Recap and Synthesis of National and Regional Research

 MK21 Inception workshop for local

research projectsYangon, 11-12 June 2015

Structure of the presentation

• Brief introduction to the overall research questions

• Operationalization of research questions and emerging themes

• Research methodology and methods

Main research question

How can existing institutional arrangements, policy formulation and implementation in water-energy-environmental issues across scales in the Salween Basin be evaluated and reformed (when necessary) to ensure inclusive, informed, and accountable decision-making processes for local communities, with particular emphasis on how this differs along gender and ethnic lines?

Sub-questions: transboundary/national; local; inter-level linkages

• How do (supra) national and local power structures and relationships embedded in current political and economic drivers shape existing water governance structures, processes, and outcomes at transboundary, national, and local levels?

• How do various actors perceive and strategically maneuver these structures, relationships and drivers in relation to their access to natural resources as well as their role in water governance (and within the wider political system), towards the advancement of their agendas and objectives?

Sub-questions: transboundary/national; local; inter-level linkages

• What are major gaps in the existing state governance structures and (local) institutional arrangements, including with regard to women and marginalized groups, and how do these gaps affect the overall shaping of (local) water governance practices?

• What are the decisive factors that create, sustain and reproduce these gaps, and how do these factors evolve over time?

Sub-questions: transboundary/national; local; inter-level linkages

• How are benefits, power, and risks being shared, distributed across scales and how do they reflect linkages/disconnect between local-national-transboundary water governance?

• What are potential entry points for more inclusive, informed and accountable decision-making processes, including with regard to women and marginalized groups?

Emerging themes

• Economic and investment policies• Policies, institutions, and practices• Democratic transition, decentralization, and

federalism• Conflict transformation and the peace process• Natural resource planning• Hydropower and electricity planning• Community rights• Access to information• Transnational

Core elements of the research

• Policy, institutions and practices of water governance

• Power structure and relationship

• Actors’ perception

• Hydropower context

Research methodology

Comprehensive policy review• Identification of different sets of

policies and legal frameworks • Classification of these policies into

different clusters• In-depth semi-structured interviews

with policy actors

Questions to guide the policy review/analysis

• What does the policy tell us (key messages, approaches, target setting, etc.)?

• What is the policy’s emphasis?• What are problems the policy wants to address (e.g.

addressing water scarcity issue)?• Why and how does the policy frame these as problems?• What does the policy want to achieve?• Is the defined goals realistic (e.g. too ambitious, too

vague) and why?• What are key assumptions incorporated in the policy?• What is currently missing in the policy (formulation and

implementation gaps)?

Questions to guide the policy review/analysis

• What are policy actions and inactions?• Who is driving the policy formulation (e.g. World Bank, other

government agencies), towards what objective, and how does this objective coincide/conflict with government agencies’ formal mandates and roles; private sector actors’ interests; civil society groups’ aspirations; and local communities’ needs?

• How does this compliance and/or conflict reveal in the policy content (e.g. its consistency, level of clarity)?

• Has the policy set a clear division of tasks and responsibilities?• Has the policy been equipped with implementation guidelines?• How do you think the policy will contribute to transparent decision

making in natural resource governance in general (related to land, water, energy, and environment) and with regard to hydropower decision making in particular?

• What are potential entry points for policy change?

Analysis of policy gaps

• What are the main policy gaps (e.g. gender bias, centralized planning, non-implementable policy)?

• What are the main factors (e.g. lack of information, institutional disconnect, issue of power struggle) that create, sustain, and reproduce such policy gaps?

• How is this revealed in the policy formulation processes (e.g. lack of consultation)?

• How do these factors change over time in relation to potential policy change?

• How do various actors deal with this gap?• How do various actors shape this gap to advance

their objective?

Institutional analysis

• Identification of relevant actors and organizations

• Mapping actors relationships and interactions

• In-depth semi-structured interviews with policy actors

Questions to guide the institutional analysis

• What are the organization’s formal mandates and roles?• How are these mandates and roles reflected in the

organizational structure?• What does the formal organizational structure tell us (e.g. is

it a massive organizational set up, unclear task divisions, centralized line of commands, one/two ways communications, profit oriented target, etc.)?

• Does the current organizational structure (e.g. departmental composition, total staff at various administrative levels) enable the organization to exercise their role and responsibility effectively?

• How does the organization function? Where does its source of fund come from (e.g. government’s budget, lender banks in case of private developers, donor funds)? What are its main focus and activities?

• How do various actors in the same organization shape the organization’s actual functioning?

Questions to guide the institutional mapping

• How do each organization’s mandates and roles relate with others’ in terms of area of responsibility, operational territory, spaces of engagement, with regard to land-water-energy-environment management?

• How do they deal with issues of overlapping responsibilities, lack of cross sectoral coordination, centralized planning system?

• How do various actors and organizations perceive the situation and (re)position their role in land-water-energy-environment management?

• How do this (lack of) relationship and interactions shape hydropower decision-making processes in general and in our specific case study sites?

Thank you for your attention