how companies respond to complaints and grievances – mprl e&p perspectives

How companies respond to complaints and grievances – MPRL E&P perspectives

28 January 2015Multi-stakeholder workshop on strategic community

investment in the extractive industriesSummit Parkview Hotel, Yangon, Myanmar

Objective: Provide surrounding communities the opportunity to voice concerns. In addition, ensure impact associated with operations affecting the environment and surrounding communities are monitored and effectively addressed

Driving factor: Receiving a social license to operate

GrievanceAn issue, concern, problem, or claim (perceived or actual) that an individual or community group wants a company to address and resolve

Context MPRL E&P works closely with Mann Field Operator,

MOGE, to advise, guide, and support Farmland in and around oil and gas field Changes in land occupancy

Mann Field, Minbu tsp, Magwe

1. PILOT PHASE

© 2015 MPRL E&P Pte Ltd. All rights reserved.

o Piloted in 3 of 14 communities in August 2013

o Provided training to community volunteers

o Held community meetings , erected information boards and and distributed informational cartoons to improve awareness

o Placed grievance collection boxes in strategic locations

Timeframe: 7 days

Grievance warrants action with no payment

Individual(s) remain dissatisfied

FT provides feedback to complainant

Implement

Present to Sr. Mgmt

Negotiate/calculate/and agree FT provides

feedback to complainant


Approved

Grievance report

Incident happens

FT goes on site, acknowledges and registers case

MOGE/FT review and investigate

FMs;Camp

Volunteer

MOGE/FT develop sug. solutions and informs CSR YO

FT receives

grievance

FT/FM/MOGE address incident on-the-spot

Grievance warrants no action

Grievance warrants compens./pymt only

Grievance warrants action with payment


Closeout

Closeout

Implement Closeout

Timeframe: 2 weeks

Timeframe: generally 1-4 weeks

Closeout

Timeframe: generally 1-4 weeks

Individual(s) satisfied


# of cases filed: 29# of cases addressed: 22Average duration to closure: 28.3 days% satisfied with process: ?% satisfied with outcome: ?

AT A GLANCE Sept-Dec 2014

Large majority of grievances relate to requests forinfrastructure (refilling currently unused produced water pits, removing currently unused oil and gas pipelines, and shut-in wells)

PROGRESS UPDATE

o Undertaking a major review to strengthen grievance resolution processes

o Building capacity of field teams in grievance handling for timely resolution

o Distributed leaflets to improve community awareness o Informal whistle blowing tool

o Continuous capacity building of government stakeholders in project-level grievance resolution © 2015 MPRL E&P Pte Ltd. All rights reserved.

CURRENT CHALLENGES

o Effectively addressing all complaints and/or concerns received within an appropriate timeframe

o Coordinating with government stakeholders to engage in direct dialogue with community members as direct engagement with communities did not take place prior to 2012

o Tracking progress of cases and identifying trends


NEXT STEPS

o Setting targets and milestoneso Defining key performance indicators (KPIs) to

monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the system

o Seeking stakeholder feedback on their satisfaction with the process and outcome

Closeout Form

Case No./HSE Incident Report Number: ____________

1. Close date:

2. Type of grievance resolution: a. No action b. Action only c. Action with compensation and/or payment d. Compensation and/or payment only

3. If action taken, summarize action taken: Completion date:

4. File Review

Documents to be completed as relevant Yes No N/A Comments, if any Grievance Report GM Record Log Receipt of Information Crop Compensation Calculation Agreement Crop Compensation Receipt Letter requesting payment by MOGE FT Memo Meeting minutes Attach recorded meeting minutes to Appendix 6-A

Evidentiary documentation (pictures, measurements, etc.) Attach pictures of implemented resolutions to Appendix 6-B

5. Meeting log

Date Type of contact People involved Key issues discussed Decisions made

Indicator Target

Time to acknowledgement (days) 1-3

Time to feedback (days) 14

Average duration to closure (days) 30

Time to compensation, if direct compensation req. (days)

7

% satisfied with outcome 80

% satisfied with process 80


REFERENCES

International Financial Corporation. 2009. Addressing grievances from project-affected communities: Guidance for projects and companies on designing grievance mechanisms. Washington, DC.

Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman (CAO). Advisory note: A guide to designing and implementing grievance mechanisms for development projects. Accessed at www.cao-ombudsman.org/howwework/advisor/documents/implemgrieveng.pdf

Rees, C. with Cahn, D., Sonnenberg, S. and Zandvliet, L. (2011) Piloting Principles for Effective Company–Stakeholder Grievance Mechanisms: A Report of Lessons Learned. CRSI Report No. 46, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative (CSRI), Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA.

Rees, C. and D. Vermijs (2008) Mapping Grievance Mechanisms in the Business and Human Rights Arena. CRSI Report No. 28.

IPIECA. Community Grievance Mechanisms Toolkit. Available at http://www.ipieca.org/publication/community-grievance-mechanisms-toolbox