bcp-toolkit-part-iv-a2cff6f34c7be41e.pdf

The document outlines a framework for the ongoing management of biocultural community protocols, focusing on 'Looking Inwards' to assess community changes, 'Looking Outwards' to evaluate external partnerships, and 'Revisiting and Revising' the protocol as a living instrument. It emphasizes qualitative tools like 'Most Significant Change' stories and participatory methods to measure wellbeing and impact.

• Developing a biocultural community protocol is described as a transformative process that can help communities organize around a shared vision or respond to common threats, often leading to unexpected insights and opportunities.
• Conventional quantitative indicators are often insufficient for measuring community wellbeing, which encompasses material, social, and spiritual dimensions. In Sri Lanka, the 'Most Significant Change' technique was used to document individual stories from a representative group of 24 people—including grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons—to capture these holistic perceptions.
• Reporting back to the community is essential, particularly for local leaders who may not be directly involved but act as 'powerful catalysts for mobilizing community action.' Communication should be tailored to different age groups, utilizing creative tools such as community theatre, photography exhibitions, short films, or podcasts to engage youth and other members.
• Monitoring engagement with external actors—such as NGOs, government agencies, researchers, and donors—allows communities to adapt their strategies and evaluate the efficacy of their efforts. This process involves assessing whether interactions have been positive or negative and identifying the most significant changes resulting from these partnerships.
• In Lamu, Kenya, a coalition of Indigenous communities is developing a biocultural community protocol to demand transparency and participation regarding a multi-billion dollar port project (the Lamu Port and Southern Sudan-Ethiopia Transport Corridor), which threatens the local ecosystem, traditional livelihoods, and land tenure.
• Assessing the impact of a protocol requires acknowledging that changes cannot be attributed to the protocol alone; other influencing factors include individual personalities, political administration changes, market fluctuations, and extreme weather events.
• A community protocol should be treated as a 'living instrument' that is updated and adapted over time. Revision may be necessary to reflect changes in community visions, incorporate new information, or respond to the resolution of a major threat that prompted the initial protocol.

APA

Natural Justice (n.d.). bcp-toolkit-part-iv-a2cff6f34c7be41e.pdf. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/BCP-Toolkit-Part-IV.pdf

Chicago

Natural Justice. bcp-toolkit-part-iv-a2cff6f34c7be41e.pdf. n.d. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/BCP-Toolkit-Part-IV.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Natural Justice |title=bcp-toolkit-part-iv-a2cff6f34c7be41e.pdf |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/BCP-Toolkit-Part-IV.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{naturaljusticendbcptoolkitpartiva2cff6f34c7be41epdf, author = {{Natural Justice}}, title = {{bcp-toolkit-part-iv-a2cff6f34c7be41e.pdf}}, institution = {Natural Justice}, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/BCP-Toolkit-Part-IV.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }