures to avoid unintended outcomes. Fiscal
reforms, particularly green tax reforms and
removal of perverse subsidies, were considered
promising, as were green markets.
The Co-chairs’ report from the meeting became an
official information document to the CBD negotiations
and the Quito dialogue was referred to in the
negotiation texts. At CBD COP11 several negotiators
referred to the Quito dialogue and said that it
had brought content and a better understanding
of opportunities and challenges with different
financial mechanisms, and had created a better
atmosphere and trust for the negotiations.
More detailed elaborations of the seminar discussions
and outcome are available in the Co-chairs’
summary reports http://swed.bio/focal-areas/
approaches/dialogues-learning/multiactordialogues/quito-dialogue/,
http://swed.bio/focalareas/approaches/dialogues-learning/multiactordialogues/quito-dialogue/quito-ii-dialogue/
48 RAPTA guidelines for project design