Table 6. Participatory lessons learned from applying the toolkit.


Lessons for facilitators
Because application of the toolkit can take considerable time, facilitators must be able to stimulate communication between stakeholders and keep discussion strategic. Because implementing the toolkit is intellectually demanding for both facilitators and stakeholders, short sessions and long breaks are recommended.
Because of a variety of stakeholders participating in the toolkit, it is beneficial for facilitators to have previous experience with implementing participatory tools and communication methods with a range of stakeholder type (Bradshaw and Bekoff 2001, Kinzig 2001).
Because one type of enterprise may be beneficial to one group of stakeholders but detrimental to another, e.g., the establishment of village-based accommodation will benefit some community members, however the hotel may lose bed nights, facilitators must take into consideration possible hidden agendas, e.g., economic interests (Kenney 1999).
Some stakeholders dominate discussions more than others. Thus, facilitators should be aware of personal characteristics of the different stakeholders, because these can have a significant influence on the information that populates the toolkit (Jakobsen et al. 2004, Lyman et al. 2007).
Having a wide variety of stakeholders participating, e.g., National Government, community hiking guides, can result in an imbalance of power among the stakeholders (McCloskey 1996, Lyman et al. 2007). Only facilitators can address this issue, because the tools by themselves are not able to (Lyman et al. 2007). One method to combat this bias is to introduce quality control methods, such as cross-checking by asking the same questions in a multiple of ways (Lyman et al. 2007).
Facilitators should be confident and able to inspire confidence among the stakeholders.

Lessons for stakeholders
The accuracy of the data obtained from the toolkit is dependent on the representativeness of the stakeholder groups at the workshops.
It is imperative that people who are actively involved with currently established local enterprises are involved in the SES. However most successful businessmen are unable to engage in these processes because they are too busy and that is why they are successful.
Trust must be established between the stakeholders. Trust can only be achieved if (i) all stakeholders put their egos aside; (ii) workshops have a patient facilitator; and (iii) stakeholders are given sufficient time to get to know and understand each other (Deconchat et al. 2007).
Two workshops were held at Umngazi approximately five months apart. Because the toolkit involved stakeholder engagement over a prolonged period of time, problems arose with new stakeholders joining the second workshop, and dominant stakeholders not being present at the second workshop, e.g., Provincial Government officials transferred between different provinces. These changes led to: (i) time needed to be spent on regaining trust between the participants; (ii) previous discussions having to be repeated, which was time-consuming; and (iii) newcomers not agreeing with consensus views obtained from the previous workshop. To address this, a continuous effort must be made between the stakeholders to ensure collective coherence (Roybin et al. 2001).
If unexpected or conflicting information is given by a stakeholder, clarification must be sought, because this can highlight incorrect assumptions and provide new insights (Sheil and Liswanti 2007).

Lessons for workshop procedures
Because the success of implementing the toolkit is based on mutual trust, it is important that before conducting the workshop, the facilitator makes clear what the purpose of the toolkit is, and what can be achieved (Sturtevant et al. 2007).
All stakeholders should feel included and equally valued, thus the workshops must be conducted so that all those present can understand what is being discussed and, if necessary, methods must be employed to overcome language and literacy barriers. Language must be kept as simple and concise as possible, and concepts should be illustrated through locally relevant examples. If a common language is not possible, translators must be used. When a language barrier is present, the success of the toolkit is reliant on the skill level of the translator.