active · WASH
CSRC Nepal
Oxfam together with Community Self Reliance Centre (CSRC), and with research by Dr. Navin Rai, examined the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) and FMO’s (Dutch Development Bank) implementation of its Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) commitment at the Upper Trishuli-1 hydroelectric project at Rasuwa Nepal. IFC is the lead arranger of the debt package for the UT-1 hydroelectric project involving eight other lenders among them the Dutch Development Bank, FMO. The financing is provided to the privately-owned Nepal Water and Energy Development Company (NWEDC) that is majority owned by the Korean Southeast Power Corporation. The research assessed and compared the extent to which the NWEDC’s interpretation of FPIC aligns with best practice andthe Oxfam definition of FPIC,and whether NWEDC behavior and process aligns with FPIC requirements as defined in IFC’s performance standards 7 on indigenous peoples. IFC’s performance standards 7 on indigenous peoples will be the primary standard againstwhich FPIC implementation will be evaluated, since FMO has adopted IFC’s performance standards. This research provided communities with the opportunity to express their views on how agreement-making with communities has taken place, how consent has beenreached, and how FPIC has been implemented. Documenting and sharing lessons learned with stakeholders nationally and globally is key in improving the situation for the affected communities of the Trishuli dam, as well as FPIC practices in Nepal, and around the world. This report follows and builds on research, carried out by LAHURNIP in 2017, in Rasuwa District. This research highlighted key concerns from communities related to inadequate consultation and engagement in decision making. In 2018 in a three-month period, an FPIC process took place, even though we can challenge the fact that the Free and Prior components were already violated, as land was acquired already back in 2011 and 2012. The need for Phase IV of the Advocacy Program (April 2025 –March 2026) stems from the notable progress achieved during Phases I, II, and III. These phases led to significant outcomes, including the inclusion of three additional villages in the IPP, raising the total number of beneficiary villages to 13. They alsoresulted in the development and endorsement of comprehensive IPP guidelines and the establishment of strong, cooperative relationships between the company, project team, and community members. Additionally, each village demonstrated their commitment by designing their own IPP programs and budgets based on their real needs, and the implementation of IPPs began in real field settings in 2024. Despite these accomplishments, there remain critical areas that require further intervention and strengthening. Onepressing issue is the need to increase the overall IPP budget to align with the specific needs of each of the 13 villages, ensuring it effectively reflects the priorities of the communities. Another crucial area is the expansion of the IPP's scope and budget to address the communities' requirements for additional land purchase for relocation support to seven vulnerable communities. Phase IV of the advocacy program will focus on tackling these challenges, further fortifying the program to meet the evolvingneeds of the communities and ensure its continued success.
Overview
About this project
Oxfam together with Community Self Reliance Centre (CSRC), and with research by Dr. Navin Rai, examined the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) and FMO’s (Dutch Development Bank) implementation of its Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) commitment at the Upper Trishuli-1 hydroelectric project at Rasuwa Nepal. IFC is the lead arranger of the debt package for the UT-1 hydroelectric project involving eight other lenders among them the Dutch Development Bank, FMO. The financing is provided to the privately-owned Nepal Water and Energy Development Company (NWEDC) that is majority owned by the Korean Southeast Power Corporation. The research assessed and compared the extent to which the NWEDC’s interpretation of FPIC aligns with best practice andthe Oxfam definition of FPIC,and whether NWEDC behavior and process aligns with FPIC requirements as defined in IFC’s performance standards 7 on indigenous peoples. IFC’s performance standards 7 on indigenous peoples will be the primary standard againstwhich FPIC implementation will be evaluated, since FMO has adopted IFC’s performance standards. This research provided communities with the opportunity to express their views on how agreement-making with communities has taken place, how consent has beenreached, and how FPIC has been implemented. Documenting and sharing lessons learned with stakeholders nationally and globally is key in improving the situation for the affected communities of the Trishuli dam, as well as FPIC practices in Nepal, and around the world. This report follows and builds on research, carried out by LAHURNIP in 2017, in Rasuwa District. This research highlighted key concerns from communities related to inadequate consultation and engagement in decision making. In 2018 in a three-month period, an FPIC process took place, even though we can challenge the fact that the Free and Prior components were already violated, as land was acquired already back in 2011 and 2012. The need for Phase IV of the Advocacy Program (April 2025 –March 2026) stems from the notable progress achieved during Phases I, II, and III. These phases led to significant outcomes, including the inclusion of three additional villages in the IPP, raising the total number of beneficiary villages to 13. They alsoresulted in the development and endorsement of comprehensive IPP guidelines and the establishment of strong, cooperative relationships between the company, project team, and community members. Additionally, each village demonstrated their commitment by designing their own IPP programs and budgets based on their real needs, and the implementation of IPPs began in real field settings in 2024. Despite these accomplishments, there remain critical areas that require further intervention and strengthening. Onepressing issue is the need to increase the overall IPP budget to align with the specific needs of each of the 13 villages, ensuring it effectively reflects the priorities of the communities. Another crucial area is the expansion of the IPP's scope and budget to address the communities' requirements for additional land purchase for relocation support to seven vulnerable communities. Phase IV of the advocacy program will focus on tackling these challenges, further fortifying the program to meet the evolvingneeds of the communities and ensure its continued success.
Progress
0%- Plan
- Implementation
- Outcomes
Alignment