Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
In Chapter 17 it was argued that in some
circumstances either a cooperative approach to
a single choice or collaboration over a series of
choices would be beneficial to the parties in-
volved. The two possible outcomes of a single
decision process are:
1
only winner/loser options are possible, or
2
a win-win option exists.
Whilst the second class, cooperative solutions,
are reasonably common inwatermanagement, we
should expect that many choices will involve the
former. The hope here is that by chaining choices
together, a collaborative approach over the long
run will result in a win-win outcome. Hence, the
critical purpose of stakeholder engagement is to
build and maintain the conditions under which
collaborative approaches will be achieved. This
requires that the individual interests accept a loss
in one choice in the expectation that they will
make gains in consequent choices. What stake-
holder engagement can do, therefore, is to widen
the negotiating space for the individual stakehold-
er from a focus on short-term narrow self-interest,
of the kind usually ascribed to the rational eco-
nomic person (Frank 2006), to the possibility of
trading off this interest against either long-term
narrow self-interest or for some wider interest.
Weisbord and Janoff 1995; Palmer and
Roberts 1998) which cover techniques that can be
used in the context of stakeholder engagement;
there is much less material available as to the
theoretical basis for expecting a better outcome
to be achievable and/or as to how it might be
achieved.
What is Stakeholder Engagement?
Functionally, the purpose of stakeholder engage-
ment is to achieve a better outcome in regard to
a particular choice than would otherwise occur;
over the long term, the purpose is to preserve and
enhance the capacity to deliver the potential gains
from cooperation and collaboration; what has
become known as 'social capital' (Bourdieu 1980;
Coleman 1988).
Since a condition for the existence of choice is
conflict (Green 2003), stakeholder engagement is
about the resolution of conflict (Shamir 2002). The
pragmatic questions are consequently:
1
Is a resolution of those conflicts possible?
2
What mechanisms and tools will enable such
a resolution to be achieved?
The two opposing answers that are heard to the
first question are:
1
getting people together will necessarily result in
a consensus; or
2
itwillonlyexacerbateconflictanddelaydecisions.
Neither of these answers is very helpful: both
assume the process will inherently result in a
particular outcome. Instead, there is a need to
focus attention upon the original questions.
Equally, it needs to be recognized that the process
is difficult, and that perhaps resolving real con-
flicts of interest ought always to be difficult, and
certainly that those whose interests conflict need
to be shown respect. Again, simply focusing upon
the outcome, that there is something that can
be claimed to be an agreed outcome, must not
distract attention from the process. If that out-
come results simply from creating a new arena of
power for those who already have power, or giving
power to those who ought not to have power, then
the outcome is the result of a bad process.
Who is a Stakeholder?
The two starting groups of stakeholders are those
who have power to implement action or to
obstruct it, and those who should have power. In
practical
terms,
the
concern is with two
conditions:
1
Between thosewhohave power now. Chapter 17
asserted that nearly all practical problems in
water management are transboundary in nature;
that is, it is only the nature of the boundaries that
differ. Here the necessary power to implement
a specific option is fragmented between different
organizations, and so only cooperation or collab-
oration between those organizations can deliver
the option.
2
The transfer of some powers to those whom it is
considered ought to have a share in power.
