Multi-Stakeholder Planning Processes

Planning can involve a small group plotting out what should be done and informing everyone else.  Such plans can lack political credibility, however, and in the province of B.C. the practice has developed of preparing “strategic land use plans” by inviting representatives of different affected groups to sit at the table.  Federal, provincial and local governments have all run planning processes that are based on this model. 

These “multi-stakeholder processes” aim to bring together all major stakeholders to participate in the planning process and make decisions on a particular issue.  They are based on democratic principles of transparency and participation, and have been used as an attempt to resolve political contentious issues (notably the so-called “war in the woods” between logging companies and environmentalists). 

The exact nature of a multi-stakeholder process depends on the issues, its objectives, participants, scope, time lines, etc.  They take the form of dialogues but consensus-building, decision-making and implementation. Multi-stakeholder processes are conducted from local to international levels with different numbers of stakeholders.

Principles of Multi-Stakeholder Participation and Collaboration

Each multi-stakeholder process is unique and individual. As such, there is no “cookie-cutter” formula. The process must be designed by the participants and should be based on the following principles:

·         Stakeholder Representation – Stakeholders are groups or individuals with an interest in the outcome of the planning.  This is not limited to individuals with a financial interest – but includes groups advancing moral or social concerns.  While it will often not be possible for everyone who might be interested in the planning to participate, the process should ensure that representatives are selected, in a fair and open manner, by each of the groups with an interest in the outcome. 

·         Equality of Participants – Participation in a multistakeholder process should not depend on financial resources or ability to lobby.  Rather, each participant should have equal decision-making power.  In many planning processes participants are asked to reach a “consensus”, so that the planning process only goes ahead when every participant agrees that it should.

·         Information Exchange – All participants should share information and cooperate to gather whatever information is needed for effective planning.  In some cases multi-stakeholder processes have guaranteed that information provided at the table will not be shared outside the table.  This can be desirable to allow all stakeholders to be honest, although it does raise issues about accountability of representatives to their respective stakeholder groups. 

·         Clear scope and goals – All participating groups should have agreed on the types of issues to be addressed by the planning process.  A clear “terms of reference” for the planning process may allow groups to decide whether to participate or not. 

·         Seeking a win-win situation – Multi-stakeholder planning proceeds from the assumption that everyone has something to gain by reaching agreement.  For example, government and industrial interests gain public legitimacy, while environmental groups gain better environmental protection.  In some cases new solutions, that no one has thought of, may be developed.

·         Partnership/Cooperation – An important aspect of multi-stakeholder processes can be to improve communication and relationships between the parties after the process is completed. 

Participating in a Multi-Stakeholder Process

What should a watershed protection advocate consider when participating in a multi-stakeholder process?  While an effective tool, multi-stakeholder planning is not always a good idea.  Advocates should be careful not to get into a time consuming and sometimes divisive process unless there are real advantages to be gained. 

Some things to think about include:

·         Will the plan be implemented and how?  Many watershed advocates have participated in planning processes which result in government policy that has no legal effect.  While the government employees involved will often try to implement the plan, they will be constrained by other legal requirements.  In other cases, changes in government staff or official government policy has resulted in plans being shelved.

·         How to keep agreement?  Where one or two individuals will represent a group of stakeholders, how will the group ensure that the representatives remain accountable to the group?  Planning processes can result in divisions and hard feelings if part of a group feels that their representatives have sold them out.  At the same time, the representatives will have access to much more information than their colleagues and must have some room to negotiate with the other stakeholders.  Some organizations have appointed committees to work closely with individual representatives, ensuring greater communication with the group.

·         Will the plan address concerns?  These planning processes are often set up by government or industry to address their concerns.  The scope of the planning process may focus on only some of the issues of concern to a watershed protection advocate.  For example, in one case environmentalists participated in a planning process for over a year before it became obvious that protection of a key area was not within the scope of the process. 

·         What resources will be required?  Participating in a planning process will divert time, finances and other resources from other activities that the watershed advocate might want to pursue.  The potential gains of a planning process must be weighed against the losses.

·         Does participation give legitimacy to an unfair process?  Although a leap of faith is sometimes required to participate in a planning process, watershed protection advocates may be concerned that their participation will merely allow government or industry to claim that everyone was involved in the decision.  This concern is solved to a large degree if the process is clearly fair and open, as outlined in the principles above. 

The above are only some of the concerns that watershed protection advocates may have about participating in a process.  They can sometimes be resolved by careful negotiations, both within the group and with the other stakeholders.  Ask that your concerns be resolved before the formal planning process begins, and before you make a final decision about participating.   

Related Guide Pages:

·         Watershed Planning

·         Successful Planning

·         Watershed Planning Information

For more information about Multi-Stakeholder Planning:

·         Hemmati, M. April 2001. Multi Multi-Stakeholder Processes, A Methodological Framework: Executive Summary, Principles Step Step-By By-Step Guide. A UNED Forum (Draft) Report.

·         De Goes, L. 1994. Evaluating Community-Government Watershed Management Partnerships: The Case of Langley Environmental Partners Society, British Columbia. Masters Thesis, Vancouver: University of BC, School of Community and Regional Planning.

·         Dorcey, A.H.J. and McDaniels, T. "Great expectations, mixed results: Trends in citizen involvement in Canadian environmental governance," in Parsons, E.A. (ed.) Governing the Environment, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2001. Pp. 247-302.

·         Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services. Reaching Agreement on Regional Growth Strategies.

·         National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1993. Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future: Guiding Principles. Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

·         Multistakeholder Integrated Sustainability Planning – A model of multi-stakeholder planning advocated by the Earth Council.