Good practices in public participation

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

Good practices in public participation

Katharine Cross, IUCN

IW Learn African Regional Workshop

April 4th, 2012

2

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

Outline

• Modes of public participation• Multistakeholder platforms• Engaging from top down and bottom up • Case studies – Tanzania, Uganda and Guatemala

• Tools

• Discussion questions

Modes of public participation

4


Multistakeholder platforms

• Stakeholders with interests in water decisions need to work together to understand their differences and search for solutions that each can accept

• Different stakeholders are identified and, usually through representatives, invited and assisted to interact in a deliberative forum that focuses on:

– sharing knowledge and perspectives– generating and examining options– informing and shaping negotiations and decisions

• The purpose and scope of an MSP must be clear, with appropriate scales and levels for deliberation and analysis (for example watershed versus river basin, or local district versus national).

• MSPs expand representation and participation of stakeholders in governance. They encourage learning and greater understanding of interdependencies among stakeholders and ways of resolving contested issues

• By providing a pathway for deliberation, MSPs can lead to better decisions and water agreements that can be more successfully implemented.

5


Who are the stakeholders?

National

State/Provincial

District

Local Government

Community

Households

National

River basin

Sub-catchment

Stream/furrow

Users

Transboundary basins (regional)

6


Top down-Evidence based policy influencing

Bottom up- Demonstration

Regional(e.g. Nile, LVBC, EAC, EAPP)

National

Basin

Catchment

Wat

er M

anag

emen

t P

lan

nin

g Water In vestm

e nt Plan ning

Local government Water user associations

Water users

7


Case study: Pangani, Tanzania

• At the national level the 2002 National Water Policy (NAWAPO) and the 2009 Water Resources Management Act provides for stakeholders’ participation in water resources management within a decentralised framework

• Pangani Basin has a high level of conflicts over access to water so there was a strong need for dialogue

• At the basin level, IUCN has been providing technical backstopping and capacity building to establish lower level governance structures to manage and allocate water resources

8


• At the local government and community level, IUCN and partners facilitated the formation of several water user associations (WUAs) within a subcatchment of the Pangani Basin which bring together different water users sharing a common water source

– Inventories of water resources, water governance institutions– Extensive awareness raising and training with local governments,

communities, commercial water users on their rights and responsibilities; Exchange visits between upstream and downstream users

– Facilitated registration of WUAs (built on existing institutions) so legally recognized entity

• WUAs are being brought together to form a subcatchment forum which will facilitate management of water resources. The forum will interact with basin organizations

• The experiences gained from establishing and strengthening WUAs in the Pangani Basin are being used by the Ministry of Water in Tanzania to develop guidelines for WUA establishment and operation in the whole country

Case study: Pangani, Tanzania

Resilience shift: Pangani

• water over-allocation

• conflict

• information scarcity

• disjointed governance

• new knowledge shared

• conflict resolution

• coordinated institutions across scales

• negotiation forums

• allocation within the limits of availability

10


Case study: Upper Nile, Uganda• The Uganda government are promoting

integrated water resource management (IWRM) through decentralized structures.

– Provides for the creation of multistakeholder platforms to foster participation and dialogue on how to work together towards ensuring sustainable flow of water resources for various uses.

• The government has established four catchment-based Water Management Zones (WMZs), and plans to formally define and devolve responsibilities to lower level management structures are under way

• IUCN is supporting the establishment of the local level platform in the upper Aswa sub-catchment area, in the Upper Nile Water Management Zone .

•

11


• To date – have supported the set-up of a micro-catchment management structure which includes water user groups

– public awareness of IWRM principles and the new national water resources management strategy;

– participatory mapping, assessment of catchment status and stakeholder analysis.

– Creations of Catchment Facilitation Team (CFT) to coordinate dialogue with water resources user groups (WUGs), through which communities have mobilized to develop stream-level management plans.

• WUGs were brought together to form a Water User Association (WUA) linking the local level to a wider sub-catchment scale for water resources management.

• Government is using this demonstration of local level participation to develop guidelines for establishing WUAs at the local level

• Missing link – connection with regional processes (Nile Basin Initiative; Nile Basin Discourse)

Case study: Upper Nile, Uganda

Resilience shift: Upper Nile, Uganda

• return of refugees

• encroachment on water sources

• loss of skills

• top down water management

• lack of local water user participation

• linkage of local water users to catchment institutions

• alternative livelihood options identified

• development of skills and capacity at grassroots levels

• sustainable management of water sources

13


Case study: Guatemala

• At the community level in Guatemala, IUCN facilitated development of alliances with community development committees and coordinated with Municipal and National Development Councils, to enable integration of micro watershed planning and management with community-led action on development.

– Project implementation has demonstrated that projects formulated by the communities rather than institutions translate into responses to the real demands of communities, not just institutional goals.

• At the Department (or Sub-national level) of San Marcos, an alliance was created with 16 government and non-governmental organizations, to form CORNASAM (the Inter-Institutional Coordinating Body for Natural Resources and the Environment of San Marcos).

– CORNASAM has adopted the microwatershed as the unit of planning for water and the environment and, together, these groups have coordinated outreach and training in the micro-watershed approach.

14


• At the national level, they are also supporting the strengthening of the National MicroWatershed Commission of Guatemala, which has been formed to lead application of governance reform through micro-watershed management country-wide.

– Additionally, spaces have been created to organize and promote Payment for Environmental Services, water policies and participatory plans in micro watersheds, under the guidance of IUCN.

Resilience shift: Tacanà, Guatemala

• deforested watersheds

• degraded farming systems

• social upheaval

• downstream disaster – impacted lives and livelihoods

• weak coordination

• local coordination of priorities

• landscape restoration & diversification

• social entrepreneurship

• municipal – provincial liaison

• disaster planning

16


Governance as the engine for adaptation• use the best knowledge you can get• enabling policy-legal-institutional framework to support

multistakeholder public participation• institutions that foster social learning• decentralisation of decision making• differentiation of roles and responsibilities• governance coordination across scales• leadership and champions: political will and energy

Conclusions: participation is part of building adaptive capacity

• RULE: shows how national water reform processes can deliver good water governance by focussing on the principles and practice.

• SHARE: describes the benefits to be gained from cooperation and the challenges of constructing legal frameworks, institutions, management processes, financing, and partnership strategies to govern transboundary waters.

• NEGOTIATE: makes the case for constructive engagement and cooperative forms of negotiation in dealing with complex water issues through constructive approaches such as Multi-Stakeholder Platforms (MSPs) and Consensus-Building.

IUCN Tools

18


Other tools available

Doing things differently: Stories about Local Water Governance in Egypt, Jordan and Palestinewww.project.empowers.info/

page/3353

www.policy-powertools.org www.gwptoolbox.org

19


Discussion questions

• How are you engaging with public participation in your projects? At which levels?

• How are you able to link local to national and regional levels?• What are the obstacles?• What have been the opportunities and successes?• What resources are needed to improve public participation?

Documents

Good practices in public participation