Benefits and Barriers of Participation: Experiences of Applied Research Projects in Integrated Water Resources Management

Abstract

The role and design of participation for the successful implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has been intensely discussed. However, in the specific context of applied IWRM research, benefits of participation and specific conditions to realize these benefits are often neglected. Such disregard is problematic when scientific driven IWRM concepts are increasingly interwoven with actual IWRM implementation. In order to discover specific benefits and challenges of conducting participation in applied research, both quantitative and qualitative interviews were carried out amongst 15 German IWRM research projects in emerging and developing countries and contrasted with hypotheses in the literature. Results show that researchers tend to agree with hypotheses in the literature, e.g. in terms of the positive role of participatory processes, its different functions and specific design principles in term of skills of researchers and frame conditions. However, researchers of the IWRM funding initiative especially highlighted challenges with regards to several prerequisites like skills of researchers to conduct participatory processes or structural conditions. For instance, hard skills are often missing, e.g. the knowledge on how to design participation processes in view of the respective research goal. Moreover, unlike practitioners, researchers are rarely trained in soft skills like intercultural competences for adjusting participatory approaches to different cultural contexts. In terms of structural conditions, the German BMBF research context shows temporal and financial restrictions. Furthermore, conditions within the target country such as political and social aspects are important and not easy to overlook if the project is based in Germany like it is the case in most of the research projects investigated.

Appendix: Project-Specific Survey on Participation in IWRM

This survey aims at generating lessons learnt on participation in IWRM. Lessons learnt comprise four aspects, amongst (1) the definition of participation in IWRM, (2) the relevance of participation to achieve an IWRM, (3) the relevance of participatory research, and (4) the design of participatory processes.

The questionnaire was prepared by an inter-project working group. The results will be part of a key issue paper which is meant to provide guidance for research projects, project executing organizations and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

This survey will last approximately 20 min. Please mark with a cross the relevant response fields and add relevant information where applicable. After having analysed the results of the survey, we will send you a draft of the key issue paper and you will have the opportunity to comment the results.

The information that is gathered by the survey will be treated confidentially as long as you do not agree expressly the inverse case. Please mark with a cross the relevant response field:

• □ I would like that the information is treated confidentially, meaning that the project name is not matched with the answers in the further process.

• □ I agree that the project name is matched with the answers in the further process.

We thank you for participating in this survey. In case of any questions, please do not hesitate to contact:

Contact

Sabrina Kirschke

IWRM networking project

Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ

Department Aquatic Ecosystem Analysis and Management

Brückstr. 31/39114 Magdeburg

Phone: 0391 810 9940/Email: sabrina.kirschke@ufz.de

Your Contact details

• Name of the project:

• Name of the sub-project:

• Contact person:

  • Name:

  • Institution:

  • Phone:

  • Email:

(A) What does participation mean in the context of IWRM?

Please mark with a cross and add relevant information where applicable.

1. What do you understand by IWRM?

• □ “a process which promotes the co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems”. (GWP 2000: Integrated Water Resources Management. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership, p. 22)

• □ Other definition:

2. What do you understand by the notion of participation?

• □ Involvement of veto-players (persons that can circumvent or hinder decion-making or the implementation of decisions)

• □ Involvement of directly affected people

• □ Involvement of the wider public

• □ Other:

3. Which actors should be involved in participatory processes in your project?

4. Is there further relevant information on the definition of participation in IWRM that you would like to share?

• □ Yes, namely:

• □ No

(B) Which role has participation in your project to achieve an IWRM?

Please mark with a cross and add relevant information where applicable.

5. Which role has participation in your project to achieve an IWRM?

• □ High relevance

• □ Middle relevance

• □ Low relevance

• □ No relevance

6. Which concrete functions does participation fulfill in your project in view of achieving an IWRM?

• □ Further education of the wider public, e.g. in terms of how to handle technologies

• □ Further education/information exchange between stakeholders

• □ Integration and balancing of interests

• □ Acceptance of decisions

• □ Generating ownership

• □ Other:

7. At which levels does participation foster a sustainable water resource management in your project?

• □ Meta level: Comprehensive, inter-sectoral solution of problems, e.g. in the context of decision support systems

• □ Micro-level: Specific technological solution

• □ Other:

8. Which role has participation in view of implementing IWRM related project results?

• □ High relevance (active involvement of all relevant groups in the implementation process)

• □ Middle relevance (active involvement of several relevant groups in the implementation process)

• □ Low relevance (observation of the implementation process by “participants”)

• □ No relevance

9. Is there any further information on the role of participation in IWRM that you would like to share?

• □ Yes, namely:

• □ No

(C) How relevant is participatory research to achieve an IWRM?

Please mark with a cross and add relevant information where applicable.

10. Is participation an independent research topic in your project?

• □ Participation is from the beginning an independent research topic in the project.

• □ Participation is an independent research topic in the project. However, this was not initially planned.

• □ Participation is not an independent research topic in the project.

11. Which specific research questions does the project address related to the topic of participation in IWRM?

• □ Specific research questions are

• □ The project does not address specific research questions related to participation.

12. What are vital lacks of research related to participation in your project?

• □ Specific lacks of research are

• □ There are no specific lacks of research related to participation in the project.

13. Is there any further information on the role of participatory research in the project that you would like to share?

• □ Yes, namely:

• □ No

(D) How should participatory processes be designed to achieve an IWRM?

Please mark with a cross and add relevant information where applicable.

14. Which degree of participation is generally necessary to achieve an IWRM?

• □ Low degree (e.g. information sharing with those that are affected by a decision)

• □ Middle degree (e.g. involvement in discussions and recommendations for decision-makers)

• □ High degree (e.g. common decisions with decision-makers)

15. Which degree of participation is necessary in the research project to achieve an IWRM?

• □ Low degree (e.g. public-oriented events/information on project results)

• □ Middle degree (e.g. stakeholder as users of tools/methods)

• □ Hight degree (e.g. co-design of research proposals by stakeholders/ stakeholder as equal project partner)

16. What are criteria for a successfull participatory process in your project?

• □ All relevant actors/institutions are involved.

• □ There is a constant involvement of actors/institutions over the whole participatory process.

• □ The IWRM concept which was developed by participants is implemented in the long run.

• □ Comprehensive societal discussions are initiated at the relevant scale (local, national, regional or international).

• □ Other:

17. Is it necessary to set incentives for participants to enable participatory processes?

• □ No, because

• □ Yes, because

Incentives can be:

18. Which requirements have to be fulfilled for participation?

• □ High educational level of participants

• □ Transparency of informatiom

• □ Enough time

• □ Clarifying the funding of measures which regard the participatory process

• □ Long-term involvement of actors in the project

• □ Involvement of seniors/experts

• □ Other:

19. Please specify the timeframe for participation for specific groups!

• □ Veto-player:

• □ Directly affected people:

• □ Wider public:

• □ Other:

20. Which processual conditions foster output-oriented participatory workshops?

• □ Skilled facilitators

• □ Specific facilitation techniques such as

• □ Other:

21. Which actors initiate or accompany participatory processes?

22. Are there any problems if researchers initiate or accompany participatory processes?

• □ Yes, namely

• □ No

23. Which kind of practical impediments and problems come up when implementing participatory processes?

• □ Language barriers, namely

• □ Cultural problems, namely

• □ Too little knowledge of how to design participatory processes on the part of the researcher

• □ Other:

24. Do you have further lessons learnt with regard to the design of participatory processes which you would like to share?

Thank you very much!