SESSION 2: TOOLS AND MECHANISMS FOR THE PROJECT … › pdf › publications › Managing...2.1 The Project Cycle Slide 16 16 The project cycle Facilitator’s Notes The facilitator

Participatory Planning and Monitoring in the extractive industries Session 2: Participatory planning and monitoring tools and mechanisms

1

SESSION 2: TOOLS AND MECHANISMS FOR THE PROJECT CYCLE

Participatory planning and monitoring tools and mechanisms for the project cycle

OVERVIEW Purpose of session 2 To provide an overview of the wide range of participatory planning and monitoring tools and mechanisms, where they can be useful in the project cycle, and how participants can use them in their own work. Objectives of session 2 By the end of the session, participants will be able to:

Identify different tools and mechanisms, and where they might be useful in the project cycle Identify some promising participatory planning and monitoring tools and mechanisms for their

own situations Materials required in session 2

Slides 11-16 Handout 2: ‗Participatory planning and monitoring – tools and mechanisms‘ Handout 3: ‗Spectrum of community-company engagement‘ Handout 4: ‗Tools and mechanisms in the project cycle‘ Handout 5: Case examples for application of tools exercise Handout 6: (6a...6g) Full cases from the tools exercise Handout 7: ‗Matrix of stages of project development and what happens during each stage‘ Flipchart and markers for each group Post-its or stickies, in different colors

Time required in session 2 Approximately 2 hours in total.

2


2

Slide 15

15

Participatory planning and

monitoring

Session 2

Participatory planning and monitoring tools and mechanisms

for the project cycle

Facilitator’s Notes

The facilitator should introduce the purpose and objectives of this session. Overview of this session: Purpose of session 2 To provide an overview of the wide range of participatory planning and monitoring tools and mechanisms, where they can be useful in the project cycle, and how participants can use them in their own work. Objectives of session 2 By the end of the session, participants will be able to:

Identify different tools and mechanisms, and where they might be useful in the project cycle Identify some promising participatory planning and monitoring tools and mechanisms for their

own situations


3

2.1 The Project Cycle Slide 16

16

The project cycle


The facilitator should note that the group will first look at the extractive industry project cycle, and will then move on to consider a range of different participatory planning and monitoring tools and mechanisms and think about how they might be useful in different stages of the project cycle. To make the presentation more interactive, the facilitator might consider asking participants in group what happens in each stage of the project cycle, noting that the industry cycle and the conditions at each stage will frame the discussion of tools. The tools will address each point along the project cycle, and some may ideally be relevant throughout the entire project. If there is a time issue, the facilitator may choose to give a quick overview of the different stages and then check with the group to see how far this description fits with their own experience. The facilitator should note that this is a model drawn from the IFC standards, and as such is generic; additionally, different companies may use different terminology to describe the stages. Around 15 minutes should be allowed for this discussion. A shorter time is required if the participants are all from the company side. In a mixed group, especially where there is a large community presence, more time is required so everyone understands the project cycle.


4

2.2 Application of tools in the project cycle Slide 17

17

Range of participatory

tools and mechanisms• Participatory planning

• Community forums

• Good neighbor agreements

• Community suggestion boxes

• Participatory budgeting

• Community scorecards

• Citizen report cards

• Community monitoring

Training and capacity building, access to information, and mutually agreed-upon metrics for monitoring are integral to each of the tools.


The facilitator could ask participants if anyone is familiar with any of these tools or mechanisms, and if so, to share their knowledge and describe their experience. The facilitator should then move on to introduce the following exercise: Exercise – Objective: to raise awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of different participatory tools and mechanisms.

a) The facilitator should circulate Handout 2 (brief description of tools) and assign 2-3 tools to small groups of participants.

b) Each group should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each tool they have been given. c) On a flip chart they should write a brief description of the tool as well as their assessment of

its strengths and weaknesses. The facilitator should allow 15 minutes for this. d) Groups should then hang their flip charts on the wall and do a „gallery walk‟ to review each

others‟ thoughts. e) The facilitator should then ask the group at which stages they think different tools might be

useful in the project cycle. The groups can put sticky notes of their tools on the project cycle graphic.

f) After participants have shared their ideas, the facilitator should respond by showing and discussing the following slide.

Around 30 minutes should be allowed for this exercise and feedback/discussion.

The facilitator should then introduce the next two slides, #17 and #18, which should also be handouts (3 and 4) and quickly go over the steps and the tools. Participants may be asked to hold on to them as a reference and to add on their own thoughts about tools or adaptations of tools that may be relevant to their context.


5



The facilitator may draw on the background paper for more information about how different tools fit with different stages on the spectrum. Participants may also be asked to determine the relevance of these tools and how they may be adapted and used within their own contexts. Many of the tools may be applied in several points along the project cycle, as shown in the graphic below. Facilitator should be familiar with all the detailed tool descriptions, which should be provided also as handouts to the participants.


6


19

Tools and mechanisms in the

project cycle

Expansion

Exploration• Information meetings • Co-monitoring• Contract negotiations

Feasibility•ESIA•Sourcing

• Co-identification of issues and indicators• Co-target setting: hiring, sourcing, training• Roles responsibilities agreements• Closure planning• Information sharing• Local skills training programs• Contract and concessions negotiations

Construction •Employment and training•Sourcing and procurement•Infrastructure access

• Community monitoring• Community reviews• Good neighbor agreements• Suggestion box• Interest group committees and forums• Community scorecard

Operations•Employment and training•Sourcing and procurement

• Co-budgeting• Support community forums• Company scorecard• Evaluation• Citizen report card

Legacy

•Company responsibility for unforeseen consequences

• Advocacy tools, accountability tools, and community capacity to hold company accountable for unforeseen consequences

Divestment

• Participatory sustainability planning and budgeting

• Citizen report card

•Environmental restoration•Sustainable livelihoods•Transfer of assets

Co-monitoring, measurement and verification

Partner of choice


The facilitator may draw on the background paper for more information about the different stages, as well as for a full explanation of the slide and the stages of project development in extraction.


7

2.3 Apply tools to case examples Slide 20

20

Applying tools to case examples

• What is the priority?

• Which tool or tools would best address the priority?

• How would it work?

• At which points in the project cycle might it be

useful?


The facilitator should introduce the following exercise noting that participants are now going to look at how these tools and mechanisms can work in practice at different stages in the project cycle.

The facilitator should circulate the cases in handout 5 (cut with scissors) which describe examples of different situations that have used PPM tools and mechanisms. The cases should be divided up so each group receives two cases. The cases are unfinished so that small groups can discuss possible solutions, and discuss when a participatory tool may have eased the situation. Exercise – Objective: to enhance understanding of different tools and mechanisms, and where in the project cycle they could add value. Post an activity timeline so group assignments are clear: a) Participants discuss the questions posed on the slide in small groups - 20 minutes. b) Groups match tools to case studies, and suggest adaptations to tools if applicable. c) Facilitator hands out full case examples (handout 6). d) Groups read the full case example and compare the outcome with their solution, and discuss

within their small groups -- 10 minutes. Then everyone comes together and facilitator leads an interactive discussion – next activity – about which tools are most effective in which contexts. Around 40 minutes should be allowed for this exercise and feedback/discussion.


8

2.4 Effectiveness of tools in different contexts Slide 21

21

Discussion questions

• Which tools / mechanisms might be useful in your

context?

• At which stages in the project cycle?

• What are the benefits and risks at each stage?


The final exercise in this session encourages participants to think about which tools may be useful in their own situations. This could either be done in plenary or in small groups with feedback. About 20 minutes should be allowed for this. Conclude this session by circulating the table in handout 7, which describes in more detail the issues that come up at each phase of the project cycle from the community perspective and the company perspective. Participants can hold on to the chart for reference.


9

Session 2 handouts HANDOUT 2:

Participatory planning and monitoring – tools and mechanisms

Participatory Planning Involving members of local communities in the planning of local development projects can improve outcomes for both local communities and companies, and help build trust between the two in the process. Members of local communities can be involved in project planning relating to infrastructure projects such as investment in utility services, the specific routing of roads, the design of buildings, and also issues such as employment and procurement policies and practices. Not only are community needs more likely to be better met, but companies can benefit from local knowledge and in extreme cases reduced risk of sabotage of infrastructure for example.

Tools: Community Forums Gatherings of people to give and/or receive information about a particular issue or subject. These usually require a clear and public agenda, and careful choice of location, timing and language to ensure that local preferences and responsibilities are accommodated.

Good Neighbor Agreements Agreements that are co-produced between companies and communities, usually based on traditional relationships among community members, to reach joint agreement among multiple stakeholders – company, communities and others -- on how issue(s) of mutual interest or concern will be addressed. Agreements are enforced through social commitments rather than legal ones. Community Suggestion Boxes Boxes placed in an easily accessible public location. Members of a community may submit anonymous complaints, suggestions or questions. Box is opened publicly at pre-determined times (such as weekly) and a response provided to each suggestion.

Participatory Budgeting A process by which citizen delegates decide on or contribute to decisions regarding the allocation and monitoring of expenditures of all or a portion of a company‘s social investment resources.

Citizen Report Cards Report cards based on a survey meant to rate the effectiveness of a project or service. The content of the survey is guided by key criteria identified by the intended beneficiaries and other citizens/community members.

Community Scorecards Participatory processes by which community groups can monitor and/or evaluate a service offered for their benefit. Beneficiary groups and service providers identify key indicators of success or progress, and rate effectiveness on a simple scale.

Activities integral to using these tools: Monitoring and Measurement Robust monitoring and measurement of company activity that is widely perceived to be credible is itself a useful tool for building trust between communities and extractive industry companies, as well as underpinning many of the other tools introduced here. There are several examples of communities, companies, and other actors jointly agreeing on targets and indicators of progress. Trust and credibility in the monitoring process are often enhanced by allowing local communities to take the lead in data collection and analysis. As a result, perceptions can be validated or challenged by mutually agreed ―fact.‖ Targets, tracked through agreed-upon


10

indicators and metrics, ensure that company, community, government, and other parties are all held accountable to their targets.

Training and capacity building Active and meaningful participation and monitoring on the part of members of local communities requires certain skills and knowledge. There are many examples therefore of extractive industry companies, sometimes in partnership with others, investing in improving the levels of skills and knowledge among members of the local community (and also in some cases among local government employees) to enhance their ability to participate in decision-making. Examples of areas covered in such skills and knowledge development include financial literacy, participatory methods, and development and investment project models.

Access to information Extractive companies are increasingly required by law to release information relating to issues such as royalty payments and environmental impacts, especially where companies and governments are participating in initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. However, this information is often not made available to local communities in a form that is easily accessible. Proactively engaging with and making information available to local communities, and encouraging them to engage with and scrutinize the information and to respond – both to the company and also local and national government – can be a helpful process for building trust between companies and communities, and underpins the effective use of many of the tools introduced here.


11

Community Forum

What it is: A gathering of people to give and/or receive

information about a particular issue or subject.

Why use it:

• To gather information about perceptions, opinions, and perspectives of stakeholder

groups.

• To reveal the diversity of interests and priorities within communities.

• To establish and/or strengthen capacity within company and community for

participatory planning.

• To inform the company about issues of concern to stakeholders.

• To create a safe space within which stakeholders can communicate with the company.

• May identify local leaders and persons of special influence.

• An honest, interactive and responsive process can build shared understanding and

trust.

When to use it: • Throughout project cycle, but particularly in developing social baselines. • Whenever there is need for information from the community to guide business operations

or plans. • To develop and assess alternative ways to addressing particular issues or concerns. • To elicit feedback on plans and operations from sources other than the official

representatives.

Steps for implementation: 1. Identify the issue to be discussed. What is the

agenda? 2. Identify the stakeholders you wish to consult with,

inform or get information from. 3. Use preliminary and informal consultation to

determine best times, places, language for each relevant group to participate in a forum. (It is best to provide information in an interactive way so that stakeholders can ask questions and give feedback.)

4. Set the dates and times and inform the relevant stakeholder groups.

5. Guided by the feedback, organize the forum. 6. Provide a date/day, time and place at which you will report back on what actions have taken

place, or what plans are in place to respond to issues raised at community forums.

Hints:

• Make sure you are talking with the right stakeholders. If broad coverage is needed, ensure

that women, for instance, are included. • Timing, language, location and manner of speaking should reflect respect for stakeholders’

livelihood and other responsibilities. Ask them when is the best time and where is the best place for a forum.


12

• Always report back on what actions were taken or what exactly was done with the information gathered at the forum.

• The larger the forum, the less likely some groups are to speak up. The presence of large numbers of attendees does not necessarily reflect greater inclusiveness. Smaller and more homogeneous groups provide safer environments that encourage more frank discussion.

• Sometimes multi-stakeholder groups are necessary. In those instances, be proactive about ensuring that all representatives in the group have a fair chance to speak. Use facilitation methods such as going around and asking each person to express his/her point of view before opening up for general discussion in which only the more powerful are likely to speak up.

• Have a note-taker to track the different points of view, and to help the facilitator ensure that all issues raised are discussed. Watch especially for those individuals who will not assert themselves in a multi-stakeholder group.

• Learn about cultural restrictions in a multi-stakeholder setting, and work in the space between those boundaries and the need to hear the voices and perspectives of all stakeholders. It may be worth hiring a professional facilitator.


13

Good Neighbor Agreement

What:

An agreement that is co-produced between companies and communities, usually based on

traditional relationships among community members, to reach joint agreement between the

company and communities on how issue(s) of mutual interest or concern will be addressed.

Agreements are enforced through social commitments rather than legal ones.

Why use it:

Often there is a historic basis for such agreements and social sanctions and reliable enforcement capabilities may exist within host community.

It builds on existing, tested systems that are well-understood rather than introducing a Memorandum of Understanding whose accountability may rely on legal systems that do not have social credibility.

It lends legitimacy to communities and their ways of social organization.

The Agreement is transparent and expectations of all parties are clear.

It demonstrates shared power, decision-making and shared accountability.

When to Use:

Throughout the project cycle, but especially in the early stages to obtain community-wide collaboration on a particular issue such as ensuring right of way or designating conservation areas.

Good Neighbor Agreements are best used in conjunction with other methods as there are often stakeholders, such as new migrants, who are not party to such traditional agreements. In addition, such localized agreements do not include international, potentially influential stakeholders such as bloggers or other internationally based activists.

Steps: 1. Articulate the broad issue that a specific agreement will address. 2. Understand the historic system you plan to use. Who is included? And excluded? 3. Identify the population that may be subject to this agreement, and those that are not included. 4. Ensure that the populations not subject to this agreement are included through other tools or

mechanisms. 5. Negotiate the agreement in detail. Who will do what? Who will monitor? Who will review and

address results from monitoring? 6. Publicize jointly with the leadership,

including how monitoring will occur and how results will be communicated.

7. Ensure there is a complementary mechanism to address those who may not adhere to a good neighbor agreement because they are not part of the older community, or they are excluded from traditional decision-making.

Traditional systems

Negotiation

Transparency& Accountability


14

Hints:

Assumes there is a tradition of socially legitimate agreements that is identifiable.

During periods of high in-migration, good neighbor agreements are likely to exclude many stakeholders with a high capacity to disrupt operations.

Such agreements may rely on traditional authorities, and while enforceable, may not take into consideration the different interests and priorities of women or other marginalized groups.

In addition to monitoring the agreement itself, there is need for monitoring stakeholder groups who are not party to the agreement to ensure equity.


15

Community Suggestion Box

What it is: A box placed in an easily accessible public location. Members of a community

may submit anonymous complaints, suggestions or questions. Box is opened publicly at pre-

determined times (such as weekly) and a response is provided to each suggestion.

Why use it:

• Informs the company about issues of concerns to stakeholders.

• Provides a safe and anonymous way for stakeholders to communicate with the

company.

• Prompt and genuine responses build shared understanding and trust.

When to use it:

• May be used at every stage of the project cycle. • Especially helpful when there is not a good grievance mechanism already in place.

• Use only where there is a culture of writing; that is, where people can write in the

local language or easily access someone else who can write on their behalf.

• Can be useful where traditional institutions have broken down due to conflict and/or

local government is not present in the everyday life of the community.

• Where appropriate, may be supplemented with hotlines, internet forums and/or

interactive radio discussions.

Steps for implementation:

1. Identify a place. Identify a public place that is easily accessed by all the stakeholders, such as the

local market, community center, mayor’s office, or other appropriate, public location. More than one place may be required if it is a context where all the stakeholders do not inter-mingle. For instance, a separate box may be required for women or an excluded ethnic group. Consultation with some key stakeholders would be helpful both to inform them about the company’s intentions and to get suggestions about a good location.

2. Place the box. A locked box should be placed at the designated place(s). A cardboard box taped shut, with a slot for dropping comments would also work.

3. Inform the public. It is important to ensure that stakeholders know that the box is there and what it is for. The company can communicate this through announcement at various community meetings, through public officials, through other formal and informal leaders, as well as through media, such as radio or local newspapers, as appropriate.

4. Consistently follow the promised schedule. The suggestion box must be opened as promised, in a public forum, with responses provided immediately where possible. In instances where it is not possible to respond immediately, the company may offer to provide a response at the next meeting. All suggestion box questions and concerns should be recorded and monitored by the


16

company (or, if possible, by a representative from the company and one from the community) to ensure that every issue is addressed.

5. Demonstrate company commitment. The company must demonstrate its seriousness about listening and responding to community questions and concerns by integrating those comments/concerns into future actions, and reporting back on the specific actions that have been taken in response to suggestions.

Hints: • Transparency is key; the box or boxes must be opened in a forum that is accessible to the

public, and the times when questions will be addressed must be widely known. Perceptions of secrecy, or ignoring one or more issues, can create space for rumors and increase risk to company’s social license to operate.

• Inclusiveness matters. Ensure that some groups, such as women, youth, certain marginalized ethnic groups, and others have access and can participate.

• In some instances, even when there is a large segment of the population that cannot write, there are systems in place, such as designated people who write for others, and the suggestion box may be relevant. However, in cases where people are not in the habit of writing, or where writing is just not possible because many stakeholders do not write and cannot easily access someone who can write on their behalf, a suggestion box would NOT be appropriate.

• All suggestions must be read out when the box is opened. All suggestions, questions and concerns must be answered/addressed, or, if the answer is not known, a date should be provided (such as the next meeting) when outstanding questions/issues would be addressed.


17

Participatory Budgeting

What it is: A process by which citizen delegates decide on or contribute to decisions

regarding the allocation and monitoring of expenditures of all or a portion of a company’s

social investment resources.

Why use it:

• Ensures funds are spent in ways that benefit local people according to their own

priorities.

• Disclosure of funds available and engagement in the decision-making process builds

realistic expectations of resources and possibilities.

• Local ownership promotes civic engagement and controls corruption.

• Builds shared understanding as choices are made openly.

• Demonstrates the company’s willingness to share in decision making and builds trust.

When to use it:

• When priorities for social investment need to be narrowed down to align with available

resources. • When there is mistrust between the company and community.


7. Members of the community identify “delegates” to represent them in the budget allocation

and/or monitoring process. 8. The delegates, with company representatives, identify and agree upon a decision making

process 9. The budgeting team determine how budgets will be allocated, and expenditures tracked. 10. The budgeting team makes public announcements and postings of who the delegates are

and what decisions they have made. 11. Communities monitor the budget process using other techniques, such as the Community

Scorecard or Citizen Report Card, to ensure that services are reaching beneficiaries as intended.

Hints:

• Representation is key, and other tools such as the community scorecard and citizen

report cards may be used to ensure legitimacy of representatives.

• The company may be proactive in requiring that a diversity of groups be represented

in the delegate group, including women, marginalized ethnic groups, youth, etc., as

appropriate to each context.


18

Citizen Report Card

What it is: A report card based on a survey meant to rate the effectiveness of a project or

service. The content of the survey is guided by key criteria identified by the intended

beneficiaries and other citizens/community members.

Why use it:

• Measures what the target population considers to be important.

• Relies on a survey, which is a well-established and widely-accepted method.

• Generates quantitative results in formats that are familiar to company officials.

• May be repeated to show progress.

• Engages beneficiaries in determining the criteria for success, thus ensuring that survey

questions aim to measure the right elements.

• Establishes the foundations for company and community co-planning and co-

monitoring of social investments. • Consulting beneficiaries and incorporating their priorities indicates the beginnings of power

sharing and promotes trust.

• May further enhance trust and shared understanding if results are disclosed in

language and format that is widely accessible.

When to use it: • When planning any data gathering activity that is amenable to surveys. • To assess community benefits of social investments. • To compare different approaches to addressing an issue based on community priorities. • As a foundation to guide monitoring of social investments. • To supplement expert assessments with local perspective.

Steps for implementation: 12. Identify the service or project to be assessed or monitored. 13. Consult with targeted beneficiaries about what they would consider the criteria for success

of a project or service. 14. Use preliminary and informal consultation to determine best times, places, language for

each relevant group to ensure their participation.

15. Design the survey questions drawing from beneficiary criteria for success. 16. Conduct the survey. 17. Publicly report results in language(s) and format that are understandable to target

beneficiaries. 18. Accompany results with commitments to the improvements that will be made. 19. Ensure that those who contributed to the survey are able to access the results.


19

Hints:

• Make sure that survey questions are well-grounded in community discussions. • Formulate survey questions using the language used in discussions, especially words and

phrases that guided the identification of questions. • Keep the survey short and focused, so its purpose, objectives, and results may be widely

understood and acted upon. • Report back on results in public forums during times and in places where survey participants

can participate. • Report back should list all the criteria identified but not used in the survey. Explain why they

were not used and what will be done with that information. • Explain when similar ideas were combined into one or two questions. • Assign responsibility so it is clear who will follow up on outstanding matters.


20

Community Scorecard

What it is: A participatory process by which community groups can monitor and/or evaluate

a service offered for their benefit. Beneficiary groups and service providers identify key

indicators of success or progress, and rate effectiveness on a simple scale.

Why use it:

• To increase local ownership and responsibility for the success of the service.

• To inform the company about issues of concern to stakeholders.

• To provide a safe way for stakeholders to communicate with the company.

• To generate qualitative and quantitative results.

• To establish or strengthen capacity within company and community for participatory

monitoring.

• To demonstrate the company’s willingness to share power and to build trust.

When to use it: • Any time there is a need to assess performance, at any point in the project cycle.

• To elicit feedback on services, to monitor agreements, or to monitor corporate and

community commitments to each other. • Particularly useful to monitor social investments, or company-community agreements. • It can be used for a comprehensive assessment with many beneficiaries, or in 15-20 minutes

to evaluate a discrete service such as a workshop.


The community scorecard is carried out in five phases. These are: the preparation phase; the

indicator selection phase; the assessment phase; the analysis phase; and the action agenda

phase.

Preparation Phase 20. Identify the service or program to be monitored or evaluated. 21. Identify the relevant community members and service providers. Organize them into

homogeneous groups, so there is a high level of comfort within each group. Groups may need to be separated by age, ethnic group, gender, class or other relevant factors.

22. Groups may also be stratified by the degree of their involvement. For instance, those who use the services a lot; those who are targeted but do not use the services and those who use the services occasionally.

23. Inform local officials and hold some public sessions about the Community Scorecard process, emphasizing that the beneficiaries of a service are in the best position to evaluate its effectiveness, and asking for local input.

Indicator Selection Phase 24. Groups representing service recipients and service providers generate a set of indicators

that demonstrate to them that the service is successful. 25. Facilitation team must then review the indicators and come up with a small number

(example, three indicators) that are expressed by many or most groups—a judgment call is required here.

Assessment Phase 26. Groups convene again with the three core indicators. Each group may add two more if

members feel the three are not adequate in terms of what needs to be evaluated. Each group should have no more than 5 indicators.

27. Groups rate the success of the service by scoring each indicator on a scale of 1-5 (1, very bad; 2, bad; 3, fair; 4, good and 5, very good).


21

Synthesis Phase 28. Facilitation team tallies the numbers for the common indicators and notes the indicators.

Data are summarized in an understandable fashion using pictures, pie charts, etc.

Action Agenda Phase 29. All participating groups and other stakeholders (company, local government, civil society,

local media) are invited for the public discussion, sometimes called an “interface meeting.” The purpose of the meeting is to present the data and to identify a change agenda.

30. The data are presented in an understandable format and language. 31. The large group agrees on what actions may be taken. Inclusion makes it possible for

members of the community who are not associated with the company to take leadership and ownership of changes. Actions are then made public and must be visible in changes to the service.

Hints: • Make sure you include representatives from the intended beneficiary group as well as

service providers. • Groups must be homogenous so individuals can speak their mind openly. • Strong facilitation skills are required to work with each group to identify its most important

indicators. • The word “indicator,” can be intimidating and complex in translation. Start discussion by

helping the group to think about criteria for success, what works/what doesn’t, etc. • Err on the side of simplicity rather than technical specificity. They key is for the people doing

the rating to understand what they are rating. • Meeting times and location should always be set to the convenience of the group. • Meetings should be held in a local language that is understood by all. • Be proactive about giving voice to more vulnerable groups, especially at the larger interface

meeting. If necessary, break into smaller groups to discuss and come up with solutions if issues are controversial.

• Take notes at the interface meeting that are visible to everyone, and read off or publicly state what is agreed to so everyone knows what is agreed upon.

• Clarify what will happen next, and ensure that it is done.


22

Handout 3:

Spectrum of Community-Company Engagement

ConsultInformDisengageStereotypes

Each party is

communicating

with the other, but in

an ineffective manner

Attempts by one party to

communicate with another,

mostly one-way

communication,

partially effective

Beginnings

of constructive

joint action

Co-planning,

co-monitoring,

and

multi-

directional

accountability

CollaborateInvolve Empower

Sp

ectr

um

of

acti

ons

by

the

com

pa

ny

by

the

com

mu

nit

y

Active

disengagement; isolation,

barriers to avoid

Contact; ignorant about

communities, history, local

knowledge

Violent tactics;

involuntary resettlement;

destruction of

livelihoods, environment

Violent tactics;

sabotage;destroy property;

hurt property

Active

disengagement; refusal to

negotiate;

inaction arising from

powerlessnessor lack of

information

Provide

information about activities

and rights in

ways that are understandable

to the public

More open flows

of information some listening

and some

information giving

Naming,

blaming, shaming

based on

informationaccessed

Giving

information in a responsive

mode; still

limited choice in type and

amount of information to

give or receive

Elicitation of

information from and

participation by

community

Identify and

work togetheron areas of

mutual interest

and complementary

capacity

Identify ways to

work with company in

ways that bring

local knowledge, perspectives and

skills to bear on issues plans and

actions

Share

perspectives andpriorities;

provide

informationabout what is

needed

Control and

responsibility to make decisions

and act jointly to

change the context

for mutual benefit

Control and

responsibility to make decisions

and act jointly to

change the context for

mutual benefit


23

HANDOUT 4: Tools and mechanisms in the project cycle


24

HANDOUT 5 Case 1: Oil development in West Africa

Several years ago, GXZ began exploiting newly discovered oil fields in a previously undeveloped region of Irkassa, a West African oil-rich state. Before oil exploitation commenced, there was little state institutional presence in the form of local government or national health, education, or security services. GXZ has piloted several participatory initiatives in managing its relationships with local communities in the region. In spite of this, several non-state militia groups that routinely target foreign extractive operations have also targeted GXZ. The long legacy of conflict between local groups and extractive industries in the Irkassa region shows few signs of abating. Undaunted, GXZ began prospecting for new oil reserves elsewhere in this remote region. This has involved needing to drill an exploratory well five kilometres from the isolated village of Ovenda. Up until this point, the few communities in this area had no road connections between each other – for example, it took eight hours to travel by mule the 20 kilometres from Ovenda to the market in Saspa. GXZ learned that the local community had been submitting plans to their local government for years about having a road built to connect them to neighbouring towns, but without success. What tools might promote success and increase positive impact of GXZ‘s entry into the zone?

(Cut here)

Case 2: Copper mining and unfair legacies

In 1996, Australia-based ABT acquired the Sinsaya copper mine, 13,000 feet above sea-level in Espinar's Pichu province. It had been established in 1985 as a state-owned enterprise, and originally stood on land expropriated from 100 families in an indigenous farming community. The national social attitude toward mining was very distrustful, based on a long and troubled history. To establish a basis for trust, ABT recently set up community forums, which in Espinar were called Dialogue Tables, and gave a forum for airing complaints about the company staff, resolving land title disputes, waste water concerns, and ideas for future community development. In addition, ABT increased local employment and sourcing. In 1999, before the Dialogue Tables were formed, the five communities around the mine had allied themselves with two activist organizations both funded by an international NGO. The international NGO recently put public pressure on ABT's headquarters to address the issues surrounding its Espinarian subsidiary. At first, the ABT response was denial of wrong-doing, but now, the company has decided to engage to find a solution. How?

Case 3: Diamonds in an unstable state The Molina diamond mine is located in south central Zania, and has been operating since late 2004. The mine is majority-owned by Red Rock, and a quarter-owned by the Zania government. Preparation for mining included the relocation of 920 people living on the mine site to farms purchased by a government relocation program. The mine is a combination of open pit and underground construction. The community around the mine, and in much of the rural countryside, has experienced a total breakdown of reliable governance, institutions, basic services, security of personal property, and personal safety. Which of the tools can the mine use to build strong community relationships?


25

Case 4: Platinum mining in South Africa AngloCopper is a British company that operates platinum mines primarily in South Africa. In an attempt to maintain its social license to operate, it would like to be transparent in reporting metrics for the South African Mining Charter with context-specific community-derived measurements. What mechanisms would it use for this approach?

Case 5: Diamonds and low skilled labor supply Dana Diamond Mines Inc. operates the Dana Diamond Mine jointly with Abro Diamond Limited Partnership. The mine is located in Canada's remote North, just offshore a small island, and produces on average 10 million carats annually. Production started in January 2003, and is estimated to continue at least until 2020. The mine employs an average of 735 people, of which roughly 70 percent are local, and half of these Aboriginal. It is challenging to find and place locals in high skilled positions, which is a priority of the community. What participatory tool or combination of tools might the company use?

Case 6: Natural gas extraction and a history of violence Arcadia, an extractive company specializing in gas, recently moved into the construction phase in exploiting gas reserves found on the large, mountainous island state of New Jutland to the north of Australia. The country has low levels of development. The extractive operation is in a remote part of the state where there was little state institutional presence to provide health, education or security services. There are many isolated settlements across the island, surviving on broadly subsistence livelihoods, and which suffer from high levels of violence and crime. Trust in government institutions is very low. Arcadia has suffered from poor relations with local communities in its operations in other parts of the world and has been determined to build good relationships with local communities from the outset in New Jutland. What tools or mechanisms may work?

Case 7: Gold and information: making the paper trail understandable Pasha is a country with significant gold deposits, and is a signatory to the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI). Like both Nigeria and Azerbaijan, it has taken steps to codify the voluntary EITI into national law. It has progressive transparency laws relating to federal, state, district and municipal budget disclosures. However, there are two problems with implementation of the rules: 1) laws are not enforced, and 2) even when they are, the information is seldom accessed by community members. ACOL, a company with gold operations in Pasha, was concerned about the gap between community expectation and government performance. The local NGOs were also concerned about the gap between company communications and actual performance. What steps might ACOL take to increase participation and responsibility?


26

HANDOUT 6(a) Complete Case 1: Oil development in West Africa

Several years ago, GXZ began exploiting newly discovered oil fields in a previously undeveloped region of Irkassa, a West African oil-rich state. Before oil exploitation commenced, there was little state institutional presence in the form of local government or national health, education, or security services. GXZ has piloted several participatory initiatives in managing its relationships with local communities in the region. In spite of this, several non-state militia groups that routinely target foreign extractive operations have also targeted GXZ. The long legacy of conflict between local groups and extractive industries in the Irkassa region shows few signs of abating. Undaunted, GXZ began prospecting for new oil reserves elsewhere in this remote region. This has involved needing to drill an exploratory well five kilometres from the isolated village of Ovenda. Up until this point, the few communities in this area had no road connections between each other – for example, it took eight hours to travel by mule the 20 kilometres from Ovenda to the market in Saspa. GXZ learned that the local community had been submitting plans to their local government for years about having a road built to connect them to neighbouring towns, but without success. Consequently, rather than simply build a road directly to its well site, GXZ embarked on a multi-stakeholder participatory planning process working with local communities to jointly chart the route of the road. Representatives from the oil company engaged with representatives from all communities in the area as well as local government officials in a series of meetings to discuss the opportunities. The eventual route of the road closely followed the plan already devised by local communities, and now connects several isolated hamlets as well as providing GXZ with access to the well site. The road is publicly-owned, although GXZ currently pays for the maintenance in recognition that it uses the road more than anyone else. As one representative from GXZ commented: “Only one in five wells is successful in West Africa… If we leave without finding anything, well at least they‟ve got a road.” The company believes that the partnership approach to building this road has led to reduced risk of sabotage to the road and strengthened its social license to operate with local communities and local government. Local communities enjoy an 80 percent reduction in journey times between Ovenda and Saspa, and also benefit from employment opportunities in road maintenance.


27

HANDOUT 6 (b) Complete Case 2: Copper mining and unfair legacies

In 1996, Australia-based ABT acquired the Sinsaya copper mine, 13,000 feet above sea-level in Espinar's Pichu province. It had been established in 1985 as a state-owned enterprise, and originally stood on land expropriated from 100 families in an indigenous farming community. The national social attitude toward mining was very distrustful, based on a long and troubled history. To establish a basis for trust, ABT recently set up community forums, which in Espinar were called Dialogue Tables, and gave a forum for airing complaints about the company staff, resolving land title disputes, waste water concerns, and ideas for future community development. In addition, ABT increased local employment and sourcing. In 1999, before the Dialogue Tables were formed, the five communities around the mine had allied themselves with two activist organizations both funded by an international NGO. The international NGO recently put public pressure on ABT's headquarters to address the issues surrounding its Espinarian subsidiary. At first, the ABT response was denial of wrong-doing, but now, the company has decided to engage to find a solution. Dialogue Table participants from the five communities formed working commissions to investigate grievances, formulate recommendations and implement changes in each area. Each commission was composed of the communities‘ elected leaders and interested residents, municipal and NGO representatives, ABT corporate and local staff. Commission members met privately on a frequent basis. The respective roles of the Espinarian and international NGOs were also defined: representatives from the local NGOs served an advisory role; the international NGO's Espinarian staff served as observers to the dialogue, and the Mining Ombudsman played a monitoring role, providing updates on progress to both the general public and the company‘s headquarters. Local government officials were participants in the plenary meetings and members of the Sustainable Development Commission. The Dialogue Table also identified ground rules – participation, consensus-seeking, joint fact-finding, and confidentiality – to guide interactions. Dialogue Table participants debated for over a year the details of a community development fund. At the end of 2004, an agreement was signed including the creation of a $1 million community development fund. It also affirmed a principle of free prior informed consent (FPIC) for future projects.

Problems resurfaced when community stakeholders who were not part of the Dialogue Table, and refused to join, violently protested planned Sinsaya expansions. This led to signing of a different agreement, the Espinar Framework Agreement (September 2003), and a community fund to which the company annually donates 3 percent of the mine‘s income (before interest and taxes) or, alternatively, a minimum of $1.5 million. There were more protests in 2005 some violent; these have been resolved. However, ABT sold the Sinsaya mine to Xtirpa in 2006. In 2004, the mine employed 600 direct employees and 230 contractors. Approximately 65 percent of the mine‘s employees and contractors were from the Pichu province, while the rest (with the exception of three foreigners) were from elsewhere in Espinar. The mine also dedicated approximately 10 percent of its $140 million purchasing budget to local provincial suppliers, with 75 percent going to national suppliers and 20 percent to international. Sinsaya paid a federal income tax of $40 million to Espinar in 2004. Both the Pichu Framework Agreement and the provincial development fund were administered by the Sinsaya Foundation, set up in 2001, which had its own $1 million endowment and $500,000 per year contributions from ABT.


28

HANDOUT 6 (c) Complete Case 3: Diamonds in an unstable state

The Molina diamond mine is located in south central Zania, and has been operating since late 2004. The mine is majority-owned by Red Rock, and a quarter-owned by the Zania government. Preparation for mining included the relocation of 920 people living on the mine site to farms purchased by a government relocation program. The mine is a combination of open pit and underground construction. The community around the mine, and in much of the rural countryside, has experienced a total breakdown of reliable governance, institutions, basic services, security of personal property, and personal safety. Red Rock company's response to this context has been to initiate community suggestion boxes, rather than the more complicated forms of participatory engagement such as forums, monitoring, or budgeting. The company leaves a wooden box placed in a public area near the local market where community members, including women, can submit anonymous complaints, issues, concerns, or suggestions. The company opens the boxes weekly in a public forum to answer the notes. In situations where an immediate answer is not possible, the company posts answers to a public bulletin board within the week. Zania is a signatory to the Kimberley Process, but is endangered by recent uncontrolled sales of rogue diamonds. In the Fraser Institute's annual survey of mining countries, Zania had the lowest scores on almost all counts. The country lacks infrastructure, is politically unstable, and cannot guarantee title. There are very few international NGOs operating within the country other than relief organizations, and the local NGOs are more concerned with survival than legitimate partnership. One manager noted: ―The NGOs usually see us as a way of getting money, not for helping people, but to survive and pay staff salaries. The shroud of political uncertainty makes partnership difficult. People live in fear, and no one trusts anyone.‖ Uncertainty regarding the ability to maintain ownership of operations, significant security problems, and deep power inequality within community stakeholders works against a company's (and community‘s) ability to initiate deeper participatory engagement. Community suggestion boxes, paired with public answer forums, are simple and straightforward mechanisms to listen and respond to community concerns. In this context, there is no shared discourse to enable empowered engagement, and very little opportunity to build a shared discourse that wouldn‘t be co-opted by powerful factions.


29

HANDOUT 6 (d) Complete Case 4: Platinum mining in South Africa

AngloCopper is a British company that operates platinum mines primarily in South Africa. In an attempt to establish transparent and relevant metrics for measuring impact and performance, it has melded requirements from the South African Mining Charter with context-specific community-derived measurements, using work from the public sector on community scorecards to inform the process. AngloCopper hired a third party to facilitate community meetings to define questions for scoring issues that supplemented those outlined by the Charter: human resources development, employment equity, migrant labor, mine community and local development, housing and living conditions, procurement, ownership and joint ventures, beneficiation, and reporting. Indicators were defined and set during the meetings, and systems were established to measure and report on a regular basis. Initially, business units were required to report on a quarterly basis, with verification by an external community-nominated auditor, to determine an accurate and meaningful picture of progress, performance, and areas for improvement. The scorecard is made available to the community in local languages, as well as reported in the annual sustainability report. The third-party facilitator was charged with easing information accessibility to local and international stakeholders in a clear report-card format. As part of the long-term process, AngloCopper is developing a system to measure compliance with the Community Scorecard that can be incorporated into the institutional planning system.

CARE-Malawi developed the community scorecard – a more local, rural hybrid of the citizen report cards. Instead of surveys, community scorecards use focus group discussions with communities and service providers to monitor local development. They provide an interface between the two groups, and facilitate local feedback loops and reform action plans. They can happen on a short time frame, such as three to seven weeks. There are many examples of public (government) services and government agencies using community scorecards, including in: 1) Uganda, to track government money; 2) Porte Alegre, to participate in budgeting; 3) Rajasthan, India, to do social audits; 4) Malawi, to claim a right to better services; 5) Argentina, to be budget watchdog; and 6) Ireland, To increase social partnership agreements.


30

HANDOUT 6 (e) Complete Case 5: Diamonds and low skilled labor supply

Dana Diamond Mines Inc. operates the Dana Diamond Mine jointly with Abro Diamond Limited Partnership. The mine is located in Canada's remote North, just offshore a small island, and produces on average 10 million carats annually. Production started in January 2003, and is estimated to continue at least until 2020. The mine employs an average of 735 people, of which roughly 70 percent are local, and half of these Aboriginal. It is challenging to find and place locals in high skilled positions, which is a priority of the community.

Dana is also part of the Kimberly Process and the Responsible Jewelry Council. In an effort to adapt to the local context, Dana conducted "Indigenous Knowledge Studies" to better understand local communities. Aboriginal community knowledge has also been formally used in monitoring the health of fish in the local lake using both scientific and traditional approaches. In an ongoing effort, Dana also formally involves communities in advisory roles through the Environmental Agreement, the Dana Communities Advisory Board, the Socio-Economic Monitoring Agreement (SEMA), and Implementation Committees in the Participation Agreements. The committees are active and submit reports bi-annually. The reports cover employment demographics, construction costs, workforce training, cultural and community scholarships and donations. Committee members visit the mine site, interview people, and make recommendations to the manager. Dana‘s Socio-Economic Monitoring Agreement (SEMA) is not a requirement of the government but is a commitment of the company. Within the SEMA, Dana sets targets to confirm company commitments to Aboriginal and Northern employment during construction and operational phases. For most of the metrics, Dana outperformed targets. Dana also conducted the first comprehensive database of all adults in its area of influence, their interests, and interest in working at the mine. Low education levels in the community indicated that the company could not rely on formal education qualifications to provide a good picture of their employability. Training programs aimed to build on existing skills and interests, and a practical ―learning by doing‖ approach was used. Training programs also focused on trade certification for high paying jobs, including instrumentation technology, which has global demand and is considered ―white collar.‖ The programs increased local capacity to Dana's benefit and also provided a skilled base of Aboriginal employees for future mines.


31

HANDOUT 6 (f) Complete Case 6: Natural gas extraction and a history of violence

Arcadia, an extractive company specializing in gas, recently moved into the construction phase in exploiting gas reserves found on the large, mountainous island state of New Jutland to the north of Australia. The country has low levels of development. The extractive operation is in a remote part of the state where there was little state institutional presence to provide health, education or security services. There are many isolated settlements across the island, surviving on broadly subsistence livelihoods, and which suffer from high levels of violence and crime. Trust in government institutions is very low. Arcadia has suffered from poor relations with local communities in its operations in other parts of the world and has been determined to build good relationships with local communities from the outset in New Jutland. What tools or mechanisms may work? Arcadia has engaged in a number of participatory initiatives, including spending nearly two years establishing a multi-stakeholder community forum in the area to build trust between the region‘s diverse actors, including representatives from local communities and local government. One key conclusion from early discussions in the multi-stakeholder forum was that for participatory initiatives to work, the participants needed a range of enhanced skills and knowledge. A concrete outcome from the deliberations of the forum therefore was to establish a capacity building programme on community leadership skills for participants from local government, civil society organisations, and other community members. As well as enhancing the skills required to play a greater role in participatory planning initiatives, the programme has also sought to improve entrepreneurial skills in an attempt to prevent dependence on oil-related income, and attempted to address other social problems in the region, such as the tendency to resolve all disagreements through violence. The content of the programme has therefore covered leadership, instruments of law for public participation, development and investment project models, social justice and conflict resolution, gender, environment, and sustainable agriculture projects. The programme has sought to attract people not previously involved in community leadership in the region, particularly women and young people. Arcadia believes its financial support for the programme has improved relations with a wide range of regional community, NGO, and local government leaders.


32

HANDOUT 6 (g) Complete Case 7: Gold and information: making the paper trail

understandable Pasha is a country with significant gold deposits, and is a signatory to the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI). Like both Nigeria and Azerbaijan, it has taken steps to codify the voluntary EITI into national law. It has progressive transparency laws relating to federal, state, district and municipal budget disclosures. However, there are two problems with implementation of the rules: 1) laws are not enforced, and 2) even when they are, the information is seldom accessed by community members. ACOL, a company with gold operations in Pasha, was concerned about the gap between community expectation and government performance. The local NGOs were also concerned about the gap between company communications and actual performance. ACOL partnered with an investigative NGO to do three things:

1. conduct research on attitudes toward the extractive industries, 2. clarify revenue use by the government, 3. repackage the information into a community-accessible format.

The company had also made environmental impact analysis studies available to the public, but, realizing that the information was in an indigestible form, ACOL hired the NGO to analyse the data and present it to the public in a user-friendly way. The NGO, Claro, conducted surveys, used information accessible through the EITI and national government laws about municipal and district budget transparency, and filed for budget disclosure directly from the local government offices. Claro took note where local governments were not in accordance with budget disclosure laws. The NGO survey found that over 50 percent of people in mining areas in Pasha think that mining companies do not pay taxes to the government. The NGO also calculated that resources obtained from mining revenues increased by over 1,000 percent in the last three years. About half of the municipalities publish their budgets and disclose information about investment projects. Claro published press releases for the media, was engaged to speak on the radio and in workshops, and released a report available on the internet.


33

HANDOUT 7: Participatory planning and monitoring approaches at different stages of the project cycle

Stages of the Project Cycle and

sample tools

What is happening within companies?

Company perspective

How do communities see it?

Community perspective

A Co-planning and Monitoring Approach

Exploration/project concept

Informational

meetings in appropriate language and communication style

Very small footprint; Small chance of moving to

next stage; Very little contact with local

community; Focus on not disturbing

sites of religious or cultural significance

Hardly noticeable; Some use local labor,

supplies; For those that notice

company action, there may be a combination of hope and/or trepidation, curiosity, helplessness in control of future

Exploration can be even less intrusive. Company can learn about cultural heritage sites or other land characteristics through desk research or in dialogue with people.

Tools for engagement are limited by likelihood of project development

Feasibility studies and project planning

Co-planning with joint identification of key issues, priorities and indicators

Community forums

Good neighbor agreement

Grievance process and/or Ombudsman

New personnel, not same as those in exploration

Environmental and social impact studies and plans

Other consultations and possibly some community development projects

Flexibility to accommodate community concerns, but usually don‘t have enough information about what those concerns are;

Seeking best combination between low risk and low cost;

Social baseline Risk mitigation

Heightened awareness that a big project may take place

Questions and expectations of benefit

Opportunity for input, but often subject to information gathering through surveys and other methods that don‘t elicit community input

Not aware of potential to influence plant.

Usually not able to conceive of scale of proposed operations, or of potential human and environmental effects.

Possible changes in land ownership; possible relocation.

High likelihood that rights of women and others who are otherwise marginalized are not recognized.

Relationship building. Confirmation of rules of relationship.

Open discussions, provide clarity and help keep expectations under control.

Protects company and communities against individuals who may make unauthorized promises.

Opportunity to set up structures and processes for communities to benefit, with local ownership by sharing decision-making. Employment benefits are likely to be minimal.

Integrate community concerns into all stages of the project, including in closure/de-commissioning plans.

Co-planning to identify potential for mutual benefit, and requisite capacity building for company, communities and other stakeholders. May include negotiations on five areas discussed in Section IV.

Construction

Community

scorecard or citizen report card

Community suggestion box

Participatory planning and budgeting

Tight timeline Contractors do the work;

personnel shift Opportunity for local jobs Need to finish on schedule:

need qualified people, no time for training skilled personnel.

Influx of people: contractors, migrants; others. Many strangers.

Noise, dust, disruption and stress on all infrastructure

Higher prices, sometimes, both for necessary staples as well as marketable goods and labor


Processes in place for complaints management

Meetings often and regularly among the various interested parties: problem solving; identifying and


34

Training and capacity building

High potential for conflict Short term employment Shifting social status of

have and have-nots

addressing opportunities Continuous negotiations

on new issues and addressing them

Operations

Participatory

budgeting, monitoring

Information sharing and feedback-from company and community

Co-monitoring indicators

New personnel—many are there to stay for several years

Limited employment opportunities for locals

Emphasis on systems and efficiency

After investment is recovered, potentially substantial profits and funds for community investment.

Income can be irregular, especially for minerals, less so for oil

Unemployment for construction-related workers

Few permanent jobs with company

Disparities between community and company employees: money, access to services, infrastructure, training.

Understanding about impacts of operations


Continue participatory processes so that changing community and company dynamics are understood to all stakeholders.

Co-planning and monitoring initiatives should be integrated into operations management systems.

Co-plan emergency preparedness and response plans.

Maintain grievance mechanisms.

Expansion

Stakeholder

identification and analysis

Community scorecards or citizen report cards

Participatory evaluation

Environmental and social impact studies and plans

Community consultations Flexibility to accommodate

community concerns, but a lack information about what those concerns are

Risk mitigation

Questions and expectations of benefit

Opportunity for input, but often subject to information gathering through surveys and other methods that don‘t elicit community input

Not aware of potential to influence expansion proposal


Plan and execute consultation as though it were at the project feasibility stage.

Downsizing, closure, divestment

Citizen report

cards Community score

cards Community

forums Participatory

planning and budgeting

Participatory evaluation

Monitoring plan

New personnel to oversee Should be planning for

closure throughout the project cycle.

Local partners are very important in planning closure

Post-closure impacts will need to be monitored with possible remediation

Support for post-closure income generation measures and sustaining the delivery of social services

Retrenchment programs are necessary

Unsustainable economy: will most likely be significant decline in community income and tax base of local government

Environmental reconstitution in some places, or destruction.


Begin the consultation process early to allay community fears and uncertainty.

Develop mechanisms to manage grievances.

Include local government and communities in planning process.

Develop measures to proactively manage post-closure income generation and delivery of social services

Post-closure Legacy

Participatory budgeting of endowments to maintain services, infrastructure and environmental recovery

Legacy has a strong impact on company reputation and future reception in the same country, especially, but also globally

Appreciation of lasting structures: whether infrastructure or knowledge and skills access

Concern about unexpected environmental damage

Participatory engagement endows ownership to community to care for and maintain legacy

Structures like forums and committees build civic capital and empowerment


35

Documents

SESSION 2: TOOLS AND MECHANISMS FOR THE PROJECT … › pdf › publications › Managing...2.1 The Project Cycle Slide 16 16 The project cycle Facilitator’s Notes The facilitator