Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder engagement and the water agenda
Introduction
Public policy making is trending away from the old "top-down hierarchical model", which exerts sovereign control over the people and civil society, to a more transparent and holistic model that involves public, non-state actors (private sector and not-for-profit organisations). The water sector has undergone this change; the traditional role of "governments" as the single decision-making authority has been replaced by multi-level, polycentric governance. This transition acknowledges the important role that stakeholders from different institutional settings can contribute to water management. This shift is demonstrated by the development and use of international hard and soft instruments for stakeholder engagement.
Understanding how stakeholder engagement has evolved, as well as the key concepts and definitions that underlie it, is crucial to identifying inherent challenges and policy solutions. This chapter gives the context of the OECD analysis by putting forth the broader policy trends and literature available on stakeholder engagement in the water sector. It also sets key definitions and terms, and puts forth an analytical framework for decision makers, which can serve as a diagnostic tool to improve the contribution of stakeholder engagement to effective water governance.
Stakeholder engagement gaining prominence in the water agenda
Water: A fragmented sector
The water sector is highly fragmented (OECD, 2011a); managing it involves a plethora of public, private and not-for-profit actors from local, (sub-) basin, regional, national to international levels. Governments, citizens, end users, private actors, donors and financial institutions, as well as infrastructure and service providers, all have a stake in the outcome of water policy and projects. In many countries, the allocation of roles and responsibilities in water policy making is scattered across levels of governance. Inherently, the multiplicity of actors and varying interests and concerns complicates decision making, and typically the power to control the course of policy making and projects, including relevant reform agendas, does not reside with any one single actor.
The over-segmentation of the sector requires engagement of all players to jointly share responsibility for water management and the adoption of effective co-ordination mechanisms. The process is further complicated by the varying interests across groups in policy problems, placing additional demands on the decision makers. This multi-actor complexity means taking into account the different perceptions with respect to the problems, interests and positions of the stakeholders, which can be addressed by involving stakeholders across the water chain, related sectors and levels of government in an iterative dialogue process. The adoption of effective policy instruments could also help to remedy this challenge.
The water sector is also affected by policies in other sectors as well as numerous external drivers. The water cycle generates important externalities in domains that are critical for development: health, agriculture, land-use and spatial planning, poverty alleviation and energy. Policy making in these areas tends to be done in silos; further improvement, therefore, is often needed to ensure coherent, holistic and integrated consultation, participation and co-ordination of stakeholders.
A paradigm shift towards "open" decision making and implementation
Governments and public governance are becoming increasingly open. As a consequence of the financial crisis, the public sector is facing increased demands from citizens to be more engaged in how public policy decisions are taken. This request stems from the belief that trust, openness, integrity and transparency are essential to achieving an effective and performance-driven public sector, which produces better and more cost-effective public services. The OECD defines open government as "the transparency of government actions, the accessibility of government services and information, and the responsiveness of government to new ideas, demands and needs" (OECD, 2005). These three building blocks are seen to support an improved evidence base for policy making, strengthened integrity, lower corruption and higher trust in government.
OECD countries are responding to public policy challenges by increasingly engaging with stakeholders to foster sustainable reforms. Trends have highlighted three strategies adopted by countries to facilitate policy implementation: mobilising citizens and customers, with special attention devoted to target groups (e.g. children, minorities, lower incomes); involving the private sector, civil society and academia in the provision of public services, experience sharing and innovative solutions; and engaging with public authorities at different levels, especially through partnerships with regional or local governments to guarantee quality service delivery (OECD, 2010).
The open government agenda is transforming how governments conduct their affairs. An increasing number of countries have adopted laws on access to information. Independent oversight and enforcement bodies, such as supreme audit institutions, Ombudsman offices or information commissioners, have also played an increased role in ensuring that public authorities comply with their duties in relation to transparency and accessibility. In this context, governments are searching for ways to make public services more responsive to public needs, through consultations and other forms of stakeholder engagement.
The topic of stakeholder engagement has also gained attention in the global arena in the water sector. For the past 20 years, all World Water Fora have highlighted the critical role of multi-actor partnerships (Marrakech, 1997); participatory approaches (The Hague, 2000); alliances, networks and dialogues (Kyoto, 2003); co-ordination across levels of government (Mexico, 2006); the critical role of vulnerable and marginalised groups (Istanbul, 2009); and the need for multi-stakeholder platforms to support the effective management of water resources and services (Marseille, 2012).
In that context, international instruments, both hard and soft, have proliferated. They range from the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which introduced the emerging public involvement norms, to the Agenda 21 that same year, which envisaged public involvement in developing, implementing and enforcing environmental laws and policies, including management of freshwaters. More legislation, at the regional level, has elaborated on these principles. The 1998 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the "Aarhus Convention") has become a guideline for its signatories. It was followed by the adoption of other regulations which include similar participatory principles, notably at the European Union level (e.g. 2003/4/EC, 2003/35/EC and Article 14 of 2000/60/EC).
The increasing attention to stakeholder engagement in the water sector has followed a general paradigm shift in public management and broader dynamics in development and governance (Mollinga, 2010). Since the 1980s, when citizens began to question the role of the state, governance has become the backbone of effective policy making. This movement paved the way to greater democratisation, decentralisation and forms of polycentric governance. The methods were based on the premise that self-governed communities would seek out commonly acceptable solutions and participate in their implementation rather than rely solely on top-down or "command-and-control" governmental decisions.
Trends and trajectories more specific to the water sector have also influenced inclusive approaches to water governance (see Chapter 2). During the 1990s, the political agenda moved from "technical" supply-driven and infrastructure-led solutions towards greater water demand management. These solutions emphasised the crucial role of institutions as well as economic and social instruments for a mutually reinforcing "3Is" triangle (infrastructure, institutions and investment) (OECD, 2011a). The generalisation of the concept of integrated water resources management (IWRM) introduced the broader issue of co-ordination across different interests, sectors and levels.
Water governance cannot be achieved without proper governance at large. Similarly, there cannot be effective stakeholder engagement in the water sector without a broader framework for bottom-up and inclusive policy making outside of the sector. Water governance is a dynamic concept referring to who does/gets what, when and how. It encompasses political, institutional and administrative rules; practices and processes through which stakeholders articulate their interests and their concerns are considered; methods for making and implementing decisions; and a framework to hold decision makers accountable in the development and management of water resources and the delivery of water services (OECD, 2011a).
Key definitions and insights from the literature
The extent to which stakeholders participate in their own governance is a fundamental dimension of governance itself. The task of navigating systems shaped by social, economic and political power differentials makes engagement central to institutional experience. Elinor Ostrom's (2010) approach of institutional analysis demonstrates that solidarity-based economies are promising alternatives to traditional state-centred command-and-control economic solutions to pressing social and ecological problems. It identifies stakeholder engagement in institutional management as an important factor in determining whether institutions will be effective and enduring, in particular from an informational and problem-solving perspective. Hence, engagement processes provide information about the intentions and actions of other actors, which reduces uncertainties and contributes to co-ordination and building trust. Institutional analysis also considers that local knowledge provided by engagement at the community-level can lead to better-informed institutional design and economic solutions to solve community problems.
From public participation to stakeholder engagement
Recent years have seen an evolution in water debates from the notion of "participation" to the concept of "engagement." Participation typically refers to the involvement of individuals and groups in the design, implementation and evaluation of a project or plan (Brown and Wyckoff-Baird, 1992; Yee, 2010). Engagement is an "umbrella" term. It broadly refers to an organisation's efforts to ensure that individuals and groups and organisations have the opportunity to take part in the decision-making and implementation processes that affect them or in which they have an interest. It embraces a broader range of inclusive processes, with different intentions and different inputs to the decision-making process. Participation does not necessarily ensure influence on the decision-making process, while engagement is characterised by meaningful inputs to the process. In other words, participation is a level of engagement, amongst others.
A distinction is also necessary between public participation and stakeholder engagement. According to Smith (1983), public participation encompasses a range of procedures and methods designed to consult, involve and inform local communities and citizens (i.e. the "public"). For example, in the water sector, the "public" would essentially encompass civil society (e.g. in the formulation of river basin management plans) and customers (e.g. in improving the quality and accountability of water and sanitation services). Stakeholder engagement goes beyond civil society and end users, and reaches out to other groups of actors within and outside the water sector in activities related to planning, decision making, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. Stakeholder engagement therefore also encompasses different levels of governments (multi-level governance), the private sector (water stewardship), regulators, service providers, donor agencies, investors, civil society in its different forms (e.g. citizens, non-governmental organisations, users' movements, etc.) and other relevant constituencies.
Typologies of engagement
Literature insights
The literature reveals that the concept of stakeholder engagement means different things for water use, water management and water governance. For water use, engagement primarily refers to access (sufficient quantity and good quality); for water management, it entails involvement in operational, on-the-ground functions (distribution, infrastructure maintenance, quality monitoring); while for water governance, it refers to implementation, including the contribution to decision making. Water governance is found at all levels (international to local) and includes all types of stakeholders (governments, private sector, civil society). Philosophers and socio-political theorists have also investigated and forged founding concepts that relate to stakeholder engagement. Habermas (1989) points to institutional criteria that are preconditions for the emergence of public spheres, including inclusivity, common concerns and the disregard of social status. Mowday et al. (1979) worked on the measurement of organisational commitment, which he defined as the relative strength of an individual's identification with, and involvement in, a particular organisation. They found that this requires an active relationship with the organisation such that individuals are willing to personally contribute to the organisation's well-being.
Various typologies of engagement and participation have been discussed in the literature (Box 1.1). A well-known categorisation is the "ladder of citizen participation" developed by Arnstein (1969) which identifies eight levels or "rungs," ranging from manipulation (the lowest in the group of non-participation steps) to citizen control (the highest step and highest degree of citizen power). This range shows that there is a significant gradation of citizens' participation. Arnstein's work has now been deemed obsolete and debatable because it considered participation as an end in itself rather than as a means (Wehn, Rusca and Evers, 2014). Other typologies have emerged: Pretty (1995) "typologies of participation", Fung (2006) "democracy cube" and UNDP Water Governance Facility (2013) "levels of engagement."
OECD terminology and typology of levels of engagement
In this report, stakeholder engagement is defined as the process by which any person or group who has an interest or stake in a water-related topic is involved in the related activities and decision-making and implementation processes (see key definition in Box 1.2). The person or group may be directly or indirectly affected by water policy and/or have the ability to influence the outcome positively or negatively. There are many forms of stakeholder engagement: some are self-organised by non-governmental groups or individuals; others are facilitated by decision makers/public authorities. This report deliberately focuses on those forms of stakeholder engagement where governments have a role to play in terms of setting the enabling environment and framework conditions.
The typology suggested in this report (Figure 1.1) distinguishes six levels of stakeholder engagement depending on the processes and the intentions they pursue. The first level is communication, which intends primarily to share information and raise awareness but implies that engagement is mostly passive, i.e. stakeholders are provided with information related to a water policy or project but not necessarily with the opportunity to influence final decisions. The typology incrementally progresses up to the level of co-production and co-decision, which correspond to more intensive decision making where stakeholders exercise direct authority over the decisions taken. Stakeholder engagement is therefore a multi-faceted exercise with various progressive levels that imply different forms and intensity of stakeholder engagement.
Communication
Communication represents the first level of engagement. It intends to make water-related information and data available to other parties. Sharing information can be done through a number of channels, from traditional and social media to meetings, workshops or platforms specific to the sector, such as water information systems. In the majority of cases, stakeholders who participate in engagement processes for information sharing do not put forward their own views. Instead, they participate as spectators who receive information about some policy or project.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Stakeholder Engagement for Inclusive Water Governance"
by .
Copyright © 2015 OECD.
Excerpted by permission of IWA Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
