Can we have an iconic waterway without strong collaborative relationships?
Some years ago I was lucky enough to work with the team and stakeholders establishing what is now the Chain of Ponds project, a collaborative effort among diverse stakeholders from across government agencies, residents, local businesses, local councils etc. Together they were on a journey to improve the state of the Moonee Ponds Creek in Melbourne.
They had been meeting for some weeks to explore the Chain of Ponds ‘dilemma’ in all its complexity. They could see that the problems involved farming practices, urban drainage management, the behaviour of walkers, residents and local businesses, agency management practices and state and local planning decisions. Adding complexity were some poor relationships, confusing governance arrangements and unclear accountabilities.
As an important step in their collaborative journey the group spent time creating a shared sense of the direction, what we call a Light on the hill, designed to guide them in their solution-finding process. After lots of conversation and deliberation the group landed on “Moonee Ponds Creek is an iconic waterway” as their light on the hill and shared project destination.
I liked this shared direction, particularly because it was created and owned and understood by the group. They had grown this simple idea from their deliberations and for them it worked to inspire and get them moving together towards something they believed in. I see on the website that it still does (with some tweaks).
Yet in recent times I’ve come to understand that there could be more in this light on the hill. I’ve realised that to be most useful the shared direction can include important aspects of the relationships and other context around the water quality dilemmas. That’s because we can’t achieve an iconic waterway without also working on the system of relationships and interactions between the people and groups who hold the fate of the creek in their hands. If poor relationships persist, how can people work together differently? And if they can’t work together differently, how can they expect different outcomes for the creek?
Recently I’ve encouraged groups to add to their light on the hill some of the less obvious aspects such as good governance, high levels of trust between stakeholders, evidence-based decision-making or effective collaboration.
With these more relational aspects visible, groups are able to work towards a healthier collaborative effort as a critical part of working towards a healthier waterway. After all, an iconic waterway is going to depend upon iconic relationships. I’m sure the Chain of Ponds Collaboration understand this and I know they are working hard on their relationships. But I do wonder whether a more complete light on the hill could have made things clearer from the outset. It certainly helps me shift my focus.
We have been working on some new tools lately to help groups identify their shared light on the hill, including the more challenging relational aspects. Get in touch to find out more.