|
|
ENQUIRE PROJECT DETAILS BY GENERAL PUBLIC |
| Project Details |
| Funding Scheme : | General Research Fund | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Number : | 17610921 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Title(English) : | Is an Ounce of Prevention Worth a Pound of Cure? Assessing the Development of Dispute Prevention Mechanisms along the Belt and Road | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Title(Chinese) : | 預防為主，防治結合——對建立“一帶一路”爭端預防機製的評估 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Principal Investigator(English) : | Prof Ali, Shahla | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Principal Investigator(Chinese) : | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Department : | Faculty of Law | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Institution : | The University of Hong Kong | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| E-mail Address : | sali@hku.hk | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tel : | 28592926 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Co - Investigator(s) : |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Panel : | Humanities, Social Sciences | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Subject Area : | Social and Behavioural Sciences | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Exercise Year : | 2021 / 22 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fund Approved : | 780,059 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Status : | Completed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Completion Date : | 14-4-2025 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Objectives : |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract as per original application (English/Chinese): |
This project will explore the development of community-investor dispute prevention and facilitation mechanisms in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (“BRI”). As an infrastructure financing initiative, the BRI aims to strengthen infrastructure linkages along the Belt and Road corridor spanning Asia, Africa and Europe. Given the wide-scale impact of China’s multi-jurisdictional development initiative, understanding how best to coordinate with local communities is vital to realizing the benefits of sustainable growth. In the 20 years since the development of the first multilateral community-investor dispute resolution mechanism – established by the International Finance Centre/World Bank ("IFC") – much has been learned about public facilitation, community engagement and dispute prevention during the early stages of major infrastructure development programs. With the creation of the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization under the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade in April 2019, dispute prevention through community engagement has taken center stage in China’s dispute settlement policy and has become a mandatory pre-infrastructure project assessment requirement. Thus far, only limited systematic examination has been undertaken of the contours of community-investor dispute prevention, its relationship with formal dispute resolution mechanisms, and overall contribution to sustainable development in the context of the BRI. To address this gap, the present research will be the first comprehensive study of its kind to analyze mandatory BRI dispute prevention mechanisms within the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank ("AIIB") and the Asian Development Bank ("ADB") to determine whether ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?’ in community-investor dispute resolution. In particular, it will assess the impact of the nature of community engagement (elective/mandatory) on the incidence, frequency and subsequent resolution of project related disputes. Drawing on a case-based methodology, it will explore the achievements, challenges and lessons learned in community-investor dispute prevention and resolution for major infrastructure projects with a view to providing relevant recommendations from a devolved collaboration perspective. The project will result in new insights regarding the conditions for successful community-investor engagement applicable not only in the greater China region but beyond. The findings will be disseminated through a research monograph, journal articles and conference presentations. 本項目旨在探討在“一帶一路”倡議的背景下建立社區-投資者爭端預防和促進機製的可行性。作為一項基礎設施建設融資倡議，“一帶一路”旨在加強橫跨亞洲、非洲和歐洲的“一帶一路”經濟走廊在基礎設施建設方面的聯系。鑒於中國的多管轄區發展倡議產生的廣泛影響，了解與當地社區進行協調的最優方式，對於實現整體利益最大化至關重要。自國際金融中心/世界銀行製定的第一個多邊社區-投資者爭端解決機製建立以來的20年裏，我們在重大基礎設施發展項目的早期階段，在公共便利、社區參與和爭端預防等方面收獲良多。隨著2019年4月中國國際貿易促進委員會下屬的國際商事爭端預防與解決組織的成立，爭端預防在中國的爭端解決政策中占據了核心位置。然而，到目前為止，對於社區-投資者爭端預防的框架、其與正式爭端解決機製的關系以及在“一帶一路”背景下對可持續發展的整體貢獻等方面，系統性地研究非常有限。為了彌補這一空白，本項目將是第一個對亞洲基礎設施投資銀行和亞洲開發銀行框架內現有的“一帶一路”投資爭端預防機製進行的全面研究。本項目將基於案例分析的研究方法，探討在重大基礎設施建設項目的社區-投資者爭端預防和解決方面的成就、挑戰和經驗，以期從權力下放的合作角度提供相關建議。該項目將就投資者與社區成功合作的條件提出新的見解，並且不僅適用於大中華地區，也將適用於其他地區。研究結果將通過專著、期刊文章和會議展示來傳播。 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Realisation of objectives: | Each of the research objectives of this project has been achieved. They will be discussed in detail below: I. First Objective: Drawing on a qualitative, triangulating approach analyzing public facilitation policy design and case-based implementation, this project will examine the research question of whether, and if so how the design of multi-stakeholder community-investor public facilitation mechanisms contribute to the prevention and early resolution of infrastructure disputes and advancement of sustainable development objectives along the Belt and Road. Realization of Objective I: The culminating output of the project, An Ounce of Prevention: Dispute Mitigation in Multilateral Infrastructure Development in the Asia Pacific Region (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming) drew on a multi-method research approach to examine policy design and case-based practice of community-investor dispute prevention and facilitation mechanisms employed by multilateral and national development banks operating in the Asia Pacific region. Drawing on 12 case studies, project statistical analysis and survey data, it explores the achievements, challenges and lessons learned in community-investor dispute prevention and resolution in infrastructure development projects and provides relevant recommendations. The findings confirm the adage that an ounce of prevention is in fact worth a pound of cure in the infrastructure context, yet challenges remain in facilitating effective preventative measures. II. Second Objective: Theorize the dynamics of community-investor dispute prevention and resolution by identifying policy and substantive principles observed from practice Realization of Objective II: The second objective is realized in the forthcoming CUP Publication. It finds that while infrastructure development theory has largely extended beyond an emphasis on top-down approaches to planning and implementation with growing recognition of the importance of community engagement to advance project sustainability, legitimacy and responsiveness, much of this research has been conducted in western contexts. Limited evidence of impacts of community-based engagement on dispute prevention is available in the Asia Pacific region. This study demonstrates that where practices of community engagement through consultation, information sharing, grievance mechanisms and accountability are robust, a higher incidence of project completion and dispute mitigation is reported. It likewise traces the significant role of decentralized and joint knowledge generation amongst independent accountability mechanism professionals within multilateral and national banking institutions, NGO’s and community groups in contributing to increasingly harmonized legal and policy innovations for expanded community access and accountability. These findings are consistent with prior research on the efficiency gains of cohesive, inclusive and meaningful local partnerships and the significance of decentralized transnational legal ordering. III. Third Objective: Analyze and compare the efficacy of preventative tools (i.e. mandated early stage public facilitation through ADB's SPS disclosure and consultation processes and AIIB's SEP engagement plans) with elective late stage post-conflict approaches (IFC's mediation/arbitration mechanism) through indicator analysis, case studies, interviews and surveys of neutrals and legal professionals along the Belt and Road corridor Realization of Objective III: The third objective of this project is addressed in Part II of the book, An Ounce of Prevention which explores community engagement statistics, case studies and survey findings in the Asia Pacific region before 2013 when pre-project community engagement practices were largely discretionary to post-2013 when more robust mandatory procedures were introduced. Project data, survey findings and comparative case studies suggest that the introduction of heightened pre-project community consultation and grievance mechanisms within global multilateral development banks in the mid 2010-20’s have corresponded with a drop in the percentage of grievances per project from 15.4% in 2019 to 7.1% in 2021. While this downward trend has been followed by a slight resurgence simultaneously after 2021, the lack of consultation, disclosure or due diligence was no longer the single most cited cause of grievances amongst project affected communities. Greater attention to pre-project due diligence and community awareness of grievance channels appear to account for these findings. Survey findings of 55 practitioners engaged in infrastructure related dispute prevention in the Asia Pacific region likewise demonstrated that prior community consultation was considered the most effective approach to preventing infrastructure disputes and that overall, most disputes arose because of lack of adequate consultation with members of the community. Similarly, the 12 community-investor dispute case studies show that in circumstances of increasingly heightened standards for mandated community consultation as compared with ad-hoc discretionary consultation practices, the number of stalled/cancelled and litigated case declined by 33%, the percentages of cases referred to local courts declined by 16%, and the number of cases pursuing party agreement through mediation or negotiation increased by 50%. Overall, these findings provide measured evidence supporting the development of increasingly robust community consultative engagement channels, particularly for multilateral and national banks which have not yet implemented such policies. Such engagement channels, far from aggregating complaints, conversely correlate with a reduction in the overall proportion of project disputes. IV. Fourth Objective: Contribute to the development of case insights regarding conditions for successful community engagement through the identification of contributions, challenges and lessons learned in community-investor public facilitation mechanisms from a comparative, devolved and policy-oriented perspective Realization of Objective IV: The book resulted in the following case insights regarding challenges and conditions for successful community engagement. Key challenges included insufficient community consultation, lack of environmental planning, inadequate compensation for relocation, damage to local resources including water and farmland, economic harm, forced land transfer, duress, undue influence, lack of consent and limited external monitoring, obfuscation of facts and ‘uni-directional’ rather than multi-directional consultation. Factors associated with successful community engagement included heightened precision in consultation, diligence and grievance mechanisms and common identification of issues of community concern, higher pre-project diligence and screening standards, ongoing environmental and technical monitoring, locally trained mediators, consultation skill development, a longer term view of community welfare and responsive grievance remedies, early stakeholder involvement, involvement of local government, transparency, application of appropriate consultation standards relative to project risk. V. Fifth Objective: Apply case insights to the development of policy recommendations for Hong Kong, Qianhai and the greater China region Realization of Objective IV: The study provides a set of five recommendations that are relevant to the greater China region and beyond including national bank training, model standards development and case information sharing. Drawing on BRI cases in Chapter 7 examining the contributions and challenges in advancing sustainable development along the BRI and efforts at engagement with local communities, the study confirms that when project funders reference robust host country ESG standards with higher pre-project diligence and accountability requirements, disputes tend to be avoided, while conversely when referencing lax host country standards, gaps in diligence often give rise to disputes. 6. · Disseminate the findings in the form of a research monograph, journal articles and conference presentations The project resulted in 1 book (ranked A* by RQF); 2 Edited Volumes (A RQF); 7 journal articles/book chapters and 22 conference contributions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Summary of objectives addressed: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Research Outcome | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Major findings and research outcome: | Project data, survey findings and comparative case studies suggest that the introduction of heightened pre-project community consultation and grievance mechanisms within global multilateral development banks in the mid 2010-20’s have corresponded with a drop in the percentage of grievances per project from 15.4% in 2019 to 7.1% in 2021. While this downward trend has been followed by a slight resurgence simultaneously after 2021, the lack of consultation, disclosure or due diligence was no longer the single most cited cause of grievances amongst project affected communities. Greater attention to pre-project due diligence and community awareness of grievance channels appear to account for these findings. Survey findings of 55 practitioners engaged in infrastructure related dispute prevention in the Asia Pacific region likewise demonstrated that prior community consultation was considered the most effective approach to preventing infrastructure disputes and that overall, most disputes arose because of lack of adequate consultation with members of the community. Similarly, the 12 community-investor dispute case studies show that in circumstances of increasingly heightened standards for mandated community consultation as compared with ad-hoc discretionary consultation practices, the number of stalled/cancelled and litigated case declined by 33%, the percentages of cases referred to local courts declined by 16%, and the number of cases pursuing party agreement through mediation or negotiation increased by 50%. Overall, these findings provide measured evidence supporting the development of increasingly robust community consultative engagement channels, particularly for multilateral and national banks which have not yet implemented such policies. Such engagement channels, far from aggregating complaints, conversely correlate with a reduction in the overall proportion of project disputes. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Potential for further development of the research and the proposed course of action: |
Directions for continued research include identifying relevant principles that may guide the community consultation processes in diverse cultural settings; examining the forms of community representation that result in manageably sized groups to advance high quality decision making; exploring the type of preparation necessary to ensure that individuals have the requisite skills and capabilities to constructively engage in the consultation process; exploring the safeguards needed to protect the integrity and objectivity of the consultation process and prevent it from fraud and coercion; exploring how consultation may interface with the precautionary principle to fill in knowledge and policy gaps, examining the type of systems that can track effective implementation and the potential interface with AI and ethics. No doubt, shared learning amongst members of the infrastructure development community to advance genuine consultative engagement for community prosperity will strengthen the beneficial impact of such projects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Layman's Summary of Completion Report: | While infrastructure development theory has largely extended beyond an emphasis on top-down approaches to planning and implementation with growing recognition of the importance of community engagement to advance project sustainability, legitimacy and responsiveness, much of this research has been conducted in American and European contexts. Limited evidence of impacts of community-based engagement on dispute prevention is available in the Asia Pacific region. This study demonstrates that where practices of community engagement through consultation, information sharing, grievance mechanisms and accountability are robust, a higher incidence of project completion and dispute mitigation is reported. It likewise traces the significant role of decentralized and joint knowledge generation amongst independent accountability mechanism professionals within multilateral and national banking institutions, NGO’s and community groups in contributing to increasingly harmonized legal and policy innovations for expanded community access and accountability. These findings are consistent with prior research on decentralized transnational legal ordering and the efficiency gains of cohesive, inclusive and meaningful local partnerships. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Research Output | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Peer-reviewed journal publication(s) arising directly from this research project : (* denotes the corresponding author) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Recognized international conference(s) in which paper(s) related to this research project was/were delivered : |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Other impact (e.g. award of patents or prizes, collaboration with other research institutions, technology transfer, etc.): |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SCREEN ID: SCRRM00542 |