Summary and emerging framework

At the end of chapter 2 and after reviewing the literature on stakeholder theory, the first form of the conceptual model was presented. Thus, stage one of SSM was completed, providing a broad identification of the problem to be addressed, in order to reach the aim and objectives of this research.

The conceptual model was concerned with linking the RBM model with the stakeholder topology diagram. It asked two questions. How do stakeholders (as members of RBM) fit into stakeholders’ topology? How can stakeholders be engaged to participate in RBM based on their attributes?

In terms of the RBM model, some stakeholder groups were suspected of being more important or having a higher impact for managers in river basin management.

At a later stage the research process was based on;

• Case studies using the same scope (RBM, water demands, pollution and participation) but each one having unique features;

• Data from interviews 1 and 2, merged with case study data, providing the necessary additional information on those case studies, on participation levels.

• Expert interviews, for stakeholders’ identification and classification.

Introducing national policies and RBM issues into the case studies added the stakeholders’ point of view on participation.

Cross case studies findings, cross case interview outcomes and “rich pictures”, allowed the identification of two additional stakeholders and the observation of stakeholder dynamics.

Table 4-21Cross case interviews analyses

Interview Outcome from expert interview Contribution to main question of the study

E1(M) National

Manager(RBM

Plans and

National Plans)

State Offices do not collaborate and have different data formats for the same issues; this does not allow cross data analysis to take place and neither sector provides clear clarification (i.e., as for pig rearing sector);

Sometimes farmers contest tax applications and the Agriculture Ministry has been lenient and delayed timing for compliance with EU legislation;

Some issues on consultation documents are very technical & difficult for stakeholders to understand;

Reports on participation meetings held by BDAs have different levels of information or have scarce data on attendees;

Recent fusion of several State Offices and changes in technical staff involved with previous work groups can endanger existing trust relationships with stakeholders sectors.

E1(M) stated that some questions during meetings showed that attendees had not read the available documents; however it may be that they had read them but did not understand them due to their limited knowledge of RBM issues (as pointed by the CS 3 and E2(M) interviewees);

No reports on separate stakeholders sectors consultations were provided to other sectors; this can lead to the belief that Administration is safeguarding a specific sector against others; thereby undermining trust relationships.

E2(M) Coast & Dams Manager

Stakeholders actions are based on their personal problems and the possibility of solving them;

The important tool for stakeholders engagement is to increase communication from Administration;

Stakeholders knowledge of RBM needs to be improved and this could be achieved by Administration providing supporting information in a clear and simple language;

Different perceptions within the same group of stakeholders is due to different levels of knowledge;

Stakeholders lack of knowledge concerning some legislation is due to its complexity; Information should be available to many sectors;

Administration should ask municipalities to motivate local people ;

Identifying stakeholders by their economic classification can endanger the transversal consideration of all stakeholders.

Identification of the complexity of legislation for stakeholders comprehension and their poor knowledge of RBM issues;

Administration needs to promote stakeholders knowledge about RBM issues in clear and easily understandable language;

Administration needs to engage municipalities to motivate local stakeholders to participate;

Administration needs to organise data collection patterns to all cross referencing of information from different sources.

Interview

Outcome from expert interview

Contribution to main question of the

study

E3(M) Local Manager (BDA X)

Great difficulty in engaging people in participation;

Many municipalities do not engage local stakeholders in participation;

Lack of understanding of RBM issues implies the need to increase environmental education and clear information about measures and their impacts;

Problems with environmental laws compliance, especially for pig rearing sectors; Tolerance of politicians to tax avoidance by farmers ;

Relevant stakeholders associations often hide their knowledge of their impacts on RBM; Low levels of participation for all stakeholders sectors;

E3(M) stated that large stakeholders associations have a better knowledge of RBM; therefore they can help managers to find solutions.

This interviewee corroborated some points presented by the other managers; the need to provide information about RBM in simple language to provide a clear understanding of RBM issues, their impacts & legislation; Although the BDA determines which are the most urgent issues, large stakeholders associations which are often consulted may be able to influence BDA decisions;

Identified that some stakeholders hide their knowledge on their impact on RBM;

A significant number of municipalities do not cooperate with identifying and engaging local stakeholders for participation and often do nor take part on participatory meetings.

E4(SI) Industry Stakeholder

(no rich picture as they do not feel to have a RB connection)

The Industry Association is a “social partner” and is represented in all National Councils but does not feel it has regional engagement. They are simply concerned with legislation affecting industries (i.e. laws on river pollution control);

Industry Association has blocked disclosure of industries environmental data because they do not know how it will be handled (misuse of such information could endanger competitiveness among enterprises);

Industries limitations in competitiveness are due to legislation and Administration attitudes;

After BDAs start (2008) environmental licenses for industry do not have an integrated approach with water demands and other issues; these are treated separately.

Relationship between State Offices is poor and the data collected is different with no comparable patterns;

Good work by State Offices depends on the skills of the individuals who work there and some BDAs do not work properly;

State Offices often do not consider consultation outputs; “Waters of Portugal” is very salient and legislation has protected them;

Industries with higher salience have high skilled technical staff or are exporting industries;

Sees industry sector as being a “dependent stakeholder” (legitimacy & urgency).

Interview

Outcome from expert interview

Contribution to main question of the

study

E5(NSA) Stakeholder (National Agriculture)

They are frequently consulted by State Offices and are represented on National Water Council and on the EU Agricultural Common Policy Committee;

Agriculture has a huge variety of practices and concerns; Some consultations discuss only issues in respect of the WFD;

Agriculture is said to be responsible for pollution, but other sources are also involved;

Farmers’ Association’s main objective is to defend farmers’ interests.

Data on agriculture available from State Offices is not comparable;

Unknown official data relating to water requirements for crops, from all over the country;

EU common policies condition agriculture;

Sometimes they are less collaborative due to the short time for consultation and technical language of official documentation supporting it (which implies that the Association prepares simpler documents for members consultation);

They appear to act as “definitive stakeholders” (urgency, legitimacy and power);

Their urgency relies on the need to solve pollution problems (cattle and pig rearing sectors);

Their legitimacy is due to the large number of member they represent and being responsible for being fully conversant with EU policies;

Power is due to their strong relationship with Administration and their analysis of environmental policies, keeping up the pressure for their members’ benefit.

The two new identified stakeholders (energy sector and a national water enterprise) were not considered in the first version of the RBM conceptual model (in section 2.8, Fig. 2.4). These two stakeholders were identified by the expert interviewees (other case study stakeholders and general stakeholders) as being salient to the RBM authorities. This part of the RBM model was corrected and is shown in the Fig. 4.24, presenting the final identification of stakeholders in RBM, thus satisfying the first objective which was the identification of key stakeholders and their behaviour within the context of RBM.

Fig. 4-24 Final RBM model – Stakeholders identification

The two newly identified stakeholders appear to play a major role in RBM. Although, in this final RBM model, they are portrayed in large, bold characters and cross the limit line of layer 1. They probably have all the necessary attributes (according to stakeholder theory), and they seem to be in a privileged position. However, this shows the need for further research, to confirm this assumption.

Large farmers’ associations and large industry associations also cross the same line but are portrayed in smaller characters, meaning that they are important stakeholders. Sometimes they are successful in their role of definitive stakeholder - fulfilling and controlling their pressures on RB managers; while at other times they conform to the role of dependant stakeholders.

Additionally, the observation of stakeholders’ dynamics, based on cross case analysis, is presented in Fig. 4.25, high lightening the level of engagement of the different stakeholders in RBM. This satisfied the second objective which was to examine stakeholders’ dynamics (level of engagement, commitment and participation) in identified case studies.

Fig. 4-25 Observation of stakeholder dynamics

Government Departments and municipalities appear in different positions since they were identified by the general stakeholder interviewees as having different levels of engagement from one department to another.

For each of the considered group of stakeholders, the following issues were identified:

Government Authorities / Departments

 Lack of collaborative actions among them;

 Work efficiently when their Head has a high level of skills and commitment;

 Data collected by different Offices has different standard formats (not compatible);

 Data gaps do not provide feasible identification of pollution sources (i.e. claims from agriculture sector).

Municipalities

 Can be very collaborative or avoid collaboration;

 Often fear to lose their autonomy when controlled or having to work together;

 Need to enhance their role in the motivation of local stakeholders in participation;

 Need to be engaged to promote local stakeholders knowledge of RBM issues.

Agriculture sector

Pressure over Administration to:

 Solve their urgent issues, namely the need to get feasible official data on water needs for crops from Administration;

 Claim legitimacy as representing all types of agriculture and having many associates.

Data on agriculture available from State Offices needs to be comparable;

Problem of unknown official data on requirement of water for crops, throughout the country has to be solved;

Short time for consultations and technical language of official supporting documentation (which implies that the Association prepares simpler documents for their associates’ consultation) needs to be revised;

They clearly state that their role is to defend their associates’ interests.

Industry sector

 Considered a “social partner” by Government;

 Do not feel they have regional or basin concerns;

 Feel they have limited power (due to legislation and Administration attitudes);

 Feel as though they are a “dependent” stakeholder (only with the attributes of legitimacy and urgency);

 Have blocked disclosure of industries’ data due to lack of trust concerning careful handling by Administration.

Based on cross case analysis and stakeholders dynamics observation the final outcomes were defined and appear in Fig. 4.26. Fig. 4.26 brings together all the components of analysis results, pointing to the changes needed to achieve the aim of this study. Those outcomes also provide a critical evaluation of the paths to solve the gaps, based on cross case analysis, thereby meeting objective c). The final conceptual model presented in Fig. 4-27 represents a framework for the improvement of stakeholders’ participation, thus achieving the last objective. It establishes the rationale for the proposals discussed in chapter 5 where the creation of two types of partnering groups is defended; a partnering group among State Offices and partnering water users groups within each basin. The basin water users group should, desirably, have a close connection with the related BDA.

Case study managers identified good but distant relationships with the BDA to which they belong. They desire a closer relationship to solve local problems, which have been identified by them, by discussing the measures required and their implementation.

At this point in the study, stage two and three of SSM (defined in sections 3.6.3 to 3.6.5 and Fig. 3.8) were completed with the cross case analysis, the observation of stakeholder dynamics (Fig.4.25) and the final outcomes (Fig. 4.26). In addition, stage four of SSM is also completed by the final conceptual model as showed in Fig. 4.27.

177

National Water Authority (NWA)

Government Department (GD X) (Coast and Dams)

BDA

CSs managers

Agriculture Association

Industry Association

(Tries to be a definitive stakeholder but feels as being a

dependent stakeholder) (They are simply concerned

with legislation affecting industries)

Need to establish mechanisms of careful industries information handling to gain industries trust on Administration capacities for it (by partnering groups with strong representativeness from industry sector); Industries’ environmental licenses, established by the Administration, should have an integrated approach on water demands and other issues, as it happened in the past.

Stakeholders’ need to have information on RBM issues to improve their knowledge on it;

Need to improve relationship with BDAs, to discuss needed measures;

Need to implement conclusions from participation meetings and measures pointed in Plans to gain stakeholders trust and future higher participation;

Different consultation meetings for each stakeholders group enable the use of adequate language to their level of knowledge on systems’ solutions and RBM issues;

Need of effective control of polluters.

Need to provide knowledge on water issues to citizens, in a single language;

National Statistical Institute should be engaged to publish data in a format appropriate to managers needs;

Data format from State Offices needs to be compatible, to allow data cross reference;

National State Offices need to collaborate between them;

Participation meeting reports from each BDA should have the same pattern of information;

Some issues under consultation are very technical for stakeholders (need to use of a simpler language).

National statistic data needs to be adequate for RBM needs;

Lack of participation culture needs to be solved locally; Lack of economic data from stakeholders needs to be solved, promoting trust relationships;

Municipalities’ technical staffs need to engage local stakeholders for participation and increase their own engagement with Administration (namely with their BDA);

Lack of understanding of RBM issues needs to be solved by providing clear information on it;

Need to increase environmental education and information on needed measures and their impact;

(BDA identifies stakeholders as being only dormant. BDA determines urgency and sees legitimacy as meaning compliance with legislation).

Need to work on improving stakeholders’ information on RBM issues to increase their interest in participation;

Need to present technical issues in a simple language to gain people interest;

Stakeholders associations should be more involved in the planning process, especially on their local problems to be solved, for a better final output;

Administration should ask municipalities to motivate local people and distribute information to them; Administration needs to fix data collection patterns, to enable cross referencing of information from different sources.

(Tries to be a definitive stakeholder)

Data on agriculture available from State Offices needs to be comparable;

Problem of unknown official data relating to water needs for crops throughout the country has to be solved;

Short time for consultations and technical language of official documents supporting it needs to be simplified.

(Colours legend:Data format / RBM issues needed learning / Trust relationships development) Fig. 4-26Final outcomes

     

Main identified gaps to be solved:

Provide stakeholders education on RBM issues, using simple language; Engage local municipalities to establish stakeholder education processes locally;

Extend consultation time extension; Fix common data collection patterns among State Offices to cross referencing of information from different sources;

Engage National Statistics Institute (NSI) to publish data in the required format for managers & stakeholders use;

State Offices need to establish mechanisms for careful industries data

Establish common patterns of data collection for data crossing referencing;

Define mechanisms for careful handling of sensitive industrial information to gain their trust;

Provide knowledge and information to all stakeholders using simple language, to gain all stakeholders engagement for participation.

Enhance knowledge of RBM issues (key role from municipalities); Share local information on RBM;

Promote trust relationships among all groups and encourage greater participation commitment.

Conclusions and

proposals

This chapter presents the fulfilment of the defined objectives, the findings of the study, proposals to various stakeholders, contributions to knowledge, limitations of the study and areas for further research.

In document Stakeholder engagement to enhance integrated water management in the context of a river basin in Portugal (Page 183-193)