Background/Rationale
- Recent developments in the implementation of the REGDP for EKRIP - Need for the PMU, LARC to keep abreast with the requirements of REGDP
- Need for the PMU, LARC, CSC, Contractor to have additional knowledge on the social safeguards
- Need for the PMU, CSC, Contractor to define roles and responsibility Brief Description of the Activity
The Workshop was a one-day activity that focused on REGDP Process during project implementation, Grievance Mechanism, Responsibility Charting using the Responsibility, Accountability, Communication and Information (RACI) Matrix, Communication strategies, Reporting Requirements
Objectives
1. To increase the level of awareness on the safeguards requirements of the project REQDP, Grievance Mechanism, Communication Strategies and Reporting requirements;
2. To clarify roles and responsibilities using the RACI Matrix
3. To harmonize and draft procedure on gray areas in resettlement such as DMS, vulnerable group, temporary works, Livelihood Program for AHHs
4. To establish GRM Committees at project level; and
5. To deepen participant’s appreciation of their crucial role for the successful implementation of EKRIP.
Participants
Day 1- November 28 at Hpa-An , CSC Office, Male 15 ; Female 2; Total Participant 17, refer to the attendance sheet and photo
Day 2 – November 29 at Kawkareik, CSC Office, Male 11 ; Female 2; Total Participant 13, refer to the attendance sheet and photo
Outputs Achieved
1. The participants were clarified on the roles and responsibilities of various players of the REGDP and the project implementation;
2. The participants suggested some modifications on draft Grievance Redress Mechanism.
3. Feedbacks for the participants are the following: 1) having roles and responsibilities are defined to each player of REGDP and project implementation, it is now clearer on what to be expected from each person, unit or agency; 2) This workshop should have been conducted when the project has just started, nonetheless, it is still useful as it clarifies everyone’s roles. The REGDP and GRM process, were clearly explained to the best knowledge of the participants.
4. Request for a template for the Notification for the Absentee and Unknown owners.
Questions and Answers
Question Answer
On the validity period of Notices for the Category 2 (Absentee AHHs) and Category 4 (Unknown AHHs).
Township LARC committee member suggested a one (1) month or 30 calendar days for the Notice Validity for Category 2 (Absentee AHHs) and two (2) months or sixty (60) calendar days for Notice Validity instead of 3 months for Category 4 (Unknown AHHs) (Day 1 , Hpa- An Side).
On the method of reaching out to the absentee and unknown owners such as posting of notices in local and national newspapers.
The Department of Land Record Officer suggested to include contact details of the Village Chiefs for Cat-2 (Absentee AHHs) and Cat 4 (Unknown AHHs) (Day 1 , Hpa- An Side).
On the time frame to resolve complains at Level 1- Village Level GRC, and Level 2-Project Level GRC .
Township LARC committee member agreed to the suggested timeframe of two (2) days to documents complains at Level 1- Village Level GRM, and seven (7) days (Min) to resolve complaints at Level 2-Project Level
31
GRM (Day 1 , Hpa- An Side).
On the role of NGO/CSO in Level 2- the project level and Level 3- District/ state level GRC and their accreditation.
Township LARC committee member agreed that the NGO/CSO be involved in GRC Levels 2 and 3, however, they should be accredited. (Day 1 , Hpa- An Side) Kawkareik Township LARC members
recommendation for Category 2 (Absentee AHHs) and Category 4 (Unknown AHHs)
Kawkareik Township LARC committee member agreed with Hpa-An Township LARC committee member on the Notification period of one (1) month or 30 calendar days for Category 2 (Absentee AHHs) and two (2) months or sixty (60) calendar instead of 3 months for Category 4 (Unknown AHHs) (Day 2 , Kawkareik Side).
U Win Ko (Representative from PMU) There were reservations to the involvement of the CSO/NGO in the GRM. Nonetheless, the participants hope that their involvement will result to a positive cooperation. Should the NGO/CSO be paid, if they will be involved in the GRM?
Dr. Criste Z. Navida responded that a representative NGO/CSO is usually invited to participate in the GRM process is based on the principle of transparency.
However, only accredited NGO/CSO with a government agency concerned such as the Ministry of Construction shall be invited.
(Day-2) U Min Htet Aung (Representative from
PMU)
In Kayin State, a lot of registered NGO/CSO, so call the meeting first and ask them please select your
representative person within your network or group. And then, we need to wait ADB comments for our project level GRM.
(Day-2)
Daw Moe Pwint Phyu (PMU) After the approval of the GRM by ADB, the PMU has to present this mechanism to the district and state level LARC members, for their recommendations and suggestions to our project level GRM.
Feedback for the Participants
Person Feedback
Mr. Kyuho Yoon (Team Leader, CSC Team) This workshop is very useful for us (PMU,CSC, CRBC and LARC members).
Mr. Tha Kyaw Zan (Deputy Team Leader,CSC Team), Day-1
Because of this workshop and RACI Matrix, we now know very specific and detailed knowledge on resettlement more than before.
Mr. Tha Kyaw Zan (Deputy Team Leader,CSC Team), Day-2
I believe that everybody very well know about
resettlement, GRM and RACI Matrix after the workshop Mr. YB Cho ( Sr. Resident Engineer, CSC
Team)
I believe that it is very useful and effective for multi stakeholders EKRIP.
Mr. Wang (CRBC Co.,Ltd) Due to this workshop, we know exactly what CRBC Responsibility.
Mr. Bruce (CRBC Co.,Ltd) After the Presentation and RACI Matrix exercise, we know that teamwork is important by knowing exactly each responsibility.
Mr. Pyae Phyo (CRBC Co.,Ltd), Day-1 Very pleasure for attending this workshop.
Mr. Pyae Phyo (CRBC Co.,Ltd), Day-2 CRBC Co.,Ltd know every detail of each party responsibility so its help moving forward the project.
Daw Moe Pwint Phyu (PMU/MoC), Day-1 On behalf of PMU, this is very useful workshop and good to PMU/MoC, CSC, CRBC and LARC members.
Daw Moe Pwint Phyu (PMU/MoC), Day-2 Same as above
32
Representative of Department of Land Record ( Hpa-An Township), Day-1
We know the very useful knowledge on resettlement.
Thank you so much.
Representative of Department of Forestry (Hpa-An Township), Day-1
Thank you so much for good workshop and our department will be supporting for project successful.
Representatvie of Hpa- An District MoC, Day-1
Thank you so much for great explanation and sharing knowledge.
Representative of Hpa-An GAD, Day-1 -
Representative of Department of Land Record ( Kawkareik Township), Day-2
Thank you so much for good workshop and our department will be supporting for project successful.
Representative of Department of Forestry (Kawkareik Township), Day-2
Thank you so much for good workshop and our department will be supporting for project successful Representatvie of Kawkareik Township MoC,
Day-2
Congratulation for our department because our
department have a lot accountability and responsibility.
Thanks to all!
Representative of Kawkareik GAD, Day-2 Thank you so much for good workshop and our department will be supporting for project successful.
Representative from PMU, Day-2 U Win KO(PMU) : Thank you so much for presentation and RACI exercise
Photos
Group Photo of Hpa-An Particpants (Day-1) Participants in the training room (Day-1)
RACI matix exercise (Day-1) Awarding of Certificate to the PMU Officer (Day-1)
Dr. Criste Z. Navida as presenter (Day-1) Group Discussion (Day-1)
33
CSC Team Leader giving a speech (Day-1) Participants giving feedback on the workshop (Day-1)
Group Photo of Kawkareik Particpants (Day-2) Participants giving feedback on the workshop(Day-2, Kawkareik)
Participants in the training room (Day-2,Kawkareik) Awarding of Certificate to the PMU Officer (Day-2, Kawkareik)
Participants giving feedback on the workshop (Day-2,Kawkareik)
Participants giving feedback on the workshop(Day-2, Kawkareik)
34
Attendance List