Table 3. Actor analysis output that had implications for the interaction process.
| |
| |
|
Case |
Whom to involve and why |
How to involve actors and what to discuss |
| |
|
National water resources plan, Egypt |
Identified the need to involve actors because of interdependencies, e.g., the
ability of actors other than Ministries of Water Resources and Irrigation and
of Agriculture to influence water management |
Discuss actors’ positions and responsibilities related
to costs and benefits of water management options; link parts of discussion to
broader institutional reform debate |
|
Diffuse pollution, Netherlands |
Identified the need to involve actors who have control over the problem
instead of only problem owners, starting with municipalities and the private
sector |
Discuss both diffuse and point-source pollution
issues in the same platform |
|
River basin planning, Turkey |
Identified individual actor representatives to
participate in project training and planning activities |
Discuss boron pollution and operational problems; use
existing structures, rather than a new river basin authority; start training at
a more advanced level |
|
Regional water management, Philippines |
Identified the need to involve three types of actors, including a group of private-sector actors that are currently excluded from the debate, because all groups control parts of the problem |
Educate some of the actors on substantive water
issues |
|
| |
|