Bridging the hydropower policy implementation gap-bpig (mk11)

157
-1

Published on

3rd Mekong Forum on Water, Food & Energy 2013. Presentation from Session 1: Strengthening the participation of local communities in resettlemment, compensation, livelihood, and greivance

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
157
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Identify 15 different gaps, categorized into 4 types:
  • The size of the line represents the how much current communication is happening.The red is very important for our project, the blue is less important.
  • Grievance guide book
  • Bridging the hydropower policy implementation gap-bpig (mk11)

    1. 1. Bridging the Hydropower PolicyImplementation Gap-BPIG (MK11) Communications and Feedback Mechanisms to Improve Participation in Decision-Making for Local Land and Water Use
    2. 2. Implementing team Lead Study Partners: • NUOL: Faculty of Environmental Sciences • MEM--DPP • MONRE—NREI • VFI-Land and Livelihood Program • PMO- Public relations department
    3. 3. Implementing Methodology • Participatory Action Research o The agencies responsible for policy monitoring and enforcement were involved in the research o International advisors and organization played an advisory role o Materials and reports are approved by all partners • Creates ownership over the results • Ensures capacity building in pace with the production of research results
    4. 4. Project Objectives • To improve communication systems to promote better understanding among primary stakeholder groups on how hydropower governance processes consider land and water use and entitlements. • To develop and pilot a local governance feedback mechanism regarding stakeholder participation in hydropower decision-making, planning, and management.
    5. 5. Research Questions The central research question is this: • How can hydropower governance better enable multiple stakeholder participation and how can local land and water interests be better considered? In answering the central question, the research will also provide insight into the following additional questions: 1) Will better communications regarding opportunities for participation and better tools to enable this participation result in more consideration of local land and water interests in hydropower-related decision-making and planning? 2) Will a governance feedback mechanism encourage application of multistakeholder participation opportunities in hydropower-related decisionmaking and planning? Can central-level agencies use a feedback mechanism to encourage more careful application of national hydropower policy?
    6. 6. Site selection • Criteria for Selecting Two Complementary Sites o Willing local partner o Different stages of construction o Ready access to the site o Medium capacity of installed MW o Non- confrontational /No big conflict o Sizeable number of effected people • Pre-selection with all central partners • Confirmation from each site
    7. 7. Selected Sites Namlik1 Hydropower project: • Hinhuep district VT Province • MW, • Nam Lik 1 Power Company Ltd, • 30-year concession Nam-Ou2 cascade: • Gnoy district LPB province • 120 MW, • Shinohydro Construction: 20122016? • 25-year concession
    8. 8. Locations Lao PDR
    9. 9. Gap analysis To identify the elements of improved communication and feedback mechanisms • National Policy workshop • District workshop • Community consultations • Analysis: Difference between policy and realities observed Example policies considered: • Regulation on Environmental and Social Impact Assessment • Technical Guidelines on Compensation and Resettlement in Development Projects • Concession Agreements • Prescribed roles and responsibilities of all relevant parties • Decrees and regulations related to Resettlement & Compensation • Guidelines on Public Involvement in ESIA
    10. 10. Categories of GAPS identified by Ngoy district officers
    11. 11. Feedback / Communications GAPS Center / Province ?? Company District Importance Not Important Important Affected People Current Communication High Low
    12. 12. Gaps in Coordination and Functions • Policy – Implementation Gaps o Construction before resettlement o No RMU established o No funding from company o No capacity building support from the company/central level for Districts
    13. 13. Study Tours • Exposure to other projects for Village, District, Provincial, and Central partners • Study tour policy implementation o o THPC o • NT2 NN2 Results (key opportunities): o Compensation o Resettlement-RMU • District – communities – company o Livelihood development o Grievance
    14. 14. Gap-Closing Tools • Communications o To facilitate dialog and information sharing among government and affected populations o To disseminate key policy considerations about obligations and entitlements • Guidelines o To improve dialog among government and community members o To improve the process of community involvement
    15. 15. Posters Facilitating Dialog • Compensation • Resettlement • Livelihoods • Grievance
    16. 16. Facilitators Guidelines Improving Communications • General facilitation tips • Key points for each poster • Suggested questions to engage participants • Key references to policy issues
    17. 17. Pamphlets Aiding clear policy dissemination • Compensation • Resettlement • Livelihoods • Grievance
    18. 18. Grievance Mechanism Primer Improving the ‘feedback’ process • Policy requirements • Participants • Responsibilities • Process • Schedule
    19. 19. Key Results Communications • Improved communications and understanding in two project locations among all stakeholders o Awareness of responsibilities for communication (duty-bearers) o Awareness of rights to information (all parties) o Better local unity among local government and affected populations
    20. 20. Key Results Feedback Mechanism • The grievance mechanism (required within existing policy) is now established in two sites • Creates a new avenue for communities to seek to address their concerns before these become major problems • Creates a space for dialog among all stakeholders
    21. 21. Key Findings • PAR was a very effective approach o Builds capacity along with research results o Builds ownership among key actors • Communications tools can improve understanding and increase opportunities • A grievance mechanism can improve coordination and incentive to adhere to policy • More time is needed to verify and consolidate these findings.
    22. 22. Unexpected finding: Local Solidarity through Communications Center / Province District Government Unified Platform Affected People Project holder
    23. 23. Key Opportunities • Consolidating communications and grievance in two target areas • Expanding the scope of tools: o ‘one-way’ tools that don’t rely on facilitators: video, radio o Social media or other networking tools to increase connections among various affected populations • Expand the scale to additional locations, especially along the Ou River (7 planned dams) • Supporting equitable decision-making and negotiation (supporting community capacity)
    24. 24. Key Challenges • Better engagement with the private sector investors • Language barriers among project owners, government ‘duty bearers’, and affected people • Going beyond increased ‘understanding’ to ensuring changed behavior.
    25. 25. Thank You

    ×