bridging the hydropower policy implementation gap-bpig (mk11)

Bridging the Hydropower Policy-Implementation Gap-

BPIG (MK11)Communications and Feedback Mechanisms to Improve Participation in Decision-Making for Local Land

and Water Use

Implementing team

Lead Study Partners:

• NUOL: Faculty of Environmental Sciences

• MEM--DPP

• MONRE—NREI

• VFI-Land and Livelihood Program

• PMO- Public relations department

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

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.

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 multi-stakeholder participation opportunities in hydropower-related decision-making and planning? Can central-level agencies use a feedback mechanism to encourage more careful application of national hydropower policy?

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

Selected Sites

Namlik1 Hydropower project: • Hinhuep district VT

Province • 65 MW, • Nam Lik 1 Power Company

Ltd, • 30-year concessionNam-Ou2 cascade:• Gnoy district LPB province• 120 MW, • Shinohydro Construction:

2012-2016?• 25-year concession

Locations

Lao PDR

Gap analysisTo 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

Categories of GAPS identified by Ngoy district officers

Feedback / Communications GAPS

Center / Province

District

AffectedPeople

Company

??

Important

Not Important High

Current Communication

Low

Importance

Gaps in Coordination and Functions• Policy – Implementation Gaps

oConstruction before resettlement

oNo RMU established

oNo funding from company

oNo capacity building support from the company/central level for Districts

Study Tours

• Exposure to other projects for Village, District, Provincial, and Central partners

• Study tour policy implementation

o NT2

o THPC

o NN2

• Results (key opportunities):

o Compensation

o Resettlement-RMU

• District – communities – company

o Livelihood development

o Grievance

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

PostersFacilitating Dialog

•Compensation•Resettlement•Livelihoods•Grievance

Facilitators GuidelinesImproving Communications

• General facilitation tips

• Key points for each poster

• Suggested questions to engage participants

• Key references to policy issues

PamphletsAiding clear policy dissemination

•Compensation•Resettlement•Livelihoods•Grievance

Grievance Mechanism PrimerImproving the ‘feedback’ process

• Policy requirements

• Participants• Responsibilities• Process• Schedule

Key ResultsCommunications

• 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

Key ResultsFeedback 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

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.

Unexpected finding:Local Solidaritythrough Communications

Center / Province

District Government

AffectedPeople

Projectholder

UnifiedPlatform

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)

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.

Thank You