More Sustainable Participation? Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Catchment Management

Abstract

This paper argues for realistic expectations of Multi-Stakeholder Platforms (MSPs). MSPs are currently a hot topic in the water policy community, despite voices of disillusionment with participation in development work. Research carried out in Peru, Argentina, India, South Africa and Belgium suggests that platforms certainly can prove helpful networks in communication on and management of competing claims to water, managing coordination problems, coalition-building and/ or visioning. However, experience has put paid to implicit and explicit expectations from platforms, especially with a view to the integration of knowledge and actors. It makes no sense to separate distributive negotiation and politics (‘bad’) from integrative negotiation and social learning (‘good’). Platforms mix both modalities of negotiation, and actors may strategically withhold or contribute their knowledge. Second, no significant power sharing (vertical inclusion) takes place. A typology of MSPs ranked by influence finds no platform with a significant mandate. It is suggested that MSPs are an institutional bargaining space that is especially useful for visioning and information exchange, but cautioned not to insist that ‘water MSPs’ confine themselves to water issues only, and to institutionalized groups only. For some stakeholders, the communication and information process itself is good enough, but others will want results: ‘food on the table’. Some stakeholders will never join as they do not see how it benefits them and/or because they find it more advantageous to work around the platform. Initiators of platforms for stakeholder involvement in water management should therefore be very clear on what the participatory process aims at and can realistically achieve.