l Using stakeholder and power analysis and BCPs in multi-stakeholder processes 185
process, and to demand negotiations over a
large-scale port development that has been
proposed by the Kenyan government. It
discusses how participatory tools such as
stakeholder and power analysis are helping them in this. They are being supported
by local researchers working as part of the
larger action-research programme.
power dynamics and learn together how to
effectively engage with and influence
processes that involve more powerful actors.
Through this, communities should gain the
confidence to engage more effectively with
these more powerful stakeholders in the
future.
Methodological framework
Why analyse power in MSPs?
MSP advocates often argue that, because
of the interdependence of stakeholders in
solving complex issues, MSPs create trustbased relations that enable the empowered
and active participation of all stakeholders.
However, the distribution of power, capacity and resources is generally imbalanced.
Power differences are embedded in the
social fabric of society and can be reproduced, or even reinforced, in an MSP. Even
if participants are willing to engage in
dialogue on an equal basis, there are still
differences in the level of experience, access
to resources and information. The MSP
process itself will also generate new interpersonal power dynamics based on
charisma, skills and persuasiveness, the
ability to mobilise funds, seniority and
many other elements.
However, failure to recognise power
dynamics can result in some stakeholders
dominating others. Less powerful stakeholders can be abused, overruled or
excluded. Such dynamics prevent joint
learning and innovative solutions which
one would expect as outcomes of a good
MSP. The outcome of such a MSP will not
reflect the interests and needs of less
powerful stakeholders, often those representing the grassroots level. So there is the
need for a thorough understanding of
power dynamics in MSP processes by the
parties involved.
The action-research described here is
intended to help address this. Local
researchers are supporting the weaker
stakeholders (communities) to analyse
In order to ensure a coherent methodological framework for the 12
action-learning projects, seven research
questions and seven action questions were
agreed during a programme inception
meeting in November 2011 (Table 1). Local
researchers, facilitators from the Centre
for Development Innovation, Wageningen
University, The Netherlands, and conveners from the six Dutch PSO member
organisations participated in this meeting.
An accompanying menu of tools for stakeholder analysis and power analysis has
been drafted to help local researchers
select tools for their specific situations. The
local researchers will conduct stakeholder
analysis with local communities before
entering into power analysis (Table 1 and
Box 1).
Demanding a voice: the Save Lamu
coalition
Lamu County is on the coast in northern
Kenya. It has been a UNESCO World
Heritage Site since 2001 and was declared
a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve in
1980.3 Lamu town is also the oldest and
best-preserved Swahili settlement in East
Africa. The people of Lamu are proud of
their cultural and natural heritage: Lamu
County is home to rare marine species such
as sea turtles, sharks and dugongs.
However, this has been threatened by the
proposed Lamu Port and Lamu-Southern
Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET)
corridor project. This project would build a
pipeline to deliver oil from South Sudan to
a new refinery near Lamu town, build port
3 See: http://tinyurl.com/unesco-man-biosphere. Full URL: www.unesco.org/new/en/naturalsciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme