1 / 22

Multi-stakeholder processes, service delivery and state institutions:

Multi-stakeholder processes, service delivery and state institutions:. Irna van der Molen, Abdelrahman Tamimi Twente Centre for Studies in Technology and Sustainable Development (CSTM), Twente University Palestinian Hydrology Group. Research objectives.

triplett
Télécharger la présentation

Multi-stakeholder processes, service delivery and state institutions:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Multi-stakeholder processes, service delivery and state institutions: Irna van der Molen, Abdelrahman Tamimi Twente Centre for Studies in Technology and Sustainable Development (CSTM), Twente University Palestinian Hydrology Group

  2. Research objectives • Gain insights in how donor-facilitated and locally initiated MSPs contribute to the performance and governance of service delivery • Find out whether a change in the performance and governance of services through MSPs affects the perceived effectiveness and legitimacy of state-institutions • Identify bottlenecks and criticall success factors of MSPs on service delivery • Make recommendations as to how international donors can strengthen the effectiveness and legitimacy of state institutions through multi-stakeholder processes.

  3. Research Question • How do multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) for the improvement of service delivery afffect the performance and governance of those services and how does this affect the effectiveness and legitimacy of state institutions?

  4. Sub-questions • Which actors and trends can be identified in service delivery in the studied context? • What are the characteristics of the multi-stakeholder process organized for service delivery? • How is this process governed? • What are the outputs in terms of service delivery? • How does the process and generated outputs affect the legitimacy and effectiveness of relevant state-institutions? • What are key-factors in the (socio-political and institutional) context influencing MSPs, sesrvice delivery, and their relation with effectiveness and legitimacy of state institutions?

  5. Key-concepts • Multi-stakeholder processes (chapter Mina Noor) • Legitimacy (chapter Irna) • Embedded legitimacy • Performance legitimacy • Process legitimacy • International legitimacy • Effectiveness of state institutions in service delivery (chapter Gemma van der Haar) • State-society interaction and ‘hybrid political order’.

  6. Selection of cases MSP mapping exercise: • MSPs should be organized around utilities • All cases may fall within one utility, but two utilities is also possible (water / energy) • At least one MSP should be arranged through donor involvement and at least one other through local initiative • High-level MSPs (on national level) should be avoided • A comparison between regions in the country is methodologically not required but may be considered

  7. Collaboration model • Partner organization(s): relation with Oxfam/Novib? • Advisory team? • Involvement of senior and junior researchers • CCS – researcher? • Duration: 60 days (for all cases within one country) • Options: • Water sector only; 1-2 partners, 2-4 cases • Energy sector only: 1-2 partners, 2-4 cases • Water sector and energy sector: 2 partners: PHG and Univ.

  8. Case study –wells rehabilitation

  9. Case study :Well Rehabilitation in Tulkarem and Qalqiliya • Socio-economic context • factors that affect the social economic situation in the area are • the loss of land and constraints to access their lands; • the lack of water and constrained access to water to irrigate their land; • the low prices for their products on the market compared to the costs of cultivation; and • migration.

  10. Institutional situation: legislation and regulations • Qalqilyia and Tulkarem area were divided into area A and C based on the Oslo agreement (see also context analysis). Most of the irrigation land as well as the irrigation wells are located in area C. The Rehabilitation of the irrigation wells in the northern part of West Bank was needed. Connecting the rehabilitation wells with electricity and bringing new pumps to these wells located behind the wall, proved to be very challenging. The political situation requires permits from the Civilian Administration of the Israel occupation Forces to bring new water pumps to the area between the Wall and the Green Line.

  11. Problem

  12. MSP actors • Farmers and ground water well owners • Village councils and Municipalities • Governmental Organizations at national level: the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA), the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). The Ministry of Local Government (MoLG), the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Ramallah; and the Environmental Quality Authority (EQA) cooperated where relevant • Non-Governmental Organizations International organizations: EU’s Humanitarian Aid department ECHO; Asamblea de Cooperacion por la Paz (a Spanish NGO) and the United Nations Organization for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian Territories (OCHA-oPT).

  13. Activities and Approach • needs assessment; socio-economic assessment; • a domestic and agricultural water access profile per municipality/village council; • pre-selection and selection of the wells for rehabilitation; • procurement for rehabilitation; rehabilitation of pumps and wells; • training of farmers, well owners, and municipalities in: agricultural cooperative management, water management and irrigation, and in operation and maintenance; • monitoring and reporting; and • a visibility program.

  14. Governance pf MSP • The members of the MSP were involved in the project during several stages of the project. The beneficiaries mostly in the beginning (during the needs assessment) and as participants in some of the trainings; the institutional stakeholders during all stages of the project • MSP – EVERY ONE BUSSINESS CLEAR

  15. Decision-making and supervision The Steering Committee was involved in: • Reviewing the work plan; • Review FPA and ECHO guidelines and procedures; • Discussion of the methodology for implementation; • Drafting a plan of action with field visits; • Discussion of methodology of the technical and socio-economic surveys.

  16. Legitimacy • Whereas the previous sections indicated how the MSP’s activities have contributed to service delivery, two important questions are still not addressed: • How does participation in the MSP affect the legitimacy of relevant state-institutions? • What are key factors in the (socio-political and institutional) context influencing MSPs, service delivery, and their relation with the legitimacy of state institutions?

  17. General and embedded legitimacy • Since there is a wide range of actors involved in water supply (municipalities, village councils, water tankers, private sector, Mekorot, regional utilities, PWA) there is no expectation that water is to be delivered by state institutions only. • Finally, the extent to which state institutions are seen to operate as accountable and representative is not explicitly asked. Informal conversations and personal communication indicate that this is linked to PA’s functioning in general, to its capacities to govern in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian context  

  18. Process legitimacy • The general impression is that the cooperation among state and non-state actors in the MSP is highly appreciated, especially amongst members of the MSP, and among beneficiaries – farmers and well-owners • . Legitimacy seems therefore divided over state legitimacy obtained through politically and strategically inspired state support for protection of their lands; and the expectations of individuals on the benefits from participation in this scheme.

  19. Performance legitimacy • Trust in the functioning of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Palestinian Water Authority slowly improved when farmers’ access to water improved. One could therefore say that ‘legitimacy’ in this situation was related to performance (in terms of substantial improvement of access to, and availability of water for agricultural purposes).

  20. International legitimacy • In the context of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, the recognition and legitimacy of state institutions (MoA, PWA, MoH) among international actors is unproblematic in their development and relief work, even in a situation where the Palestinian State is still not a full member of the UN (November 2011).

  21. Conclusion • The legitimacy of the state institutions is mostly process- and performance-oriented among beneficiaries. Among MSP members, the cooperation within the MSP, and priority given to this from national level, seems to have increased the appreciation of the involvement of state institutions

More Related