STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION Michelle I.

Yu
Plan 289 – Water Resource Planning
AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT UP SURP
OUTLINE
I. Stakeholder Participation: Key Concepts and Principles
II. Stakeholder Identification
III. Typologies and Methods of Participation
IV. Conflicts and Conflict Management
V. Conflict Management
VI. Water-Related Conflicts in the Philippines
SIGNIFICANCE OF STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
• Political freedom and the ability to participate in the life of one’s community
are capabilities that are as important for human development as being able to
read and write and being in good health. People without political freedom – such
as being able to join associations and to form and express opinions – have far
fewer choices in life. And being able to participate in the life of one’s community
– commanding the respect of others and having a say in communal decisions – is
fundamental to human existence. - UNDP 2002
• Effective stakeholder engagement is fundamental to attain the Sustainable
Development Goals, and applying the principle of “leave no one behind” in
combatting inequality and ensuring equity in non-discrimination across all
programming areas. Stakeholder engagement is critical to secure multi-
stakeholder partnerships to advance the SDGs. – UNDP 2017
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN IWRM
• Process of involving those affected by and thus have an interest in water
resources, and in the formulation of water strategies
• A communication process that seeks to identify and clarify interests at
stake, with the ultimate aim of producing a well-informed water
management strategy that has a good chance of being implemented
successfully
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN IWRM: STEPS
1. Identify key stakeholders that could potentially affect or
be affected by changes in water management
Stakeholder
2. Assess stakeholder interests and potential impact of the mapping
IWRM plan on these interests
3. Assess the influence and importance of identified
stakeholders
4. Outline a stakeholder participation strategy
BENEFITS OF STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
• Help gather information, identify info gaps, and identify sources of
info
• Ensure that alternatives serving a broad range of interests are
considered, implies respect for everyone in the community  Better
• Provide transparency and accountability regarding decisions taken and
decisions
process by which those decisions were arrived at
• Accustom stakeholders to the fact that some difficult choices may
 Community
have to be made in order to manage water resources effectively Capacity
• Improved relationships and trust among stakeholders
 Commitment
• Build a broad base of commitment to options by creating an
environment that rewards the realistic discussion of benefits, risks and
costs of options and that provides a meaningful basis for informed
consent and commitment to recommendations
DISADVANTAGES
• Takes longer
• Requires resources
• Education is needed for stakeholders and institution
• Difficult to assure the participation and approval of
all the right people
• Members may not agree with “experts”
• An individual or group can ruin the participatory
process
WHO ARE STAKEHOLDERS?
WHO ARE STAKEHOLDERS?
• Stakeholders are persons, groups, or institutions with an interest in the
project or the ability to influence the project outcomes. They may be
directly or indirectly affected by the project (UNDP 2017)
• May include target beneficiary groups, locally affected communities/
individuals, national and local governments, civil society groups, NGOs,
IPs, politicians, religious groups, academe, private sector entities,
workers, special interest groups
• People should be involved if they have information that cannot be
gained otherwise, or if their participation is necessary to assure
successful implementation of initiatives built on analyses (Thomas 1995)
STAKEHOLDER MAPPING
• Process of identifying the key stakeholders of a project and assessing
their interests in the project
• Facilitates prioritization of engagement
• 3 Steps
1. Stakeholder identification
2. Identification of stakeholder interests
3. Stakeholder prioritization
1. STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION
Key questions:
• Who are the project’s targeted beneficiaries?
• Who might be adversely impacted (directly/ indirectly)?
• Will the project impact (positively/negatively) any marginalized groups?
• How will the project affect women and men stakeholders?
• Who are the project’s main supporters and opponents?
• Who is responsible for carrying out planned activities?
2. IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS
Key questions:
• How does each stakeholder group perceive the problem at hand and
proposed solutions?
• What are the stakeholders’ expectations of the project?
• What does each group stand to gain/lose as a result of the project?
• Would the rights of some stakeholders be adversely affected?
• Do some stakeholders face greater risks than others?
• What stakeholder interests conflict with project goals?
• What resources might the stakeholder be able and willing to mobilize?
3. STAKEHOLDER PRIORITIZATION
Key questions:
• What is the degree of influence of each group to affect project outcomes?
• What is the importance of each stakeholder group to the success of the project?
• What type of stakeholder engagement is mandated by national law, international
obligations or other requirements?
• Who are the project’s targeted primary beneficiaries?
• Who may be adversely impacted by the project?
• Who is it critical to engage with first?
• Are special measures needed to protect the interests of marginalized stakeholder
groups?
• Does opposition from any of the stakeholders put the project at risk? Are there ways
to engage with them to ensure that their concerns are addressed?
 TOOL: STAKEHOLDER MATRIX
Stakeholders Interests Effect Importance of Degree of Influence of
at stake in relation of project Stakeholder for Success Stakeholder over Project
to the project on interests of Project 1- Little/ No influence
(+, 0, -) 1- Little/ No importance 2- Some influence
2- Some importance 3- Moderate influence
3- Moderate importance 4- Significant influence
4- Very important 5- Very influential
5- Critical player

Source: UNDP Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation 2009

 TOOL: POWER V. INTEREST GRID (BRYSON)
SUBJECTS PLAYERS
High interest, low influence stakeholders High interest, high influence stakeholders
 Consult, Meet their needs  Engage
- Engage and consult on their interest - Focus efforts on this group
- Involve in decision making
LEVEL OF INTEREST

- Engage and consult regularly

CONTEXT SETTERS
CROWD Low interest, high influence
Low interest, low influence  Inform, Show consideration, Manage
 Inform - Keep informed and consult on
- Inform via general communications interest area
- Potential obstacles or
supporters/ambassadors

LEVEL OF POWER
 ANGAT WATER TRANSMISSION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
SUBJECTS PLAYERS
NHA and future occupants of housing DENR
IPs LGUs
NGOs
Concessionaires
LEVEL OF INTEREST

Communities in the vicinity

Owners of lands to be used as disposal
area
CONTEXT SETTERS
CROWD EMB
DepEd NEDA
DOH DOF
Media

LEVEL OF POWER
TYPOLOGIES AND METHODS OF
PARTICIPATION
LADDER OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (ARNSTEIN 1967)
 IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF
PARTICIPATION
Is there specific input we seek and intend to take into account as we INFORM
NO
make our decisions?
YES
Are we seeking to engage stakeholders early and throughout the NO CONSULT
process rather than just get public comment at a one or two points?
YES
Do we intend to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders to INVOLVE
NO
work on the problem and potentially seek consensus?
YES
Do we intend to give decision-making authority to the public on all NO COLLABORATE
or part of the decision?
YES
EMPOWER
Source: EPA 2012
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN
• Stakeholder groups and individuals to be engaged
• Stakeholder objectives and interests
• Extent of stakeholder involvement at each stage of the project cycle
• Decisions that need to be made through stakeholder engagement
• Engagement strategies/methods
• Timeline for engagement activities
• Roles and responsibilities of project partners in the conduct of engagement
activities
• Budget and fund sources
EXAMPLES OF STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
METHODS
• Public hearings
• Citizen advisory committees and task forces
• Surveys
• Local consultations on the ground
• Focus groups
• Stakeholder workshops
• Representation in the management structure for the planning process
 PRECONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS
Clear purpose and Clear structure and Actual opportunity Commitment to the
goals process for influence process

Inclusive and Sufficient resources Participative

A climate of
effective to conduct the capacity among staff
integrity
representation process and participants

Belief in the value of Complete

Capacity to engage
public input transparency
Source: EPA 2012
CONFLICTS
WHAT IS CONFLICT?
• Conflict (n.) – an active disagreement, as between opposing opinions or
needs (Cambridge Dictionary)
• Conflict is present when two or more parties perceive that their interests
are incompatible, express hostile attitudes or pursue their interests
through actions that damage the other parties (Cap-Net 2008)
UNDERSTANDING CONFLICTS
is the conflict about?
is the root cause?
WHAT are the rights you have to use the resource?
are the lines of formal authority?

WHEN did the conflict start?

are causing the conflict?
are involved in the conflict?
WHO
should be involved in resolving the conflict?
did the conflict start?
HOW far have you gone in trying to resolve it?
have the authorities helped/ hindered the resolution process?
KINDS OF CONFLICT
• Intra-personal
• Inter-personal
• Intra-group
• Inter-group
TYPES OF CONFLICT Value Relationship
• Ideological differences • Strong emotions
• Differing standards on • Stereotypes
evaluation of ideas • Miscommunication
• Repetitive negative
behavior

Structural Data
• Distribution of power • Lack of information
and resources • Misinformation
• Time constrains • Differing views on
• Destructive patterns relevance of data
of interactions • Different
interpretation of data
• Differing views on
Interest assessment
performed
• Actual or perceived
competition over interests
• Procedural disagreement
• Perceptions of trust and
fairness
UNDERSTANDING
NEEDS, INTERESTS
AND POSITIONS:
THE ONION TOOL
CONFLICT PROGRESSION
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
• Refers to a broad array of tools used to anticipate, prevent and react to
conflicts
• Assumes a proactive role in preventing conflicts by fostering productive
communication and collaboration among diverse interests, addressing
the underlying causes of conflict, developing trust and understanding and
using participatory and collaborative planning for undertaking complex
tasks.
• Primary goal: turn inevitable conflicts into productive, win-win, mutually
beneficial outcomes that will lead to long-term gains
COMMON APPROACHES TO CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
•Litigation
• Ultimate formal mechanism
• Taking recourse to the legal system of the country
• Parties to a dispute are heard by a court of law that decides on the basis of existing laws

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

• Emphasis on consensus-seeking outcomes
• Methods: Negotiation, Facilitation, Mediation, Arbitration

Preventing Conflict before Conflict Begins:

Consensus Building/ Stakeholder Approach
 ADR Technique Negotiation Mediation
Result Sought Mutually acceptable agreement Mutually acceptable agreement
Voluntary/Involuntary Voluntary Voluntary

CONFLICT RESOLUTION TECHNIQUES

Binding/Non-binding
3rd Party Involvement
Agreement enforceable as contract
None
Agreement enforceable as contract
Mediator selected by parties, facilitates negotiation process
1st Steps Flexible Parties agree on mediation and appoint mediator
Approach Usually informal, unstructured Usually informal and unstructured
Advantages Quicker, cheaper than litigation Quicker, cheaper than litigation
Parties retain control over policy and Enables creative solutions to be found
outcome Can resolve conflicts over policy issues and/or where clear legal
Parties work to find win-win solutions rights/obligations are lacking
Decisions can be tailored to parties’ Parties retain control over process & outcome
needs Parties work to find win-win solutions
Agreements more likely to be Substantive issues of importance to parties can be addressed
implemented Decisions can be tailored to parties’ needs
Future problems solved in non- Parties can directly contribute expert understanding/expertise
adversarial way Agreement more likely to be implemented and future problems
solved in non-adversarial way
Can restore communication between alienated parties and
break deadlock
Disadvantages May not be useful in big, complex cases Power imbalances may be enhanced
Agreement may not be reached Agreement may not be reached
Failure to implement agreement may Failure to implement agreement may necessitate enforcement
necessitate enforcement thru courts thru courts
 Technique Arbitration Litigation
Result Sought Arbitration award Court judgment

CONFLICT RESOLUTION TECHNIQUES

Voluntary/Involuntary
Binding/Non-binding
Voluntary
Binding
Involuntary
Binding
3rd Party Involvement Arbitrator Judge
1st Steps Parties agree on arbitrator and appoints him One party initiates court proceedings
Approach Less formal Formal
Procedural rules and substantive laws may Structured by predetermined rules
be set by parties Adversarial
Advantages Quicker and cheaper than litigation Application of legal rules may help address power imbalances
Parties can tailor procedure to suit needs
Parties can choose subject matter experts as
arbitrators
Disadvantages Parties relinquish control over final decision Slow and expensive
Success depends on competence of May result in further litigation
arbitrators Decision restricted within narrow legal parameters
No appeal against decision Parties relinquish control over process and decision
Inappropriate for disputes involving wider policy issues

Reference: Cap-Net 2008

CONSENSUS BUILDING/ STAKEHOLDER APPROACH
• Key is to create an enabling environment where stakeholders are able to actively
participate in policy dialogues and subsequent planning and design processes

• May include the following steps:

• Defining the problem
• Focusing on interests
• Identifying alternatives
• Separating the generation of alternatives from their evaluation
• Agreeing on principles/ criteria to evaluate alternatives
• Documenting agreements
• Agreeing on the process by which agreements can be revised and the process by which other
types of disagreements might be solved
• Using the process to create agreement
• Creating a commitment to implementation by providing stakeholders with specific roles
REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL CONFLICT
RESOLUTION
 Willingness to participate
 Opportunity for mutual gain
 Opportunity for participation
 Identification of interests rather than positions
 Developing options
 Capability to carry out an agreement
WATER-RELATED CONFLICTS
IN THE PHILIPPINES
THE CASE OF KALIWA DAM
• “New Centennial Water Source – Kaliwa Dam Project”
• 62m dam with reservoir area of 113 has and 27.7km
water conveyance tunnel
• To increase water security through increasing water
supply in Metro Manila, to meet future water
demand and reduce dependence of the Angat Dam
• Brgy. Pagsangahan, General Nakar, Quezon, and Brgy.
Magsaysay, Infanta, Quezon
• PhP 18.724 Billion thru ODA
• Expected to deliver additional 600 million liters per
day
 THE CASE OF KALIWA DAM
• Status as of August 31, 2018
• Loan signing scheduled on the visit of China President Xi Jinping on Nov. 19-21, 2018
• Ongoing acquisition of lots
• Ongoing coordination with the following agencies:
• LGU Quezon/Infanta – for PDC and MDC endorsements
• NCIP IVA – for FPIC
• EMB – for ECC
• DENR IVA – for ECC of access road to dam site and for resettlement site
THE CASE OF KALIWA DAM
Mobilizing groups
• Farmers
• IPs
• Communities
• Religious groups
• Local scientists/ professionals
• Fisherfolk
• NGOs
• CSOs
• Concerned citizens
THE CASE OF KALIWA DAM
Forms of Mobilization
• Official complaint letters
• Development of networks
• Public campaigns
• Involvement of national and
international NGOs
• Blockages
• Community-based participative
research
• Street protests
• Creation of alternative proposals
 THE CASE OF KALIWA DAM
Views of opposition:
• Dam will inundate ancestral domain of the
Dumagat-Remontados
• Construction over Infanta Fault will be a “sword
hanging over the head” of 100,000 people living
downstream the Kaliwa River
• Climate change has not been considered in Kaliwa
dam studies
• Similar tragedies: 2004 flash flood in Infanta that
killed 1,000; Laos dam collapse
• NEDA has kept data on Kaliwa dam “confidential”
despite the FOI EO
• Increased water demand is not from residential but
commercial
 THE CASE OF KALIWA DAM
Propositions of opposition:
• Launch massive IEC to teach Metro Manila residents
• Harvest rainwater
• Fast track recovery of wasted water through fixing leaks
• Rehabilitate Pasig-Laguna River Basin which would only cost PhP 13B
• Adopt technologies that can treat wastewater to become potable
• Protect and expand dwindling forests that serve the watersheds and would refill
underground aquifers
PH WATER CONFLICTS
•
KEY POINTS
• A participatory planning process is essential for sustainable water
management
• Planners shall serve as facilitators to the participatory planning process
• Stakeholder support is crucial to the success of IWRM Plans
• Conflicts cannot be avoided but they not necessarily disadvantageous
• Alternative Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building approaches are
preferred over litigation (less cost, higher chances of win-win)
• The Philippines needs to strengthen its institutions and policies to reduce
water conflicts
REFERENCES
http://www.fao.org/docrep/v7890e/V7890E09.htm
https://www.gwp.org/contentassets/f998a402e3ab49ea891fa49e77fba953/iwrmp-
training-manual-and-operational-guide.pdf
https://www.adb.org/projects/46362-002/main#project-pds
http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/capdev/index.php/module-1/typology-of-participation
https://www.nap.edu/read/10973/chapter/6
https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-participation-guide-introduction-
public-participation
https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/references/conflict-resolution-and-
negotiation-skills-from-iwrm-capnet-2008.pdf
https://www.gwp.org/contentassets/f998a402e3ab49ea891fa49e77fba953/iwrmp-
training-manual-and-operational-guide.pdf