3.2 Learning with Stakeholders
35
One of the major questions is the role of the water experts and decision makers in
relation to other mostly local stakeholders, i.e., the users. In water management, to
what extent do the priorities of the experts and the decision makers match that of local
stakeholders? The answer to this question is complex, at least in practice. In order
to effectively diminish the gap between those priorities the approaches presented in
this book require that the nine WPTs in Fig. 2.1 and their two attributes, quality and
benefits, be accounted for explicitly in any study, design or plan. To emphasize this
requirement, it is important to note that if a particular WPT does not exist or assumed
zero, it must be stated explicitly along with the reasons of its exclusion. This leads to
a transparent, trusted and stakeholder enabler procedure that strengthens the water
management theory of this book. It is obvious that each WPT in Fig. 2.1 has more
benefit to a specific number of stakeholders than to others. For example, ET has
more importance to farmers, VU to river ecologists, and RP to those interested in
returns, such as flows to groundwater. These specific (conflicting) benefits and values
are strong enablers for these stakeholders actively participating in managing ‘their’
water. Hence, the first step to give voice to all the stakeholders is to make the three
Pillars of all the WPTs and their WPIs transparent in the format of one summary table.
“Making all the values of water explicit gives recognition and a voice to dimensions
that are easily overlooked. This is more than a cost-benefit analysis and is necessary
to make collective decisions and trade-offs” (UN-HLPW 2017).
Much is written about the crucial need for stakeholder involvement and is part
of legal instruments in almost all the countries including the ones in the European
Union through the Water Framework Directive (European Parliament & Council
2000). However, rarely the three Pillars, which include all the WPIs and their balance,
are revealed explicitly to all the stakeholders under a particular act of management.
Besides, most of the experts are interested in a specific area of a Pillar or at maximum
in one of them. This partiality and the (presumed) authority of the experts make
learning and effective stakeholder involvement more complex. All this is due to “the
main constraint being that participation is, in most of the cases, considered as an end
by itself instead of as a means to an end” (Tortajada 2010).
Finally, water balance volumes, their qualities and benefits are hard to specify
properly for various reasons. Water paths (WPIs) and the degree of their pollution
are through measurements, which are generally expensive to perform. Consequently,
the first level of capacity development is to produce these data. The idea is to start
with a comprehensive estimation of all the WPIs, qualities and benefits of a WUS,
and then focus on making those estimates as real as possible in time. The binary
mentality that there is data or not should give space to an evolutionary learning
environment in data and other water management activities.
35
One of the major questions is the role of the water experts and decision makers in
relation to other mostly local stakeholders, i.e., the users. In water management, to
what extent do the priorities of the experts and the decision makers match that of local
stakeholders? The answer to this question is complex, at least in practice. In order
to effectively diminish the gap between those priorities the approaches presented in
this book require that the nine WPTs in Fig. 2.1 and their two attributes, quality and
benefits, be accounted for explicitly in any study, design or plan. To emphasize this
requirement, it is important to note that if a particular WPT does not exist or assumed
zero, it must be stated explicitly along with the reasons of its exclusion. This leads to
a transparent, trusted and stakeholder enabler procedure that strengthens the water
management theory of this book. It is obvious that each WPT in Fig. 2.1 has more
benefit to a specific number of stakeholders than to others. For example, ET has
more importance to farmers, VU to river ecologists, and RP to those interested in
returns, such as flows to groundwater. These specific (conflicting) benefits and values
are strong enablers for these stakeholders actively participating in managing ‘their’
water. Hence, the first step to give voice to all the stakeholders is to make the three
Pillars of all the WPTs and their WPIs transparent in the format of one summary table.
“Making all the values of water explicit gives recognition and a voice to dimensions
that are easily overlooked. This is more than a cost-benefit analysis and is necessary
to make collective decisions and trade-offs” (UN-HLPW 2017).
Much is written about the crucial need for stakeholder involvement and is part
of legal instruments in almost all the countries including the ones in the European
Union through the Water Framework Directive (European Parliament & Council
2000). However, rarely the three Pillars, which include all the WPIs and their balance,
are revealed explicitly to all the stakeholders under a particular act of management.
Besides, most of the experts are interested in a specific area of a Pillar or at maximum
in one of them. This partiality and the (presumed) authority of the experts make
learning and effective stakeholder involvement more complex. All this is due to “the
main constraint being that participation is, in most of the cases, considered as an end
by itself instead of as a means to an end” (Tortajada 2010).
Finally, water balance volumes, their qualities and benefits are hard to specify
properly for various reasons. Water paths (WPIs) and the degree of their pollution
are through measurements, which are generally expensive to perform. Consequently,
the first level of capacity development is to produce these data. The idea is to start
with a comprehensive estimation of all the WPIs, qualities and benefits of a WUS,
and then focus on making those estimates as real as possible in time. The binary
mentality that there is data or not should give space to an evolutionary learning
environment in data and other water management activities.