Module 3

Module 3: Gender, Water, and Meaningful

Participation in Decision-making Processes

Content
Part 1: Participation and why it matters for IWRM
The role of participatory approach in SDGS and IWRM process

Participation as a key principle of the Sustainable Development Goals

For the countries of the world to achieve the 2030 agenda, working in a manner that includes all
people from all countries for the benefit of humanity and the planet, is key.

The UN Deputy secretary Amina J. Mohammed, in her 2017 address, stated that “[p]articipation,
consultation, and engagement [were the] critical elements for an effective implementation of the
2030 Agenda”.

The origins of the concept of participation in the context of IWRM, go back to 1992, when, during
the World Summit in Rio de Janeiro, a set of four principles guiding the work of IWRM, referred to
as the Dublin principles, were presented.

Principle number 2 addresses the need for a participatory approach. This principle is addressed
on in this module through the following set of ideas:

▪ Water is a resource that affects all.

▪ True participation is ensured only when all stakeholders are involved in the decision-
making.
▪ A participatory approach involving all stakeholders is the best strategy to achieve long-
term accord and consensus.
▪ Participation means taking responsibility for and acknowledging the impact of this sector
on other water users and water ecosystems as well as committing to increasingly effective
use and sustainable development of water resources.

It is important to recognise that participation is not a straightforward process nor does it

necessarily result in consensus, therefore, practitioners should be prepared to use arbitration and
other conflict resolution mechanisms.

Governments should work to ensure participation of all stakeholders, in particular, vulnerable

groups of the population.

1
 Module 3

Vulnerable groups of the population will benefit least from a mere participatory environment
without enhanced participation mechanisms.

Decentralising decision-making to the lowest level is the only strategy to enhance participation.
Nikki Slocum (2003), Participatory Methods Toolkit: A practitioner’s manual

Participatory decision-making is not only desired and demanded by citizens

who wish to play a more active role in the governance of their society.
Regional, national and local governments, development agencies and NGOs,
scientists and companies are also increasingly eager to reap the benefits of
actively engaging in decision-making processes diverse perspectives and
those who will be affected by policies.
(Slocum 2003: page 9)

Global guidelines for meaningful and inclusive participation

When Global Water Partnership, one of the leading organisations in the field of promotion of IWRM
best practices, further developed their thinking around gender equality and social inclusion, they
did so by defining a set of Action areas outlined in a document entitled Gender Equality and
Inclusion in Water Resources Management1, which contains four action areas:

Institutional leadership and commitment.

Gender inclusion and analysis that drives change.
Meaningful and inclusive participation in decision-making and partnerships.
Equal access to and control of resources.

Action area 3 is particularly relevant for this module as it addresses challenges to meaningful and
inclusive participation in decision-making and partnerships. The motto of Action area 3 is adopt a
‘nothing about them without them’ approach. To include people who will be affected by water
management decisions is about more than just extending an invitation,
it is about ‘meaningful’ participation. This includes training, financial support, long-term
engagement, and working in partnership with women’s, Indigenous Peoples’, and disabled
people’s organisations.

While this may sound reasonable and obvious to people working with the vision of gender-equal
and socially inclusive IWRM, it is important to recognise that even today, many of the self-declared
participatory processes are less than inclusive and not fully participatory.

1
Full text available at [Link]
[Link]

2
 Module 3

Types of participation

In 1995, Jules Petty devised a typology of participation and listed seven types of participation.
Despite it being 26 years old, this typology remains valid today. Here are the seven types of
participation:

Manipulative participation is simply a pretence, with peoples’ representatives on official boards,

but who are un-elected and have no power.

Passive participation: People participate by being told what has been decided or has already
happened. It could involve unilateral announcements by an administration or project manager
without listening to people’s responses. The information being shared belongs only to external
professionals.

Participation by consultation: People participate by being consulted or by answering questions.

External agents define problems and information-gathering processes, and so control analysis.
Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision-making, and professionals are
under no obligation to take on board people’s views.

Participation for material incentives: People contribute resources, for example, labour, in
return for food, cash, or other material incentives. Farmers may provide the fields and labour but
are involved in neither experimentation nor the process of learning. It is very common to see this
called ‘participation’, yet people have no stake in prolonging technologies or practices when the
incentives end.

Functional participation is participation used by external agencies to achieve project goals,

especially reduced cost. People may participate by forming groups to meet predetermined
objectives related to the project. Such involvement may be interactive and involve shared decision-
making, but tends to arise only after major decisions have already been made by external agents.
At worst, local people may still only be co-opted to serve external goals.

Interactive participation: People participate in joint analysis, development of action plans and
formation or strengthening of local institutions. Participation is seen as a right, not just the means
to achieve project goals. The process involves interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple
perspectives and make use of systemic and structural learning processes. As groups take control
over local decisions and determine how available resources are used, so they have a stake in
maintaining structures or practices.

Self-mobilisation: People participate by taking initiatives independently of any external

institution to change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and
technical advice they need but retain control over how resources are used. Self-mobilisation can
spread if government and NGOs provide an enabling framework of support. Such self-initiated
mobilisation may or may not challenge existing distributions of wealth and power.

3
 Module 3

As is clear from Petty’s description, only the last two types, self-mobilisation and interactive
participation are true forms of meaningful and inclusive participation.

Self-reflection exercise
Think of past projects you have either studied/read about, designed and/or participated in. Evaluate
them according to this typology and, if not ranked in the interactive participation or self-mobilisation,
think about what changes could make them more interactive in their format/approach. What was
missing in terms of political will, capacity, and resources?

How not to do participation

Petty’s list of different types of participation indicates that there is a risk that participation becomes
lip-service, or a box-ticking exercise that does not benefit the people whose lives will be changed
due to the interventions of a particular water resources management programme or project.

Here are some examples of poor/bad practices where the participatory approach has not been
aligned with the values of true participation [please note that Part 4 will contain advice on steps
and guidelines for ensuring meaningful participation]:

▪ Stakeholder consultation takes place only after all the decisions have been made and the
participants in the consultation process have no say on the matter.
▪ Only high-level stakeholders are included in the process, no attention is paid to ensure
that participants from all levels of society get to participate.
▪ Women are brought to the event, but no effort is made to ensure that they can participate
equally to the men.
▪ Technical language, or the dominant national language included in the consultation
process excludes less educated people, those who are illiterate or minority language
groups in society.
▪ The set-up of the consultation process is done in a way that reiterates the power structures
in the community, leaving marginalised and minority groups in the corner, feeling
powerless and only agreeing to decisions under the coercion/pressure from the
elite/powerful people in the community.

Following these explanations and examples, we conclude that the working definition of
meaningful participation in decision-making processes in WRM and beyond is as follows: A
meaningful participation is one that includes people of all genders and social categories who will
be affected by water management decisions beyond their mere presence, by giving them a voice
in water management matters and access to leadership positions. It should include training,
financial support, long-term engagement, and working in partnership with women’s, Indigenous
Peoples’, and disabled people’s organisations. If using the Petty typology, meaningful participation
can be categorised as either interactive participation or self-mobilisation.