Framework

Water Users

Identifying water users is part of the process of defining the management setting in a catchment. The potential impacts on water users brought about by changes in water management by taking a conjunctive approach need to be addressed. This requires a clear picture of the water requirements for both consumptive users and the environment. It is also critical that water users be engaged in the planning process from the outset. This is imperative if tradeoffs between impacts across water users need to be negotiated, which tends to be inevitable in catchment management.

The definition of water users is broad and assumes that the environment is a legitimate user of water. It includes potential beneficial uses of the water resource that have not as yet been developed in the catchment. This includes the concept of intergenerational equity. It also assumes that there are social and cultural values to water as well as consumptive use across a range of sectors. It involves the typical stakeholders that participate in catchment management.

Stakeholder engagement involves clarifying:

1. the minimum, current and projected water requirements of users, in terms of quantity, timing and quality. This investigates the distribution of water use in the catchment, when water is required through the year and trends in future water demand;
2. the (social, economic and ecological) consequences if water availability does not meet these defined water demands. In addition, the impacts brought about by water resource development and management to meet these demands need to be clarified and communicated;
3. the level of acceptability by water users of the risk that these water demands may not be met, and also of the likely impacts brought about by meeting such demands. This includes the level of awareness of water users of the extent of uncertainty associated with hydrological assessment and water management. This uncertainty relates to defining community values to water (and how these priorities can change over time), in developing the conceptual understanding of catchment processes and in quantifying these processes (and their response to change) to develop management options;
4. perceptions and priorities about management issues, as different stakeholders will have different priorities and motives for engagement; and
5. the level of awareness of hydrological processes (such as stream-aquifer connectivity), including the opportunity for incorporating local knowledge and experience in the assessment process.

Stakeholder engagement is a well-established plank in the catchment management process. Various government initiatives have embodied a more community-based regional approach to land and water management. This trend towards community participation is reflected in the criteria for the accreditation of regional NRM plans as set out by the NRM Ministerial Council, including:

"Effective participation by all key stakeholders is required to ensure that plans are based on a community process, are accurate, comprehensive, well coordinated and able to be implemented. Indigenous communities, local government, state agencies, resource managers, industry and communities, academic/scientific community and environmental groups should be involved where relevant. Stakeholders' roles, responsibilities and capacity to implement actions to achieve targets will be identified."

To this end, the NRM Ministerial Council has developed a NRM Capacity Building Framework which recognises four key areas of support:

1. awareness, where individuals within the community are aware of regional NRM issues and understand the links between these issues and the long-term viability of the community;
2. information and knowledge, where the necessary biophysical, social and economic information, data and science is made available to allow sound NRM decisions to be made;
3. skills and training, where stakeholders are equipped with, or have access to, the necessary technical, people management, project management and planning skills to participate in the development and implementation of sustainable NRM; and
4. facilitation and support, where support systems are available to ensure engagement and motivation of the community, build social capital and encourage ownership of NRM decision-making processes (NRMMC, 2002).

There are different levels of stakeholder engagement, including information sharing, consultation and active participation (Table 1). This relates to the working relationship between the proponent and the stakeholders that can influence, or are impacted by, the decisions made. In a conjunctive water management sense, the proponent is the organisation with the role of planning and implementing a conjunctive policy or investment and can be a State agency, a water authority, a shire council, or a catchment management authority.

Table 1: Different levels of stakeholder engagement (after Qld DoC, 2005)

Level	Definition	Model
Information	A one-way relationship in which proponent delivers information to stakeholders	Proponent ---->Stakeholder
Consultation	A two-way relationship in which stakeholders provide feedback on issues defined by the proponent	Proponent <----->Stakeholder
Active Participation	A collaboration in which stakeholders shape policy, but where the proponent retains the responsibility for final decisions	Proponent <----->Stakeholder

A wide range of methods is used to facilitate stakeholder engagement, and Table 2 outlines some of these and their benefits. An overall strategy is required to define the appropriate level and combination of engagement methods used for all the components of the conjunctive water management framework. This recognises that different approaches may need to be taken as the management cycle progresses, including aspects of:

1. raising awareness of connectivity processes in the catchment and implications for water users;
2. defining appropriate structures for community participation and rules of engagement in the defining of catchment priorities. This can involve capacity building to allow communities to effectively engage;
3. providing transparency in the assessment of catchment processes, including encouraging pathways to local knowledge and experience;
4. outlining the strengths and limitations of the predictive models being constructed and expressing the level of uncertainty attached to any predictions. Allowing the opportunity for stakeholders to provide feedback on model predictions and their likely impact;
5. encouraging community participation in the data collection of key catchment indicators and providing public domain access to existing monitoring;
6. stakeholder engagement during the selection and implementation of conjunctive management options, as well as definition of management targets. This involves communicating the objectives and scope of implementation and managing expectations relating to potential outcomes; and
7. a structured and coordinated approach to the review process.

Community consultation is an issue that transects government responsibilities. As an example, general principles have been established for the Australian mining and petroleum industries that can be readily transferred to the water management arena.

Table 2: Some stakeholder engagement methods and their benefits (Qld DoC, 2005)

Technique	Benefits
Deliberative Techniques
Citizens Jury	Valuable in developing a deep understanding of an issue. Offers an opportunity for non-traditional stakeholders to hear expert testimony on an issue, deliberate together and propose recommendations to inform decision making.
Policy roundtable	A joint planning/decision making forum between government and key stakeholders with expertise about a specific issue. Helps to establish a collaborative process from the outset and most valuable in the planning phase.
Search Conference	Research intensive, effective means of creating a partnership with citizens. Can be used for developing and gaining broad commitment to a plan of action.
Group Consultation Techniques
Focus Group	Useful with relatively homogeneous, pre-existing group with interest in issue. Allows for creative thinking if adequately facilitated.
Public meeting	Views of community groups can be expressed. Not a strong forum for dialogue, but allows stakeholders to self-identify. Meeting management skills required to channel energy productively.
Conference	Structured approach useful for education and formal expression of views. Must be well planned and adequately resourced.
Workshop	Smaller groups selected for skills and interests gathering with objective of producing options or ideas, or structured exploration of issues. Needs skilled facilitation.
Online Consultation	Can provide opportunities to reach a large audience around a specific policy issue.
Inquiry	Formal body with terms of reference to inquire and report. May have legal authority. Can be costly. Sometimes chaired by judicial figure. Can be public or focused on identified stakeholders.
Consultative Committee	Members selected or appointed by range of methods for ongoing advice on particular issues.
Policy Council	Forum for established stakeholder representatives (e.g. peak bodies). Strong tool for ongoing dialogue with or without specific issue focus to draw group together. Usually chaired by Minister or chief executive of department. Legitimises formal relationships between government and established policy community.
Individual Consultation Techniques
Individual Discussions	Sometimes useful for rapid data collection. Individuals may also initiate discussions with government.
Submission	Oral or written. May be unsolicited or in response to invitation. Usually attracts individuals or groups with well-defined position. Little dialogue involved.
Survey Research	Formal data gathering using objective techniques, often using sample of stakeholders. Sometimes useful to gauge public reaction to proposals.
Conflict Resolution and Negotiation	Conflict resolution methods usually involve structured exchange of information and views. Used after a dispute or clear differences have been identified.
Participation Observation	Regional and field staff often gain first hand experience of the impact of issues or proposals.
Information-Sharing Techniques
Education and Awareness programs	Effective education and awareness programs can raise citizen and community awareness about a policy issue.
Displays	Information dissemination tool. Mobile or permanent, can be designed for easy change to reflect developments, and to elicit feedback.
Media Release or Press Conference	Generating interest and feedback. Major political and institutional tool for information dissemination.
Ministerial Statement	Formal parliamentary statement articulating a position or commitment to addressing an issue. Generates interest and may elicit feedback.
Discussion Paper	Formal means of raising issues and requesting submissions.
Policy Paper	Formal statement of policy. Means of information dissemination. Not strictly consultative because states outcome. Sometimes is a means of providing feedback following discussion paper.

MCMPR Principles for engagement with communities and stakeholders

The Australian Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources (MCMPR) has recently released a framework to guide best practice stakeholder engagement for the resource sector (MCMPR, 2005). This recognises that resource development can have impacts that are positive (such as employment creation, regional development, enhanced community services) as well as negative (such as environmental degradation, social problems and health and safety issues).

The key principles are:

1. Communication, with open and effective engagement that involves both listening and talking. The key questions are:
   • Who do proponents need to talk and listen to?
   • What is communicated?
   • What do communities and stakeholders want to know?
   • When do proponents communicate?
2. Transparency, with processes that communicate clear, accurate, technically robust, relevant, timely and culturally appropriate information. The key questions are:
   • How is engagement communicated?
   • What is documented?
3. Collaboration, where feasible, to work cooperatively to seek mutually beneficial outcomes. The key questions are:
   • What is the capacity of stakeholders to participate in the process?
   • Where can assistance be found to support community groups in the process?
4. Inclusiveness, to recognise, understand and involve stakeholders in the overall process. The key questions are:
   • What are the cultural characteristics of communities and stakeholders?
   • Do they have the ability, experience, and/or access to support to deal with this process?
5. Integrity, where engagement is conducted in a manner that fosters mutual respect and trust. The key question is:
   • What is the ability to build credibility and confidence?

Relevant Links

OECD Development Centre Handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy making
OECD Engaging citizens in policy making
UN Development Programme Capacity Building for IWRM
NeWater Applicability of different participatory methods to analyse local institutions
UK Cabinet Office Viewfinder: A policy makers guide to public involvement
Scotland Community Planning Taskforce Focusing on Citizens: A guide to approaches and methods
Bowling Together Online public engagement in policy deliberation
Connor Development Services Constructive citizen participation
Massey University, NZ NRM Changelinks
University of Essex, UK Learning and democracy methodologies
Co-intelligence Institute USA Toolbox of processes for community work
World Bank Participatory strategies in the poverty reduction strategy
Earth Summit 2002 Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability
UN Development Programme Empowering people: a guide to participation
UK Community Development Foundation
International Association of Public Participation
Resource Centres for Participatory Learning and Action
Australian Public Policy Research Network (Report order form) Facing the future: engaging stakeholders and citizens in developing public policy
Land and Water Australia Social and Institutional Research Program
Southern Cross University Action learning and action research
NRM Ministerial Council NRM Capacity Building Framework Ministerial Council on Mineral and Coastal CRC Citizens Science Toolbox
Bureau of Rural Sciences Interactive Social Atlas
Queensland Department of Communities Engaging Queenslanders Planning NSW Community engagement in the NSW planning system
WA Office of Citizens and Civics

References

QLD DoC, 2005: Engaging Queenslanders: Community engagement in the business of government. Qeueensland Department of Communities
NRMMC, 2002. National natural resource management capacity building framework. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council
MCMPR, 2005. Principles for engagement with communities and stakeholders. Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources. Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, Canberra.