Plan

ning

319

Plan

ning

320

Plan

ning

321

Plan

ning

322

1 Reed et al. (2009) amalgamated in a table the different stakeholder analysis methods, including the resources required, the level of stakeholder participation, and the strengths and weaknesses of each method.

Plan

ning

323

Plan

ning

324

Plan

ning

325

Stakeholders Interests Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities/threats

Relationships Impacts Involvementneeds

Plan

ning

326

INFLUENCE FACTORS

Plan

ning

327

Stakeholders require special effort to ensure that their needs are metand their participation is meaningful Consultation - Empowerment

Hig

hin

tere

st

Low influence

Stakeholders should be closely involved to ensure their support for the project

Consultation - Collaboration Empowerment / Delegation

Stakeholders may oppose the intervention; therefore, they should be kept informed and their views acknowledged to avoid disruption or conflict Consultation - Information

High influence

Low

inte

rest

Stakeholders are unlikely to be closely involved in the project andrequire not more than information-sharing aimed at the ‘general public’ Information

Plan

ning

328

C3: Potential support or threatC4: Ability to get fundingC5: Ownership of a potential treatment site

C2:Political power

C1: Activity linked with FSMC6: Potential user of a treatment endproduct

Influence Interest

Plan

ning

329

Stakeholder categories

Main interests Opportunities Involvement needsand required actions

Plan

ning

330

Plan

ning

331

Plan

ning

332

Plan

ning

333

May

or

RD s

anit

atio

n

RD p

ublic

wor

ks

RD h

ydra

ulic

s

RD u

rban

ism

&ha

bita

t

RD p

lan

&de

velo

pmen

t

RD h

ealt

h

RD s

ocia

l aff

airs

Mun

icip

al a

utho

riti

es

Hou

seho

lds

Reg

iona

l and

nat

iona

lau

thor

itie

sRG

= R

egio

nal D

irec

tora

tes

Slud

ge e

mpt

iers

Latr

ine

buil

ders

Advi

sors

Soli

d w

aste

coll

ecti

onEn

duse

rs

- Co

mes

onc

e a

mon

th f

rom

cap

ital

cit

y

- So

lid

was

te c

olle

ctio

n

and

hea

lth

proj

ects

- M

anag

es o

ne

disp

osal

sit

e-

Sede

ntar

y an

d no

mad

ic

- A

ll y

ear

roun

d

or s

easo

nal

- in

tern

atio

nal

NG

O

Hea

d of

NG

O3

is a

lso

head

of

the

adm

inis

trat

ion

coun

cil

of N

GO

1

Tech

nica

l su

ppor

t

- Su

ppor

t to

dec

entr

alis

atio

n p

roce

ss-

Tech

nica

l su

ppor

t

- Co

ntra

ct f

or p

ubli

c l

atri

ne m

anag

emen

t-

Ord

ers

for

empt

ying

s

ervi

ce m

ade

at

Cit

y Co

unci

l

Use

dry

slu

dge

from

in

form

al d

ispo

sal

site

- M

unic

ipal

man

date

for

the

coll

ecti

onof

sol

id w

aste

fro

mth

e m

ain

mar

ket

- Pe

rman

ent

resi

denc

e-

Latr

ine

buil

ding

and

slu

dge

empt

ying

- U

sed

to c

ome

regu

larl

y f

rom

cap

ital

cit

y-

Ow

ner

of i

nfor

mal

dis

posa

l si

te

Tech

nica

l ser

vice

sU

sers

Ow

ners

Trad

itio

nal l

eade

rs

Trad

itio

nal a

utho

riti

es

Nei

ghbo

urho

od le

ader

s

Relig

ious

lead

ers

Mec

hani

cal

serv

ice

prov

ider

1

Mec

hani

cal

serv

ice

prov

ider

2

Vege

tabl

e fa

rmer

s+

cere

al c

ulti

vato

rs

Catt

le b

reed

ers

NG

O1

NG

O2

NG

O4

NG

O3Re

spon

sibl

e fo

r th

e m

anag

emen

t of

anc

estr

al l

and

Regi

ster

to

get

serv

ice

from

MSP

1

Requ

est

for

land

Call

for

ser

vice

Call for service

Enfo

rcem

ent

of n

atio

nal

law

s an

d re

gula

tion

s

Figu

re 1

5.6

Exam

ple

of a

dia

gram

of r

elat

ions

hips

bet

wee

n fa

ecal

slud

ge m

anag

emen

t st

akeh

olde

rs.

Cas

e St

udy

15.1

– P

art

I

Plan

ning

334

Plan

ning

335

Criteria

Stakeholder

C1Activity

FSM

C2Politicalpower

C3Supportthreath

C4Funding

C5Ownership

site

C6Enduse

Mechanical service provider 1FarmersCattle breeders

Hig

hin

tere

st

Low influence

Municipal authorities HouseholdsNGO1Mechanical service provider 2NGO3NGO4

Regional DirectoratesTraditional authoritiesNGO2

High influence

Low

inte

rest

Plan

ning

336

Stakeholders Roles andresponsibilities

Strengths Weaknesses Relationships Involvementneeds

Plan

ning

337

Criteria

Stakeholder

C1Activity

FSM

C2Politicalpower

C3Supportthreath

C4Funding

C5Ownership

site

C6Enduse

Plan

ning

338

Mechanical service provider 1 Mechanical service provider 2 Farmers

Cattle breeders

Hig

hin

tere

st

Low influence

Municipal authorities HouseholdsNGO1

Regional DirectoratesTraditional authoritiesNGO2NGO3NGO4

High influence

Low

inte

rest

Municipal authorities

NGO 1

RD public works

Municipal authorities

NGO 1

Mechanical service provider 1

Mechanical service provider 2

RD sanitation

Construction Management

Municipal authorities

NGO 1

Farmers

RD health

Households

NGO 2

NGO 3

NGO 4

Regional Directorates

Traditional authorities

Valorisation To be informed

Plan

ning

339

Plan

ning

340