Stakeholder participation in IWRM - UN-Water Activity Information ...

Conflict Resolution and Negotiation Skills for IWRM

Stakeholder participation in IWRM

Prof. Dr. Jan Leentvaar UNW-DPC UNESCO-IHE


Important definitions • Public participation (PP) refers to participation by the public (individuals, NGO’s) in decision-making, ranging from merely commenting on drafts to co-decision making • Stakeholder - an agency, organisation, group or individual who has a (direct or indirect) interest in the project/programme, or who affects or is affected positively or negatively by the implementation and outcome of it


Why is Stakeholder/Public participation important? • Information transfer • Gain views, concerns and values from stakeholders and public • Obtaining local knowledge • Taking account of inputs in decision making • Increasing confidence and inclusivity • Improving transparency and accountability in decision making • Reducing conflict


Different types of stakeholders • Primary stakeholders intended beneficiaries of a project or those negatively affected categorized according to social analysis often divided by gender, social or income classes, occupational or service user groups

• Secondary stakeholders (groups of) people who are intermediaries within a project e.g., funding, implementing, monitoring and advocacy organizations or governmental, NGO and private sector key individuals (e.g., heads of departments or other agencies) informal groups of people (e.g., politicians, local leaders, respected religious persons, etc.)


Levels of involvement – Information and notification • One way flow of information

– Consultation • Two way flow of information

– Participation • Interactive (meetings)

– Negotiation • Face to face discussion


IWRM and collaboration • Land use (agriculture, urban development, industry) has major impact on water environment • Manipulation of river / groundwater systems can affect land use (quantity, quality) • IWRM seeks coordination of policies, plans and projects for water with those for other resources • Forms an institutional challenge


IWRM and collaboration • IRWM demands some kind of collaborative institutional process => multi-stakeholder platforms to define problems to identify what is desired and achievable to produce agreement on how common goals will be reached • Involves wide range of stakeholders in process of problem-solving and joint decision-making


IWRM and collaboration • River basin as unit for water management • Requires state and regional authorities to work together across territorial and administrative boundaries • Involving stakeholders in decision-making increase complexity


Multi-stakeholder platforms • “Stakeholder” Individuals, groups or institutions concerned with or have an interest in water resources and their management Includes all those who affect or are affected by policies, decisions or actions public sector agencies, private sector, NGOs, external donor agencies, etc.s


Multi-stakeholder platforms • “Multi” Refers to diversity of identities of stakeholders Different levels of government Civil-society, private sector actors Farmers, fishermen, tourism, industry, government, environmental groups, community groups, special interest groups


Multi-stakeholder platforms • “Platform” Decision-making body Comprising different stakeholders o perceiving the same resource management problem o Realising their interdependence o That come together to agree on strategies for solving the problem


IWRM and collaboration •

Better informed decisions increased access to information & knowledge Feedback from society

•

Helps to legitimize decision (processes) Information flow back to society

•

Reduces risk of implementation failure stakeholders involved in solution design, sense of ownership


IWRM and collaboration • Collaboration involves different organisations and is based on • Information exchange • Dialogue • Deliberation • Negotiation • Shared agreements


Multi-stakeholder platforms • Collaboration allows stakeholders to inform each other about their views and perspectives explore differences together look for solutions that go beyond individual stakeholder’s capacities and limitations to achieve common purpose by sharing risks, responsibilities


Multi-stakeholder platforms • Attributes of effective partnerships Shared vision Compatibility Benefits to all partners Equitable (not equal) power Clear ground rules / procedures Process accountability Communication


Hierarchical policy model • Single governmental actor controls process • Policy objectives based on scientific research ranked over other societal objectives starting point in search of alternative solutions (instruments) • Assumption: properly chosen instruments will make society move to fit the norms


Shortcomings • Government: only limited control capacity Sectoral focus: policy objectives from various fields ‘piled up’, not attuned (“conflicts of interest”)

• Actors: Complex dependencies not accounted for no hierarchical relationship

• Fragmented capacity to solve problems: Available knowledge Variety in problem perceptions


Network management • For analysis of policy processes • For control of policy processes (to achieve policy goals) • Network management: “Policy process is more a result of a struggle between actors” Conflict of interests between actors


Network management • Network = set of relationships among actors (persons / organizations) around certain problems or conflicts • Intent: to reach agreement between various public and private parties on policy objectives and problem solutions


Network management • Large number of actors involved • A single actor unable to solve the problem: requires co-operation • Actors are interdependent • No formal hierarchy between actors • No single actor is irreplaceable • Mutual influence of actors


Defining characteristics 1) Multiformity: presence of several actors Each actor has its own Vision Objectives Problem perception (and solutions Interests resources


Defining characteristics 2) Interdependency Actors depend on each other: They need each other to come to solutions Acting of one actor affects the others


Defining characteristics 3) Autonomy • Actors are independent in their actions • Choose own strategy with regard to reaching their objectives


Defining characteristics 4) Complexity • interaction process characterized by complexity and overlapping objectives • Due to their divergent objectives, actors check on others • Autonomy of an actor depends on power and position within network • Formation of coalitions (‘together we are strong’)


Defining characteristics 5) Dynamics • relations and interactions between actors are dynamic and (sometimes) sustainable • Policy networks develop over time • Some actors ‘step out’ or come newly into already existing policy network


Other aspects: 1) stages • Initiative stage: • Creation of organizational conditions • activation of public & private actors • Cognitive stage • confrontation of problem perceptions • common problem definition & objectives • detailing of policy objectives


Other aspects: 1) stages • Productive stage Negotiations on policy, measures, policy instruments, tasks • Formalization stage Formulation of policy plan Agreements on implementation package deal / plan


Other aspects: 2) activation • Which actors to introduce or leave out? • Selective activation of actors: Include all indispensable actors: willingness, opposition, can consensus be reached? • Keep total number of actors low • Determine how parties are represented


Other aspects: 3) structure • Closed or open negotiations? Closed: faster, but legitimacy problems Open: slower, but probably more support • Financing • Human resources • Information sharing and delivery • Time frame


Other aspects: 4) problem definition • To reach agreement on specification of policy objectives is major challenge • Place resolution of issues in wider developmental perspective • “How to combine economic development with water policies” (and sustainable development)


Other aspects: 5) interaction • Usually through some platform or project group • Within the this group specific (negotiation) procedures devised to reach consensus • Highly case-specific


Other aspects: 6) mediator • Mediator as impartial 3rd party to oversee the negotiation process • Various roles and functions: Opens and maintains communication channels Legitimizes roles of parties Helps in exploring problem and identifying possible solutions


Other aspects: 7) implementation • Implementation follows after agreement • Avoid “implementation gap” (between agreement and actual implementation): Commit governmental agencies Anchor implementation to specific targets and schedule Set-up an organisational (project) framework


Benefits • Starts interaction process • Shared problem perceptions developed en route towards solution • Extension of responsibility for problem solving in society • Commitment if potential gain of participation exceeds that of non-participation • Policy preparation and implementation connected


Drawbacks • Consensus may be reached, but does it solve the actual problem? • Risky due to strategic behaviour of actors • After reaching agreement, implementation can still go wrong • Legitimacy of policy


Public Participation and Scale


Public Participation in Water Management in the Netherlands • 1300

Water boards

• 1798

National Water Authority

• 1950

International Commission for Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)

• 2000

EU Water Framework Directive

• 2001

Aarhus Convention


Water boards • 1000: • 1300:

Local community Regional representatives are elected

• Financed by taxation according to the extend of property • Right to say proportional to payment • • • •

1850: 1955: 1985: 2005:

3000 water boards 2480 water boards 255 water boards 27 water boards


NL-Water boards 1947


NL-Water boards 2009


National Water Authority • 1798: Part of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management • State in the State • Ca. 1970: Outer parliamentary opposition – Presentation of plans – Public participation – Communication with interest groups • 2000: Interactive planning


ICPR and Public Participation


Objectives of the ICPR • Sustainable development of the entire Rhine ecosystem • Guarantee the use of Rhine water for drinking water production • Improvement of the sediment quality in order to enable the use or disposal of dredged material without causing environmental harm • Overall flood prevention and environmentally sound flood protection • Improvement of the North Sea quality in accordance with other measures aimed at the protection of this marine area


Observer status NGO • Criteria – NGO has to deal with Rhine issues – International

• Plenary Assembly decides on recognition


Plenary assembly NGOs can participate as: • Representative of an NGO-recognized-as-observer • External expert • Member of a national delegation • 1998 • 2004 • 2008

9 NGOs recognized 12 NGOs recognized 17 NGOs recognized


PP

PP

Public Participation in the ICPR


Public Participation: Distance increases Water boards National Water Authority International Commission for Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) EU Water Framework Directive Aarhus Convention


Public Participation: time consuming? Start

Policy preparation

Policy making

Implementation

Reactive Process

Start

Policy preparation

Policy making

Implementation

Profit Interactive Process


Alternative Public Meeting Formats • • • • • • • •

Public hearing Public meeting Briefing/question and answer Panel/round table Large group/small group Workshops Open houses Coffee klatch


Meeting prerequisites

• Time and place of the meeting • Seating arrangements


Acceptance

• The acceptance of a (political) decision by those affected will largely depend on the Quality Aspects of the decision making process. • Based on the experiences in connection to the River Rhine the following aspects have been identified


7 Criteria of Quality • • • • • • •

Involvement of public and private parties Attention to relevant interests Alternative plans for conflicting interests Options for compensation Formal hearing of public opinions Motivation of the decision Procedures for appeal


This lecture is partly based on material of Martin Bijlsma, MSc