Public Participation Experience in Central Asia

1. Public Participation Experience in Central Asia Workshop on information management and public participation in transboundary water cooperation 8-10 June 2005, St. Petersburg Russian Federation Ulzhan Kanzhigalina Zhalgas-Counterpart, Almaty

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

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

6. LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION • Information • Consultation • Participation

7. CHALLENGES and SOLUTIONS

8. METHODS AND PRACTICAL TOOLS – THE CHU-TALAS PROJECT Project Goal: To promote public participation in decision-making on issues of management of transboundary waters of the Chu and Talas Rivers. • Mapping stakeholders • Focus groups to identify local stakeholders’ needs • Information/Stakeholders Directory/Data Base • Capacity Building Plan • Mechanisms to voice the needs to decision makers

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

10. COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION CYCLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. TANGABLE PARTICIPATION IMPACTS Public Budget Hearings: Although initially reticent,city government officials of Pavlodar held an openforum to provide citizens with an opportunity to askquestions and comment directly on proposed budgetchanges. Local governmentofficials provided budget information to the public andwidely publicized the public budget hearing. Inpreparation, USAID advisors held a roundtablediscussion for local media, NGOs, city officials andothers to help them better understand publicparticipation. Over 200 persons, includingcitizens, city department and agency heads, andNGO advocates, actively participated. This newwillingness of local government officials toconsider their constituents' views is a goodexample of the progress being achieved inmaking local governments more responsive andaccountable.