1

Title:

Participation; rhetoric and reality The importance of understanding stakeholders based on a case study in Upper East Ghana

Authors: Martine Poolman Water Resources Management Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Delft University of Technology Stevinweg 1, room 4.75 (secretariat) P.O. Box 5048 2600 GA Delft � �M.I.Poolman@TUDelft.nl Nick van de Giesen Water Resources Management Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Delft University of Technology Stevinweg 1, room 4.75 (secretariat) P.O. Box 5048 2600 GA Delft � �N.C.vandeGiesen@TUDelft.nl

2

Participation; rhetoric and reality The importance of understanding stakeholders based on a case study in Upper East Ghana

Martine Poolman1 and Nick van de Giesen1

1 Water Resources Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT

Based on the views of a number of stakeholders involved in the development of small reservoir systems in the Upper East Region of Ghana in West Africa, this article examines the importance of understanding the stakeholders whom the international development community wants to include in its participatory approaches. The article also aims to show that terms such as participation, participatory approach and participatory planning are often used in project proposals, but that in reality the extent to which stakeholders are actually able to participate in projects is limited. This limitation is often due to a lack of understanding by the project organisation of the interests and views of the stakeholders which are then not incorporated in the project process. A stakeholder analysis could provide more insight in the interests, goals and views of all stakeholders involved in a project, as well as in the differences between the stakeholders. In the development of water resources, the long-term sustainability of a project’s work is dependent on the manner in which relevant (often local) stakeholders continue the process after the official time of the project has ended. Thus, since the project is dependent on the involvement of relevant stakeholders, formulation of adequate and appropriate forms of stakeholder engagement that will ensure information exchange and participation is essential. However, as the case study shows, such analyses were not always carried out, thus leading to a number of problems with project implementation and also with transplantation from one region, district or community to another.

INTRODUCTION

Terms such as participation, participatory approach and participatory planning are increasingly

being used by the international development community as it is working towards achieving the

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. In water development and management, the

guiding principle for participation is also found in the second Dublin Principle which states: “Water

development and management should be based on a participatory approach involving users,

planners and policy makers at all levels …” (Dublin Statement and Conference Report, 1992).

However, what does participatory approach actually mean and how can it be achieved in

development? The answer remains multi-interpretable as the implementation of participation is

dependent on the operational organisations, specific projects and envisioned goals. Examples of

a number of the various interpretations and implementations of participation since the 1970s are

given by Clayton, Oakley and Pratt’s (1998), Cornwall (2002) and the World Bank’s Participation

Sourcebook (1996). What is agreed upon is that a participatory approach means involving users,

3

planners and policy makers from all levels. Similarly, however, the manner in which these

stakeholders are to be or have been involved depends greatly on the organisations, the projects

and the envisioned goals.

Based on a case study from the Upper East Region (UER) in Ghana, West Africa, this article

aims to provide empirical insight in the tension between development theory and practice. We do

this by providing examples of the experiences of water users that show how different and multi-

interpretable definitions of participation have led to unsuccessful transplantation and

implementation of participatory approaches. From these experiences, the tension field between

the use of buzz-words such as participation in development projects and the actual application of

such a term in a rural West-African setting becomes clear.

Examples will be given of:

- the types of assumption that organisations have made which underestimate the

important differences between various regions, districts and communities;

- how differences in development of institutions at district level influence the success of

project implementation;

Furthermore, the article aims to show the importance for the development community to examine

what type of stakeholders they are participating with, to understand the participant’s views,

interests and goals through, for example, a stakeholder analysis. Through this understanding

provisions can be made to ensure that required information is gathered from various stakeholders

in manners that are appropriate for each stakeholder. However, the development community

must also realise it too is a stakeholder and participant with views, interests and goals that can

vary greatly from those of the local stakeholders.

The article will start with a brief explanation as to how participation has been defined and

interpreted by the international development community. It will furthermore give an explanation of

what a stakeholder analysis is. The paper then continues to give examples of how the local-

decision makers (officially the District Assembly) and community members in the UER responded

to or were affected by the approaches of a number of water resources development projects in

the region. The views were gathered during semi-structured interviews held during a field-study

4

for the Small Reservoirs Project (SRP), which is a Challenge Programme (CP) on Water & Food

project, in the Upper East Region’s Kassena-Nankana, Bolgatanga and Bawku-West Districts.

PARTICIPATION

For the development of water resources such as small reservoir systems, water resources

managers often refer to Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) as the comprehensive

approach for their management activities. For the International Conference on Water for Food

and Ecosystems, hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)

and the Dutch government (2005), IWRM was defined as “a process that promotes the co-

ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to

maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without

compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.”

Co-ordinated development implies cooperation between developers, managers, decision-makers

and resource-users in a sequence of negotiations in analysing situations, developing problem

definitions, finding alternative solutions and implementing those solutions (Craps, 2003); through

participation. Comparing this implication with the decision-making theory as described by Miser &

Quade (1988) and Enserink, et al. (2002) (see Figure 1) shows that participation should take

place during the various steps in the decision-making process. This is further supported by the

definition of participation given by the FAO Resource CD-Rom (2004): “We define participation as

a process of equitable and active involvement of all stakeholders in the formulation of

development policies and strategies and in the analysis, planning, implementation, monitoring

and evaluation of development activities.” This definition, however, also shows that it is

necessary to examine the context in which the process is to take place, to understand which

stakeholders are to be included in practice at the various steps in the decision-making process

and to examine to what extent these can be equitably and actively involved in that process.

Interestingly, the actual application of IWRM in practice has been, and is being, put under the

loop because its application over the course of two generations has been dismal (Biswas, 2004).

IWRM’s popularity and endorsement by international institutions becomes, according to Biswas

5

(2004), irrelevant unless the concept of IWRM can actually be applied in the real world to

demonstrably improve the existing water management practices: “conceptual attraction by itself is

not enough: concepts, if they are to have any validity, must be implementable to find better and

more efficient solutions.” This idea can be transferred also to the concept of participation; in

order for participation to contribute to the improvement of water management, its applicability in

practice must help lead to finding better and more efficient solutions.

The role participation plays within the decision-making process in practice is also dependent on

the organisation, the project’s setting and its initial goals. First of all, participation can be

considered the method through which certain goals are to be achieved (means) or it can be seen

as the goal of the project (ends). In some cases, implementation of participation can even be

seen as both a means and an ends as, for example, is stated by the Online Sourcebook on

Decentralization and Local Development (CIESIN, Columbia University). A presentation of the

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) on increasing project impact through

participatory approaches held in December 2000, gives reasons for its projects to include

participatory approaches, which refer to participation as a means and an ends;

- to ensure design reflects the real priorities of beneficiaries;

- to ensure feasibility from people’s viewpoint;

- to ensure the relevance of intervention;

- to ensure sustainability beyond the project period;

- to ensure the project is reaching and listening to the voices of the people it targets;

- increase ownership and therefore motivation;

- provides early warning on problems (IFAD, 2000)

Secondly, the role of participation is related to the manner in which the project or organisation

wishes to include the stakeholders; ranging from informing about, consulting with or involving

stakeholders in decision-making, to collaborating with stakeholders or empowering them. This

range is depicted in a spectrum shown in Figure 2.

Either way, participation is concerned with i.) structural relationships and the importance of

developing people’s capacities and skills, and, ii) the methods and techniques whereby local

6

people can be brought to play a part and to develop a stake in development programmes and

projects (Clayton, Oakley and Pratt, 1998). This all, should, when concerning water resources,

lead to an improved understanding of how water resources are managed and can be managed,

and, effectively, to improved water management.

Who participates?

With the various types of roles of participation, one will also find that various definitions of those

who are to participate, the “stakeholders.” In many project proposals the term participation refers

to public participation whereby the involved stakeholders are solely seen as the public or, in case

of water resources management for irrigation, the farmers. Doing so, however, neglects that

project organisations, local-decision makers or Water User Associations could also be

participants. Participation does not necessarily include only the public, but can also take place a.)

between a project organisation and various local decision-makers or b.) between local decision-

makers and the public or c.) between the project organisation, the local decision-maker and the

public.

In summary, in order to solve the decided upon problem, a project organisation would have to

identify the reasons it wants to include participation and the role it is to play in the project; is it a

means to an end or an end in and of itself? Secondly, a distinction should be made as to whom

the real participants are (or should be) in order to help solve the identified problem. If participation

is to help lead to finding better and more efficient solutions, it will be difficult to achieve if there is

little understanding of those who are to participate. This step can be done through a stakeholder

analysis.

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

The World Bank’s Glossary of Terms for Poverty and Social Impact Analysis defines a

stakeholder analysis as a:

“prerequisite for understanding poverty and social impacts. The analysis identifies people,

groups and organizations that should be taken into account by examining their interests

and influence on policy.”

7

Furthermore, the glossary sees the analysis as the identification and analysis of groups that are

to be or will be helped through implementation of a policy as well as the assessment of those

whose “assent or involvement is required to make the policy work” and shows 5 steps that need

to be undertaken in the assessment (see Figure 3).

Through understanding who the stakeholders are, what their goals, aims and interests are, their

relationship to each other and to the project, and their capacity and power, an assessment can be

made as to which stakeholders need to be involved during the stages of the decision-making

process and in which manner. Thus stakeholder analysis can help formulate appropriate forms of

engagement with these stakeholders (Allen and Kilvington, 2001), while requiring the project

organisation to develop an understanding of the social and cultural dimensions that will influence

the project’s realisation and success. Also, through the analysis the “appropriate type of

participation by different stakeholders, at successive stages of the project [and decision-making]

cycle” can be assessed (Overseas Development Administration, 1995).

CASE STUDY: UPPER EAST REGION, GHANA

The previous section shows the diversity in the definition, the role and goals of participation and

of the stakeholders that are to be involved in participation. This section will give examples of what

this diversity means in practice, based on the case study in the Kassena-Nankana, Bolgatanga

and Bawku-West Districts of the Upper East Region of Ghana. The following paragraphs will give

examples of insufficient identification of the goals, aims and interests, relationships, and power

and capacity of the stakeholders and the problems that resulted due to it. Please not that the

examples are not strictly examples of one type of issue, but can be seen as relevant to

understanding the importance of a stakeholder analysis as a whole.

How information was gathered

The examples were gathered through semi-structured interviews with people from the District

Assemblies (DA) of the Kassena-Nankana, Bolgatanga and Bawku-West districts, from the

Departments of Agriculture of these three districts and from the Water Resources Commission

(WRC). The WRC is responsible for the regulation and management of the utilisation of water

8

resources in Ghana. This commission can be considered a stakeholder at the macro (national)

level.

Information concerning the manner in which farmers were willing to participate and in what

manner they participate was acquired by listening in on a Water User’s Association (WUA)

meeting in Paga-Nania in the Kassena-Nankana District and by joining a field trip from the Paga-

Nania community to the Goo community as well as by talking to farmers in the districts. Also, a

number of researchers from the GLOWA Volta Project, from the International Food Policy

Research Institute (IFPRI), the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), the World Bank

and the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) shared their views on and experiences

with participation and how they see that it is implemented at the moment in Ghana and as well as,

more specifically, in the UER.

Background to the situation

The study that was carried out was initiated in order to examine the manner(s) in which

participatory approaches could assist the District Assemblies in achieving development of small

water reservoir systems. The District Assemblies of Ghana were created as part of the

decentralisation process, which started in 1988. Under this process, responsibilities for

development shifted from Ghana’s central government to the DAs and the smaller institutions (the

district’s departments, unit committees and area councils) under the district’s responsibility. Also,

in order to carry out these responsibilities the DAs receive part of the country’s Common Fund,

which is 10% of the national budget. Part of this common fund, approximately 20%, is meant for

district agricultural development (Ghana Homepage, 2005) which, in the UER, also includes small

reservoir development.

However, during the semi-structured interviews it became evident that in some cases the District

Assemblies were not yet ready to implement participatory approaches and instead were dealing

with a number of other problems. These problems had arisen as a result of projects that had been

carried out by development organisations and which were (as it turned out) not applicable to the

district in question.

Problems with general assumptions

9

Statistics which portray life expectancy, education and poverty levels of Ghana as a whole; such

as the Human Development Index, have been used in project proposals in order to describe the

validity of a project’s involvement at a specific location. However, such statistics underestimate

the large differences between southern and northern Ghana, especially concerning economic

activity; where the South depends largely on industry-related activities, the Northerners are more

involved in farming activities.

When they do focus on economic activity in various regions of the country, the general statistics

tend to portray farming in northern Ghana as purely subsistence. Though this is true in many

cases, some farming is also undertaken as a business activity. For example, at a number of the

small reservoir sites, women grow (and sell) crops not solely for consumption but also in order to

earn some extra money for the family.

Also, while many general assumptions could be made about the official responsibilities of the

District Assemblies in development activities, the three DAs are at very different stages of their

own development, and therefore have different capacities and capabilities to carry-out and

participate in district-wide development activities. If organisations had carried out sufficient

stakeholder analyses, they would have seen the differences between these seemingly similar

“types” of stakeholders and could have adjusted plans accordingly to ensure success in all

districts.

Goals, aims and interests

The case study showed that insufficient examination of the goals, views and interests of the

District Assemblies, led to their exclusion in projects because no one realized their “need” to be

involved. This led to wasted funds and limitation in their capacity and capability to participate in

and work on development activities in their district.

Even though the District Assembly is officially responsible for development of the district, it does

not always know which projects have been or are being carried out, nor by whom. For example;

o Officers from the Municipality of Bolgatanga and from the Department of Agriculture in

Kassena-Nankana indicated not being informed or aware of nation-wide projects, unless

they or their departments were directly needed for materials, labour etc. In this manner

10

they are then not aware of the projects in which they could take part or possibly should

take part.

o Also, interviewees indicated that there are often many NGO’s active in the district without

the District Assembly knowing clearly what these organisations are studying or doing. In

one district this meant that the District Assembly had hired a research organisation to do

work that apparently had already been done by another previously; a waste of already

limited funds.

While many development organisations do ask the District Assemblies permission to work in their

district, few leave any information about the carried out project or achieved results behind. The

gathered and/or interpreted data, however, could prove to be of value to the DA in carrying out its

work or working together with others to achieve further development. A number of district officers

who were interviewed indicated, however, that they could not demand information from the

organisations since they had not given the projects the assignment to carry out the research or

work.

Similarly, at the community level, lack of understanding of the stakeholders’ interests, goals and

aims led to problems with the success of public meeting, workshops and training sessions. For

example, training is carried out to raise public awareness, to provide information, to transfer skills,

to stimulate and to mobilize and help organize the community. In literature, training is often

portrayed as a necessary task to undertake in participation in development in order to educate

the local communities about how to exercise their rights to become involved in decision-making.

However, by not examining the communities interest (or lack thereof) in training, training may not

be a successful tool. The local community sometimes sees the training as a waste of time, too

much effort and may not recognise the project’s envisioned importance of training.

From the case study: Although all farmers of the WUA (Water User Association) were invited to a

training session by the Department of Agriculture (with support from IFAD as part of the

LACOSREP II Project) in Paga-Nania, only approximately 40 of the 700 farmers showed up;

11

o Getting these 40 to sit down for the training was also difficult since the buyers from the

South had just arrived to buy the tomatoes and peppers. This important interest of the

farmers had, in planning of the training, clearly been overlooked;

o Of the farmers who were present, only a handful was actively taking part in the training

and discussions, others were whispering with their neighbours, tending to the children or

(seemingly) falling asleep. This indicated that inclusion in this type of training may not

have been of importance to each and every farmer, thus other mechanisms to include

them in the participatory process should be/ have been examined.

At another workshop initiated by a development organisation (the interviewee would not say

which) farmers were invited to “participate” in a number of discussions. As the workshop

progressed one farmer stood up and left. The reason;

“We have already done this before. We have already spent time on such a workshop and

haven’t seen any changes. Yet now you ask me to spend my time again? Instead of

wasting my time, I am going to work on my land.”

The organisation which had arranged the workshop, however, hadn’t been active in this

community before, but did show lack of preparatory research.

It appeared as if IFAD too, overlooked the importance of keeping the farmers informed about the

training’s intended goals and about their responsibilities because it had not mapped out the goals,

aims, views and interests of the farmers in improvement of water management. It was possibly

assumed that the farmers would realize these goals and their own responsibilities on their own,

but in practice, in Paga-Nania, many of the farmers did not realize that once IFAD pulled back

and the training from the District’s Cooperative Officer (DCO) stopped, they, or the Water Users

Association they are part of, would have to organize themselves, save money, make sure that

everyone pays their dues and arrange and hold their own meetings.

Drawing out relationships

In the Upper East Region, as in most of Ghana and Africa, there are many traditional, informal

and official relationships between people of the village, people of the farms and outsiders. Often,

12

it is very difficult to understand and map out these relationships unless time is spent within the

community, and even then, some relationships may never become clear to an outsider. However,

trying to understand the relationships to some extent will help understand which stakeholders to

include in the process and in which manners they will be able to work together with the project or

with other local stakeholders, or not, in order to help improve water management.

During preparation for the field study it was already uncovered that finding information about the

official structure through which water management should take place and which is mandated by

Ghanaian law, was very difficult to find. From the interviews, a clearer picture of the official

structure responsible for water resources development at the regional, district and, to some

extent, the community levels became clear (see Figure 4). However, more interestingly, it was

discovered that the relationships between these official institutions are such that they do not

always function. The reasons for this range from uninterest of a district officer because he is

actually from southern Ghana, to the influence of a district assembly-man’s or committee

member’s (non)alliance to the most powerful political party.

Also, understanding these relationships is also important to understanding what happens when

one of the representative bodies does not function as assumed. For example in one district, the

area councils (see Figure 4) did not always function well. This meant that the unit committees

could not voice their concerns and, in effect, information from the local people did not always

reach the District Assemblies. In turn, this meant that it could not be assumed that the District

Assembly was a well informed representative of the local people even though a number of water

resources development projects did do so.

Lack of power and capacity assessment

Similarly, as with understanding the relationships between stakeholders, not assessing the power

and capacity of the stakeholders limits understanding of whether or not stakeholders are capable

and able to participate in a project, in what manner, and the reasons why or why not.

For example, in one of the District Assemblies that was studied, the Common Fund is barely

sufficient to enable the hiring of officers or to acquire sufficient office furniture. This was the case

in only one district because the other DAs have received help from NGO’s and other

13

organisations over the years. Thus the latter DA’s are further in their own development and are

able to spend (more of) the Common Fund and time on actual development activities in the

district.

Development organisations have had the tendency to expect each District Assembly to be at the

same level of development, sometimes demanding from the assemblies information and services

that they can not provide. Participation of the District Assembly officers therefore is not always

possible in the manner organisations envision that it should occur because they just don’t have

the capacity or means to carry out the work.

More successful

On the more positive side, however, not everything examined during the field study pointed to

lack of understanding of the stakeholders by the development community. Participation between

farmers was successful when they were taught about possible ways in which they could improve

management of their own irrigation areas and reservoir systems through seeing and doing. The

reason for this success is because the farmers were being taught by other farmers who have an

understanding of the problems one faces. By using examples within the district, the Department

of Agriculture ensured that farmers met others from similar cultures (often the district borders

have been drawn based on the borders of the traditional chieftaincies and tribes).

The Department of Agriculture in Kassena-Nankana, organised various field-trips during which a

number of farmers would be brought to another irrigation scheme in order to learn from those

farmers how they were organised, how they collected dues, why they grew certain crops and how

they deal with certain problems. One of these field trips was attended by the farmers from Paga-

Nania to Goo.

Upon arrival the Paga-Nania farmers walked through the fields with the Goo farmers asking

questions and exchanging experiences, such as:

- why they were growing certain crops (onions at Goo instead of Paga’s peppers);

- what problems they were dealing with (crop disease, insects, water shortages);

- how they were making sure fences were kept up;

- how often the valves were opened, why and by whom;

14

- how they collect dues and

- how problems with the reservoir works (dam, spillway, valves, canals, etc.) were solved.

From the discussion held afterwards it became evident that farmers from Paga had learned a lot

about the manner in which their neighbours were handling the problematic due payers. For

example, at Goo if you don’t want to pay for fencing you are assigned a plot on the outer rim of

the scheme so that livestock, when they do break through the fences, are in your plot first. Also,

the reason that the Goo farmers were growing onions instead of peppers is because they found

out that peppers require too much water, and the Goo reservoir cannot supply that amount. The

farmers were happy that they could learn this from their “kind of people.”

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

This article has given examples of how lack of understanding of the stakeholders and the cultural,

social and traditional aspects that influence their interests and goals, has in some cases led to

unsuccessful implementation of participatory approaches. An example has been given of the

types of general assumptions that development organisations make, but which underestimate the

important differences between various regions, districts and communities. Also, an example was

given of the fact that differences in development of the District Assemblies in the region affect the

manner in which this local decision-maker can participate in and contribute to projects that aim to

help improve water management. However, in projects, these differences are often overlooked,

leading to unsuccessful project implementation in a district that is experiencing problems with

acquiring sufficient financial and human resources to work towards development.

The interviewees also indicated how the development community often overlooks the fact that it

too is one of the stakeholders in the project and thus also has a number of responsibilities. No

matter what part of the participation spectrum a project strives towards, how can it expect

stakeholders at the local level to participate if they have not received sufficient information as to

what the project entails, what the intent of a workshop or training is, and what is going to be done

with the information that the project gathers and what happens once the project in completed and

the researchers “go back home”?

15

However, the article has also given an example of how the interests of the local farmers were to

some extent taken into account, perhaps by chance, by organising field trips to other irrigation

schemes so that farmers could learn from each other. Receiving information from people who

experience similar problems appeared to be of greater interest to the farmers than learning by

listening to a district officer who has never been a farmer.

If the past projects had carried out (more) specific stakeholder analyses and thus had gained a

better understanding of how various stakeholders are capable, able and willing to work towards

the project’s envisioned development and seeing how their abilities and views differ from what the

development organisation may envision, then it can be argued that less problems would have

been experienced. Provisions should have been made to ensure that required information could

be gathered from different stakeholders in manners that are “appropriate” for each stakeholder.

This also implies that, for example, analysis of the District Assemblies as one type of stakeholder

is not sufficient. Each DA has different interests and goals based on its (cap)abilities, as does

every Water User Association and farmer. Though it may be too expensive to examine each of

the latter stakeholders, the range of differences between farmers in different districts or of farmers

that grow certain crops would need to be identified so that appropriate forms of engagement with

these stakeholders can be formulated, developed and implemented.

And finally, the development community should also realise the role that it plays and how its

views, interests and goals coincide or conflict with those of the stakeholders it wishes to

participate in a certain project. Especially understanding the differences would help with

formulating the manner in which participation can best take place to realize the project’s goals

and aims while ensuring that the key interests of the participants are also taken into account. The

actual implementation of participation or of a participatory approach requires planning that truly

examines and analyses which stakeholders are to become involved, as well as how they are to

become involved. Participation is not only stating that the interests, goals and views of the

stakeholders are of importance, without actual close examination of what these interests, goals

and views are.

16

FIGURES

Figure 1: Decision-making process (after Miser & Quade, 1988 and Enserink et al., 2002)

Figure 2: Participation Spectrum (adapted from IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum, IAP2 website)

17

Figure 3: Steps of a stakeholder analysis

Figure 4: Parallel institutional structures (after Poolman, 2005. p. 54)

18

LITERATURE - Allen, W. and Kilvington, M. (2001) “Stakeholder analysis” for the Manaaki Whenua Landcare

Research, New Zealand. Retrieved October 2005 from http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/.

- Biswas, A.K. (2004) Integrated Water Resources Management: A Reassessment. Water

International, 29, 2, pp. 248-256.

- CIESIN, Columbia University: Online Sourcebook on Decentralization and Local Development,

Centre for International Earth Science Information Network, Participation & Decentralization.

Retrieved May 2006 from:

http://www.ciesin.org/decentralization/English/Issues/Participation.html

- Clayton, A., Oakley, P., Pratt, B. (1998) Empowering People: A Guide To Participation, for the

Civil Society Organisations and Participation Programme of the United Nations Development

Program (New York, United Nations Development Program).

- Cornwall, A. (2002) Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen; Perspectives of Participation for Poverty

Reduction. SIDA Studies, 2, (Gothenburg, Elanders Novum AB).

- Craps, M. (Ed.) (2003) Social Learning in River Basin Management, HarmoniCOP WP2

Reference Document (KU Leuven).

- Dublin Statement and Conference Report (1992) “The Dublin Statement on Water and

Sustainable Development” Adopted by the participants at the Conference on Water and the

Environment (ICWE) in Ireland.

- Enserink, B. Koppenjan, J.F.M. Thissen, W.A.H. Thissen (2002) Analyse van Complexe

Omgevingen, collegediktaat TB211. (Delft, the Netherlands).

- FAO and the Government of the Netherlands (2005) Glossary for the International Conference

on Water for Food and Ecosystems (The Hague, FAO).

- FAO Resource CD-ROM (2004) “Participation: Sharing our resources” from the Informal

Working Group on Participatory Approaches and Methods to Support Sustainable livelihoods

and Food Security. (Rome, FAO).

19

- Ghana Homepage, Governance Report on Ghana Released, general News of June 20, 2005.

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=84006. Retrieved

June 2005.

- IAP2 (International Association for Public Participation), Practitioner Tools, IAP2 Public

Participation Spectrum, http://iap2.org/practitionertools/index.shtml, Retrieved November

2004.

- IFAD (2000) Presentation on Increasing Project Impact Through Participatory Approaches.

Working Group I.

(http://www.ifad.org/events/past/impact/presentation/wg1/wg1.ppt#258)

- Miser, H.J. and Quade E.S. (Eds) (1988) Chapter 1. Introduction Craftsmanship in Analysis.

Handbook of System Analysis; Craft issues and Procedural Choices (Chichester, Wiley)

- Overseas Development Administration (1995) Guidance Note on How to Do Stakeholder

Analysis of Aid Projects and Programmes. ODA Social Development Department, (London

ODA/ now known as DfiD)

- Poolman, M.I. (2005) Developing Small Reservoirs. A Participatory Approach can help …

Master’s thesis Technical University of Delft. Carried out for the Small Reservoirs Project.

- World Bank (1996) “The World Bank Participation Sourcebook.” (Washington D.C., The World

Bank).

- World Bank “Glossary of Terms for Poverty and Social Impact Analysis.” This is a "living

document" based on and adapted from a number of sources within the World Bank. Retrieved

from: http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/sdvext.nsf/81ByDocName/ResourcesGlossary,

November, 2005.