Public Participation Experience in Central Asia

1
Public Participation Experience in Central Asia

• Workshop on information management and public
  participation
• in transboundary water cooperation
• 8-10 June 2005, St. Petersburg
• Russian Federation

Ulzhan Kanzhigalina Zhalgas-Counterpart, Almaty
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

• I would like to express my gratitude to the
  people from Counterpart International who
  provided advice and shared their experiences in
  encouraging participation in Central Asia
• Michael Kuntz, Counterpart Regional Director
• Erkinbek Kasymbekov, Counterpart Kyrgyzstan
  Director
• Mark Granius, Counterpart Program Specialist

3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
LEGAL FRAMEWORK

• Aarhus Convention
• National Concept for Ecological security, 2003
• Agreement between the Government of Kazakhstan
  and the Government of Kyrgyz Republic on
  Utilization of the Water Facilities of Interstate
  Use on the Chu and Talas Rivers, 2000
• Water Code, 2003, Art. 43
• Draft concept for the National IWRM and Water
  Efficiency Plan, 2005

6
LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION

• Information
• Consultation
• Participation

7
CHALLENGES and SOLUTIONS
8

METHODS AND PRACTICAL TOOLS THE CHU-TALAS
PROJECT

• Project Goal To promote public participation in
  decision-making on issues of management of
  transboundary waters of the Chu and Talas Rivers.
  
• Mapping stakeholders
• Focus groups to identify local stakeholders
  needs
• Information/Stakeholders Directory/Data Base
• Capacity Building Plan
• Mechanisms to voice the needs to decision makers

9
COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION METHODOLOGY

• OBJECTIVES
• Support and promote community initiatives in
  participatory problem solving
• Create local entities that can sustainably
  support, promote community development
  initiatives and protect citizens' interests

10
COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION CYCLE
11

PARTICIPATORY COMMUNITY APPRAISAL (PCA)

• PCA is a flexible methodological framework
• to mobilize communities for implementing
  solutions
• of their own self-defined needs
• Identification and prioritization of the key
  community needs and potential solutions
• Identification of available and needed internal
  and external resources
• Constructive engagement of government, media,
  NGOs, community members and businesses a.k.a.
  Social Partnership
• Elected Community Initiative Group with roles and
  responsibilities to manage implementation of
  community decisions

12
COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN (CAP)

• The CAP articulates
• Specific problem to be solved
• Actions to address the identified problem
• Who will be involved
• Action and intervention planned timeline
• How actions will be implemented
• Resources required
• Local resources that have been identified
• Expected results

13
COMMUNITY ACTION GRANT (CAG)

• The CAG application must include
• Articulation of the participatory community
  appraisal and action planning processes
• Listing and prioritization of community projects
  developed to address those identified needs
• Level of community and local government
  contributions
• Participation and partnership with local
  businesses
• Participation of women, youth, and marginalized
  segments
• Project feasibility study and sustainability plan

14
PARTICIPATION TOOLS

• Participatory Rural Appraisal Tools such as the
  VEN diagram, community mapping, stakeholder
  analysis, priority matrix
• Training for community leaders on topics such as
  Facilitation Skills, Participatory Community
  Appraisal, Project Design, Fundraising, Social
  Partnership and Participatory M E
• Public meetings and information mechanisms such
  as budget hearings, suggestion boxes and
  community information boards

15
PARTICIPATORY APPROACH SUCCESS FACTORS

• Consistent community mobilization methodology
• Relevant facilitation of community mobilization
  process
• Quick success, overcome skepticism, build
  momentum
• Sustainability and maintenance plans
• Cost share ownership, project results
  maintenance
• Grant is a supplement to community
  self-initiatives
• Implement and enforce procurement standards
• Success should be recognized and celebrated
• Ownership and transparency mechanisms
• Recognition of contributions

16
TANGABLE PARTICIPATION IMPACTS

• Improved Infrastructure A community council in
  rural Uzbekistan utilized participatory
  techniques in installing 8.4 kilometres of water
  pipe. The local government was so impressed with
  the efficiency of the projects implementation
  and the impact that the project had on the
  community, they engaged the council and used the
  same techniques to provide residents from the
  neighbouring community with new water pipe.
  Nearly 15,000 residents from these two
  communities now have reliable access to potable
  water.

17
TANGABLE PARTICIPATION IMPACTS

• Behavior Change In Uzbekistan, villages are
  learning from their neighbors about the power of
  community mobilization. After seeing the results
  of a road repair project in the Chech-Dobo
  Village, community members from neighboring
  Jar-Korgon Village requested PCA activities to
  fix their main road. The community reconstructed
  8 km of the road and contributed 400 plus labor
  costs to the project.

18
TANGABLE PARTICIPATION IMPACTS

• Behavior Change In Kazakhstan, PCA exercises in
  the city of Aqtobe resulted in road repairs on
  one of the main thoroughfares in the city. In
  addition, the community applied to the local
  government and a local business to repair a
  neighboring water pipe. The local government and
  business provided repair of the streets, cleaning
  gutters and building a water pipe for the
  districts needs. Hence, PCA approach and
  community initiatives lead to effective decision
  making processes for solving local problems.

19
TANGABLE PARTICIPATION IMPACTS

• Public Budget Hearings Although initially
  reticent, city government officials of Pavlodar
  held an open forum to provide citizens with an
  opportunity to ask questions and comment directly
  on proposed budget changes. Local government
  officials provided budget information to the
  public and widely publicized the public budget
  hearing. In preparation, USAID advisors held a
  roundtable discussion for local media, NGOs, city
  officials and others to help them better
  understand public participation. Over 200
  persons, including citizens, city department and
  agency heads, and NGO advocates, actively
  participated. This new willingness of local
  government officials to consider their
  constituents' views is a good example of the
  progress being achieved in making local
  governments more responsive and accountable.