[rts] Stakeholders, priorities, methodologies

[jlebo at worldbank.org]

Jerry Lebo, Transport Specialist at the World Bank in the anchor transport unit
(INFTD).

I think Paul and Roland's comments concerning stakeholders are on the mark.  It
is not simply a matter of defining stakeholders, but what interests and roles
they have--or potentially can have--in ensuring the existence and efficiency of
RTS.  One key is to define alternative means to empower and assign
responsibility to each stakeholder.  The approach may vary with the objective,
for example, the stakeholders for a rural bus service will be different from
those of a bicycle promotion project.

How to set priorities in terms of stakeholders?  I think users must be given the
top priority.  They are the ultimate beneficiaries of improved services and are
therefore the most important stakeholder.  It is also their willingness-to-pay
for these services (even if they don't actually pay out-of-pocket) that will be
the driving force for sustainability and efficiency.   Putting users first,
however, does not necessarily simplify understanding--since, defined broadly,
"users" may still mean there are a wide set of stakeholders to consider
(farmers, communities, traders, transporters, etc.).

What responsibilities should users be assigned?  Users can (and mostly should)
be asked to pay for services or benefits they receive directly.  They can, and
should be asked, to participate in the planning and delivery of services as a
community or individual (possibly as entrepreneurs or under cooperative
arrangements), and they should be allowed (asked) to interact with policy makers
and suppliers to devise and implement local and national plans, policies, or
interventions.

After users, I would put suppliers (or potential suppliers) second in terms of
priority stakeholders.  This includes not only those who supply motorized
services, but non-motorized services--or in some way support ownership of
personal means of transport.  These suppliers may be associated with government
(e.g., public transporters or service workers), but in most cases will be from
the private sector.  They may be users themselves (e.g., organized in
cooperative arrangements to supply a local service) or be part of large or small
private transport companies.  They may also be individual entrepreneurs that
have, or would (for example, if provided capital) establish small-scale services
or sell transport related goods or services.  In any case, understanding the
private sector's willingness to supply small-scale local services and
understanding ways of increasing their efficiency must be a primary objective of
any RTS intervention.

Once customers (users) and suppliers are put at the top of the stakeholder
chain, the government (or local government) will likely be the next key
stakeholder--largely because of its responsibility to set appropriate policy and
strategy.  Governments may also be a source of finance or subsidy for services
as part of a national or regional development strategy meant to bring services
to underserved populations.  In any case, the user will/should remain the key
stakeholder, with the government acting in the role of strategic planner,
technical adviser, and policy-setter.  The private sector will, in nearly all
cases, remain the primary service provider.

Why put government third, not first?  I think there is a tendency to put the
government high on the list of stakeholders, first, because most donors work
with them and finance activities through or with them.  But more importantly,
bad policy and poor governance can undermine even the best efforts of users and
suppliers--ruining otherwise good programs or private activities.  This often
leads planners to focus on government as the primary stakeholder--since if you
don't get the policies right--you may be doomed.   And, while I agree strongly
with Dieter that the most important first step is to get policy and strategy
right--I don't think this is equivalent to saying that government is the most
important stakeholder.

Finally, there is a lot of appeal in the phrase "simultaneous top-up, bottom
down," but I'm not sure where it gets us.  First, because it means different
things to different people.  As well, as Paul pointed out, it requires some
understanding of the modalities by which people interact.  For example (as
Dieter suggests), one modality would be to engage stakeholders by inviting
participation in the preparation of a district master plan.  Although, this is
probably a more applicable approach to infrastructure planning than RTS
planning--but, perhaps is adaptable to both.  As far as enabling stakeholder
involvement, understanding the modalities by which stakeholders interact could
be one of the key areas of value-added for the paper.  I  suspect, however, that
there is not a single answer to this question--and one therefore should look at
"options" rather than "recommendations."

     In any case,  I encourage any of you with examples of how stakeholders have
interacted either among themselves, with governments, or with other stakeholders
effectively to reply with your experiences.  I'm sure these experiences will
benefit the paper, as well as this discussion.

Apologies for making this so long.

regards,
Jerry