3rd Mekong Forum on Water, Food & Energy 2013. Presentation from Session 1: Strengthening the participation of local communities in resettlemment, compensation, livelihood, and greivance
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptx
Bridging the hydropower policy implementation gap-bpig (mk11)
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. Implementing team
Lead Study Partners:
• NUOL: Faculty of Environmental Sciences
• MEM--DPP
• MONRE—NREI
• VFI-Land and Livelihood Program
• PMO- Public relations department
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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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
11. Feedback / Communications GAPS
Center /
Province
??
Company
District
Importance
Not Important
Important
Affected
People
Current Communication
High
Low
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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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.
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. 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.