PhD Project Filip Aggestam - Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) / Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement
From WaterWiki
|
Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement Reviewing projects of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) | |
|
Below you may find the final draft for a working paper focused on stakeholder analysis and engagement in various project primarily along the Tisza, Danube River Basin and Caspian Sea.
| |
|
Stakeholder Analysis, Engagement, Public Participation, Project Management | |
|
Water is becoming increasingly scarce in relation to global demand. As this trend will most likely continue in the future, conflicting expectations for rivers will grow, in particular for international rivers. This is combined with only limited and little tested institutional instruments and international legislation available for nations to help to solve environmental and conservation issues with regard to water resources. In the area of environmental management, part of the solution to this problem is offered by Stakeholder Analysis (SHA) and Engagement. This field is still developing, but quickly becoming a cornerstone of river basin management and development. It is an area that may bring benefits to all river users. The purpose of this study was to compare approaches to Stakeholder Analysis methodologies and guidelines and examine how they have been implemented, conducted and integrated by projects run through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and related organisations. The focus was predominantly on activities in the Tisza and Danube River Basins, but also, to some extent, the Caspian Sea and Kura-Aras River Basin. The study combined interviews, an online UNDP conference (H20 Waterfair) and questionnaires and aimed to explore the views and opinions of project managers, SHA practitioners and stakeholders involved in the organisations and regions mentioned above. The projects and organisations that have been compared are not all clearly connected to each other. Furthermore, they do not all share the same underlying theory with regard to how a Stakeholder Analysis, Engagement and Public Participation Strategy (PPS) should be implemented. To a certain extent, this restricts the potential for comparison. Nonetheless, the study does help to illustrate the impact that different methods may have within various project designs, processes and contexts. This will perhaps not help future practitioners derive a wanted output from a specific SHA methodology, but rather to weigh, translate and interpret the context in which a particular analysis should be implemented. Additionally, it can hopefully help the analyst reflect on the limitations of an implemented methodology and to consider, or identify, interesting abnormalities where ‘real-life’ cannot be explained by the selected approach.
| |
|
Please find the final draft working paper attached below.
|
