building governance in the area of influence of the southern interoceanic highway in peru
TRANSCRIPT
Mayo, 2011
Claudia Enrique Fernández
BUILDING GOVERNANCE IN THE AREA OF INFLUENCE OF THE SOUTHERN INTEROCEANIC
HIGHWAY IN PERU
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GFI – WRI
Main Message
From theory to action this implies prioritization, negotiation and political consensus.
Our focus was on strengthening governance from the local levels creating local demand for governance.
TRAMO 3
TRAMO 2
TRAMO 4
Area of Influence of the IOS (Section 2, 3 y 4)
-Protected Areas;-Indigenous Territories;-Permanent Forest Productivity;-Significant socio & environmental liabilities, with active/unattended causes (illegal gold mining, illegal logging, coca crops, etc.).
Indirect impacts:-Migration;-Invasion of Indigenous territories;-Invasion of Protected Areas;-Increased deforestation-Increase in liabilities.
Stakeholders of IOSCAF
National Government (MEF, MINAG, MTC, MINEM y MINAM)
Regional Governments(Cusco, MDD y Puno)
Local Governments Grassroots organizations
Indigenous Confederatio
ns
Unions
AcademyGTSCIO
S(IOS
CS/working group
IOS Situation Challenges for DARLimited knowledge of governance by government officials and CSOs.
•Need to raise awareness and articulate CSOs on governance frameworks. •Interiorize governance concept with government and local authorities.
Regional agendas without coordination/links to IOS.
Prioritize IOS within the regional agendas.
Variety of stakeholders with different interests .
Communication Capacity (technical & political level).
Why Governance?In Peru, especially since mid-2000, there is an investment boom in the Amazon, where:
The investment evaluation processes do not comply with proper planning . There is no proper management of environmental and social impacts or risk analysis of mega projects. It is an urgent scenario for the Amazon: balance between investment and socio-environmental sustainability.
Move from project/case analysis to the proposal/alternative.
The lack of governance in the design of mitigation programs.
The weak state capacity.
Reversing the investment gap in governance.
What do we hope to change with a governance assessment?
STUDY/EVALUATION TIMELINE AND ADVOCACY WORK FOR THE SECOND PHASE OF IOS/PGAS
Julio Agosto Setiembre Octubre Noviembre Diciembre
Enero Febrero Marzo Abril Mayo Junio Julio Agosto Setiembre Octubre Noviembre Diciembre
2009
2010
Governance research and selection of Indicators
Regional workshop and presentation of governance methodology
Breakfast meeting with Government Authorities (Presentation of initial governance proposals for Phase II
First meeting request to the government Phase II
Investigation is set in motion (Work Plan)
Regional Trips Regional Trips
Internal workshop for the adjustment of the selected indicators
Submission of proposal to the government
Formal Presentation of the Study
Meeting with independent experts/ discussion of the proposal
Workshops in 3 regions for validation and feedback
integration of workshop outcomes/contributions
Stakeholder Mapping
Meeting with the Government
Meeting with CAF
End of the study
Submission of preliminary proposals to the government and CAF
Analysis and preliminary results
Processing InformationDAR’S Evaluation
Political Advocacy
2011 ….
DAR’s Adaptation of the GFI
(Actors, Rules) = Political and social & environmental context before the start of the program, according to each of the six governance principles.
(Practice) = Evaluation of four projects of PGAS-CVIS within the context of governance indicators, goals and objectives.
Governance Proposals for impact management programs and projects.
DAR’s Scorecard DAR
RESUMEN DE MATRIZ DE INDICADORES DE GOBERNANZA/BUEN GOBIERNOPRY 9 – FORTALECIMIENTO DE LAS CAPACIDADES DE GESTIÓN AMBIENTAL Y SOCIAL DE LOS GOBIERNOS REGIONALES Y LOCALES Y PROMOCIÓN DE LA PARTICIPACIÓN DE LA SOCIEDAD CIVIL.Principios de Gobernanza
Componente del Proyecto Indicadores del Proyecto Evaluación
(Malo, Regular, Bueno)
PLANIFICACIÓN
Componente 1: Consolidar la capacidad de gestión ambiental y social de las Gerencias Ambientales Regionales y Locales en Cusco, Puno y Madre de Dios.
-Gerencias Ambientales operando con niveles de decisión articulados en ROF y CAP institucionales.
Componente 3: Fortalecer las redes o espacios de concertación de para el seguimiento y monitoreo ambiental.
- Plan de seguimiento, vigilancia y alerta temprano en funcionamiento.
RENDICION DE CUENTAS
No se identificaron componentes ni actividades para este proyecto.
RESULTS:
The CAF / INRENA program had several limitations concerning the construction of governance concept and scenarios.
The PGAS CVIS was insufficient in promoting governance due to political interference
From theory to action
It is Not enough research or technical rigor to achieve real change.
Concept Internalization
Prioritization of Issues
Proposals/alternatives
Negotiation
AchievementsSub-National level:Construction of a common position from civil society on a governance model in the context of infrastructure projects.
National level:Internalization of the concept and principles of governance by the Ministry of Environment, for design of the second Phase of the PGAS CVIS.
International levelRecognition of the IOS as a driver of deforestation in the R-PP of Peru that was approved by the FCPF, in March 2011.
Where are we now?National and Sub National Level
Importance of building consensus. This is just the beginning of a long process
Continuing building & strengthening capacities for a sustained action and an 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).
International
Raise governance in the R-PP process.
Advocate for more coherence of MDBs’ investment, as well of FCPF, FIP, etc.
www.dar.org.pe