“Grantors are just interested in the project…it’s like they think that the part that makes the project happen, the collaborative structure that allows us to do this work—all of that just happens on its own and doesn’t take any resources or investments.”

*          *          *          *

Like any field of practice, conservation and stewardship is in a constant state of evolution and adaptation. In recent decades the field has come to better understand the biodiversity, climate, and environmental injustice crises—and how interwoven and interconnected they are. Such challenges are decades, even centuries, in the making, and are embedded in the western systems in which we operate. Conservation and stewardship are calls to action to advance lasting change in the face of such challenges, and inclusive collaboration at the landscape level is necessary if we are to advance actions that match the scale and complexity of the challenges.

The opening quote–spoken by a grant recipient from the Catalyst Fund, a program that one of us administers–resonates deeply with us, and speaks to a core challenge associated with advancing conservation and stewardship as a mechanism for creating lasting change. We have come to think of this challenge as the “collaboration disconnect.” That is, even as it has become essentially axiomatic that successful landscape-level conservation and stewardship requires collaboration, little if any funding is available to allow folks to invest in the process of actually collaborating. Of course collaboration doesn’t just happen; it takes a tremendous amount of time, energy, and effort to build and steward lasting collaboration—and such collaboration is the fertile seedbed from which innovative, impactful, and just projects emerge.

Overview

From our individual vantage points at Native Americans in Philanthropy and the Network for Landscape Conservation, we have observed how the conservation and stewardship field has been iterating the practice of collaborating for landscape impact, navigating in real time questions around what is required to build and sustain collaboration successfully. More and more, the field is getting better at articulating the capacity needs for effective collaboration.  

As we track trends around collaborative capacity, we are especially interested in how this intersects with another critical trend we are witnessing: the recognition of the wisdom, perspective, and expertise that Indigenous practitioners carry, and the essential role of Tribal leadership in advancing conservation and stewardship. In writing this piece, we reflect on our developing understanding of the collaborative capacity and what it actually takes to build and sustain collaboration—and consider how an Indigenous perspective can bring this understanding to life for us, as a field, in ways that shift the trajectory of the conservation and stewardship movement. 

Collaborative Capacity: The Binding and Structural Elements that Make Collaboration

As a prototype for delivering collaborative capacity investments to landscape collaboratives (including Tribal-led collaboratives), the Catalyst Fund uses a framework that colleagues at the California Landscape Stewardship Network have elevated in considering what it takes to build successful collaboration for landscape impact. We find this framework works well to make concrete and tangible that which can often feel ambiguous, as the heart of the framework is built around six structural elements that are required for a group of partners to function collectively to achieve a shared purpose. Equally importantly though, the framework also identifies three additional “binding” elements that are essential for deepening the impact of the collaboration: meaningful relationships, inclusive culture, and collaborative mindset. 

We are struck by how viewing this collaborative capacity framework through an Indigenous lens points us towards a richer, more textured approach to collaboration. Applying an Indigenous lens underscores more clearly the essential nature of the binding elements, and how these serve as the value systems that guide how all six structural elements work cohesively to enable impactful collaboration successes.

“Binding” Elements as a Values System: An Indigenous Lens and the 5Rs

We are inspired by the “5Rs of Indigenous Philanthropy” and its potential to provide a helpful guide to deepening collaborative capacity. As Brittany Shulman, Chief Programs Office at Native Americans in Philanthropy, states, “the Five Rs of the Indigenous Philanthropy framework embody important equity principles […] while these principles are deeply rooted in Indigenous-based knowledge systems and traditions, they are human values that can be operationalized throughout organizations.”

While the original binding elements of the collaborative capacity framework do point towards the human values that must be operationalized to allow collaboration to fully flourish, we see the 5Rs bringing greater depth and added clarity and specificity here. The 5Rs offer a responsive structure of values that is essential for deepening the impact of collaboration, such that it guarantees equity and accessibility for all partners and creates space for the co-creation of success—especially when working with Indigenous partners.

• Respect: The honoring of unique perspectives, sovereignty, and self-determination of all participants must be a part of strategy and workplan development, decision making, and actions.
• Relationships: Authentic relationships are a foundational commitment, and should be built with genuine, proactive engagement; sharing of power; and significant investments of time and resources.
• Responsibility: Actions and decisions must be grounded in an understanding of responsibility and accountability to all human and non-human communities.
• Reciprocity: A centered exchange between all partners should guide strategy and workplan development, decision making, and actions, stemming from the recognition that all have something to contribute.
• Redistribution: The investment of resources and opportunities must support equality for all communities, human and non-human, across generations.

Indigenizing Structural Elements of Collaborative Capacity

With an understanding of the binding elements as those values that must be operationalized to allow collaboration to fully flourish, we must also consider those concrete, specific elements that are needed to allow partners to function together effectively towards shared purpose. Here, we briefly outline the six structural elements of collaborative capacity, and then apply an Indigenous lens to point to a series of question that elevate the framework’s utility in advancing just, equitable collaborative solutions for landscapes and communities:

Collective purposes and goals: The shared purpose that is holding the collaborative together.Examples include:

• Development of agreements (e.g., MOU, charter, etc.) to outline collective vision, purpose, and desired collective impacts, including partner roles.
• Questions:
  • How do differing worldviews (e.g.  Indigenous vs western) inform how partners think about conservation and stewardship?
    
  • How is respect for all human and non-human kin impacted by work woven into the sharedpurpose?
    
  • To what extent are the purpose and goals community-led, and rooted in generational values?
    

• Strategic plan and/or roadmap outlining work plans and activities that provide a shared understanding of partners’ roles, resources, and capacities.
• Questions:
  • Where and how do relationships and relationship-building show up in the strategy & work plans?
  • How does the work plan acknowledge and address historical inequities around access to resources in considering partner roles, resources, and capacities? 

Collaborative practices, skills and tools: The development of the unique practices, skills, and tools that are required for effectively operating in collaborative spaces, recognizing that the knowledge and expertise to do so differs from what many of us have been called upon to develop in our conservation and stewardship backgrounds. Examples include:

• Skill-building and competency-based training around collaborative leadership.
• Questions:
  • What skills are celebrated (explicitly and implicitly) by your collaborative?
    
  • What are the cultural competencies required to acknowledge, honor, and work positively across cultural differences?
    
    

Systems and infrastructure: The basic operational and communication structures that allow for partner connectivity and alignment within a collaborative. Examples include:

• Communication and data-sharing systems.
• Fiscal management support, fundraising and grant-writing support.
• Technical assistance to meet community engagement and other project- and program-specific needs.
• Questions:
  • How does communication (internally and externally) strengthen relationship-building and supports positive narrative shifts?
    
  • What practices are necessary for safeguarding Indigenous and community data and information?
    
  • How does Tribal (and other community partners) capacity benefit from the broader collaborative’s systems and infrastructure?
    
    

Decision-making structures: The transparent and commonly understood pathways for reaching and executing decisions within a collaborative, given that collaboratives exist and operate in the space between organizations and hierarchical decision spaces. Examples include:

• Development of a governance model to oversee a co-created vision and ensure equity and accountability.
  
• Questions:
  
  • In what ways have Tribal partners faced historical injustices in decision-making spaces?
    
  • How do you build in support so that Tribes (and other community partners) can participate and engage?
    
  • How can governance models recognize and honor Tribal sovereignty and self-determination?
    
    

Coordination capacity: The staffing support and coordination of the collaborative. Examples include:

• Dedicated staff time and/or contracted services for essential backbone coordination, including facilitation, meeting management, communications, progress tracking and measurement, collective administrative needs, etc.
  
• Questions:
  
  • How does the coordinator/staff see their role—as primarily a technical/logistics role? Or do they conceive of it more broadly as a relationship-building role?
    
  • And how does the way the coordinator/staff show up in this role inform the culture of the collaborative and the way that partners show up?

These questions that emerge when applying an Indigenous lens suggest that while the six structural elements are helpful in enabling a collaborative to function at a basic level, it is the binding elements, the responsive value systems, that truly drive lasting, impactful change. Together, a nimble framework like this can, and should, be adapted to fit the needs of partners, projects, and of course the human and non-human communities who will ultimately feel the long-lasting impact of land conservation and stewardship projects.

Conclusion

At a time when challenges like the biodiversity, climate, and environmental injustice crises are becoming ever-clearer, our ability to build deep, enduring collaboration—across boundaries and cultures—is essential for generating appropriate solutions. What we find powerful about the collaborative capacity framework is that it offers us a solid foundation from which to identify, understand, and articulate what is needed to enable effective collaboration—both in terms of the concrete, specific mechanics that allow partners to work together, and in terms of the encompassing values system that allows such partners to collectively reach their highest potential. And we find bringing an Indigenous lens to this framework is especially powerful as a way of elevating that foundation with wisdom and insights that can collectively guide us toward richer, more just futures for our landscapes and communities.

****

About The Author: At the time of publication, Dr. Jessa Rae Growing Thunder serves as Native Americans in Philanthropy's Director of Tribal Nations Initiatives. She is a third-generation beadwork and quillwork artist, educator, historian, and holds a M.A. and Ph.D. in Native American Studies from the University of California, Davis.