Large hydropower and legitimacy: A policy regime analysis, applied to Myanmar

Abstract

Title pageHIGHLIGHTS  First holistic analysis of hydropower policy legitimation struggles in Myanmar  Contention is necessary to re-legitimize a failing hydropower policy regime  A weakened or disrupted policy regime yields new opportunities for reform  We recommend inclusive stakeholder deliberation and multi-objective planning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 1 Large hydropower and legitimacy: a policy regime analysis, applied to Myanmar Abstract Hydropower development in capacity-constrained countries can unfold through unsound policy arguments, narrow institutional and implementing arrangements, and ad hoc decision making processes. To derive insights for more legitimate policy making, we provide the first holistic account of Myanmar's legitimation struggles over large hydropower, focusing on *Highlights

Freshwater Ecosystems versus Hydropower Development: Environmental Assessments and Conservation Measures in the Transboundary Amur River Basin

“…One research work compared the more robust indigenous participatory mechanisms in Canada to those in Russia, where the development of the large Evenkiiskaya dam was halted partly due to active resistance from the indigenous community that was denied access to the official decision-making process [22]. Similar research on the Mekong [23] and rivers of Myanmar [24] has shown that the various facets in civil society that are denied access to decision-making may engage in developing their own disruptive strategies, including alternative assessment frameworks, and this may lead to drastic adjustments to project development processes driven by project proponents. Even companies strictly following national guidelines (and even best international practices) for public consultations during an EIA process still often experience fierce opposition from local communities, mainly when communities believe that the consultation process is being used as a tool to force hydropower projects in areas where communities do not agree in principle with dam building, or they see dams as a tool used by outside forces (e.g., central government) to impose control over territory/resources that local communities want to manage themselves [25].…”

Planning in Democratizing River Basins: The Case for a Co-Productive Model of Decision Making

“…Since 2011, Myanmar's partial and contested democratization [18] has led to a notable increase in technical assistance by international development partners, to multiple sectors. In turn, since 2017, such assistance has yielded an efflorescence of water and water-related studies (e.g., [3,[31][32][33]).…”

“…We have shown the difficulties of trying to implement co-productive and collaborative models. Yet the alternative-managing complexity and contestation via bureaucratic modes of governance-offers no greater likelihood of planning outcomes legitimized by society (cf., [18]). Development partners instead can point to longstanding practices of collaborative planning in their own contexts.…”

“…It can prioritise national-level water resource development preferences. For example, large hydropower and inter-basin water diversion projects for irrigation have dominated planning conversations in Myanmar and Nepal, respectively [18,19]. The challenge of power asymmetry is exacerbated in contexts of data scarcity and uncertainty about river basins as social-ecological systems, where the state of the basin is influenced by political dynamics and narratives, as much as biophysical processes.…”

“…The consumption of expert knowledge by non-experts requires accountability and transparency among knowledge producers (e.g., about the implications of uncertainty). When expertise, stakeholder concerns, interests, and relevant socio-technical options are inadequately included, legitimacy is compromised [18,23].…”