Managing Infrastructure Disputes through Mitigation Practice – Insights from the Field

Abstract: Managing conflict through effective mitigation measures remains understudied. This paper explores the attitudes and perceptions of 55 practitioners engaged in infrastructure related dispute prevention in the Asia Pacific region. The aim of the survey and follow up interview conversations is to provide insights into the dynamics, challenges and lessons learned in engaging with communities to prevent and manage disputes in the context of infrastructure projects.

The principal finding of this paper, based on survey data and follow up questions, is that from the perspective of regional practitioners, prior community consultation is considered the most effective approach to preventing infrastructure disputes. A number of challenges continue to exist in mitigation efforts with the most challenging being the ‘lack of agreement on shared economic benefits’ and ‘limited communication.’ Overall, practitioners advised that most disputes arise because “there was no consultation or inadequate consultation with a marginalised part of the community” . Respondents offered suggestions on how community-investor dispute resolution systems might be improved including the need for more public “promotion” of community consultation and grievance mechanisms, and a clear consultation process to encourage better understanding of those engaged .and more efforts to educate the community so that they “understand… the risk of investment” .

Follow up conversations between 2021 and 2023 with practitioners working in dispute mitigation offered additional insights into themes such as shared learning between multilateral banks on the development of dispute mitigation mechanisms, the duty of consultation and social license to operate, the development of hybrid forms of resolution, mitigation through early consultation and dispute boards, the exploration of appropriate diligence standards whether domestic or global in infrastructure financing programs, the internalization of ESG standards into contracting agreements, an emphasis on long term contracting models and multi-tiered approaches to resolution.

Given the small n size of the survey sample (n=40), the findings can not be considered generalizable. As prior studies have noted, self-reported perceptions are subject to bias and statements may not always reflect actual practice. However, the findings of this paper demonstrate the overall significance of prior community consultation and effective grievance mechanisms in the infrastructure dispute mitigation context.

Keywords: Conflict mitigation, infrastructure disputes, community consultation, dispute prevention