IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i16p9260-d616644.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Stakeholder Platform in Water Resources Management: A Critical Analysis of Stakeholders’ Participation for Sustainable Water Resources

Author

Listed:
  • Onesmo Z. Sigalla

    (Water Right (T) Ltd., 109 Regent Estate, Mikocheni, Dar es Salaam P.O. Box 8703, Tanzania
    Nelson Mandela—African Institution of Science and Technology, Arusha P.O. Box 447, Tanzania)

  • Madaka Tumbo

    (Ministry of Water, Water Resources Institute, Dar es Salaam P.O. Box 35059, Tanzania)

  • Jane Joseph

    (Water Right (T) Ltd., 109 Regent Estate, Mikocheni, Dar es Salaam P.O. Box 8703, Tanzania)

Abstract

Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) have gained momentum in addressing contentious and cross-sectoral aspects of natural resources management. They have helped to enhance cross-learning and the inclusion of marginalized groups. Tanzania’s water resources management sub-sector has championed these platforms as a means of breaking silos around planning, coordination, and resource mobilization. However, it is not uncommon to experience the occasional dominance of some influential sectors or groups due to their resources contribution to the process, contemporary influence, or statutory authority. Between 2013 and 2020, Tanzania has pioneered the establishment of MSPs at a national level and across the river and lake basins. This paper examines the representation of stakeholder groups in these platforms. Additionally, it establishes the baseline information that contributes to unlocking the current project-based platform design characterized by inherent limitations to potential changes in stakeholders’ attitudes and actions. The research analyzed stakeholder’s views, their representation, and the local and international literature to formulate opinions. Findings indicated that gender equality had not been adhered to despite being in the guidelines for establishing MSPs. The balance of public, private, and civil society organizations (CSOs) is acutely dominated by the public sector organizations, especially water-related ones. Finally, participation on the decision-making level is minimal, causing unsustainable platforms unless development partners continue to support operational costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Onesmo Z. Sigalla & Madaka Tumbo & Jane Joseph, 2021. "Multi-Stakeholder Platform in Water Resources Management: A Critical Analysis of Stakeholders’ Participation for Sustainable Water Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:9260-:d:616644
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9260/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9260/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Batchelor, 2012. "Changing the Financial Landscape of Africa: An Unusual Story of Evidence‐informed Innovation, Intentional Policy Influence and Private Sector Engagement," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(5), pages 84-90, September.
    2. Nathalie Meißner & Ulrike Grote, 2017. "Motives, opportunities, and risks for private sector investment in protected areas with international importance: evidence from German companies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 199-219, February.
    3. Claudia Pahl-Wostl, 2007. "Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(1), pages 49-62, January.
    4. Shardul Agrawala & Maëlis Carraro & Nicholas Kingsmill & Elisa Lanzi & Michael Mullan & Guillaume Prudent-Richard, 2011. "Private Sector Engagement in Adaptation to Climate Change: Approaches to Managing Climate Risks," OECD Environment Working Papers 39, OECD Publishing.
    5. Bina Agarwal, 1997. "Environmental Action, Gender Equity and Women's Participation," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 28(1), pages 1-44, January.
    6. Mena, Sébastien & Palazzo, Guido, 2012. "Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 527-556, July.
    7. Domenico Dentoni & Verena Bitzer & Greetje Schouten, 2018. "Harnessing Wicked Problems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 333-356, June.
    8. Jackson, Cecile, 1993. "Doing what comes naturally? Women and environment in development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 21(12), pages 1947-1963, December.
    9. Mark Giordano & Tushaar Shah, 2014. "From IWRM back to integrated water resources management," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 364-376, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adam P. Hejnowicz & Jessica P. R. Thorn, 2022. "Environmental Policy Design and Implementation: Toward a Sustainable Society," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-10, March.
    2. Siangulube, Freddie S. & Ros-Tonen, Mirjam A.F. & Reed, James & Moombe, Kaala. B. & Sunderland, Terry, 2023. "Multistakeholder platforms for integrated landscape governance: The case of Kalomo District, Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Angelika Zimmermann & Nora Albers & Jasper O. Kenter, 2022. "Deliberating Our Frames: How Members of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Use Shared Frames to Tackle Within-Frame Conflicts Over Sustainability Issues," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 757-782, July.
    2. Hassan Tolba Aboelnga & Lars Ribbe & Franz-Bernd Frechen & Jamal Saghir, 2019. "Urban Water Security: Definition and Assessment Framework," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Deborah Martens & Annelien Gansemans & Jan Orbie & Marijke D'Haese, 2018. "Trade Unions in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: What Shapes Their Participation?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, November.
    4. Verena Bitzer & Alessia Marazzi, 2021. "Southern sustainability initiatives in agricultural value chains: a question of enhanced inclusiveness? The case of Trustea in India," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(2), pages 381-395, June.
    5. Manon Eikelenboom & Thomas B. Long, 2023. "Breaking the Cycle of Marginalization: How to Involve Local Communities in Multi-stakeholder Initiatives?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(1), pages 31-62, August.
    6. Daniel Schuster & Ivo Mossig, 2022. "Power Relations in Multistakeholder Initiatives—A Case Study of the German Initiative on Sustainable Cocoa (GISCO)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-16, September.
    7. Norma Schönherr, 2022. "Same Same but Different? A Quantitative Exploration of Voluntary Sustainability Standards in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, April.
    8. Jespersen, Kristjan & Grabs, Janina & Gallemore, Caleb, 2024. "Ratcheting up private standards by exploiting coopetition: The curious case of RSPO’s adoption of zero-deforestation criteria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    9. Martin Fougère & Nikodemus Solitander, 2020. "Dissent in Consensusland: An Agonistic Problematization of Multi-stakeholder Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(4), pages 683-699, July.
    10. Stephanie Schrage & Dirk Ulrich Gilbert, 2021. "Addressing Governance Gaps in Global Value Chains: Introducing a Systematic Typology," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(4), pages 657-672, May.
    11. Julia Grimm & Rebecca C. Ruehle & Juliane Reinecke, 2024. "Building Common Ground: How Facilitators Bridge Between Diverging Groups in Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 194(3), pages 583-608, October.
    12. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    13. Meghana Kelkar, 2007. "Local Knowledge and Natural Resource Management," Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Centre for Women's Development Studies, vol. 14(2), pages 295-306, June.
    14. Srivardhini K. Jha & E. Richard Gold & Laurette Dubé, 2021. "Modular Interorganizational Network Governance: A Conceptual Framework for Addressing Complex Social Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    15. Thomas Maak & Nicola M. Pless & Christian Voegtlin, 2016. "Business Statesman or Shareholder Advocate? CEO Responsible Leadership Styles and the Micro-Foundations of Political CSR," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 463-493, May.
    16. Margareet Visser & Matthew Alford, 2024. "Governance and Power Across Intersecting Value Chains: The Case of South African Apples," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 189(1), pages 69-86, January.
    17. Badir S. Alsaeed & Dexter V. L. Hunt & Soroosh Sharifi, 2022. "Sustainable Water Resources Management Assessment Frameworks (SWRM-AF) for Arid and Semi-Arid Regions: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-31, November.
    18. Awad, Mohamed Hassan, 2023. "Everything, all the time: Engaging the social problem of homelessness in entrepreneurship research and practice," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    19. Vivek Pandey & Natalia Vidal & Rajat Panwar & Lubna Nafees, 2019. "Characterization of Sustainability Leaders and Laggards in the Global Food Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-14, September.
    20. Rao, Nitya & Singh, Chandni & Solomon, Divya & Camfield, Laura & Sidiki, Rahina & Angula, Margaret & Poonacha, Prathigna & Sidibé, Amadou & Lawson, Elaine T., 2020. "Managing risk, changing aspirations and household dynamics: Implications for wellbeing and adaptation in semi-arid Africa and India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:9260-:d:616644. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.