Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Introduction to Stakeholder Engagement in International Waters Management (Bruch)


Published on

Asia Regional Workshop on Stakeholder Engagement
International Waters Management
Hanoi, Vietnam, 2-4 April 2008

  • Be the first to comment

Introduction to Stakeholder Engagement in International Waters Management (Bruch)

  1. 1. 1 Introduction to Stakeholder Engagement in International Waters Management by Carl Bruch Asia Regional Workshop on Stakeholder Engagement in International Waters Management Hanoi, Vietnam, 2-4 April 2008
  2. 2. 2 Workshop Objectives Understand the importance and benefits of stakeholder engagement Identify participation tools and techniques, and considerations in using the tools; Identify ways of integrating approaches into projects; Identify peers who can assist; and Address project-specific needs related to public participation
  3. 3. OVERVIEW
  4. 4. 4 What is Stakeholder Engagement? A process in which stakeholder and public concerns, views, and values are incorporated into decision-making and implementation of water resource management. Aims at improving decision-making during the planning, design, implementation and evaluation of projects and processes. It involves all stakeholders, including groups that are often marginalized. Implies that decision-makers consider the views of stakeholders during the decision-making process. NOT a single event or process…rather an ongoing commitment to building and maintaining relationships to effectively co-manage the resource
  5. 5. 5 Spectrum of Engagement Increasing level of stakeholder involvement in planning, decision-making, and implementation of water resource management The level or intensity of participation depends on the objective of the participatory procedure and to what extent the stakeholders need or are prepared to be involved. The number of stakeholders participating and the means of communication will vary according to the participation level
  6. 6. 6 Informing Providing clear and unbiased information to help stakeholders understand water-related issues, potential impacts, and solutions Access to information is the basis of meaningful engagement – but not “participation” Promise: We will keep you informed…
  7. 7. 7 Consulting with Stakeholders Asking for stakeholder feedback on decisions, alternatives, or proposals: two-way flow of information Examples: Providing an opportunity to comment on draft project documents Holding workshops to gain stakeholder feedback on priority water issues Surveying communities to assess perceptions of water issues Entails a commitment to keep stakeholder informed, listen to and acknowledge ideas and concerns and provide feedback on how stakeholder input influenced outcomes
  8. 8. 8 Actively Engaging Involving SH as partners in defining water management issues, and in determining how to prioritize and address those issues cooperatively (from involving to empowering) Examples: Identifying and implementing projects in cooperation with communities Creation of stakeholder advisory forums that have a seat on decision-making bodies Promise: to ensure SH goals and concerns are reflected to some extent in plans, decisions and activities
  9. 9. 9 How? No blueprint…highly contextualized, but: Process tools to plan and implement P2 strategically Lessons learned in one context can often be adapted to apply in different contexts There are some basic principles, as well as a “tool kit” of approaches
  10. 10. 10 Principles of Stakeholder Engagement
  11. 11. BENEFITS
  12. 12. 12 WHY? Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement
  13. 13. 13 “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” (courtesy of Mr. Brian McCord)
  14. 14. The Good: Mount Shasta, CCDA Spring Water Plant Challenge: Environmental and religious groups “Take our water and ruin the Mountain” Action: Followed development procedure “Experts in Region” Met with locals, strong communication plan – transparent. The Mount Shasta Result: Opposition kept at a minimum Media gave project a fair representation of facts Constructed plant which now provides economic value Officials used project as example of good corporate citizen Future challenges easily addressed
  15. 15. The Ozarka Result: Went to Supreme Court pumping upheld due to water rights law “Rule of Capture” Local, State and Federal Officials against it “Anti-bottler” Groundwater Conservation District Formed Adverse Media attention to bottled water – spilled to their other Plants The Bad: Ozarka Challenge: Angered Local Residents “Taking of our water by a foreign company for rich people.” Action: Ignored local residents and newly formed Anti-Ozarka group Started an Advisory Council with “Hand Picked People”
  16. 16. The Ugly – Who, What and Why? Ice Mountain, Michigan – resulted in stop pump order, shut down of plant, set a new precedence – Local Citizens & Outside Environmentalists Crystal Spring, Florida – denial of withdrawal permit, trucking of water - New Environmental Group Formed Ontario, Canada - Increase application, trigger values for fishery set too low, even with science resulted in no increase, production needs not met - Regulatory Agencies Kerala India - Coca-Cola accused of depleting the water table, pesticides in product – Local citizens, International NGO and Government Quebec - Salt contamination from road icing – resulted in reduction of salt and sustained use of source - Contamination High Spring and Mount Shasta - “Well Dried Up” resolved with data – Perceived Overdraft of Aquifer Diamond Spring PA - “Water taking affected trout fishery” resolved with data - Drought Conditions Protect Our Sources - Protect Our Business
  17. 17. 17 WHY? Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement