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

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
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. OVERVIEW

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
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
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
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
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
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
Principles of
Stakeholder Engagement

11. BENEFITS

12. 12
WHY?
Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement

13. 13
“The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”
(courtesy of Mr. Brian McCord)

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. 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. 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
WHY?
Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement