Report on RoundtableDiscussion on Promoting Governance in Extractive Industries

Roundtable Discussion on Promoting Governance in Extractive Industries in South East Asia and Pacific Organized by Affiliated Network for Social Accountability- East Asia and the Pacific and Revenue Watch Institute

14-15 September 2009 Bogor, Indonesia

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Table of Contents

1

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 2 DAY ONE – 14 SEPTEMBER 2009 ............................................................................................. 3 I. OPENING AND INTRODUCTIONS ...................................................................................... 3 OPENING: WELCOME REMARKS .......................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTIONS: SHARING OUR CONCERNS AND HOPES ........................................................... 3 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW AND ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION FLOW ................................................... 5 II. THE RTD CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................. 7 THE EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY VALUE CHAIN............................................................................. 7 SUMMARY OF PRE-RTD SURVEY: “WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON WITHIN THE EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES VALUE CHAIN” ...................................................................... 9 SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY .......................................................... 11 III. WORKSHOP ONE – SITUATION OF THE EI SECTOR PER COUNTRY ......................................... 15 LAO PDR ................................................................................................................. 16 INDONESIA – GROUP 1 ................................................................................................. 19 INDONESIA – GROUP 2 ................................................................................................. 21 TIMOR LESTE ............................................................................................................ 23 VIETNAM ................................................................................................................. 25 BURMA .................................................................................................................... 27 PAPUA NEW GUINEA ................................................................................................... 29 CAMBODIA ............................................................................................................... 34 THAILAND ................................................................................................................ 37 PHILIPPINES .............................................................................................................. 39 MONGOLIA .............................................................................................................. 41 COUNTRY ASSESSMENTS ON EI........................................................................................... 42 SYNTHESIS OF COUNTRY PRESENTATIONS ............................................................................. 43 DAY TWO – 15 SEPTEMBER 2009 ........................................................................................... 46 THOUGHTS AND REACTIONS TO DAY ONE ............................................................................ 46 IV. WORKSHOP TWO – INTEGRATING SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES VALUE CHAIN .............. 47 GROUP OUTPUTS ......................................................................................................... 48 GROUP 1: MONITORING/INFLUENCE DECISION TO EXTRACT OR NOT TO EXTRACT ....................... 48 GROUP 2: MONITORING AWARDING OF CONTRACTS AND LICENSES, AND MONITORING THE EXTRACTION PROCESS .................................................................................................................. 50 GROUP 3: COLLECTION OF TAXES AND REVENUES, AND REVENUE MANAGEMENT AND ALLOCATION . 51 GROUP 4: IMPLEMENTATION OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS/POLICIES ......................................... 53 PLENARY ................................................................................................................... 54 V. NEXT STEPS/THE WAY FORWARD .................................................................................. 58 ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................... 60 PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................................................. 62 PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS (SAMPLE FORM) ............................................................................... 67

2

Roundtable Discussion on Promoting Governance for Extractive Industries in South East Asia and Pacific DOCUMENTATION OF PROCEEDINGS

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Background The Affiliated Network for Social Accountability-East Asia and the Pacific (ANSA-EAP) is a regional network that promotes the practice of social accountability by providing a platform for exchange of information and experience; and by providing capacity building opportunities and technical assistance to citizen groups and governments. The Ateneo School of Government (ASoG) implements and oversees ANSA-EAP, which has start-up support from the World Bank’s (WB) Development Grant Facility (Window 2) FY 2008.

ANSA-EAP’s development objective is to improve the demand for governance in countries in East Asia and the Pacific by strengthening partnership and monitoring capacities of civil society and government through the adoption and implementation of social accountability tools in the key thematic areas of education, health, public infrastructure, and environment. The primary areas it is addressing are participatory approaches in the monitoring of the budget, expenditure, and performance of government.

Extractive Industries (EI) is one of the sub-themes under environment that ANSA-EAP considers relevant for Social Accountability (SAc).

The Revenue Watch Institute (RWI) is a non-profit policy institute and grant-making organization that promotes the responsible management of oil, gas, and mineral resources for the public good. With effective revenue management, citizen engagement, and real government accountability, natural resource wealth can drive development and national growth. RWI provides the expertise, funding, and technical assistance to help countries realize these benefits.

RWI is the only organization dedicated exclusively to addressing the special problems of oil, gas, and miningdependent countries—countries where poverty, conflict, and corruption too often converge.

ANSA-EAP, in partnership with RWI, held a roundtable discussion (RTD) on EI with civil society organizations (CSOs) from ten (10) EAP countries on 14-15 September 2009 in Bogor, Indonesia.

Day One – 14 September 2009 I.

Opening and Introductions

Opening: Welcome Remarks b y Ms. Yuli I smartono , Advisory Board Memb er, RW I

Ms. Ismartono welcomed the participants and said that all institutions must benefit from sharing their experiences.

She commented on the irony that more than 40% of the people in the Asia and Pacific region still live in poverty in this age of high technology and modernity and in the midst of rich natural resources. She added that much of the poverty could be greatly reduced if governments develop the right policies and priorities. Civil society organizations can do their share in monitoring, overseeing, and advocating to ensure that what government does is people-oriented.

She said that there is much synchronization in the work of Revenue Watch Institute in monitoring extractive industries with the social accountability mission of ANSA-EAP. She ended by thanking Dr. Angelita Gregorio-Medel of ANSA-EAP for leading the discussions and Ms. Chandra Kirana of RWI for organizing the roundtable discussion. She said she looked forward to learning from all of the participants.

Introductions: Sharing Our Concerns and Hopes

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

b y Ms. C h an dra Kiran a, RWI

3

Ms. Chandra Kirana of RWI noting that all RTD participants cared about conditions within the EI sector, and all where trying to improve the situation in one way or other. In our work we are inspired by our hopes yet often face difficult challenges, she asked the participants to write their concerns and hopes on colored Post-It adhesive notes—orange for concerns and light green for hopes.

Each participant introduced themselves and placed their filled up Post-Its on a poster of a boat that is “sailing the sea of extractive industries.”

The table below enumerates the participants’ concerns and hopes:

Country Burma

Concerns • Revenue resource mismanagement

Cambodia

•

Cambodian government does not want to talk about EI and there is limited access to information

Hopes • •

• Indonesia

• •

Status of EI in Indonesia Rights of those living in and around

•

Social accountability from government More transparent and accountable management of EI that would benefit Cambodian people Adoption of the law on access to information Want to learn from others and strategize our efforts

4 Country

Laos

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Mongolia

Concerns areas being mined will not be respected • How to use extractive resources for the welfare of the people and build economy of the country • Better participation and more corporate justice in Indonesia • Good governance • Lack of capacity in government to look into social impact of Chinese investments in the country • Real information on EI should be properly shared, including effects on livelihood • Revenues from EI will not translate to poverty reduction

Hopes • • • •

•

EI to give priority to environment social responsibility

•

Learn from the mistakes of government in the region/learn about good governance issues Share how civil society and local communities can be strengthened to tackle issues they are facing For EI to be considered in the talks and negotiations on the COP15 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on December 2009 Transparency and participation from local communities in drafting policies regarding natural resources management Exact accountability on mining issues Networking To be clear about the concept of Social Accountability Strong body among CSO to promote transparency in EI Know how to access confidential information after the workshop Providing good information to the people A network on sharing EI monitoring will be established in the region

Papua New Guinea

•

Legislation and policy reforms in EI

•

Philippines

•

Is there is a study on EI revenues and green house gases emissions?

Government’s aggressive promotion of large-scale mining Unregulated mining activities in the region

•

• •

Thailand

•

Good governance, transparency and accountability in EI

Timor Leste

• •

Access to confidential information Transparency in EI

•

• • • • • •

Vietnam

•

How to monitor EI and get governments and companies to be responsible

Ecological justice will be possible Ecological justice and sustainable economic development Government to practice more transparency in EI Explore IE issues

•

Programme Overview and Roundtable Discussion Flow b y M s . F lo ry T ab io o f AN S A- A E P

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Ms. Flory Tabio of ANSA-EAP said that ten (10) countries are represented in the RTD. She explained the schedule of activities, some administrative matters, and house rules.

She also explained that the facilitation of this roundtablee discussion would be provided by Dr. Angelita GregorioMendel from ANSA-AEP, with Chandra Kirana from RWI and Flory Tabio from ANSA-AEP as co-facilitators.

Furthermore, to enable effective flow of ideas and recognition of insights, the facilitators created the following framework to guide the flow of discussions over the two days:

5

I.

Opening and Introductions: - Welcome Remarks - Introductions: Sharing our Concerns and Hopes - Program Overview

II.

The RTD Conceptual Framework and Objectives - The Extractive Industries Value Chain - Summary of Pre-RTD Survey (What we are working on within the Extractive Industries Value Chain) - Objectives: What we want to achieve through the RTD - Social Accountability in the Extractive Industries

III.

Workshop I: Situation of the EI Sector per Country Guide Questions: - With the EI Value Chain in mind, what is the context in your country in terms of the following: o Human rights, social and environmental protection? o Organized and capable CSOs/NGOs o Government responsiveness to engage with citizens/CSOs, and effectiveness in safeguarding citizens. o Transparency of revenues o Access to information o Sensitivity of the industry to culture and context Who are the major stakeholders in EI and what are they doing along the EI value chain? What tools (Social Accountability and other tools) are they using?

- What drives and or obstructs CSOs’ engagement on EI with the government?

- What are the gaps that need to be addressed?

The workshop was carried out whereby participants were devided in groups per country, and were given two hours to work together to produce a ‘country situationair’. Then all countries presented their results to the “Exchange and Synthesis and inputs on Social Accountability (Sac) concepts and tools” plenary facilitated by Dr. Angelita Mendel .

IV.

Workshop II: Integrating SAc in the EI Value Chain Guide Questions: - What are the victories and challenges in your groups level in the EI value chain?

- How can SAc tools and practices be integrated into yor groups level in the EI value chain?

6 Similarly here participants worked in groups. But this time participants self selected themselves into four groups according to the following: Group 1 Monitoring/influencing decisions to extract/not to extract Group 2 Monitoring awarding of contracts, licenses and monitoring of the extraction process Group 3 Monitoring collection of taxes and revenues, and revenue management and allocation.

Group 4 Monitoring the implementation of development projects/policies All groups then presented their work to the plenary, and Dr Agelita Gregorio Mendel synthesized the results.

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

V.

Final Session: Next Steps/The Way Forward

II.

The RTD Conceptual Framework

The Extractive Industry Value Chain b y Ms. C h an dra K i ran a, RWI

Kirana began with a quote from Albert Einstein, one of her favorite persons in history: “Two things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.”

She said that natural resources, such as oil, gas, metals, and minerals, are finite. Yet they continue to be mined as if these resources are infinite. Often they are also mined in a way that threatens the survival of ecosystems and local communities. Furthermore, the wealth generated from the mining process is often not spent on the public good, but goes to line the pockets of corrupt leaders. This situation can seriously impair the environmental basis of survival, exacerbate poverty and often breeds armed and bloody conflict. This is why some economists have coined the term, “The Resource Curse”.

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

She said that natural resources, transformed for human use, help to feed, clothe, shelter, and transport people.

Humans depend on natural resources for many material necessities, comfort, convenience, and protection throughout life. To a great extent, a society’s prosperity depends on its ability to consume natural resources. Yet this must not be done with abandon. The survival of humanity depends on its ability to conserve natural resources, create socially just societies, and maintain the balance of earth’s ecosystem, while extracting these same natural resources. For this to happen, Kirana said that good governance needs to be in place.

7

She commented that all the participants in the room are working towards good governance in the Extractive Industries sector in many different ways, trying to ensure that if and when natural resources are extracted, they are done in a careful and responsible way, and that the wealth generated is used to enhance the public good. This is where Social Accountability tools and approaches can come in handy, to help citizens and CSOs promote better transparency and accountability in the management of the EI sector. However, the EI sector is complex, there are so many different angles and instances that need to be considered in improving overall governance. To understand the industry in a more comprehensive way, RWI has adopted the Extractive Industries Value Chain.

The Value Chain model, which was derived from proposals by Professor Paul Collier, Oxford economist and RWI advisory board member. The Value Chain is a living concept that has been adapted to reflect RWI’s experience of working with various issues on the field. The model helps to scrutinize the various critical steps where public officials conduct performances and allocate oil, gas, mineral and metal resources, regulate the extraction processes, collect revenues, and allocate revenues for various purposes.

Ideally, there needs to be civil society oversight throughout the phases of the entire EI Value Chain, she said.

8

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

The different links in the EI Value Chain are: •

Decision to extract or not to extract At this stage, it is important that local communities (in many cases Indigenous People) are included in the decision making process and are enabled to make prior informed decisions, whether to give consent or reject a project. In the decision making process, the government and the companies involved need to be transparent about the environmental and social costs that a project will entail.

•

Awarding contracts/licenses Is the process of awarding contracts and licenses transparent? Are the responsible government officials ensuring that they and the public are getting the best deal, or is the handing out of contracts shrouded in secrecy? Is there an open tender process, with a clear set of selection criteria that are communicated openly and publicly?

•

Fiscal terms Does the government have the ability to negotiate the best fiscal terms for the public good? Is it reflected in the agreed conract between the company and the government?

•

Extraction process Are environmental and social costs passed onto the local communities and environment?

Does the company regularly inform the local government and local communities about its environmental and social safety standards? Does it have implementation mechanisms in place? Does the community know what it must do in case of an accident? Does the company inform the community what its responsibilities are?

•

Trading of commodities In many cases, the government receives production shares in oil and gas contracts.

The government sells these shares on the market to gain revenues. Is the government agency responsible for the trading of government shares of commodities doing it in a transparent and accountable way?

•

Tax and revenue collection Are taxes and reveues collected by the government being accounted for in a trasparent manner? Is the country implementing EITI? Does civil society, through the Multi StakeholderWorking Group, have oversight power on how government publicly reports revenue receipts and company payments?

•

Revenue management and allocation How is the government managing its revenues to address the various challenges related to EI revenues? Is it able to save prudently in times of great windfall? Does it go on a spending spree on projects that do not contribute to sustainable development? Is the government regularly reporting to the public how it is managing EI revenue funds?

•

Development projects/policies Is the government carying out development in consideration of the fact that EI resources are finite? Is it strengthening other sectors of its economy? How is it spending revenues on health, infrastructure and education?

Summary of Pre-RTD Survey: “What We are Working on Within the Extractive Industries Value Chain� b y Ms. C h an dra K i ran a, RWI

Prior to the RTD, ANSA and RWI sent out a survey to all the participating NGOs to have an overview of what is being done in the region. The survey asked four profiling questions: 1.

2.

3.

4.

How long has your NGO been involved in EI-related work?

In which phases of the EI value chain is your NGO already involved/doing some work on?

What challenges or issues on EI does your NGO face?

Can you give some victories/successes that your NGO has experienced in EI work?

The profile would indicate where in the EI Value Chain NGOs are strong, how they can improve their work through social accountability tools, and identify the gaps that need to be addressed. The two-day RTD will delve deeper into these questions and the answers will become the basis of their decision of how to move forward.

On Duration of Work in the EI Sector The profiled NGOs in the survey are relatively young. The average number of years that these NGOs have been working on EI-related issues is 3.5 years, with the majority working for 2 years. MACEC in the Philippines is the only NGO that has been working in the EI sector for more than 20 years.

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Concentration of Work Along the EI Value Chain

9

The highest concentration of work is 87.5% on the decision to extract or not extract. The second highest concentration of work is on the extraction process at 56.2%. All three tail end value chain links, namely, tax and revenue colection, revenue and management allocation, and monitoring of development projects/policies are similarly high on the work agenda of many NGOs, all at 56.2%.

Most answers within the box refering to development projects and policies directly relate to mining, oil, and gas projects; thus, fitting more with the extraction process link. The development projects/policies link refers to general government development policies related to the use of revenues obtained from extractive industries sector.

Work focusing on the awarding of contracts/licenses is carried out by 43.7% of participating NGOs. Few NGOs are working on the monitoring of fiscal terms (18.7%) and trading of commodities (12.5%).

10

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Perceived Challenges •

Limited acess to information, lack of transparency and accountability in the sector

•

Limited number and capacities of CSOs working on EI issues (especially limited resources for research and lack of ability to influence decision making process)

•

Governments lack of knowledge /Lack of capacity among decision makers

•

Limited space/mechamisms for CSOs to participate

•

Lack of monitoring tools and indicators.

• • • • • • • • •

National policy on aggressive promotion of large scale mining Environmental and socio-political concerns Government does not agree with EITI Industries’ influence on government Complicated decision making processes EI issues are still somewhat sensitive Lack of implementation of existing regulations (e.g. EIA requirements) Lack of clarity of the roles and responsibilities of national/provincial/district authorities Corruption

NGO Succeses so Far • Influenced government policies MACEC in the Philippines influenced the development of the 50-year moratorium on large-scale mining by a number of Local Government Units in Marinduque province. The Open Society Forum worked for the adoption of EITI in Mongolia.

• Raised EI issues to the national and international levels Examples are the work of colleagues in the Shwe Gas Movement and Arakan Oil Watch in Burma and PanNature and CODE in Vietnam.

• Played a powerful role on the EITI Multi-Stakeholder Working Group La’o Hamutuk and Luta Hamutuk in Timor Leste played a strong role in influencing the outcomes through their representatives on the EITI MultiStakeholder Working Group.

• Stopped various mining plans as achieved by Walhi in Indonesia and MACEC in the Philippines.

• Influenced mining processes to become more responsible The Open Society Forum in Mongolia has worked to amend policies on the use of mining chemicals. Likewise, the IUCN is raising awareness in Laos.

Objectives: What We Want to Achieve Through the RTD Roundtable Discussion Objectives 1. Take stock of what we are doing and consider the most crucial social accountability issues along the EI value chain.

2. Identify the main clusters of our work/projects and identify the gaps.

3. Discuss possible streams of collaborations to promote Social Acocuntability in the EI sector.

Ms. Kirana ended her presentation with another quote from Albert Einstein: “Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow� and expressed her hope that this spirit would guide their work in the next two days.

Social Accountability in the Extractive Industry b y D r. Ang el i t a G re go r io -M ed e l, Pro j ec t D i re c to r, AN S A- E AP

Dr. Gregorio-Medel spoke about active citizenship, which is the strengthening of rights towards the shared higher goal of good governance. The three characteristics of good governance are: Transparency, Accountability, and Participation (TAP). 1

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

She enumerated the four main pillars or features of an enabling environment for social accountability:

11

1. Organized and capable citizen groups that can gather information about government programs, analyze this information, and then use this information judiciously to directly engage with public officials, politicians, and service providers and demand that they serve the public interest justly, efficiently, and effectively.

2. Responsive government with champions in government, mechanisms, and platforms that enhance and support social accountability actions. A social accountability approach is particularly useful in the context of democratic decentralization, helping to strengthen links between citizens and local-level governments, and assisting local authorities and service-providers to become more responsive and effective.

1

Transparency refers to the availability, accessibility, and understandability of information on government programs and transactions to the public. Accountability refers to responsiveness and answerability of government representatives and bodies to the public, from which their authority is derived. Participation refers to the citizens’ active involvement in government decision-making processes, directly or indirectly through groups (ANSA-EAP Notes on Social Accountability).

12 3. Access to and effective use of adequate and essential information.

4. Sensitivity to culture and context, for we can only advance appropriate tools and approaches if we are familiar with existing cultural and social values, languages, practices, systems, and structures.

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Social Accountability refers to the process of constructive engagement between citizen groups and government for the purpose of checking and monitoring the conduct and performance of public officials and service providers in their use or allocations of public resources (www.ansa-eap.net). Citizens engage with government to monitor the use of public resources for service delivery, to protect rights, and promote community welfare or development.

Organized and capable citizen groups refer to those that have solid organizational and organizing capacity characterized by: • Wide and active membership/constituency • Credibility and accountability to their own constituencies • Strong program development as reflected in their organizational structure, skills, strategy, staff (HR), and systems • Competence in advocacy, mobilization, and building coalitions with media and other stakeholders Exercising basic rights refers to the strengthening of individual rights including the right to be heard, the right to know, the right to organize, and the right to participate.

Empowerment in generating and using information. Information is at the heart of transparency, accountability, and participation. NGOs need to have the capacity to gather, process, and understand information.

Engagement with government requires the capacity for analysis and strategizing, and not only protesting and opposing government policies.

Dr. Gregorio-Medel said that civil society organizations need to have integrity, which entails competency and efficacy (i.e. being able to deliver the goods and not just talk about the problem), and vision to fire their commitment.

Access to information entails gathering quality information such as laws, if they exist. This is part of institutional work. However, laws need to have implementing policies, rules, and guidelines. There is a need for technical capacity so that data gathered can be transformed into meaningful information that can be worked on. Importantly, NGOs need to have political will and not just government.

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

NGOs cannot wait for government to be fully responsive especially in places where there is no democracy. They need to find champions that they can work with. They need to keep on working to develop policies and get government to provide resources (and not just go to donor agencies) to fund the work the needs to be done and structures to make this work possible.

13

Sensitivity to culture and context is important because each country has a unique history (e.g. colonization and the struggle for independence) and politics. Each country has its own way of seeing the world. It has its own religion, languages, and traditions. Change has to happen in stages and NGOs need to calibrate the work that it is doing within specific cultural contexts.

14

Some of the social accountability tools include policy and program planning, budget formulation, expenditure tracking, and procurement monitoring. These are being done all over the world but what is often lacking is the participation of citizens.

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Dr. Gregorio-Medel ended her presentation by restating the agenda of “citizens engaging government in monitoring the use of public resources for service delivery, protection of rights, and community welfare�.

III.

Workshop One – Situation of the EI Sector per Country

The participants divided themselves into 1o country groups, consisting of Indonesia, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Timor Leste, Mongolia, Laos, Thailand, Philippines, Burma and Papua New Guinea. These groups discussed the guide questions below: Guide Questions: 1. With the EI value chain in mind, what is the context in your country in terms of the following? a. Human rights, social and environmental protection b. Organized and capable citizen groups/CSOs c. Government responsiveness to engage with citizens/CSOs and effectiveness in safeguarding citizens d. Transparency of revenues e. Access to information f. Sensitivity of the industry to culture and context 2. Who are the major stakeholders in EI and what are they doing along the EI value chain? What tools (SAc and other tools) are they using?

3. What drives and/or obstructs CSOs’ engagement on EI with government?

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

4. What are the gaps that need to be addressed?

15

16

Country Presentations

LAO PDR RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

_____________________________________ 1. Lao Context • •

• • • • • • • •

EI is a new concept in Laos but mining is a high priority of government for revenue generation and poverty reduction Process of approval for mining licenses is not transparent nor well understood or coordinated ∗ Ministry of Planning and Investment responsible for decision-making in coordination with MIME and WREA (EIA) ∗ Difficult process for private sector investment (Laos is very low in World Bank’s ranking for Doing Good Business) ∗ Some level of decentralization to provinces to authorize mining projects (and some provinces act independently) ∗ Very difficult to get information from government for INGOs and also for provincial/local governments (transparency) e.g. EIAs are not publicly available Laos has many relevant laws on environment and water but policies are not implemented well Mining Law was recently upgraded and revised and approved by National Assembly (with assistance from WB/IFC) Over 100 mining companies operating in Laos from over 10 countries World Bank providing Technical Assistance to Lao Ministry of Energy and Mines for capacity building No national organizations addressing EI issues Some international groups are starting to become interested e.g. IUCN, WWF, Asia Foundation, Oxfam Lao Government recently approved the Decree on Associations for Lao associations (non-profit) to form In all areas, there is lack of transparency and information on EI activities

A. Human rights, social and environmental protection •

•

Human rights - No current thinking about local people’s rights ∗ No incorporation of local people into decision-making processes ∗ Minimal benefits provided ∗ Local people do not know real impact ∗ Limited capacity for people to participate, negotiate and debate issues Environment – updated to Ministry level but limited capacity of government to address environmental issues ∗ Environment not central to decision-making process and not internalized ∗ Livelihoods are not incorporated into current thinking ∗ No capacity to monitor projects and mitigate impacts ∗ Limited connection between WREA and the MIME and mechanisms for cooperation among ministries and departments ∗ No strategic plan (immediate and long-term) for EI

B. Organized and capable citizen groups/CSOs • No national NGOs in Laos • New Association Decree for the formation of non-profit associations but under Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) C. Government responsiveness to engage with citizens/CSOs, and effectiveness in safeguarding citizens •

No government responsiveness yet ∗ GOL does not yet see the value of collaborating with the NPAs

D. Transparency of revenues RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

17

No transparency of revenues in Laos ∗ Total revenue available but no information on breakdown of revenue use within the government

E. Access to information •

•

No access to information on projects from government ∗ Sometimes project EIAs/documents are leaked after agreement is made ∗ Some private sector companies have been more willing to share their project information than government Most project documents are only in English but not translated into the local languages

F. Sensitivity of the industry to culture and context •

Culture/context not incorporated into EI decision-making ∗ E.g. land concessions / sacred lands ∗ Resettlement of villages who have lived on the land for centuries ∗ Importance of traditional livelihoods often not respected and new livelihoods introduced are difficult for local people to adapt

2. Major Stakeholders in EI and What They are Doing along the EI Value Chain • • •

There are only a few INGOs based in Laos that are trying to address certain aspects of the value chain There are no EI INGOs operating in Laos Some NGOs based outside of Laos are monitoring the country’s investments. This enables INGOs or individuals to coordinate with these groups

18 •

•

Some activities include: ∗ Research on decision-making process ∗ Capacity building for government (providing strategic information and study tours) ∗ Some new individuals interested in these issues (getting support from international groups) Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility (CSER) tools are starting to be introduced in Laos

3. Factors that Drive and/or Obstruct CSOs’ Engagement on EI with Government • •

No real CSOs in Laos Government does not see the value of NGOs (what they are and how to work with them)

4. Gaps that Need to be Addressed • •

•

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

• • • • •

Government needs to learn and acknowledge the benefits of building a civil society Carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Mining Sector immediately – incorporate options assessments ∗ Develop Strategic Plan for Mining Sector (strongly incorporate CSER) Capacity-building for GOL to strategically plan, incorporate environmental and social issues in decision-making on EI investment, coordination among ministries and others Costs of short and long-term environmental and social impacts are not well understood among GOL (therefore real costs are not incorporated into their negotiations with investors). Later, government will bear the brunt of the costs. Local communities will especially suffer.

Build partnerships with private sector (build capacity on environmental and social issues) Build capacity to implement new Mining Law Benefit sharing should be introduced as a tool in Laos to ensure that local communities benefit from ‘development’ projects Education of local communities is needed (translation of materials into local languages) – before, during and after projects Coordination and collaboration with neighboring countries where there are transboundary impacts

INDONESIA – Group 1 _____________________________________ 1. Indonesian Context A. Human rights, social and environmental protection •

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

• •

19

•

Human rights problems are pervasive but are a weak issue on EI ∗ The rights of many are not recognized (e.g. free prior inform and consent (minimum regulation) ∗ Massive violence against human rights: right to own land, right to work ∗ Physical violence, murder Environmental problems such as water pollution and destruction of forests predominate Social problems ∗ Migration causes horizontal conflict ∗ Social problems are driven by company activities: prostitution, gambling, alcoholism ∗ Corporate social responsibility (CSR) often causes horizontal conflict too Other related issues ∗ Small scale EI tend to protect human rights less in the contract with local government with fewer resources for social and environmental fund (Manggarai)

B. Organized and capable citizen groups/CSOs • • •

There are two groups of CSOs—those that agree with many conditions and those that disagree with environmental aspect.

Citizen groups have grown rapidly, driven by CSR of the EI Some CSOs have good capabilities on mediating and advocating for community rights

C. Government responsiveness to engage with citizens/CSOs, and effectiveness in safeguarding citizens • • • • •

Low capacity of resource-rich local governments for better planning and budgeting No revenue transparency in fiscal transfers between central and local government Low capacity of local government to regulate small-scale mining industries. The local government itself deals with the companies.

Lack of local government regulation to protect human rights Government disappears when conflict arises between community and EI

20 D. Access to information EI sectors and powerful companies tend to be highly secretive Newly enacted Freedom of information Law does not regulate companies to share information publicly.

• •

E. Sensitivity of the industry to culture and context Very low cultural sensitivity. Companies behave in a “hit-and-run” manner— give money, do charity—which is not sustainable and has little correlation with the primary needs of community

•

2. Major Stakeholders in EI and What They are Doing along the EI Value Chain • • • • •

Central government Local government Legislative branch Human rights commission Companies

• • • •

Investors/share-holders Military CSOs Community

• •

International Financial Institutions UN bodies

3. Factors that Drive and/or Obstruct CSOs’ Engagement on EI with Government

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

• • • •

Cases of human rights violations Conflict of interest in Government on regulating EI is the main challenge of CSO’s work Dependency of fund, directed by funding agency interest Government/military repression

4. Gaps that Need to be Addressed •

•

•

•

Weak government ∗ Government as duty-bearer is weak, especially in their role of protecting rights and the environment, and providing essential services ∗ Government tends to protect the companies more (because they have big money) and not keen to hold companies accountable/responsible Weak laws/regulations ∗ EITI mechanism is needed but not sufficient ∗ Need to regulate businesses in EI more and institute specific instruments on conflict resolution Weak policy implementation ∗ Weak capacity of relevant government agencies to implement the law ∗ Weak capacity of legislative branch to monitor the implementation of law/policy ∗ Targets to address: Specific legislative commission to monitor implementation, problems, and give solutions Capacity building of government on revenue management (planning, budget allocating, and expenditure) and provision of public services in general, especially in resource-rich regions Lack of information available, even on the government side ∗ Target to address: Pressure government to make (local) law that promotes transparency in government and IE companies and public access to information

INDONESIA – Group 2 _____________________________________

1. Indonesian Context A. Human rights, social and environmental protection •

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

21

Conflict between indigenous people and the state: Rights of indigenous people are acknowledged in the law but not in practice Weak protection of and damage to the environment

B. Organized and capable citizen groups/CSOs • • • •

Two groups of CSOs: (1) those that agree with government; (2) those that are against mining activities Weak capacity of CSOs in EI-related issues Need more CSOs to work on all the links in the EI Value Chain Few international donors funding EI work

C. Government responsiveness to engage with citizens/CSOs, and effectiveness in safeguarding citizens • •

Facilitate local government planning and budgeting, local social economic development as in Cepu Block Case Safeguards from government are weak. More CSR role from company

D. Transparency of revenues • •

Lack of transparency on revenue sharing between IE companies and central government and between central government and local governments.

EITI Policy: Still in the process lobbying and drafting the law

22 E. Access to information • •

Minimum access to information on data and contracts Limited awareness of government to share information

2. Major Stakeholders in EI and What They are Doing along the EI Value Chain • • • • •

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

Central Government: Decision to extract, awarding contracts, fiscal terms, trading of commodities, revenue management and allocation; SAc tools: responsive government/revenue sharing, some transparency.

Local Government: Decision to extract, awarding contracts, fiscal terms, trading of commodities, revenue management and allocation; SAc tools: responsive government/revenue sharing, some transparency.

Military: Extraction process, trading of commodities; No SAc tools Community: revenue management and allocation; SAc tools: Organized and capable citizen groups, sensitivity to culture & context NGOs/CSOs: Decision to extract, awarding contracts, fiscal terms, revenue management, and allocation; SAc tools: Transparency & anticorruption, sensitivity to culture & context, organized & capable citizen group, facilitating, access to information.

National/Local Companies: Decision to extract, awarding contracts, fiscal terms, revenue management and allocation; SAc tools Transparency, sensitivity to culture & context, organized & capable citizen group, facilitating, access to information, transparency index for company

3. Factors that Drive and/or Obstruct CSOs’ Engagement on EI with Government • •

Driving factors: Public sector interest in instituting reforms in EI, conflict between central and local governments on revenue sharing and expenditure management, anti-corruption work and budget tracking Obstructing factor: Low capacity in implementing mining law and poor knowledge of EI process

4. Gaps that Need to be Addressed • • • •

Building capacity and competence Obtaining support from donors Raising public awareness Engaging with government

TIMOR LESTE _____________________________________ 1. Timor Leste Context A. Human rights, social and environmental protection • • •

Most EI activities are offshore (petroleum) No legislation (EIA) Lack of political will to implement policies on EI

B. Organized and capable citizen groups/CSOs • • • • • •

Most work to raise public awareness Strong CS participation in framing EITI and CCPF Capacity building for citizens Campaign and advocacy including publication District Liaison Officers (DLO) Focal point of activities are in rural areas

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

C. Transparency of revenues

23

• • • • •

Petroleum Fund Law Banking and Payments Authority (BPA) Autoridade Nacional do Petróleo (ANP) MOF System is in place to check, control and manage

D. Sensitivity of the industry to culture and context • •

In the process of adopting international standards, laws, and best practices to local context Oil companies are implementing EI activities according to the PSC as demanded by SC

2. Major Stakeholders in EI and What They are Doing along the EI Value Chain • • • • • • •

SC International and national companies Media and academe Government Parliament CCPF, EITI, PYWY, RWI and similar groups Local leaders, youth and women’s groups

Roles in EI & tools • Raise public awareness • Capacity building:

24 • • • •

training, workshop, conference to grassroots Research and advocacy Publication and information dissemination Post bulletins in TV and radio programs, distribute fact sheets in popular version

3. Factors that Drive and/or Obstruct CSOs’ Engagement on EI with Government

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

• • • •

Personal relationships Same background and vision to the country Weak information and communication system Political will (uncertainty)

4. Gaps that Need to be Addressed • • • • •

Knowledge and information transfer Networking to share basic understanding of EI Human resources development Improving the quality of telecommunication and information services More effective media roles

VIETNAM _____________________________________ 1. Vietnamese Context •

•

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

25

Potential reserves on: ∗ Oil and gas along 3,400 km coastal line ∗ Mining: coal, iron, titanium, bauxite, rare earth metals, bronze Exploitation of raw ores mostly for export: Coal has been mined for nearly 100 years, while oil has been exploited for 30 years Big share in the economic development of the country: ∗ Oil and gas revenues contribute to about 18% of GDP and 28% of State budget ∗ Mining in coal, iron and titanium contributes about 10% of GDP

A. Human rights, social and environmental protection •

•

Wide negative impact on social and environment. EIA is required but not well implemented and monitored ∗ Laws exist but lack of enforcement fails to reduce negative impacts ∗ Business environment is not adopting CSR - low responsibility and not complying with requirements of the business sector Human rights: there is a legal framework but implementation and enforcement is weak

B. Organized and capable citizen groups/CSOs • • •

Public concern to issue is increasing CBOs are difficult to organize Few NGOs are working on the EI sector and only participating in some part of the value chain: (1) Decision to extract or not to extract, (2) long-term planning, (3) monitoring service delivery

C. Government responsiveness to engage with citizens/CSOs, and effectiveness in safeguarding citizens •

Low level of government responsiveness to CSOs

D. Transparency of revenues • •

General information on government budget is published on the GSO website but it is difficult to check the accuracy of the information There is data on the company income and expenditures but CSOs are not able to analyze if it is right or wrong

26 E. Access to information • •

General information on government budget is published on the GSO website but it is difficult to check the accuracy of the information Government is drafting the law on “access to information” and will be discussed in Parliament on October 2009

F. Sensitivity of the industry to culture and context •

Little attention to the culture and context of local people when carrying out EI activities

2. Major Stakeholders in EI and What They are Doing along the EI Value Chain • • • •

Government: Different ministries (Resource and Environment, Trade and Industry, Planning and Investment, Finance) participate in all the links in the EI value chain, depending on their functions.

State owned companies: Powerful entities in Vietnam. They manage and extract all of the important resources of the country and participate in most of the links in the EI value chain.

FDI and private companies: Rapidly growing in number, many are subcontractors for state companies Civil society and local people: Participate some links of the value chain: (1) deciding to extract or not to extract, (2) long-term planning, (3) monitoring service delivery, but exert very low influence

3. Factors that Drive and/or Obstruct CSOs’ Engagement on EI with Government RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

Low level of CSO engagement in EI because: ∗ Vietnamese government’s sensitivity to CSOs and the demand for transparency ∗ Government underestimates the role of CSO ∗ Government policy reduces the scope of impact of CSOs ∗ CSOs mostly work on service delivery project; not many are involved in policy advocacy

4. Gaps that Need to be Addressed •

Adoption of EITI is important in current Vietnamese context ∗ Situation of EI sector is characterized by negative environment and social impacts, human right violations, ineffective management of resources ∗ Increasing public awareness on the importance of EITI and the need to learn from international experience ∗ Encouragement and capacity building for CSOs to engage in policy advocacy in EI sector ∗ Advocacy for the government’s adoption of EITI legislation

BURMA _____________________________________

1. Burmese Context The country earns revenue from the sale of gas to Thailand: • Burmese regime derives nearly 50% of its current export revenues from sales of gas to Thailand • Construction of the Trans-Burma oil and gas pipelines began in September 2009 • Nearly 30 US$ billion in revenues A. Human rights, social and environmental protection •

No law to protect human rights, social, environment in EI

B. Organized and capable citizen groups/CSOs

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

27

There are a few organizations outside the country and a limited number of independent organizations that organize training at the border for groups inside the country and organize campaigns to raise awareness

C. Government responsiveness to engage with citizens/CSOs, and effectiveness in safeguarding citizens • •

No government responsibility to engage with CSOs No local participation

D. Transparency of revenues • •

No system to promote transparency in revenue management. Revenues are funneled to the military Burma ranked the second most corrupt government in the world in 2008 according to Transparency International

E. Access to information •

No access to information

F. Sensitivity of the industry to culture and context •

EI projects are threatening local culture and traditional practices

2. Major Stakeholders in EI and What They are Doing along the EI Value Chain • •

China, India, South Korea, France, US, UK, Russia, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Australia, Vietnam, Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE) No free and prior informed consent, no environmental impact assessment/social impact assessment (EIA/SIA)

28

3. Factors that Drive and/or Obstruct CSOs’ Engagement on EI with Government • •

Multi-national corporations, governments, IFI, INGOs, media, Military regime, trans-national cooperation

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

4. Gaps that Need to be Addressed • • • •

EITI mechanism is needed Public awareness about EI Good governance in EI in which people can voice their concern and participation in decision making Democratically elected government

PAPUA NEW GUINEA ____________________________________

1. Papua New Guinea Context • • • • • •

98% of the population is Melanesian 800 indigenous tribal groups Over 6 million people Total land mass is 473,189 km² Democratic government – member of the British Commonwealth Gained independence from Australia in 1975

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

A. Human rights, social and environmental protection

29

• •

•

Mining boom for economic growth Major legislative and policy reforms ∗ New entities established - Mineral Resources Authority (MRA)/Petromin ∗ Policies and legislation developed and/or reviewed in the name of economic development Lack of good governance ∗ Little participatory planning and discussions on major policy issues (EI projects, environmental concerns, benefit sharing, etc) ∗ Little engagement of communities and CSOs in project development processes ∗ Little political debate on laws and major issues ∗ Use of divide and rule tactics ∗ Fast tracking the development of large scale EI projects

B. Organized and capable citizen groups/CSOs •

∗

Non-Governmental Organizations ∗ CERD – working on EI sector (mineral, oil, gas) Mine Affected Women's Foundation (MAWF) ∗ – EI environment and rights based issues PNG PWYP Coalition ∗ – EI benefits including corruption in EI (organizations and individuals).

Loose networks

30

• • •

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

CBOs from mine affected communities (livelihood and social concerns including cultural settings) Academia ∗ Transparency International Papua New Guinea (TIPNG) – Corruption (Leaders) Landowner groups – Benefits Provincial and local governments Other network that CERD use when necessary ∗ Environmental and civil rights NGOs ∗ National Council of Women’s Groups ∗ Trade Unions ∗ Church networks ∗ Political allies ∗ General public and learning institutions The only group that works exclusively on Extractive industries in PNG is the Centre for Environmental Research and Development. ∗ 8 permanent staff ∗ An Advisory Board ∗ Volunteers and freelance campaigners ∗ MAWF ∗ PNG PWYP Coalition ∗ Influential Individuals

C. Government responsiveness to engage with citizens/CSOs, and effectiveness in safeguarding citizens • •

• •

A responsive government The current government has its focus on economic development over social welfare, resulting in booming extractive industrial development ∗ Liquefied natural gas (LNG Project) ∗ Deep sea mining exploration ∗ Increased number of land based mines ∗ Establishment of new mining entities and other business arms ∗ Development of new laws that indemnify entities, fast tracking for industrial development Government engages with CSOs and community as part of consultation process but does not include them in decision-making processes Divide and rule tactic through “development forum” where organized CSO participation is excluded from landowners and other stakeholders

D. Access to information • • • 2

Used to be easy in the past but not anymore Some information is confidential and is only available to the national government’s regulatory agencies, the companies and perhaps investors and shareholders, particularly contractors Use wantok system 2 in some cases to gain access to information

The wantok system stems from the word “one talk”, which could be loosely defined as those speaking the same language. The wantok system could be seen as an unwritten social contract, between those that speak the same language, to assist each other in times of need. This ranges from little things such as assistance in school fees to favors that border corruption, such as offering a job or contract to a person or persons because they are a wantok.

•

Have not given much time in seeking information on finance/money, etc.

E. Sensitivity of the industry to culture and context •

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

31

•

Socio-politics ∗ Loss of culture and cultural values Greed versus communal sharing Behavioral change and attitude problems ∗ Destruction of local political structure Lack of respect for elders and community leaders Not assuming responsibilities ∗ Cash dependency versus subsistence lifestyle Greed versus communal sharing Growing for cash versus consumption Stealing to sell ∗ Adaptation to new cultures and way of life Introduction of sex workers, alcoholism and other forms of entertainment New ethnic groups and new languages ∗ Social problems Marriage break-ups Continued violence Land and resources ownership – Political ∗ Environmental damage ∗ Destruction to sources of drinking water ∗ Destruction to food sources ∗ Destruction to scared sites ∗ Destruction to recreational uses of water ∗ Destruction to normal everyday enjoyment of the environment in the local setting Irreversible environmental damage destroys local economy and livelihood and presents health risks to local communities

2. Major Stakeholders in EI and What They are Doing along the EI Value Chain • • • • • • • •

Chamber of Mines and Petroleum Government – national, provincial, local Mining and petroleum companies Investors and shareholders in the EI sector Landowner groups International financing agencies Advisors and consultants NGOs -mine-affected communities and their NGOs are usually considered as hindrance to economic development

Roles of Major Stakeholders in PNG’s Extractive Industries • PNG Chamber of Mines and Petroleum ∗ Promote investment in the EI sector ∗ Protect EI companies’ interests ∗ Direct contact point for EI with government

32 ∗

•

•

•

• • •

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

• •

Participate in stakeholder meetings on behalf of EI industries particularly in relation to drafting or reviewing policies and legislation PNG Government ∗ Regulate EI Industries in the best interest of all stakeholders guided by policies and regulations ∗ Review and reform systems if and when necessary Investors ∗ Lend money for EI project development ∗ Give morale support to the EI sector Mining, oil and gas companies ∗ Search for mineral, oil and gas resources, extract and sell them ∗ Make money, pay loans and make profit for their companies Landowners ∗ Ensure that they get a fair deal on benefits from EI projects on their land (Revenue Collection) Shareholders ∗ Buy more shares from companies in order to earn more International Financial Institution ∗ Advice governments of the best way forward ∗ Assist government reform systems governing EI sector Advisors and consultants ∗ Research and recommend to government the best way forward on particular issues Non-government Organizations ∗ Assist local communities in their advocacy work ∗ Educate local communities on EI realities and governing processes ∗ Represent EI affected communities in major stakeholder forums and workshops particularly relating to policy and legislation reforms ∗ Lobby for support for communities with national and international coalitions and networks

Tools/Strategies used by major EI stakeholders • Chamber of Mines and Petroleum ∗ Highly qualified experts (scientists, lawyers, etc) ∗ Well documented published information ∗ Money ∗ Expensive Investment Forums (Nationally & Abroad) ∗ Allies (politicians, influential and highly respected individuals, institutions such as WB and European Union, EI companies, semi-governmental agencies like MRA) • Government ∗ Laws, policies, regulations and standards ∗ Advisors and consultants (including IFIs) ∗ Money and people, ∗ Military or law enforcing agencies (e.g. police) ∗ Development Forum/Closed door meetings Major interest stakeholder groups’ forum National, provincial and local level governments (political heads and regulatory agencies) and their allies Mining companies and their advisors Landowners

•

Non-government Organizations (Decision to Extract) ∗ Community empowerment ∗ Established networks and coalition ∗ Media network ∗ Campaign materials – brochures, posters, video and voice recordings, books, etc. ∗ Correspondences ∗ CSO forums ∗ Community voice

3. Factors that Drive and/or Obstruct CSOs’ Engagement on EI with Government •

•

Driving Factors ∗ Passion ∗ Communities concerns ∗ National interest Obstructing Factors ∗ Speaking the truth and revealing corrupt deals of government, mining companies and their allies ∗ Exposing facts and figures of irresponsible and behavior of industry and government ∗ Strategic approach used in trying to influence change ∗ Being outspoken and standing firm on an issue

4. Gaps that Need to be Addressed

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

33

•

CSO empowerment ∗ NGOs – training, financial resources, organizational capacity strengthening ∗ CBO – training, exposure, advocacy skills and tools Awareness raising through ∗ Strengthening local networks including media ∗ Gaining local and provincial government support ∗ Educate the government and politicians

34

CAMBODIA _____________________________________

1. Cambodian Context A. Human rights, social and environmental protection

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

Rights of indigenous people right are abused during the exploration process (property, culture and traditional livelihood)

B. Organized and capable citizen groups/CSOs • • •

Awareness raising on EI to youth and public through public forums, workshops, etc.

EI trainings and conferences Cambodians for Resource Revenue Transparency (CRRT) formulation

C. Government responsiveness to engage with citizens/CSOs, and effectiveness in safeguarding citizens • • • •

Government participates in public forums of EI organized by CSOs Government did not sign the EITI but they promised to incorporate the principle of EITI in their strategy for resource revenue management Government informs CSOs for comments in National Strategy Development Plan (NSDP) Relevant government agencies invite CRRT to make comments on the NSDP

D. Transparency of revenues •

Low transparency

E. Access to information • •

Limited EI information and not up to date No law on access to information

F. Sensitivity of the industry to culture and context •

Communities are not empowered to raise their voices for community development

2. Major Stakeholders in EI and What They are Doing along the EI Value Chain A. Government Agencies

• • • •

Cambodian National Petroleum Authority (CNPA): Draft Petroleum Law, given licenses, make contracts, review logical framework, support exploration process Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy (MIME): give licenses, make contracts, monitoring exploration process e Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF): Fiscal terms, tax and revenue collection, review taxation law, revenue management and allocation Ministry of Environment (MoE): EIA

B. EI companies • •

Licensing contracts on EI exploration Implement exploration activities

C. Development Partners

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

• • • •

35

Support government (e.g. provide technical assistance on drafting Petroleum Law, logical framework) Provide training on EI sector to government official Assisting to improve tax and public financial management system Provide capacity building to CSOs

D. CSOs • • • • •

Building capacity for CSOs and citizens Building relationship with government Advocate with relevant government agencies to publish legal framework, contracts, Petroleum Law,etc.

Advocate for equitable management of EI revenues Advocate to engage CSOs in EI value chain

E. Citizens •

Citizens need to learn more about EI, its impact and how they can raise their voice to make EI revenues benefit them, their society, and their country.

3. Factors that Drive and/or Obstruct CSOs’ Engagement on EI with Government Driving factors • Social conscience - revenues from EI sector can develop the country • No good governance fear that EI will be a resource curse • Revenue from EI is for all citizens

36 4. Gaps that Need to be Addressed • • •

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

• • •

Capacity of CSOs and government on EI Only a few people from the government can talk about EI issue in public events Limit access to information, especially EI information, as it is all kept confidential Difficult to work on it and do advocacy Lack of transparency and accountability No legislative framework, regulation and related laws Limit space and mechanism to participate in any national meeting on EI issues along the EI value chain

THAILAND _____________________________________

1. Thai Context A. Human rights, social and environmental protection • • • •

Human and community rights are enshrined in constitutional law but they are not implemented and affect culture, livelihood, and ecosystem EIA is done by the private sector and government with little participation from citizens Citizens’ group is pushing for the improvement of EIA system by developing Health Impact Assessment (HIA) tools Environmental law provides for an independent body from the private sector that will check and monitor process in EI sector

B. Organized and capable citizen groups/CSOs RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

37

Engage in networking and empowerment but are incapable of accessing information regarding international investment, mining policy, and related laws. Very few CSOs are working on EI issues and no one is involved in monitoring EI sector activities

C. Government responsiveness to engage with citizens/CSOs, and effectiveness in safeguarding citizens •

Small group of government officials that are sympathetic to CSOs organize to solve the problem but the overall impact is limited

D. Transparency of revenues •

Corruption is pervasive in the political culture.

E. Access to information •

There is government information on the economic side of project implementation but not available for CSOs to check and monitor

F. Sensitivity of the industry to culture and context •

EI activities destroy the land for food production and affect livelihoods, human settlements, ecosystem, ethnic groups, ancient monuments

38 2. Major Stakeholders in EI and What They are Doing along the EI Value Chain

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Major Stakeholders

What They are Doing

Tools

Government

• • • •

Cooperate with company Grant concessions Collect taxes and revenues Monitor project

• • •

Laws Contracts Concessions

Companies

• • • •

Survey and explore Conduct EIA study Construct factories Contracts

• •

Media Informal relationships

People

• • •

Get organized Community campaigns Movements

• • •

Meetings Talking Culturalization

NGOs

• • • • • • •

Research and study Campaigns Community empowerment Media Seminars Networking Independent entity

• • • • •

Knowledge Management IT Networking Development management Public policy advocacy

Political Parties

• • • • •

Legislation Investment policies Decrease trading taxes Contracting Personal investment

• •

Institutions Personal relationships

3. Factors that Drive and/or Obstruct CSOs’ Engagement on EI with Government • • • • • •

Laws Good governance Access to information Paradigm shift on the concept of development regarding capitalism and localism Centralization/ Decentralization Public policy

4. Gaps that Need to be Addressed • • • •

Laws Community rights Impact assessment Fair allocation of benefits ∗ Paradigm shift ∗ Accessible information ∗ Corruption of democracy

PHILIPPINES _____________________________________

1. Philippine Context A. Human rights, social and environmental protection • •

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

39

• • • • •

There is a gap in guaranteeing peoples’ right to free prior and informed consent FPIC (limited democratic space) EIA system does not cover the complexity of external costs such as health, livelihood other socio-cultural structures EIA data presents descriptive information rather than in-depth cost-benefit analysis of introducing EI activities to communities Lack of science-based data Government is bent on promoting EI rather than safeguarding the basic rights of the people and environment The whole policy regime does not consider intergenerational equity. Does not strategically utilize and manage finite resources (e.g. mining) Corruption persists in the EIA process Communities in EI areas are highly militarized, resulting to massive violation of human rights

B. Organized and capable citizen groups/CSOs • • •

There are numerous organized citizen groups/CSO with various levels of capability and interests in engaging communities, government, and EI sector Concentration of policy of advocacy work does not cover the whole EI value chain (e.g. no monitoring of fiscal terms, trading of commodities) Existence of a national coalition in EI

C. Government responsiveness to engage with citizens/CSOs, and effectiveness in safeguarding citizens • •

Government at the local level and national levels is weak in responsiveness to citizens even if there are laws that promote this Political preference causes divisiveness or limits engagement with citizens

40 D. Transparency of revenues • • • •

Government is not diligent in compelling EI to be transparent in revenues, cash-flow process and corporate structure (does not work to unveil the shroud of corporate structure) Government legitimizes confidentiality Government is not capable of analyzing technical complexity of EI revenues especially those invested in tax haven countries such as Cayman Islands Technical complexity of EI documents

E. Access to information • • • • •

No mechanism guaranteeing people’s access to information related to EI Government protects vital information from EI Basis of information is limited to government reports and secondary sources reported by EI companies In most cases, voluminous and technical documents of EI are presented to communities beyond their capacities to understand Communities are not accorded timely and adequate information especially in the mandatory decision-making process

F. Sensitivity of the industry to culture and context

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

• •

EI sector has double standards. Multinational companies adhere to strict standards in their home countries but do not comply with these standards in host countries especially in those in the Third World EI takes advantage of policy overlaps and corrupt bureaucracy despite obvious resistance and impacts of EI in communities (e.g. dubious working relationship executive offices)

2. Major Stakeholders in EI and What They are Doing along the EI Value Chain •

All stakeholders base actions on the current policy and structure of government

3. Factors that Drive and/or Obstruct CSOs’ Engagement on EI with Government • • • • • • •

Political relationships (between CSOs government, among CSOs, and CSO and communities) People’s level awareness to their rights and mechanisms for dialogues accessible to them People’s adherence to sustainable development framework Difference in the level of commitment of CSOs in the local and national levels in dealing with EI concerns Lack of funds Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) suits Militarization of EI in communities

4. Gaps that Need to be Addressed • • • •

Policy agenda of government, Government, communities and CSOs financial, technical and human capacities Framework in analyzing cost-benefit of EIs EI advocacy should not be a stand-alone strategy or advocacy but should be mainstreamed in the overall development work

MONGOLIA _____________________________________

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

1. Mongolian Context

41

• • • •

Mining is quite new in Mongolia is–an undeveloped copper mine was found in 2004 near the border with China Mining sector comprises 10% of the country’s GDP Vast territory has great potential for rich mineral deposits 30% of mining companies are Chinese and Russian

A. Human rights, social and environmental protection • • •

Currently, thousands of mining licenses have been issued – a huge challenge for the government to monitor Mining activities affect scarce water resources Mining companies avoid environmental responsibilities

B. Organized and capable citizen groups/CSOs • •

CSOs are scattered all over the country. They lack funding and capability.

Difficult to define civil society in Mongolia. Many NGOs support government policies instead of monitoring them and taking an independent stand. There are also many politically-organized groups that are used to defend mining companies. Monitoring mining companies would entail a lot of travelling, which is quite difficult in a big country like Mongolia

C. Government responsiveness to engage with citizens/CSOs, and effectiveness in safeguarding citizens •

Some NGOs are manipulated by the government for political purposes.

D. Transparency of revenues •

Some information available on payments made by companies to government but there are discrepancies in the figures

42 Difficult to deal with companies especially those from Russia because they operate like the Mafia

•

E. Access to information Hard to access information from companies and the government

•

F. Sensitivity of the industry to culture and context Mining activities conflict with the pastoral life of communities

•

2. Major Stakeholders in EI and What They are Doing along the EI Value Chain Government – makes huge policy changes in the EI sector Companies – blame civil society or government for failed projects. Some try to adopt CSR practices

• •

3. Factors that Drive and/or Obstruct CSOs’ Engagement on EI with Government Lack of regulatory framework that would allow CSO engagement in monitoring EI sector

•

4. Gaps that Need to be Addressed Lack of regulatory framework that would allow people’s participation (e.g., no official mechanisms for public hearings, etc.)

Enforcement of existing laws and regulations Judicial system is slow

•

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

• •

Country Assessments on EI At the end of each country presentation, participants were asked to come up with a quick assessment of factors related to EI (e.g., human rights, social, environmental impacts; organized and capable citizen groups, etc.) in their respective countries, as summarized below:

Country

Human rights/social/ environmental impacts

Organized & capable citizen groups/CSOs

Government responsiveness

Transparency of revenues

Access to information

Sensitivity to culture & context

☺

☺

☺

☺

☺

☺

Burma Cambodia Indonesia Indonesia Laos Mongolia Papua New Guinea Philippines Timor Leste Vietnam

Synthesis of Country Presentations Dr. Gregorio-Medel synthesized the different country outputs: General Context Where EI Operates • •

•

Economic Governments seek investments in EI because it is a major source of income. EI is an economic force in all the countries represented in the RTD. Political The extent to which a political regime is centralized or decentralized delineates the spaces available for CS to “shift power” in the EI sector. In many cases, human rights (HR) of host communities, especially indigenous people, are ignored or violated. Dr. Gregorio-Medel commented that sometimes, even CSOs are guilty of HR violations when they sensationalize the case of a victim in the course of their advocacy work.

Social There are attendant social problems in the EI sector such as migration, conflicts at the local and national levels, spread of HIV infection, mining impacts on health, etc.

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

CSO engagement is geared toward good governance that is characterized by transparency, accountability, and participation.

43

Areas of CSO Engagement Legislation • In many countries, human rights are enshrined in the constitution with the corresponding legislation, but they are often not enforced, implemented, and regulated. Community rights are often not recognized or ignored.

• Existence and enforcement of laws that promote access to information, transparency, and participation varies from country to country. In many instances, laws are not followed.

Access to Information • The existence of laws and policies that allow access to information on contracts and revenues is a stepping stone to getting quality information. Only three participating countries have legislation on access to information— Thailand, Indonesia, and Timor Leste.

• EI revenues are an important piece of information that CSOs working on EI issues must gather. However, information on revenues is often difficult to obtain especially in restrictive societies that are highly secretive.

• When information is available, accuracy is poor and the content is highly complex and technical (e.g. taxation, procurement, etc.)—making it difficult for CSOs to monitor.

44 •

Government publishes budgets but does not provide details. In most cases, one has to be a government official to be able to obtain a public document from the Commission on Audit.

Social and Environmental Protection • Laws are generally in place but there are still wide negative impacts from EI activities partly due to misleading or inadequate EIAs that produce poor or deceptive information.

• Principle of environmental sustainability respects the rights of future generations. However, most so-called strategic plans do not have intergenerational equity. They do not consider the impact of EI-related activities on future generations.

Organized and Capable CSOs/Citizens Groups • Key roles of civil society:

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

∗

Dissemination of information and raising public awareness

∗

Policy advocacy

∗

Research and analysis

∗ Exposure of harmful EI activities and protest However, the situation of civil society in different countries vary ∗

In some countries, there are very few NGOs and CBOs and they are often not legally recognized

∗

In many cases, NGOs’ autonomy and legitimacy to monitor government is being undermined

∗

Most of the NGOs depend on grants for funding support

∗

•

In countries where there are many NGOs, many belong to loose coalitions. They focus on a diverse range of issues, but very few work on the EI sector.

NGOs that do EI work: ∗

Often have weak capacity to address the complexity of EI issues

∗

Often lack consensus/do not agree on the issues to advocate

Government Responsiveness • It sometimes takes personal relationships to get government to champion CSO causes. CSOs establish champions inside government through dialogue that support their issues.

• In most cases, government has its political preferences and tends to limit its engagement with independent CSOs. However, the government needs to function rationally and learn to accept people’s participation as part of governance.

• Pressure is always needed to compel government to respond.

• The weak link between government plans and budgets make it difficult to hold government accountable to outcomes.

Stakeholders • National and local governments – they often want distance from civil society and want control over them. But they have weak capacity.

• Military – a powerful force in some governments such as Burma • Private sector – some national and international companies that operate like the Mafia • CSOs and CBOs – including networks and coalitions • Corporate foundations

• • • •

Academia Media Communities (as distinct from CSOs) – indigenous people, local communities and industry workers Donors – multilaterals, bilateral, and civil society (e.g. church)

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Driving and Obstructing Factors could be a paradox because some driving factors are also obstructing factors • Revenues – It is good for the country if there are revenues from EI but irresponsible use of revenues is also a source of problems • Law/politics – Laws limit CSOs’ areas of movement, thus also limiting their advocacy and monitoring work • Corruption – or the use of public resources for personal gain has provided the impetus for CSOs to do their advocacy work but has also obstructed the progress of their work for more transparency, accountability, and participation.

• Information – the absence of information presents a problem for NGOs doing monitoring, but the availability of technical information has stretched their limited capacity to analyze it.

• Organizational and technical capacity, structures and mechanisms that promote participation, and good governance practices inside the organization have served to drive and obstruct the work of CSOs • Key driving factor is the adherence to sustainable development, at least in principle by government and civil society.

45

Cultural Context and Sensitivities • EI companies practice double standards – they comply with international standards in their home countries but blatantly ignore them in other host countries, especially those in the developing world.

• NGOs must take advantage of policy weaknesses and gaps (i.e., governance loopholes) for these could be areas where they can achieve a reasonable measure of success • While NGOs can make use of personal relationships in government to further their causes, they could fall into the trap of cooptation.

46 Day Two – 15 September 2009 Thoughts and Reactions to Day One Ms. Flory Tabio asked the participants for their thoughts and reactions to the previous day’s session.

•

• • •

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

•

•

Ms. Matilda Koma of Papua New Guinea observed that the issues raised were very similar and yet the contexts within which the CSOs were operating were unique (e.g. Burma is controlled by the military while the other countries are democratic). She was also impressed that the RTD organizers were able to pick up and analyze the issues in each country quickly.

Mr. Pham Quang Tu of Vietnam thought the session was interesting and the facilitation was good. He said that he saw a different picture in each country.

Mr. Trinh Le Nguyen of Vietnam expressed his hope to see the other participants again in the future.

Ms. Roslyn Arayata of the Philippines asked where EI companies come into the picture if Social Accountability entails constructive engagement between the government and CSOs. Dr. Gregorio-Medel said that the government is the primary focus of social accountability because it is the one that legitimizes (i.e., grants contracts to) companies and possesses enormous resources. Government has a role to play in promoting the rights of citizens. Thus, the first level of CSO engagement is with the government but she is also willing to learn from CSOs working in the EI sector how this constructive engagement can be expanded to include EI companies.

Ms. Kirana said that EI companies are in a way the extention of government in providing the role of resource extractors . Contracts between governments with companies are almost like agreements between two governments. In this sense, the demand for Social Accountability needs to extend to the EI companies as well.

This is reflected in the EITI process, where companies come to the table in the Multi-Stakeholder EITI working groups. In this sense the EITI can be seen as a social accountability tool.

Ms. Arayata said that there are very few NGOs monitoring the fiscal terms and trading of commodities links in the EI value chain. Important information about these links could be obtained from private companies. She emphasized that CSOs’ constructive engagement in the EI sector should not just be limited to government but with the other stakeholders as well.

Ms. Tabio said that there would be time to discuss these issues in Workshop Two.

IV.

Workshop Two – Integrating Social Accountability in the Extractive Industries Value Chain

Dr. Gregorio-Medel explained that the point of the second workshop is to figure out how CSOs can integrate SAc in the EI value chain and to focus on the victories and challenges that could instruct them on how to proceed.

Guide questions She explained the two guide questions below and the workshop template (see Annex A) that each group will use to organize their response: What are the victories and challenges in your group’s level in the EI value chain?

How can SAc tools and practices be integrated in your group’s level in the EI value chain?

The participants self selected by signing up for the groups that they wanted to join:

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Group 1 Monitoring/influencing decision to extract/not to extract Group 2 Monitoring awarding of contracts and licenses, and monitoring the extraction process Group 3 Collection of taxes and revenues, and revenue management and allocation Group 4 Implementation of development projects/policies (no participant chose the group 4 option).

47

48 GROUP Outputs Group 1: Monitoring/influence decision to extract or not to extract Group Members: Roslyn Arayata (Philippines), Latsamay Sylavong (Lao), Pham Quang Tu (Vietnam), Gito Viana & Akara Dos Reis (Timor Leste); and Jockai Khaing (Burma) Legislation- Policy

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Mechanisms or structures

Champion or dialogue counterparts (someone inside gov’t who supported us and with whom we can dialogue?)

Access to government resources Representation or seat (specify if a consultative or decisionmaking body) Public Information and projection Accessed information (formerly not available)

VICTORIES: What did we win/gain?

• Political leadership signs up for EITI (Timor Leste) • Government re-planning on bauxite mining based on CSOs’ demand (Vietnam) • Local Government Code (policy that asserts the rights of local governments to veto or say yes to EI projects (Philippines) • Monitoring of revenues is now being discussed and criticized (Burma) • EITI, CSOs submit bargaining position, organize forum for discussion (Timor Leste) • Established Participatory Monitoring in the community, Monitoring Committee in the district (Timor Leste) • CSOs submit their petition letters to the government, party and president (Vietnam) • Democratic political system (Philippines) • Protest (Burma) • Prime Minister (Timor Leste, Lao) • CSOs help build capacity of communities & enable them to be the champions) (Timor Leste, Vietnam, Philippines) • Network with national assembly or government (sometimes with the help of the academe) to influence (informal) (Lao) • Organize workshops/study tours for the ministry (Lao) • Organize a forum with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Trade (Vietnam) • Local and international NGO networks are very good sources of information (Lao, Vietnam, Philippines) • CSOs have access to the documents and can invite government and EI companies to give presentations (Timor Leste) • One source of funding is from the environmental protection fund (Lao) • Existence of multi-sectoral consultation process (Timor Leste) • Published documents for the public (Timor Leste) • NGO forums (Timor Leste) • Sometimes more information could be obtained from the company than from the government (Lao)

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

CHALLENGES Internal capacities or • Capacity of communities to assert their power to negotiate varies in different competencies (lack of skills and levels (even after the CSOs capacity building training in communities) (Lao, knowledge) – please be specific Vietnam, Philippines, Burma) Networking dynamics • There is a need to set up an independent network (or technical body) to (internal relationships leading to provide information (Lao) weak consensus, competition, etc.)

Dialogue • How to communicate better with the community and simplify the technical counterparts/champions issues (Timor Leste) in and other stakeholder • Consultation is conducted but not full representation is achieved – getting the groups (government, companies, right stakeholders (Lao, Philippines) academia, donors, etc.)

Policy /legislative blocks • Key policies on EI are in place but not implemented (Lao) Structure of representation • No democratic space for protests (Lao) and participation Others • How to guarantee that revenues create positive impact on the people (Timor Leste) • Questionable validity and accuracy of information because of corruption (Vietnam) • No access to information, questionable information (validity) (Lao) • Not all information is available (Vietnam)

49

Campaigns and advocacy tools ‐ Policy analysis ‐ Stakeholders mapping and analysis ‐ Communications and media Social Accountability ‐ ‐

Participatory Policy and Program Planning Performance Monitoring (community scorecards, social audits, etc.)

TOOLS • Media (Timor Leste, Vietnam, Philippines) • Policy briefs (Lao, Philippines) • Evidence-based research (Timor Leste, Vietnam, Philippines, Lao • Informal and formal lobbying (Timor Leste, Vietnam, Lao, Philippines) • Ground information (Burma, Philippines, Lao, Vietnam) • EITI • Multi-stakeholder & transparent Revenue tracking • Alternative report (shadow report) of CSOs to counter the report of government (Philippines, Timor Leste) • EITI report shared to the public (Timor Leste) • Outsourcing of international auditor to check the EITI Report (Timor Leste)

50 Group 2: Monitoring awarding of contracts and licenses, and monitoring the extraction process Group Members: Dorjdari Namkhaijantsan (Mongolia); Matilda Koma (Papua New Guinea); Chan Ramy (Cambodia); Andrew Hickman (Indonesia); and Trinh Le Nguyen (Vietnam) • • • •

•

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

• • • •

• • • • •

VICTORIES: What did we win/gain?

Have access to development contract documents and environmental licenses.

In Mongolia and PNG, CSOs were able to monitor contract requirements and permit conditions, and hold responsible agencies accountable.

In Mongolia, armed with information on licenses made, NGOs push government to decrease the number of licenses.

In PNG, the government is changing their policies to be more environmentally sound.

CHALLENGES Minimal CSO or community participation in the resource exploration phase because applications are directly made to government Land resource ownership- Where people or general civilians are not in ownership of land and/or natural resources, government is in control and in power. As a result, people's concerns are usually not addressed well.

Licenses Requirement – Access to information – Laws in place to control access to information, reluctance or excuses for access to information. Availability and readily available information.

Lack of knowledge of EI -limited information – NGO capacity to understand processes and technical languages in EI. TOOLS Monitoring process – Having access to information enables NGOs/CSOs to monitor the processes and hold responsible agencies accountable.

Using personal contact (friends, colleagues) to get bureaucrats, politicians and individual influential people to support your issues.

Engaging civil society organizations in contributing to discussions and discussion papers.

Use of international NGOs or international body to influence the agenda of local NGOs especially when there is limited access to information is or government is too powerful Learning from others through NGO conference and meetings. This builds the capacity of those that have limited knowledge in EI. The learning adds value to discussing EI issues in their country.

GROUP 3: Collection of taxes and revenues, and revenue management and allocation Group Members: Ly Pichadaroat (Cambodia); Theerada Namhai & Lertsak Khumkongsak (Thailand); Maryati, Siti Fatimah, & Arief Rakhman Muttaqien (Indonesia); and Myke Magalang (Philippines) Legislation- Policy Mechanisms or structures Champion or dialogue counterparts (someone inside gov’t who supported us and with whom we can dialogue?)

Access to government resources

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Representation or seat (specify if a consultative or decisionmaking body) Negotiated agreement (specify)

51

• • • •

VICTORIES: What did we win/gain?

Government adopted EITI principles in revenue planning Mineral recovery fund; decommissioning fund; environmental guarantee fund Was part of the tripartite council in drafting regulations on revenue Strong partnership with local government units resulting to local policies to protect people vs. EI impacts

• Partnership with local government to file a tort claim/case in foreign court against the multinational company which has outstanding tax delinquency of more than one billion pesos • Voting member of Local and Regional Development Councils which allocate funds for development projects • Memorandum of agreement between local government, NGO and community on EI Revenue

Public Information and projection

• Use of websites, monographs, newsletters and other information materials

Accessed information (formerly not available) Acquisition of new knowledge or skills (name this knowledge or skill) Stronger network/ linkage/ collaboration among NGOs/CSOs/ CBOs Gained new allies and/or support (technical, organizational, constituent base, resource providers, etc.)

Cultural values and practices that we harnessed and turned to positive use or application Eco-political contextsituation that worked for us

• CSOs maximize venues despite limitations to access info • Trained local government and communities on how to manage resources from national government (EI Fund) • Formation of regional alliances; linking with international coalitions • Maximized partnership with media, scientific communities, research organizations, mining watch organizations • Bought before the international forum the conduct of multinational companies (shame campaign to tarnish their international reputation) • Bought stocks of the multinational mining company to have access to annual financial reports and to have the right to address annual general assemblies

52

Internal capacities or competencies (lack of skills and knowledge) – please be specific Networking dynamics (internal relationships leading to weak consensus, competition, etc.)

Dialogue counterparts/champions in and other stakeholder groups (government, companies, academia, donors, etc.)

Policy /legislative blocks

Access to Information

• • • •

• Having the skills necessary in engagements with mining processes i.e., public hearings

• Providing skills in policy lobbying

• •

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Responsive Government

CHALLENGES Negotiating with gov’t, with EI companies, and even with the UN Bodies) Mining process, phases; economics of EI Learning exchanges on EI advocacy competencies Putting up an e-group of all those present here to start up new group of EI advocates

• • •

TOOLS Get more information to strengthen CSO capacity and capability to monitor EI revenue More lobbying to enact and implement laws on the right to access information Maximize existing venues of engagement with government Participate in independent bodies to monitor the government Play a more diplomatic role in engaging with the local government (strategic partnership with government)

Group 4: Implementation of development projects/policies Group Members: IESR, BIGS, PWYP, Tifa, IDEA (Indonesia) and La’o Hamutuk (Timor Leste) Legislation- Policy

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Champion or dialogue counterparts Representation or seat (specify if a consultative or decisionmaking body)

53

VICTORIES: What did we win/gain?

• Special regulations that promote sustainable development (Petroleum Fund Law in Timor Leste) • Coordinating with the Ministry of Economic Affairs (Indonesia) • •

Representative in committees (CCPF, Timor Leste) to monitor funds , gather relevant information, secure funds CSO representatives in EITI (multi-stakeholder group)

Public Information and projection Accessed information (formerly not available) Stronger network/collaboration of CSOs/NGOs/CBOs

•

EITI reports (Timor Leste)

•

Access to Information (openness) is now legislated

• •

The establishment of CSO coalition for transparency in EI revenues and payments (PWYP ) Networks for stronger State Budget monitoring (Timor Leste)

Internal capacities or competencies (lack of skills and knowledge) – please be specific Networking dynamics (internal relationships leading to weak consensus, competition, etc.)

• •

CHALLENGES No available network (or CSOs) to monitor EI budgets and projections Asymmetrical EI knowledge baseline (basic understanding) among CSOs

• •

Policy /legislative blocks Structure of representation and participation

• • •

Others

• • •

Industry Tools

•

Different perspectives and backgrounds of CSOs in coalitions Lack of leadership, facilitation skills and long-term commitment, cooperative environment No regulations to ensure access to information from non-public agents Reconciliation of budgeting and spending (no available/detailed publication) Synchronizing territorial representation and regional aspiration There is no EI-specific expenditure advocacy although there has been a lot of initiatives in other fields Coordination among government agents for budget expenditures Regional government’s preparedness for revenue fluctuations

TOOLS Sustainability Reporting Index (SRI)

54 PLENARY Dr. Gregorio-Medel presented a synthesis of all the group reports using the workshop template: Legislation- Policy

• • • • • • •

Mechanisms or structures

•

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

• • •

Champion or dialogue counterparts (someone inside gov’t who supported us and with whom we can dialogue?)

• • •

• • •

• • • Access to government resources Representation or seat (specify if a consultative or decisionmaking body)

• • • •

Negotiated agreement (specify)

• • • •

Public Information and projection

•

VICTORIES: What did we win/gain?

Political leadership signs up for EITI (Timor Leste) Gov’t adopted EITI principles in revenue planning Govt is making its policies more environmentally sound (PNG) Government re-planned bauxite mining based on CSOs demand (Vietnam) Local Government Code (Philippines) Mineral recovery fund; decommissioning fund; environmental guarantee fund Monitoring of revenues now being discussed and criticized (Burma) Special regulations that enable sustainable development e.g. Petroleum Fund Law (Timor Leste) EITI in place & CSOs established participatory monitoring in community; Monitoring Committee in place (Timor Leste) Part of tripartite councils drafting regulations on revenues CSOs submit petition letters to government (Vietnam) Democratic political system, participation in legislative process but not always representative of the range of interests (Philippines) Protest (Burma) Prime Minister is supportive (Timor Leste, Laos) Strong partnerships on local levels with LGUs resulting to local policies to protect people viz. EI impacts /filing a tort claim against a multinational company (Philippines) Coordinating with Ministry of Economic Affairs (Indonesia) Acknowledgement of CSOs’ role in building capacity of communities (Timor Leste, Vietnam, Philippines) Network through the national assembly/govt sometimes w/help from academe to exert informal influence in the absence of formal structure to represent CSOs (Laos) Gov’t is aware of CSOs Local & intl NGOs providing good info (Lao, Vietnam, Philippines) Workshops/study tours organized w/ ministry; organize forum w/the PM and Minister of Trade (Vietnam, Laos) CSOs have access to govt documents (Timor Leste) Environmental protection fund (Laos) From company more than gov’t (Laos) Voting members of local bodies of local units that are consulted by govt and/or regional councils who allocate dev funds on the local level (Timor Leste, Philippines) CSO representatives in EITI (Timor Leste) Stopped Mining Act (but new law slipped into passage) Decrease in number of licenses (Mongolia) Memorandum of agreement between local govt, NGOs & community on EI revenue EITI Reports published by CSOs, govt and companies(Timor Leste)

Accessed information (formerly not available)

• •

• • • •

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

New understanding about ourselves and the way we work (specify) Acquisition of new knowledge or skills (name this knowledge or skill) Stronger network/ linkage/ collaboration among NGOs/CSOs/ CBOs

55

Gained new allies and/or support (technical, organizational, constituent base, resource providers, etc.)

Cultural values and practices that we harnessed and turned to positive use or application Eco-political contextsituation that worked for us

VICTORIES: What did we win/gain?

Use of websites, monographs, newsletters & other info materials Within limitations maximized venues (e.g. EIAs used as guarantees for loans and lending institutions have the info detailed company plans info and documents); bought shares to participate in company decisions Access to Info legislated into law CSOs have access to info on licenses (Mongolia) External reports Website posting of government but national level only

Trained LGUs and community on how to manage resources from national govt • Regional alliances and international research institutions • Worldwide – Mines & Communities • CSO coalition for transparency in EI revenues and payments (PWYP) • Networks for stronger state budget monitoring (Timor Leste) Maximized partnership with media, scientific communities, mining watch orgs

Brought before international forum the conduct of multinational companies – shame campaigns Bought stocks of the multinat’l company so CSO has access to company information

Internal capacities or competencies (lack of skills and knowledge) – please be specific

• • • • • •

Networking dynamics (internal relationships leading to weak consensus, competition, etc.)

• • • • •

CHALLENGES Varying levels of capacity in communities in asserting rights and advocacy Negotiating skills with govt/ international org Mining process/phases, economics of EI No network of CSOs monitoring EI budgets and projections Learning exchange on EI advocacy competencies Uneven understanding of basic EI issues among CSOs Different perspectives and background of CSOs in coalitions Different opinions among CSOs so need for strong leaders to lead groups/CSOs to one agreed objectives and take the initiative (Indonesia) Need for leadership, facilitation skills and long-term commitment, cooperative environment Put up an e-group to exchange info and learning Need for independent/ technical body to provide information (Laos)

56

Dialogue counterparts/champions in and other stakeholder groups (government, companies, academia, donors) Policy /legislative blocks

Structure of representation and participation Others

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

• • • • • • • • Land Rights/Ownership

• •

Campaigns and advocacy tools ‐ ‐ ‐

Policy analysis Stakeholders mapping and analysis Communications and media

Social Accountability

CHALLENGES How to communicate better w/the community & simplify technical issues (Timor Leste, Philippines) Consultation conducted but full representation not achieved – getting right stakeholders Skills in engagement in mining processes (i.e. public hearings) Key policies in place but not implemented & not funded (Laos, Philippines) Laws in place that mislead or disempower owners (ownership viz. mineral exploration rights) Providing skills in policy advocacy No regulations to ensure access to info No space for criticism and protest (Laos) Synchronize territorial representation & regional aspirations Accessibility and accuracy/validity of information (Laos, Vietnam) Reconciliation of budgeting and spending not available/no details Monitor EI revenues Guarantee that the revenue will benefit the people (Timor Leste) No EI specific expenditure advocacies although there are lots of initiatives in other fields Groups already doing SAc work/tools but not applying them yet to EI (Indonesia) Unclear/confused/lack of awareness leading to lack of transparency and abuse More lobbying to access to info, rights and justice Government agents for budget expenditures could not coordinate among themselves Regional government’s preparedness for revenue fluctuations Maximize existing avenues for engagement w/government Play more diplomatic role in engaging local government (strategic partnership w/govt) Participation in independent bodies to monitor govt Constitutional provisions protecting land ownership are undermined or being lobbied to be changed Land titling is not available to many indigenous people; even if the ancestral domain is already awarded; mineral exploration and extraction happens in the midst of these ancestral lands

•

TOOLS Media (Timor Leste, Vietnam, Philippines) Networking with NGOs and participation in international bodies Policy Brief (Laos, Philippines) Various evidence-based researches (Timor Leste, Vietnam, Philippines, Laos) Informal & formal lobbying (Timor Leste, Vietnam, Philippines, Laos)

• •

Ground lobbying EITI

• • • •

Participatory Policy and Program Planning ‐ Budget Formulation ‐ Expenditure Tracking ‐ Procurement Monitoring ‐ Performance Monitoring (community scorecards, social audits, etc.)

Industry Tools ‐ Voluntary principles of human rights (multistakeholder principles focused on monitoring HR activities of companies) ‐ Equator Principles (WB generated tool adopted by Banks for investment clearing and approval processes)

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

‐

57

•

TOOLS Multi-stakeholder & transparent revenue tracking

• •

EITI report to be shared to public Outsourcing international auditor to validate EITI report (Timor Leste)

• •

Alternative report of CSOs to counter govt report (Philippines, Timor Leste) EITI report shared to the pubic (Timor Leste)

•

Sustainability Reporting Index (SRI)

58 V.

Next Steps/The Way Forward B y M s . C h and r a K i ra n a, RW I an d Dr . An gel i t a G re go r io -M ed e l, AN S A- E A P

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Ms. Kirana enumerated the learning about who they are from the two-day workshop: •

All of us are a community of practice – this term refers to the process of social learning that occurs and the shared socio-cultural practices that emerge and evolve when people who have common goals interact as they strive towards those goals.

•

Individually, we are strong in certain parts of the EI value chain that we are focusing on. We have our different focuses and strengths, skills, and victories. But along the entire EI value chain, there are gaps. For example, in the Philippines, CSOs are very strong in the first value chain link, decision to extract or not to extract, and fourth link, extraction process—but there is not much happening in other links.

•

We should think how we could join hands. Together, we could potentially be strong throughout the entire value chain – and could push good governance in the sector in a powerful way. Ms. Kirana shared that during a three-week training she attended on how to conduct campaigns, she remembered what the Campaign Director said, “If you’re up against the industry, you have to have the humanity, tenacity, and integrity of Gandhi. You have to have the unity and discipline of the military. And you have to have the state-of-the-art technical knowledge of the science in the area that you are fighting for. These three will enable you to gain victories. If you have less than three, you can win battles, but not the war.”

She reviewed the profile of the participating organizations: The highest concentration of work is 87.5% on the decision to extraxt or not extract. The second highest concentration is on the process of extraction at 56.2%. All three tail end value chain links, namely tax and revenue colection, revenue and management allocation and monitoring of development projects/policies are similarly high on the work agenda of many NGOs – all comprising 56.2%.

To maximize strengths and a close the gaps, Ms. Kirana presented a few critical questions that they need to answer to help them move forward: 1. As a community of practice, how do you suggest we can advance our common learning? What activities do we need to plan?

2. As a community, how can we strengthen our work throughout the value chain? What would be the best common agenda(s) to focus our joint resources in the next two years?

The participants wrote their responses on sheets of paper that they posted on flipchart paper.

Dr. Gregorio-Medel synthesized their responses: How we can advance our learning as a community of practice •

Information Put in a database all the information they have on stakeholders, initiatives taken, and relevant laws/policies in a manner that is systematic, user-friendly, and readily accessible.

•

Research Share research methods and comparative studies, and generate additional knowledge through studies and surveys.

•

Learning Build capacity on how to do research and provide technical training; give training on action research framework; share experiences and best practices in each country, training materials; and visit each other.

•

Joint advocacy strategies Build consensus and set a common agenda and strategy on EI issues.

How we can strengthen our work throughout the value chain

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Structure Form a network, coalition, or alliance that will develop a regional strategy to share information in a systematic way; generate knowledge through research and conferences; and engage with ASEAN, APEC and other policy makers in the region. Forming a provisional working group with representatives from each country was suggested as a first step to keep the momentum of pushing for SAc in the EI sector.

59

Training/capacity building Build technical capacity on along the EI value chain; conduct training and forums on how to monitor contracts and budgets; share modules and tools on advocacy, conducting campaigns; and share experiences.

Research Collect and share information on EI companies; generate knowledge and produce EI fact sheets on each link in the EI value chain; determine the kind of information they can share to the group.

60

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Acronyms AMAN ANP ANSA-EAP AOW APBN AsoG ATM BIGS BPA CAFOD CBO CERD CNPA CODE CRRT CSER CS CSO CSR DENR DLO EI EIA EITI ESI FPIC GDP GOL HIA HR IDEA IESR IFC IFI INGO IPC IUCN LGU LNG MACEC MAWF

Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (Nusantara Indigenous Peoples Alliance) Autoridade Nacional do Petr贸leo Affiliated Network for Social Accountability-East Asia and the Pacific Arakan Oil Watch Anggaran Pendapatan and Belanja Negara (Annual Budget of the Indonesian Government) Ateneo School of Government Alyansa Tigil Mina Bandung Institute of Governance Studies Banking and Payments Authority Catholic Agency for Overseas Development Community-based Organizations Centre for Environmental Research and Development Cambodian National Petroleum Authority Consultancy for Development and Environment Cambodians for Resource Revenue Transparency Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility Civil Society Civil Society Organizations Corporate Social Responsibility Department of Environment and Natural Resources District Liaison Officers Extractive Industries Environmental Impact Assessment Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Estimated Sustainable Income Free prior and informed consent Gross Domestic Product Government of Laos Health Impact Assessment Human Rights Institute for Development and Economic Analysis Institute for Essential Services Reform International Finance Corporation International Financial Institutions International Non-Government Organization Indonesian Parliamentarian Center International Union for Conservation of Nature Local Government Unit Liquefied natural gas Marinduque Council for Environmental Concerns Mine Affected Women's Foundation

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

MEF MIME MOE MOF MOGE MRA NGO NMAP NSDP OSF PAFID PanNature PDR PhilDHRRA PMO PNG PPM PSC PWYP RAPBN

61

ROGM RTD RWI Sac SIA SLAPP SoS TAP TIPNG TSDA WB WREA WWF

Ministry of Economy and Finance Ministry of Industry, Mines, and Energy Ministry of Environment Ministry of Finance Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise Mineral Resources Authority Non-Government Organization National Minerals Action Plan National Strategy Development Plan Open Society Forum Philippine Association For Intercultural Development People and Nature Reconciliation People's Democratic Republic Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas Prime Minister’s Office Papua New Guinea Public Policy for Mineral Resources Production Sharing Contract Publish What You Pay Rancangan Anggaran Pendapatan and Belanja Negara (Draft Annual Budget of the Indonesian Government) Revenues from oil, gas, and mining Roundtable discussion Revenue Watch Institute Social Accountability Social Impact Assessment Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation Sites of Struggle Transparency, Accountability, and Participation Transparency International Papua New Guinea Timor Sea Designated Authority World Bank Water Resources and Environment Administration World Wide Fund For Nature

62

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Participants

Country / Name

Position/ Organization

Address

Phone

Email

BURMA 1. Wong Aung (Tun Win Kyaw)

Global Coordinator, Shwe Gas Movement

33/2, Moo-2, Chang Pauk, A. Maung, Chiang Mai 50300, Thailand

+66-873008354

global@shwe.org

2. Jockai Khaing

Director, Arakan Oil Watch

PO Box 43 Phrasing PO, Chiang Mai 50202 Thailand

+66-821841335

jockai@arakanoilwatch.org

3. Chan Ramy

Senior Youth Empowerment Assistant, CRRT

Suite 485 Bldg F, Phnom Penh Center, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

+855-23-217607 +855-12663937

ru_ramy@yahoo.com

4. Ly Pichadaroat

Economic Development Policy Project Officer, NGO Forum on Cambodia

#9-11, St.476, Toul Tompoung 1, PO Box 2295, Phnom Penh 3, Cambodia

+855-23-214429 Fax +855-23-994 063

pichada@ngoforum.org.kh

CAMBODIA

Country / Name

Position/ Organization

Address

Phone

Email

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

INDONESIA

63

5. Chitra Septyandrica

Senior Program Manager, Social Policy Pattiro

Jl Tebet Utara IF No. 6, Jakarta Selatan 12820, Indonesia

+62-21-83790541 +62-8121070327

chitrahariyadi@yahoo.com

6. Arief Rakhman Muttaqien

National Budget Policy Division Head, Fitra

Jl. Duren Tiga Selatan (Jl. Haji Maun) No. 68 A Kel. Durentiga Kec. Pancoran, Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia

+62-21-7972034 +62-8156592036 Fax +62-21-7972034

seknas_fitra@yahoo.com nord_curva@yahoo.com

7. Sulastio

Director, IPC

Jl. Teuku Cik Ditiro No. 37 A/PAV Jakarta 10310, Indonesia

+-62-21-31908628 +62-811193286 Fax +62-21-3908944

sulastio@parliamentaryc enter.or.id

8. Siti Fatimah

Director, BIGS

Jalan Eceng No. 4 Bandung, Jawa Barat 40134, Indonesia

+62-22-7307023 +62-812 2038 043 Fax +62-22-2514433

sitifatimah@bdg.centrin. net.id

9. Hanief Adrian

Researcher, BIGS

Jl. Eceng No. 4 Bandung, 40134 Indonesia

10. Rinto Andriono

Director, Institute for Development and Economic Analysis (IDEA)

Jl. Kaliurang Km 5 Gg Tejomoyo CT III/3, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia

+62-274-583900

rinto.andriono@gmail.com

11. Tri Nugroho

Executive Director, Tifa Foundation

Jl. Jaya Mandala II No.14 E, Menteng Dalam, Jakarta 12870 Indonesia

+62-21-829 2776 +62 811-985899 Fax +62-21-83783648

treenug@tifafoundation. org

12. Mickael B. Hoelman

Programme Manager, Tifa Foundation

Jl. Jaya Mandala II No.14 E, Menteng Dalam, Jakarta 12870, Indonesia

+62-81387897999 +62-21-8292776 Fax +62-21-83783648

mbhoelman@tifafoundation .org

13. Mina S. Setra

Director of International Advocacy & Foreign Affairs, AMAN

Jl. Tebet Utara II, Block C, No. 22, Jakarta Selatan 12920, Indonesia

+62-21-8297954 +62-81315119414

minasetra@aman.or.id

hanief_ok@yahoo.com

64 Position/ Organization

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

Country / Name

Address

Phone

Email

14. Ridaya Laodengkowe

Coordinator, PWYP Indonesia

Jl. RP Soeroso, No. 41, Gondangdia, Menteng, Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia

+62-21-3929022 +62-8128037964 Fax +62-21-3909917

ridaya.lon@g mail.com

15. Faby Tumiwa

Exc. Director, Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR)

Jl Mampang Prapatan VIII No. R-13, Jakarta 12790, Indonesia

+62-21-7992945 +62-811949759 Fax +62-21-7996160

fabby@iesrindonesia.org

16. Chandra Kirana

Asia Pacific Coordinator, RWI

Jl Guntur No. 32, Bogor 16151, Indonesia

+62-251-8313947 +62-811109389

kirana.chandra @gmail.com

17. Andrew Hickman

Mining Campaigner, Down to Earth

Jl Sempur Kaler III, Bogor, Indonesia

+62-18383749297

indonesiandre w@yahoo.co m

18. Maryati

Program Manager, Pattiro

Jl Teber Utara 1F No. 6, Jakarta Selatan 12820, Indonesia

+62-8157966375 +62-21-83790541

marymaryati@y ahoo.com

19. Ulma Nurriva

EI Program Officer, IESR

Jl Mampang Prapatan VIIIM R-13, Jakarta Selatan 12790, Indonesia

+62-81932155828 +62-21-7992945 Fax +62-21-7996160

ulma.nurriva@g mail.com

20. Latsamay Sylavong

Country Representative, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

82/01 Fa Ngum Rd, Ban Wat Chan, PO Box 4340, Vientiane, Lao PDR

+856-21-216401 EXT 108 +856-21-243642 +856-205513652 Fax +856-20-5513652

latsamay@iuc nlao.org

21. Kate Lazarus

Researcher, M-Power

PO Box 6266 Vientiane, Lao PDR

+856-207862989

katelazarus200 8@gmail.com

Mining Manager, Open Society Forum

Open Society Forum Building, Jamayan Gun Street 5/1, Sukbaatar District, Ulaan Baatar 48, Mongolia

+976-11313207 +976-99085899 Fax +976-11324857

dorjdari@foru m.mn

PO Box 4277, Boroko, National Capital District, Papua New Guinea

+675-3251292 +675-71141772

coordinator@ce rd.org.pg

LAO PDR

MONGOLIA 22. Dorjdari Namkhaijantsan

PAPUA NEW GUINEA 23. Matilda Koma

Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Research and Development (CERD)

Country / Name

Position/ Organization

Address

Phone

Email

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

PHILIPPINES

65

24. Flory Tabio

Resource Mobilization Specialist, ANSA-EAP

Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines

+63-2-4266062

florytabio@an sa-eap.net

25. Angelita Gregorio-Medel

Project Director, ANSA-EAP

Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines

+63-2-4266062

agregoriomede l@ansaeap.net

26. Randee Cabaces

Capacity Building Specialist, ANSA-EAP

Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines

+63-2-4266062

randeecabaces @ansa-eap.net

27. Roslyn Arayata

Policy Research & Advocacy Officer, Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM)

c/o PhilDHRRA, 59 C. Salvador St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines

+63-2-4266740

roslynarayata@y ahoo.com.ph

28. Miguel Magalang

Executive Director, Marinduque Council for Environmental Concerns (MACEC)

2F Sacred Heart Pastoral Center, Cathedral Compound, Boac, 4900 Marinduque, Philippines

+63-42-3322713

myke_sacmari nduque@yaho o.com

29. Lertsak Khumkongsak

Coordinator, Public Policy for Mineral Resources (PPM)

28/19 Moo 2 Lumpakkud Subdistrict, Tanyaburee District, Phatumtanee Province 12110, Thailand

+66-81-57478863 +66-8157478863

songofkram@ho tmail.com

30. Theerada Namhai

Director, Farmer Community Institute

40 Moo 14, Nongsang Subdistrict, Wappephathum District, Mahasarakham Province, Thailand

+66-85460252

theerada7007@ gmail.com

31. Mericio J. Dos Reis (Akara)

Executive Director, Luta Hamutuk Institute

Rua Gov. Celestino da Silva 2-Farol, Dili, Timor-Leste

+670-3322619 +670-7263783

akaraleon@ya hoo.com; lutahamutuk.ti morleste@gm ail.com

32. Joaozito Viana

Executive Director, Luta Hamutuk Institute

Rua Gov. Celestino da Silva 2-Farol, Dili, Timor-Leste

+670-3322619 +670-7263783

lutahamutuk.ti morleste@gm ail.com

THAILAND

TIMOR LESTE

66

Country / Name 33. Viriato da Costa Seac

Position/ Organization

Address

Phone

Email

Researcher, La’o Hamutuk

I/1A Mo Çambigue, Farol, PO Box 340, Dili, TimorLeste

+670-3325013 +670-7318653

viriato@laoha mutuk.org

34. Trinh Le Nguyen

Executive Director, PanNature

No. 3, Alley 55, Lane 61, Tran Duy Hung, Hanoi, Vietnam

+84-4-35564001 Ext. 102 +84-912095045 Fax +84-4-35568941

nguyen@natur e.org.vn

35. Pham Quang Tu

Director, Consultancy for Development and Environment (CODE)

Number 53, Vo Van Dung Street, Dong Da District, Hanoi, Vietnam

+84-4-37711173 +84912095082 Fax +84-4-35378263

pqtu@codeint er.org

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

VIETNAM

Profile of Participants COUNTRY NAME Organisation Name Address Contact Person Position Email Phone

1. How long has your NGO been involved in Extractive Industry/ EI-related work?

RTD on Promoting Governance in the EI Sector 14-15 Sept 2009

2. In which phases of the EI value chain is your NGO already involved/doing some work on?

Please check applicable phases below. What specific activities are being undertaken by your NGO per phase (e.g., participatory planning; revenue monitoring; expenditure tracking; monitoring of development projects; etc.), and with whom (e.g., national or sub-national government; EI companies; local communities, etc.?

67

Phase in EI Value Chain (please check any/all applicable) [ ] Monitoring or influencing decision to extract/not to extract [ ] Monitoring the awarding of contracts and licenses [ ] Fiscal terms [ ] Monitoring the extraction process [ ] Monitoring the trading of commodities [ ] Collection of taxes and revenues [ ] Revenue management and allocation [ ] Implementation of development projects and policies

Activities Undertaken by the NGO and with whom (e.g., government, EI companies, local communities, etc.)

3. What challenges or issues on EI does your NGO face?

4. Can you give some victories/successes that your NGO has experienced in EI work?