Optimisation for Sustainable
Water Resources Management
Stakeholder involvement, early, continuous, and active,
is a central element of the participatory optimisation and DSS approach in OPTIMA.
Stakeholder workshops are TOOLS to facilitate DIALOG and stakeholder INPUT,
integrating their know-how and experience, facilitate active INVOLEVEMENT
(and thus ownership of and responsibility for the results) and DISSEMINATION of results:
workshops are not activities in their own right, but should be well integrated into
the respective case studies.
Also, it may be useful to keep in mind that this is a
RESEARCH PROJECT, not a political campaign;
the basic rules of scientific research, formulation and testing of hypotheses,
propositional calculus, inference, and logic, even statistics, are applicable.
Opinions and perceptions are useful and in fact invaluable guidance
for relevance and acceptance of a DSS which by its very nature is application
oriented, but they are not necessarily objective facts.
|Project related group or event
|Stakeholder data base contact persons
| 1st Stakeholder workshop Turkey
| 1st Stakeholder workshop Lebanon
| 1st Stakeholder workshop Tunisia
|2nd Stakeholder workshop Turkey
| 1st Stakeholder workshop Jordan
Stakeholder workshops are the primary tools of interaction. They provide the
bridge and translation between the stakeholders ideas, knowledge, preferences,
agenda and objectives, and the formal language of the model-based analysis.
What is important to consider is to make sure
that there is TANGIBLE OUTPUT that directly
contributes to OPTIMA (and the respective scenarios and
case study Deliverables) rather than a somewhat
independent activity and discussion forum.
Workshops are efficient instruments as we can address a bigger group simultaneously. But we should not forget that
spending a day otr two out of the office is a considerable investment for most participants.
Therefore, It would be very useful to start out planning a workshop
by trying to develop a LIST OF TANGIBLE EXPECTED RESULTS
and keep using this as a checklist fort preparations, during the meeting,
and in analysing it !
For that, it is important to keep in mind the AUDIENCE,
their expectations, knowledge, language.
The workshop organizer and facilitators will have to consider their perspective:
how to make sure they feel they GAINED something worth their time ?
Please consult the workshop guidelines develop sofar
and feel free to comment and suggest additions, modifications !
|Workshop Reports and Analysis (Corridoio.zero)
||Tunisia Workshop Report (CNTD)
||Tunisia Workshop Presentation (IRMCo)
|Lebanese Workshop Report (ELARD)
||Lebanese Workshop (29 MB, PPT)
Jordan Workshop, on-line PPT
||Jordan Workshop Report (UJO)
|Turkish Workshop Report (SUMER)
||Turkish Workshop Report, Annex 1 (SUMER)
||Turkish Workshop Report, Annex 2 (SUMER)
|Turkish Workshop Report, Annex 3 (SUMER)
||Turkish Workshop Report, Annex 4 (SUMER)
||Turkish Workshop Report, Annex 5 (SUMER)
|Turkish Workshop Report, Annex 6 (SUMER)
||Turkish Workshop Report, Annex 7 (SUMER)
||Turkish Workshop Report, Annex 8 (SUMER)
|Turkish Workshop Report, Annex 9 (SUMER)
||Turkish Workshop Report, Gender Issues (SUMER)
More guidelines ...
Specific and additional points we would like to emphasize include:
- Please make sure all participants are "registered" in
the sense that their entries in the stakeholder
data base should be checked together with them,
discussed, updated (and DEFINITELY their
participation noted under ACTIVITY REPORTS);
- It would be good to find an efficient way to go over the
ISSUES questionnaire with them (again), maybe in small
groups or individually, to UPDATE (preferable WITHOUT reference to any
initial issues questionnaires .....) their perceptions, would be interesting
material to evaluate consistency.
As an alternative (and with a two-day workshop) you could
shortly discuss the issues on the first day, then give participants a copy
of the questionnaire to go over during a break or over night,
collecting and posisbly discussiong responses towards the end.
If you feel the questionnaire should be re-considered
and more focussed, or we should have a second updated
one more geared to the optimization concepts,
NOW is the time !!!
- While LISTENING to the stakeholder is of course central,
there MUST be some STRUCTURE to make any "results" usable.
A collection of unstructured anecdotes is only marginally useful in this context.
The OBJECTIVE (the list of tangible outcomes and results)
would be to collect (and reach consensus as much as possible or at least structured
and discussed positions) THEIR ideas on:
- Baseline Model Structure: does it represent their
understanding, does it include what they consider
important (sufficient coverage and detail of NODES) -
DO they "recognize" their system and problems, HOW would they change it ?
At the very least, be prepared to present the model in
terms of basic principle (dynamic mass budgets, demand/supply)
and offer a list of the NODES represented (i.e.,
the sub-catchments, well fields, reservoirs,
cities, and irrigation districts, wetlands, divserions and exports,
the aquifer(s) considered !). The idea is NOT to describe them in any detail,
but to give an impression on the resolution, processes and components covered,
coverage and level of detail the model can offer.
- The CRITERIA they use to describe the system, its
function/performance, problems, costs and benefits,
etc (should somehow be consistent with their
view on issues, and address the concepts of
COST and BENEFIT explicitly and in relation
to the model structure/components (demand nodes);
can the CONSTRAINST be formulated in terms of these critiera ?
Are the criteria proposed measurable ? How would one know that expectations
have been met - in terms of the criteria ?
- OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS:
Please note that a separate questionnaire has been prepared to collect
and structure this information in a format directly useful for the OPTIMIZATION.
Their use should depend on the audience, i.e., types and background of your stakeholders,
local practice, expectations, the nature of your particular meeting !
Please note that these questionnaires are NOT intended to be used by
stakeholders WITHOUT GUIDANCE, possibly not directly at all !!!
i.e., we expect that a team member guides
the discussions and help to fill the questionnaires, individually or as a group exercise,
in direct bi-lateral contact or at a stakeholder workshop.
As an alternative, just use the questionnaires internally, yourself to organise the information at the meetings,
without necessarily exposing the stakeholders to them, but please make sure that the information does get
compiled and structured, as well as documented as to its source !
- INSTRUMENTS: another questionnaire proposed, see below.
what can/should be done to the system
to meet CONSTRAINTS and contribute to the OBJECTIVES;
this relates to the water technologies, but primarily to
the MODEL STRUCTURE: can we represent the instruments
deemed feasible by the stakeholders with the current
model ? What else would be needed ?
Please note that we do not ask for precise recipies,
but for qualitative information of which instruments could be used in principle:
it is the purpose of the optimization to select the most appropriate and efficient instruments
and find the best combination and balance !
To compile the stakeholder inputs in a structured, comparative style
that can then be integrated into the data base (for INSTRUMENTS that
should be added to the Water Technology Data Base for a start)
and directly help to build the optimisation scenarios,
there are two new questionnaires (first DRAFT versions) available:
PLEASE NOTE: the questionnaires are attempts at complete coverage
as a checklist; therefore, no single stakeholder would be expected to fill
any one of them COMPLETELY !!! Entries under global, sectoral, or local elements
obviously depend on the role, mission and scope of the stakeholders institutions.
We do not necessarily expect an irrigation association to have global objectives at the basin level,
just as the ministry will not necessarily have constraints at the level of individual cities.
Collect what you can and what stakeholders feel comfortable with,
but do collect it in a structred and organised way, on paper.
At the same time, you can try to make this more flexible by role playing exercises
where any given stakeholder can be asked to act in the role of of some other
group/type (e.g., at the sectoral level), which is also a way to obtain better
balance in a given group.
the latter covering policies as well as water technologies.
At this point, we would like to you take a close look,
try to fill them for your case study, and let us know about your
experience, any suggestions, and questions so we can improve them !
Level of detail:
We do NOT expect that all quantitative questions such as costs or efficiencies
can be answered off-hand with any level of engineering precision !
Feel free to use and encourage the use of SYMBOLIC, qualitative descriptions:
low, medium, high is better than no information at all !
For a definition of terms and concepts, please consult:
for optimisation scenarios and economic evaluation.
OF COURSE a stakeholder meeting is NOT a technical
model workshop, and the language is NOT the language of
the model; but the moderators should be aware
of what the outcome should contribute to, provide
the necessary translations, and steer the discussions,
provide initial questions/discussions points,
make the OBJECTIVES of the meeting very explicit
from the beginning and at every
individual step, working group etc. and
clearly seek cooperation and input, but provide
structure, keep the discussions focused, etc.
Ideally, a stakeholder meeting will approve or
suggest changes to the baseline model, and provide
the framework for the optimization in terms of criteria,
objectives, constraints, and instruments.