PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC AUDIT

1. PUBLIC HEARINGPUBLIC AUDIT SDC Coof KathmanduCH August 2006

2. Objectives of this session • Introduction and objectives of PH, PA • Types of PH – PA used so far • Methods, Process & Roles • Lessons learnt, Challenges • Good practice

3. Model of Public Hearing Access of People to the authority Anchor – People representative & authority

4. Objectives of PH – PA"tool to empower community in monitoring a project" • More transparency • Promote accountability • Promote participation • Increase access (inclusion) • Promote trust • Increase effectiveness

5. Why Public Hearing/Audit • Part of CSPM (Conflict Sensitive Project Management – SDC Nepal Strategy) • Commitment to BOG (Basic Operating Guidelines) principles • Carry democratic values • Have direct consequence to development outcomes • Current demand (Govt. Policy, Donors, INGOs practice)

6. Various Terms • Public Audit • Public Hearing • Social appraisal • Social audit (not so far by SDC)

7. Various approaches • BBLL applies (all 1-3 types – 1 at a time)- as a continuous BB process- key role of community, BBLL presence • DRSP – PA after completion of work- done jointly by DDC & Community • NSCFP – PA started this year- encouraging learning, high potential- brings challenges • RHDP starts as a Social appraisal

8. …..various approaches • Coof Conducted 3 Public hearing in 3 districts- Mixture of PH-PA-SA- SDC is first in these districts to do this • Public Audit has been made mandatory for SDC projects - have internalised in YPO • Helvetas, DRSP, BBLL, have issued guidelines for project and communities • GGP did a number of PH helps SDC projects in conducting PH, PA

9. Public Hearing Authority to hear & respond to Public Need external facilitation by an Anchor Specific issue that cannot be resolved by community only Ended often by a declaration - requiring follow up action (by authority) Public Audit By the community for the community Generally no need of external facilitation Financial status is the issue (details of cost & resources) Group consensus on financial report – future action plan Basic difference

10. Lessons learnt • One issue for 1 event (combination of projects or issues in one event – difficult) • Information, data on issue – complete & latest is vital • Forum for people (use min. possible time in presentation of issue to allow maximum time for question answer) • Good planning & preparation (who does what & how, role and process must be clear)

11. …….Lessons learnt • External facilitator's role as a driver, referee is vital for PH and also for PA in the beginning • Code of conduct is important and be respected • Loyalty of facilitator can be questioned (towards public or organising project) - clarify role but also entrust with better role

12. Some observations …. People are often found self centred – would spend hours arguing for a small matter of personal interest and not care for bigger issues

13. Some observations …. Project staff stopped eating with community after PA disclosed cost on refreshment & meals

14. Some observations …. Whistle blowerprotection (So far no incidence reported) - Ex-chair person noted down name of people blaming him to be un-transparent and threatened - how to how to deal? (code of conduct?)

15. Some observations …. • Outcome is most important after the event • a declaration to be followed up later (PH) • a consensus reached among the community members (PA) • a common agreement jointly decided for future action

16. Some observations …. Mode of communicating Are the volume and quality of information used and digested by the community within the PA event?

17. Some observations …. Minor personal matters, personal allegation, motivated by self interestconsuming time (role of facilitator, code of conduct)

18. Challenges • Likely to expose/highlight negative sides (PA) – may not add value to project • Questions, concerns not relevant to the topic of the event (answers may not satisfy) • Remarks, questions driven by personal interest (minor issues taking time – major issues, questions are not raised) • Protection of whistle blower

19. Not all expectations, grievances, questions can be answered to the Satisfaction – quick smart answers help – but not everyone can do that

20. Good Practice Public Hearing • Must be organised, conducted by independent facilitator or organisation • The anchor has a key role in PH • Let the organiser invite public to join • Minimum possible time for organiser with maximum possible time for people voice • Rule of the game – code of conduct is vital

21. Good Practice Public Audit • Organised/invited by the community • Until community has gained skill (1st few PA to start) a facilitator's support is helpful • Accounts, up to date data must be available before organising a public audit (to avoid negative message) • Scope of PA event and code of conduct is vital

22. Future Outlook • All SDC project‘s are encouraged to internalise the PH, PA in their AP • Guideline (basic) is provided (each project can have their own instruction manual) • Included in the ICS guideline • Good Governance Project increases training for PH, PA facilitators • Address challenges (code of Conduct and role clarification) through guideline and Code of Conduct)

23. THANK YOU