In this chapter:
Go to next chapter
Problems with Collaboration
return to TOC
Solutions for Improving Collaboration
return to BSP publications page

Collaboration Among and Between the Different Sectors

Problems with Collaboration

Collaboration among and between the different sectors working in Ethiopia was not common. Moreover, it was made difficult because of the complex nature of Ethiopia's social, economic, and development problems. Additionally, the extent of Ethiopia's various problems and government impediments frequently resulted in a crisis-oriented mode of assistance rather than one of disaster-preparedness. This left little time for collaborating or, at the least, networking. Other factors that prevented collaboration were people's lack of knowledge and experience in dealing with issues thought unrelated to one's sector of expertise, or an unwillingness to consider the community aspect of conservation.

Because of these problems, sectors frequently worked independently, which meant they often were at odds despite having similar goals. As an example, GOAL, an Irish relief organization,

was attempting to provide alternative watering sites to the Kereyu in the Awash area due to livestock access problems related to the government's irrigation schemes. GOAL's impression was that limited access to water was facilitating a dependency on aid by way of limiting grazing opportunities. The organization proposed drilling water wells in places where the increase in localized livestock grazing (i.e., near the wells) would eventually have reduced the quality and availability of forage, as well as contribute to environmental degradation. Furthermore, several of the sites were located within the boundaries of the Awash National Park. When first confronted by park authorities, GOAL accused them of not caring about the Kereyu. After some discussion, however, organization members realized that park authorities' concerns were related more to the issue of environmental degradation, and the long-term effect of this degradation on the Kereyu, than to the issue of park bylaws.

Collaboration also was highly dependent on the personalities of those involved. Some government organizations, NGOs, and project leaders seemed to think that collaboration among or between different sectors somehow weakened their position in a given area; as a consequence, these individuals acted in a territorial manner. Other organizations simply were reluctant to associate with one another, concerned about the others' practices or the amount of effort and time it took to collaborate. The latter often was a legitimate excuse, particularly during times of crisis-oriented mode. Lack of collaboration among and between several NGO's over the years, however, resulted in a duplication of effort on more than one occasion, and interpretations that frequently conflicted. For those that did take the time to collaborate, success more often than not was the case.

Solutions for Improving Collaboration

There are numerous ways to improve collaboration among and between different sectors at the various institutional levels (e.g., international, national, regional, local, etc.). Foremost among these is the decision by institution leaders to insist upon collaboration, particularly when collaboration 1) prevents redundancy, saves funds, or allows for their reallocation; 2) facilitates a greater understanding of the problems and issues; 3) prevents the misuse of funds; and 4) avoids undermining the efforts of others. Once the decision to collaborate is made, it could be improved by accomplishing the following:

When a particular NGO is operating in a country, it is always beneficial for said NGO to have a representative in the capital. This person would be responsible for networking with other NGOs and government agencies to keep abreast of what each is doing. Some specific suggestions for networking follow. When operating in crisis mode, regularly scheduled meetings often are viewed as a waste of time. The true nature of the situation, however, is that regularly scheduled meetings are very important during crises, particularly when brief, and the alternative is irregular and long meetings. The reasons are that briefer and more frequent meetings keep people up to date on the situation, and the information presented often is more easily understood and assimilated. Sectoral committees designed to review project proposals from different sectors would be extremely beneficial. Each sector may have ideas and information that would facilitate the success of a project, by identifying potential problems and strengths. A review of project proposals also would reduce the likelihood of any duplication of effort, thereby freeing money for other projects. Finally, a review committee would be more likely to identify projects that would not correspond with ongoing projects. Although most would agree that this is an approach making intuitive sense, few projects use an integrated approach for the reasons presented above. In addition, such approaches require much planning. Because planning takes time, an integrated approach often is rejected and a quick, short-term fix instead becomes the norm. To create the awareness necessary for improving collaboration among and between the different sectors, workshop developers must consider a more diverse group of donors and advisors as potential guests. We sometimes seem to forget that representatives from many other sectors -- including health, social, cultural, agricultural, energy, and animal husbandry -- also should be included in workshops oriented toward a conservation or protected-area theme. Educating the non-conservation-based sectors about conservation goals is the first step toward broad strategic planning that could incorporate multi-sectoral mandates into a unified plan.

    The last means of collaboration is important because unification among and between different sectors makes it clear to the recipient that they cannot shop around or play one donor against another until finding one that will give in to their demands.