Annex 18. Involuntary Resettlement Process Framework (In conformity with OP 4.12)

Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Annex 18. Involuntary Resettlement Process Framework (In conformity with OP 4.12) 1. Background Project Description The proposed project's central objective is to develop and test a collaborative framework to manage protected areas in Indonesia and protect key biodiversity areas and ecosystem services in North Maluku. The new approach would be tested in the newly declared Aketajawe-Lolobata National Park in Halmahera Island, North Maluku, and if deemed successful, its pilot interventions would be adopted elsewhere in the country. In particular, the project proposes to: (a) establish an adequate basis of biological and social information for the management of the National Park; (b) develop an effective management regime for ALNP including facilitating bi-lateral agreements between the National Park and neighbouring communities and industries, rationalizing and remarking the boundaries of the National Park, establishing a multistakeholder forum to facilitate collaboration, and working with District Government to integrate spatial planning and National Park management; (c) ensure that the National Park management and other stakeholders have adequate capacity (resources, skills, information) to play an effective role; (d) establish a monitoring system to support effective lesson learning and evaluation; (e) share information and lessons from the project with other relevant institutions Indonesia; (f) establish high levels of awareness and support amongst the public and decision makers in the three affected Districts and the main towns in North Maluku. Official land status in the project area Almost the whole of the island of Halmahera is classified as State Forest Land, within which the rights of communities to access and exploit are limited by law to traditional and low-impact use of non-timber products. Only the land around the villages was excluded from state forest land. The state forest land itself was originally divided into forests for conversion, production, and watershed protection. The two sections of the new National Park were created by changing the status of a number of areas of watershed protection forest to conservation forest. Almost all of the Lolobata section of the National Park is surrounded by state forest land classified for production or watershed protection, which forms a buffer between National Park and human pressures. Aketajawe section is partially bordering watershed protection and production forests, but also shares borders directly with non-state forest land, and conversion forest. The law on National Parks allows for a system of zonation including traditional use zones. The change to National Park status thus implies the possibility of greater flexibility in the management of land and resources and the potential to resolve conflicts at the same time as securing sustainable management of forests. Communities around the National Park No permanent settlements are located inside the National Park. The National Park and the state forest land around it lies within the jurisdiction of three Districts sub-divided into six sub-districts, and the administrative areas of 41 villages and 6 transmigration settlements (the estimate is not precise because the boundaries of most villages have never been mapped or marked on the ground) with a total human population of 63,324 people (2004 Government Statistics Agency figures). Settlements and community farmland, plantations and natural resource management activities are on the coast, 5-10 km away from the National Park, which is on inland hills. The RP423 1

only exceptions are 3 local villages (comprising 9 sub-villages) and 3 transmigration settlements which are close to the boundary of the National Park. Ethnically, the inhabitants of the traditional villages are from Halmahera and neighbouring islands in North Maluku and North Sulawesi, as well as small numbers of people referred to as Forest Tobelo (see Annex 18a) who once led a semi-nomadic livelihood but have now settled in villages. The transmigration settlements are dominated by people from Java and Lombok. - 2 villages on the western side of the Aketajawe Block of the National Park, Hijrah and Akekolano, each consisting of 4 sub-villages, where villagers are known to use old logging trails to extract timber. - 1 village south-east of the Lolobata Block of the National Park, Miaf, which is an access point for illegal artisanal mining of gold along the course of rivers within the Park. The mining is causing local habitat loss, and bringing associated threats of mercury pollution and locally increased hunting pressure. - 2 transmigration settlements bordering on Aketajawe Block, Kobe Kulo, to the south-east, has a population of over 1000 people originating from West Java and Lombok. The settlement was developed in conversion forest and directly borders the National Park, and there have been reports of small scale timber extraction and farming inside the park boundaries. Pintatu, on the north east border of the same block, has a population of over 700 people from Java. In the same area the community in a local village has formed a farmers group who has obtained a small scale logging license and are extracting timber from the edges of the National Park. - 1 transmigration settlement south of Lolobata, Maratana Jaya, was developed in conjunction with an industrial timber plantation in conversion forest. Failure of the timber plantation, linked to uncontrolled burning, and consequent agricultural expansion by the community all have the potential to affect forests inside the park. There is also a small population of Forest Tobelo people still practising a semi-nomadic lifestyle within the forests covered by the National Park and surrounding logging concessions. Link to Bank Involuntary Resettlement Policy The proposed project will not create a new protected area nor will it change the legal status of land in the project area. It will not physically displace any people or restrict access to assets owned by local populations. However through capacity building, institution strengthening, and resource mobilisation, the project will change the way natural resources are managed in the area, and will therefore impact on of some members of the local population, especially those whose use of resources is unsustainable and has a significant impact on biodiversity and ecological functions. As a result it is necessary to consider the project in the light of the Banks Operational Policy OP 4.12 on involuntary resettlement. The project is considered in the context of paragraph 3(b) of the OP, the involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons, and this draft process framework has therefore been prepared to ensure that project activities fulfil the objectives of the OP by: - avoiding any unnecessary restriction of access to natural resources that will adversely affect local communities - ensuring adequate participation and consultation of the affected population in the overall project - ensuring that restrictions on access to resources, and mitigation measures put in place as a result, are determined with the participation of the affected parties 2

- monitoring the impact of the project activities, including the implementation of this process framework, and transparent dissemination of the results of monitoring to stakeholders The impact of the project on the Forest Tobelo people indigenous people, most of whom still heavily rely on forest resources, is of particular concern, and will be addressed in the following way under this policy: - the project intends to ensure that the National Park permits the current resource use by indigenous communities living within the National Park and protects them from the impact of logging concessions; - no land will be acquired under this project, there will be no relocation and no involuntary restriction of access to resources. - the project will implement a process of field studies and adaptive management which will be specifically focused on understanding the needs of Forest Tobelo and ensuring that they are safeguarded. These activities include a dedicated anthropological study during the first year, identification of key indicators to monitor the impact of the project and National Park on Forest Tobelo livelihoods. Forest Tobelo who have settled in villages will also be involved in participatory processes leading to the definition of community National Park agreements on resources and access as described in section 2. See Annex 18A for further details. 2. Preparation and implementation of project components The project consists of 6 activities components, of which the first three are of relevance to this Process Framework. The occupants of the 3 villages, 3 transmigration settlements, and the semi-nomadic Forest Tobelo group described above are considered primary stakeholders in the project and the National Park. It is the residents of the villages, who live outside the boundary but in some cases take forest resources or cultivate land within it, who will be most affected by the project s activities, since it will focus on agreeing the boundary, stabilising land use, and limiting commercial and unsustainable exploitation of resources. The process of preparing and implementing the relevant components is described here. Component A. Defining the scope for management of ALNP This component covers three main areas of work: (1) establishment of a baseline of information on vegetations, land use and biodiversity through remote sensing analysis and field survey (2) assess boundary and resource management issues as perceived by communities and concession holders neighbouring the National Park, (3) undertake a detailed study of the Forest Tobelo s livelihoods, land use, distribution and movements as an input to determining NP zonation. The study will include identification of sites of specific cultural importance, to ensure that access to these sites will not be affected. Analysis of the results of these studies will underpin the development of a prioritised list of management interventions needed to improve the management of the National Park. This component represents the projects commitment to understand the needs and aspirations of local stakeholders including the Forest Tobelo. Component B. Establishing a collaborative management regime. 3

The collaborative management regime to be established by the project will have six components: - facilitation of agreements on boundaries and resource use between communities and National Park management - facilitation of agreement between concession holders and National Park management on protecting and respecting boundaries - implement the re-marking of the National Park boundary with the involvement of all stakeholders - establish pilot initiatives to tackle high priority resource use problems - establish a multistakeholder forum to improve coordination and integration of NP and local Government plans and policies - capacity building for local Government to incorporate sustainable development principles into planning and policy making Of these six activities, the first, third, fourth and fifth are expected to have an impact on some members of the community. Developing management agreements between village and National Park management requires negotiating changes in the behaviour of stakeholders where they are involved in unsustainable resource management practices. The project will take a participatory and consultative approach to defining the issues and identifying mitigating measures and alternatives. The agreements will potentially impact on all community stakeholder groups (both sedentary villagers, and the small semi-nomadic groups) where they exploit the resources of the park in an unsustainable way. For sedentary communities (traditional village and transmigrants) the starting point will be a participatory rural appraisal approach. This will discuss all resource management issues, leading to identification of the communities view on the issues, appropriate actions, compensation, rules and sanctions. For key resource issues, these will be followed with further technical and participatory studies leading to specific recommendations for interventions to tackle the problem. Actions to be taken will include the action by the community themselves to reduce unsustainable exploitation, generate alternatives, including enforcement through local community bylaws or traditional sanctions where appropriate, and education and awareness campaigns to promote understanding and support for the restrictions. These community based actions will be backed up by monitoring and enforcement as appropriate by the relevant authorities (National Park management, police, etc). In areas where the location of the National Park boundary is an issue for the community, the agreement will be followed up with a participatory process of re-marking the boundary. From s experience in Sumba, this may have two outcomes, both of them acceptable to the community land is excluded from the National Park, or the community is guaranteed cultivation rights over farmland inside the park. In developing and implementing interventions to tackle the highest priority management problems, the project will focus on the most urgent threats to the park s integrity, three of which do not involve local communities (encroachment by neighbouring logging companies, illegal mining and timber extraction by outsiders) but three of which are thought to be important (extraction of timber by local communities, clearance of land by local communities, and unsustainable exploitation of endangered wildlife). The projects approach will emphasise achieving consensus on changes that are needed. For the groups leading semi-nomadic livelihoods, it is believed that their only non-sustainable activity is catching of endangered parrot species to obtain scarce cash for buying imported goods. This issue will be addressed directly through joint identification of alternative sources of financial income. 4

The multi-stakeholder forum will be formalised by a decision of the Governor and the Ministry of Forestry. Its functions will be communication, coordination, and enabling joint planning and working between local stakeholders connected to the management of the National Park. The forum will play an important role in ensuring that the interests of local communities and seminomadic peoples are considered in work planning and prioritisation. Local community representatives are expected to face a number of difficulties in participating in the forum. These include lack of legitimacy to represent the communities, logistical difficulties in attending meetings, and lack of the knowledge and (in some cases) language and negotiation skills to participate effectively. The project will work to ensure that the right of local communities to participate and be heard is recognised in the rules and operational procedures of the forum. It will also work with representatives to help them test the villagers perceptions of the issues and to prepare for the meeting. Component C: Building capacity for protected areas management In response to the capacity needs required for implementation of the management agreements (Component B), the project will undertake specific capacity building activities, including providing information about (for example) resource management issues, legal and policy issues, and technical skills; strengthening community institutions and links between them and other stakeholders; assisting with seeking funding and obtaining necessary financial and physical inputs for management efforts. 3. Criteria for eligibility as affected persons Local stakeholders who are potentially resettled persons, in the sense that they suffer a negative impact from the activities of the project, primarily come from 3 villages and 3 transmigration settlements which border the National Park, and from a small group who lead a semi-nomadic livelihood in the forests of central Halmahera. The degree to which they benefit from and interact with the resource of the National Park, and potential negative and positive benefits from the implementation of project activities, will be assessed during the initial socio-economic assessment and study. This assessment will also recommend who should be included as major stakeholders the whole village, for example, only certain sub-villages, or only people pursuing certain trades/livelihood strategies. People involved in commercial illegal activities which are not based on a traditional lifestyle are likely to be ineligible for example, there are reports of professional, non-local, bird traders operating in the area and illegal gold mining operations which are carried out by non-locals who use mercury in the extraction process, and these people would not be eligible for assistance under the project. 4. Restoration of livelihoods and maintaining sustainability The negative impact on livelihoods will be minimised by accommodating community priorities into Village Conservation Agreements and the review of the National Park zonation and boundary. It is expected that through the establishment of a traditional use zone within the National Park, the majority of needs of the local communities can be accommodated in this way. However there is likelihood that there are some issues that cannot be solved this way. The project approach will work exhaustively, searching for a mutually acceptable alternative to unsustainable resource use as has been demonstrated by in similar projects in Sangihe, Talaud and Sumba. 5

As part of component B, the project and NP management will work to address the highest priority local management issues, involving resource user groups in planning, implementing and monitoring initiatives to make resource use more sustainable. These pilot initiatives will be a means of addressing any negative effects which may be experienced by communities due to the changes necessary for sustainable natural resource use. Examples of potential initiatives are planting timber tree species to replace timber sourced from inside the park, intensifying rattan production on forest margins, addressing damage caused by community-based artisanal gold mining, or finding alternatives to capture and trade in endangered species from the Park. Beneficiaries of these initiatives may be resource users in communities around the Park, Forest Tobelo, or migrant artisanal miners and loggers. The project will support planning and seed funding for these initiatives, and if they are successful small grants support will be leveraged from various government and other sources to expand the impact. At the project s mid-term review, by which stage enforced restrictions will not yet have been put into place, the likely availability of identified funding sources for these initiatives will be reviewed and if necessary, additional financial support from the project will be reallocated to support them in order to ensure that adverse impacts on eligible communities and persons are compensated or mitigated. Residents of the communities will also benefit from the project by having the opportunity to identify and agree on their needs as a community, including in areas other than environmental management, through the participatory rural appraisal which is the initial stage of forming a village conservation agreement. These needs can then be communicated to the appropriate local government agencies by project staff, who are able to access decision makers through channels not available to communities in remote locations. At other project sites, BirdLife Indonesia has established a good relationship with local communities through long-term commitment to the area, and able to push for actions from government on their behalf. 5. Resolution of potential conflicts between project and stakeholders The project s role in the management of the National Park is one of mediation and capacity building to enable all stakeholders to play a more effective role. Direct conflict with the project is therefore only anticipated if the participatory process is not sufficiently inclusive (for example, the project facilitates agreements that do not include an important stakeholder) or if the project is seen as acting primarily as an agent of enforcement which works with the National Park management, rather than as a facilitator which can support learning and finding alternative solutions. This might happen if the project s presence has a higher profile than the National Park itself, for example because National Park staff rarely meet the community in the field. In both cases a complaint against the project would be indicative of a failure in the process of consultation or disclosure. It would immediately be investigated and action will be taken to correct the mistake. The village conservation agreement, management agreements, and institutional strengthening work (components A, B and C) should help to reinforce the correct perception of the project s role. The participatory nature of the project as described above should provide plenty of opportunity to resolve misunderstandings and conflicts. 6. Monitoring and evaluation. Component D of the project (Monitoring and Evaluation to support adaptive management) is concerned with working with each stakeholder group to develop relevant indicators and means of monitoring them, leading to better information decision making ( adaptive management ). As part of this component the project will undertake monitoring of key forest resources, human activities, participation in the multi-stakeholder forum, beneficial and adverse impacts on persons within the project impact area, and effectiveness of any measures taken to improve or restore incomes and living standards. 6

7. Grievance Mechanism The project s complaints handling process would be through an independent NGO, local to the project site, selected following advertisement and following the issuing of no objection by the World Bank. The details of the independent NGO and the mechanism for making a complaint will be promoted through project literature, during research and monitoring during the course of the project, and at the village consultations leading to conservation agreements. If a grievance is received by that independent NGO, it will make an independent investigation into the grievance if judged necessary. In the case of complaints related to the strategy being used to implement particular aspects of the project, these would be passed (without mentioning the name of those making the complaint) to project management for response. To ensure that complaints are processed properly they will be handled by a specified member of staff within the project management unit in Bogor, who will be responsible for complaint handling and tracking. This arrangement is in fact already in place within ; the Director of Conservation Programs is responsible for handling complaints arising from projects, including receiving, registering, referring, tracking and reporting upon all complaints received and copying all such documents to the National Park Authorities. 8. Disclosure For a GEF Medium Sized Project, the World Bank requires that the Involuntary Resettlement Process Framework be publicly available at least 21 days before Bank approval of such project, at a place accessible to, and in a form, manner and language understandable to the displaced or affected people and local NGOs. The project has complied with this requirement in the following ways: Many of the relevant stakeholders were met on a / World Bank visit to the project area during Jan 29th Feb 6 th 2006, and the project was introduced to them at this time and any input into the design sought. Additional meetings were held during the visit by BirdLife Indonesia staff in May 2006, when the documentation in Indonesian was disseminated. A translation was prepared of all relevant parts of the Involuntary Resettlement Process Framework in Indonesian, and this was given to relevant government departments and civil society groups in the project area as part of the overall summary of the project. Initial consultations were held with community leaders between Jan 29th Feb 6 th 2006, and these indicated that the project approach would be well received. A written summary in Indonesian of the project design, with references to the safeguard policies, their purpose, and contact details for further information was distributed to community members by BirdLife staff at community consultations in May 2006. Leaflets were also distributed giving background information on the National Part itself. At the community meetings, description of the project was given orally, by members of staff who are experienced in facilitating community consultations in rural areas, and feedback was documented in the attached report on consultations. A meeting was also held in Feb 2006 with a group of Forest Tobelo people, who spend part of their time in a small hamlet called Totodoku near the Lolobata block of the National Park. The meeting was facilitated by a native Tobelo speaker. A meeting was also held in the sedentary Forest Tobelo community of Tokur-Tokur in May 2006, and literature in Tobleo language was given for further dissemination by the community members. Due to the wide dispersal of groups, the necessity of having a Tobelo language speaker present, the low predicted impact of the project on this group, and the difficulty in accessing some of the hamlets, it was not possible to disclose the process framework to all communities prior to approval, and this is instead one of the aims for the first year of the project when there will be an identified anthropological study carried out. See Annex 18A for more details. 7