3.2 Learning with Stakeholders
33
comprehensive stakeholder involvement with learning attitude, starting, say, by the
question of Dalio (2017): “Rather than thinking, ‘I’m right.’ I started to ask myself,
‘How do I know I’m right?’”
Table 3.2 (somehow parallel to Fig. 1.3) gives the spectrum of needs and mindsets
and, obviously, should not be seen as a binary table. Much is written about capacity
development that can be adapted to local circumstances. Here, we broadly try to
present some of the fundamental ingredients that should be seriously considered in
advancing in a more sustainable water management path.
Table 3.2 shows two types of actors: users (e.g., farmers and city dwellers) and
managers (e.g., regional water authorities and boards). The users seek to satisfy their
needs with the least cost and are less concern about the influence of their use, meaning
that, according to them, the usefulness of their water returns is low. However, the
managers have responsibilities beyond a specific user and the returns mostly have
high value. This and other differences should be converged through transparent and
comprehensive stakeholder participation, having in mind that active involvement
itself requires capacity and guidance, particularly for the less advantaged members
of the population and institutions as Table 3.2 shows. Furthermore, we should appreciate that any business linked to water has one or two WPI as its focus, while having
less interest in the other flows of water balance (Table 2.1). Examples: pump manufacturers emphasize water supply, e.g. VA, and drip irrigation manufacturers talk
mostly about ET with some reference to VA. For the former, returns and their qualities are of less importance and for the latter, evaporation (NR) due to improper
functioning of the drips is negligible.
It is customary that due to the lack of data, water managers, experts and companies
use a flawed indicator or framework, which leads to defective and scientifically
inconsistent results. The fact that data does not exist we should not use defective
tools, but rather make learning the focus of our water management activities. The
core processes in learning are regular action, reflection and consultation. Reflection
on action is about creating a culture of free exchange of ideas (good and bad) among
all the stakeholders (formal or not) on a regular basis. In these crucial meetings,
water managers present clearly and with simple language all the experiences of
the last period (e.g., four months). Consultation means making decisions by water
managers for action based mostly on the ideas and suggestions of the reflection
meetings. However, the processes of action, reflection and consultation are about the
modes of operation and not a sequence of steps, meaning that many decisions and
plans can be taken in the reflection meetings, or even during an action. It should
be noted that before any action all the stakeholders should become aware of the
decisions and the nature of actions. Today, ‘normal’ water management reduces the
reflection meeting to just one public meeting about a plan instead of being a regular
feature of decision-making, which also increases trust (crucial aspect of learning,
involvement and management) among the participants. In other words, reflection as
the capacity to think, share and analyse collectively should become central in order
to increase our understanding about the flow of water among the inhabitants and
eventually sustainable development of the region.
“Most people agree that water is an extremely valuable resource” (UN-HLPWb
2017). Almost all the public have great concern or interest (hence stakeholders)
33
comprehensive stakeholder involvement with learning attitude, starting, say, by the
question of Dalio (2017): “Rather than thinking, ‘I’m right.’ I started to ask myself,
‘How do I know I’m right?’”
Table 3.2 (somehow parallel to Fig. 1.3) gives the spectrum of needs and mindsets
and, obviously, should not be seen as a binary table. Much is written about capacity
development that can be adapted to local circumstances. Here, we broadly try to
present some of the fundamental ingredients that should be seriously considered in
advancing in a more sustainable water management path.
Table 3.2 shows two types of actors: users (e.g., farmers and city dwellers) and
managers (e.g., regional water authorities and boards). The users seek to satisfy their
needs with the least cost and are less concern about the influence of their use, meaning
that, according to them, the usefulness of their water returns is low. However, the
managers have responsibilities beyond a specific user and the returns mostly have
high value. This and other differences should be converged through transparent and
comprehensive stakeholder participation, having in mind that active involvement
itself requires capacity and guidance, particularly for the less advantaged members
of the population and institutions as Table 3.2 shows. Furthermore, we should appreciate that any business linked to water has one or two WPI as its focus, while having
less interest in the other flows of water balance (Table 2.1). Examples: pump manufacturers emphasize water supply, e.g. VA, and drip irrigation manufacturers talk
mostly about ET with some reference to VA. For the former, returns and their qualities are of less importance and for the latter, evaporation (NR) due to improper
functioning of the drips is negligible.
It is customary that due to the lack of data, water managers, experts and companies
use a flawed indicator or framework, which leads to defective and scientifically
inconsistent results. The fact that data does not exist we should not use defective
tools, but rather make learning the focus of our water management activities. The
core processes in learning are regular action, reflection and consultation. Reflection
on action is about creating a culture of free exchange of ideas (good and bad) among
all the stakeholders (formal or not) on a regular basis. In these crucial meetings,
water managers present clearly and with simple language all the experiences of
the last period (e.g., four months). Consultation means making decisions by water
managers for action based mostly on the ideas and suggestions of the reflection
meetings. However, the processes of action, reflection and consultation are about the
modes of operation and not a sequence of steps, meaning that many decisions and
plans can be taken in the reflection meetings, or even during an action. It should
be noted that before any action all the stakeholders should become aware of the
decisions and the nature of actions. Today, ‘normal’ water management reduces the
reflection meeting to just one public meeting about a plan instead of being a regular
feature of decision-making, which also increases trust (crucial aspect of learning,
involvement and management) among the participants. In other words, reflection as
the capacity to think, share and analyse collectively should become central in order
to increase our understanding about the flow of water among the inhabitants and
eventually sustainable development of the region.
“Most people agree that water is an extremely valuable resource” (UN-HLPWb
2017). Almost all the public have great concern or interest (hence stakeholders)