Building Governance in the Area of Influence of the Southern Interoceanic Highway in Peru
BUILDING GOVERNANCE IN THE AREA OFINFLUENCE OF THE SOUTHERN INTEROCEANIC HIGHWAY IN PERU IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GFI – WRI Claudia Enrique Fernández email@example.com Mayo,
Main MessageFrom theory to action this impliesprioritization, negotiation and politicalconsensus.Our focus was on strengtheninggovernance from the local levels creatinglocal demand for governance.
Area of Influence of the IOS (Section 2, 3 y4) -Protected Areas; -Indigenous Territories; -Permanent Forest Productivity; -Significant socio & TRAMO 3 environmental liabilities, with active/unattended causes (illegal gold mining, TRAMO 2 illegal logging, coca crops, etc.). TRAMO 4 Indirect impacts: -Migration; -Invasion of Indigenous territories; -Invasion of Protected Areas; -Increased deforestation -Increase in liabilities.
Stakeholders of IOS CAF National Government (MEF, MINAG, MTC, GTSCIOS MINEM y MINAM) (IOS Academy CS/working group Regional Governments (Cusco, MDD y Puno) Unions Grassroots organizations Local Governments IOS Situation Challenges for DAR Indigenous ConfederationsLimited knowledge of governance •Need to raise awareness andby government officials and CSOs. articulate CSOs on governance frameworks. •Interiorize governance concept with government and local authorities.Regional agendas without Prioritize IOS within the regionalcoordination/links to IOS. agendas.Variety of stakeholders with different Communication Capacityinterests . (technical & political level).
Why Governance?In Peru, especially since mid-2000, there is aninvestment boom in the Amazon, where:The investment evaluation processes do not complywith proper planning .There is no proper management of environmental andsocial impacts or risk analysis of mega projects.It is an urgent scenario for the Amazon: balancebetween investment and socio-environmentalsustainability.
What do we hope to change with a governance assessment?Move from project/case analysis to theproposal/alternative.The lack of governance in the design of mitigationprograms.The weak state capacity.Reversing the investment gap in governance.
STUDY/EVALUATION TIMELINE AND ADVOCACY WORK FOR THE SECOND PHASE OF IOS/PGAS Processing Information DAR’S Evaluation Political Advocacy Breakfast meeting with Government Authorities (Presentation of initial Regional workshop governance proposals for and presentation of Phase II governance methodology First meeting request to the government Internal workshop for Phase II the adjustment of the Governance research and selection of selected indicators Indicators 2009 Julio Agosto Setiembre Octubre Noviembre DiciembreInvestigation is set in Regional Trips Regional Tripsmotion (Work Plan) Formal Presentation of Meeting with the the Study Stakeholder Government2010 Mapping Enero Febrero Marzo Abril Mayo Junio Julio Agosto Setiembre Octubre Noviembre Diciembre Submission of Workshops in 3 Meeting with preliminary regions for independent proposals to the validation and experts/ Submission of government and feedback discussion of the proposal to the CAF proposal government Meeting with End of the CAF study integration of workshop outcomes/contributions Analysis and preliminary 2011 …. results
DAR’s Adaptation of the GFI(Actors, Rules) = Political and social &environmental context before the start of theprogram, according to each of the sixgovernance principles.(Practice) = Evaluation of four projects ofPGAS-CVIS within the context of governanceindicators, goals and objectives.Governance Proposals for impact managementprograms and projects.
DAR’s Scorecard DARRESUMEN DE MATRIZ DE INDICADORES DE GOBERNANZA/BUEN GOBIERNOPRY 9 – FORTALECIMIENTO DE LAS CAPACIDADES DE GESTIÓN AMBIENTAL YSOCIAL DE LOS GOBIERNOS REGIONALES Y LOCALES Y PROMOCIÓN DE LAPARTICIPACIÓN DE LA SOCIEDAD CIVIL. Principios de Componente del Evaluación Indicadores del Proyecto Gobernanza Proyecto (Malo, Regular, Bueno) Componente 1: -Gerencias Ambientales Consolidar la operando con niveles de capacidad de decisión articulados en ROF y gestión ambiental y CAP institucionales. social de las Gerencias AmbientalesPLANIFICACIÓN Regionales y Locales en Cusco, Puno y Madre de Dios. Componente 3: Fortalecer las redes o - Plan de seguimiento, espacios de vigilancia y alerta concertación de temprano en para el seguimiento y funcionamiento. monitoreo ambiental.RENDICION DE No se identificaron componentes ni actividades paraCUENTAS este proyecto.
RESULTS:The CAF / INRENA program had severallimitations concerning the construction ofgovernance concept and scenarios.The PGAS CVIS was insufficient in promotinggovernance due to political interference
From theory to actionIt is Not enough research or technical rigor to achieve real change. Concept Internalization Prioritization of Issues Proposals/alternatives
AchievementsSub-National level:Construction of a common position from civil society on agovernance model in the context of infrastructure projects.National level:Internalization of the concept and principles of governanceby the Ministry of Environment, for design of the secondPhase of the PGAS CVIS.International levelRecognition of the IOS as a driver of deforestation in theR-PP of Peru that was approved by the FCPF, in March2011.
Where are we now?National and Sub National LevelImportance of building consensus. This is just the beginning of a longprocessContinuing building & strengthening capacities for a sustained action andan immediate response to situations and opportunities.Define and defend the cost of governance more than a cost is a benefit.Promoting a participatory and transparent management of impacts(including Phase II of the PGAS CVIS).InternationalRaise governance in the R-PP process.Advocate for more coherence of MDBs’ investment, as well of FCPF, FIP,etc.