Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework For Ecosystem Restoration Concessions RP1158 5/27/2011 Introduction

convertingtownΛογισμικό & κατασκευή λογ/κού

4 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 9 μήνες)

93 εμφανίσεις

1


Indigenous Peoples Plan
ning Framework

For Ecosystem Restoration Concessions


RP1158

5/27/2011


Introduction



1.

This Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) has been developed for the GEF/WB
project, “Promoting Sustainable Production Forest Management
to Secure Globally
Important Biodiversity”. As basis for this framework document, a

social assessment was
carried out in the field
during
four months, from June to

September 2010
,
with visits to two
expired logging concessions seeking ERC licenses in the E
ast Halmahera District (North
Mollucas) and the Pohuwato District (Gorontalo, Sulawesi) as well as Focus Group
Discussions (FGD)

held with participants from indigenous peoples’ organizations,
Ministries, government agencies and environmental organizations
.

This framework document
is designed to assist ERC project managers in developing a site specific I
ndigenous
P
eoples
P
lan

safeguard instrument that will meet the needs of the GOI, the WB and the project.
Technical assistance to a select number of Ecosystem

Restoration Concessions (ERCs) is
expected to be channelled through the World Bank, which means the project and those select
ERCs must adhere to the Bank’s Safeguard Policies: “The objective of these policies is to
prevent and mitigate undue harm to peopl
e and their environment in the development
process. These policies provide guidelines for bank and borrower staff in the identification,
preparation, and implementation of programs and projects”
(
http://go
.worldbank.org/WTA1ODE7T0
).



I
ndigenous Peoples Policy

Objectives


2.

The World Bank’s Indigenous Peoples
P
olicy is fo
und in Operational Plan (OP) 4.10.

This
policy

contributes to the Bank's mission of poverty reduction and sustainable development by
ensuring that the development process fully respects the dignity, human rights, economies,
and cultures of Indigenous Peoples

(IP)
. For all projects that are proposed for Bank financing
and affect
IP
s, the Bank requires the borrower to engage in a process
of free, prior, and
informed consultation. The Bank provides project financing only where
this

consultation
results in
the affected IPs offering
broad community support to the project. Such Bank
-
financed projects include measures to (a) avoid potentially a
dverse effects on the Indigenous
Peoples’ communities; or (b) when avoidance is not feasible, minimize, mitigate, or
compensate for such effects. Bank
-
financed projects are also designed to
ensure that the
Indigenous Peoples receive social and economic ben
efits that are culturally appropriate

and
both

gender and inter
-
generationally inclusive (
http://web.worldbank.org
).

3.

Safeguard p
olicies
concerning the
traditional community applies if a project has direct or
indirec
t impacts toward basic rights, livelihood system
s
,
or the
culture of traditional
community,
as well as
affecting
a
place of living, natural resources or culture that
was
possessed, applied, occupied or claimed by the traditional community as their land
.

2



Program Description


4.

In
Indonesi
a’s production forests there are

areas of high biodiversity value
.
Sixty
million
ha

of land, about 44% of Indonesia’s national forest estate, is classified as permanent production
forest. Production forest is the predominant

forest category in the lowlands and in areas
where protected area coverage is low. It forms important biological corridors between
protected areas, but is also an important habitat in its own right.

These areas are outside the
traditional
protected areas
,

meaning

there is a huge potential for developing alternative
models of forest management
that

integrate economic and biodiversity conservation
objectives.

5.

As part of the

Indonesian
MoFr’s committment
to promoting sustainable

forest management,

the licences of over 163 poorly
-
managed concessions
have been cancelled
and the operations
of others

have been suspended since 2002
.
However,

at present
nearly half of the

production
forest estate (i.e.

30 million ha) is not covered by any kind of exploit
ation licence, making it
prone to illega
l exploitation.
In order to reverse this trend, the
Forestry Department has
created
a new policy framework that
allows licenses for ecological restoration to be grante
d
for logged
-
over concessions.
Known as
an ‘Ecosy
stem Restoration’ license (UUHH
K
-
RE)
the co
ncession holder has a initial 60

year permit under

which the concession holder must
return the forests to its ‘nat
ural equilibrium’. T
here is a moratorium on cutting, but
concession holders are allowed to develop
non
-
timber forest products (NTFPs) and
Environmental Services

such as ecotourism and carbon

sequestration
.

Table 1 presents a list
of some ER companies and their proposed activities.
1

As can be seen from the list, the
majority of applicants plan to use the

ERC license as a means to enter the carbon markets.
Other uses of the forest zone include ecotourism, biodiversity conservation and education. In
those cases where there are IPs, the project holders will need to ensure that IPs rights and
needs are taken
into account.




Table 1. List of ecosystem restoration companies and their proposed business activities


Company
Name

Lo
cation

Ha

Business Commodity

Ecosystem
Services

Use of
Forest
Zone

Biodiversity

Non
-
Timber
Forest Product

Rimba Raya
Conservation

Seruyan,
Kalimantan
Tengah

101.730

C
arbon




Restorasi
Habitat Orang
Utan

(PT
RHOI)
Indonesia
Unit III

Murung Raya,
Kalimantan
Tengah

68.089

Ca
rbon

E
cotourism

Adopt a tree,
a
dop
t a an

Orang Utan

Not explained

Rimba
Kota Waringin
227.260

C
arbon

E
cotourism

Education and
Rotan, jelutung,



1

These companies have all completed their “technical document” which is part of the requirement for applying for an ER permit.


3


Makmur
Utama

Timur
and

Katingan,
Kalimantan
Tengah

Training

gemor

Indo Carbon
Lestari

Pulang Pisau
and

Katingan,
Kalimantan
Tengah

198.200

C
arbon*



Jelutung, sagu,
rubber
, damar
mata kucing

Ekosistem
Katulistiwa
Lestari

Kubu Raya,
Kalimantan Barat

41.258

C
arbon,

Payment for
Environmen
tal Services
(PES)*

Ecotourism


Bamb
oo
, getah
jelutung, getah
pulai,
rubber,
crocodile
farming
,

Restorasi
Ekosistem
Indonesia

(REKI)

Musi Banyuasin,
Sumatera Selatan
and

Batanghari,
Sarolangun,
Jambi

53.657 +
49.185


C
arbon,

water

E
cotourism

Training and
education,

Trust fund

Rotan, gaharu,
honey
,

medicinal plants



6.

The IP policy emphasizes the importance of IP participation because

local knowledge is
required to identify, design and plan the implementation of practical mitigation measures. It
is especially important as the success of ER
Cs

depends on community support and action,
both in implementing mitigation measures and in monito
ring their success. As Table
2

below
indicates, more often than not
,

there will be communities living along the boundary of ER
concessions. Not to mention those that are living within the concession’s boundaries.
In
most cases only a small portion of the local communities can be classified as IPs.
As will be
discussed below, concession holders will need to map out community interactions with the
forest concession and then develop mechanisms to reach an agreement on

the use of forest
resources
.
The table below is illustrative of the issue and not a list of ERCs necessarily
related to this project

Table 2. Ecosystem restoration s
ites and
s
urrounding
c
ommunities


Company Name

Lo
cation

Ha

No. of Villages

Total Populatio
n
(person)

Rimba Raya
Conservation
*)

Seruyan,
central
Kalimantan

101.730

25

51,613

Restorasi Habitat
Orang Utan
Indonesia Unit
III

Murung Raya,
central
Kalimantan

68.089

5

1,990

Rimba Makmur
Utama

Kota Waringin
Timur dan
Katingan,
central
Kalimantan

227.260

20

33.427

4


Indo Carbon
Lestari

Pulang Pisau dan
Katingan,
central
Kalimantan

198.200

31

58.758

Ekosistem
Katulistiwa
Lestari

Kubu Raya,
west
Kalimantan

41.258

4

16.888

Restorasi
Ekosistem
Indonesia

(REKI)

Musi Banyuasin,
Sumatera Selatan
dan
Batanghari,
Sarolangun, Jambi

53.657 +
49.185

10

24.082


7.

The target group
s

are Indigenous Peoples, but in the case of Indonesia, two broad categories
of IPs can be identified:





Masyarakat Adat /Adat communities/Customary law communities


These are based
on lineage or locality and are bound by customary law.
Characteristics of these communities include: (i) self identificat
ion as a distinct
indigenous cultural group, (ii) collective attachment to ancestral territories and to
the natural resources in the te
rritories; and (iii) and customary cultural, economic,
social, or political institutions.





Komunitas Adat Terpencil (KAT)/Isolated and Vulnerable communities (IVPs):


This is a government
-
designated category of customary law communities that live
in isolated areas.


The characteristics attributed to these communities include: (i) collective
attachment to ancestral territories and to the natural resources in the territ
ories; (ii)
customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions; (iii) an indigenous
language. They are also identified by government as: (i) having a subsistence
economy, (ii) using simple tools and technology, (iii) having a high dependence
on
the environment and local natural resources, and (iv) having restricted access to
social, economic, and political services.



Project Development Objective and Project Components

8.

The objective of the project is to support the implementation of the Gover
nment’s policy on
Ecosystem Restoration Concessions whilst ensuring that biodiversity and community
participation are mainstreamed into ER Concession management practices and business
plans.


9.

The project consists of 4 components to be implemented over 4 ye
ars:



Component 1: Business Development in Ecosystem Restoration Concessions

(implemented by Burung Indonesia)

5




Component 2: Policy and Administration of Ecosystems Restoration

(proposed to be
implemented by Ministry of Forestry).



Component 3: Knowledge and

Experience

(implemented by Burung Indonesia)



Component 4: Project Management
(implemented by Burung Indonesia)

12.

C
omponent 1

relate
s

to
development of management frameworks and standards for
mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into 6 ERCs yet to be identified
and component 2
to

assisting
GOI with ERC
policy development. In
providing technical
assist
ance

Burung
Indonesia (the implemen
ting agency on behalf of MoFr)
and
the
ERC
license
applicant/holder
has to follow
the guiding principles below.

The ERC license
holder/applicant
has to make sure that
support to ERC
policy
development is carried out in
consultation with IP association
s

suc
h as AMAN

and TELAPAK

and IPs representatives and
the policy should
not have
adverse impact
s

to IP

s livelihood
s

based on Regulatory Impact
Assessment of the draft of that polic
y
.



Guiding Principles


13.

The World Bank’s policy guidelines need to be translated into a practical framework that will
guide project managers and field staff in formulating a framework that will assist in decision
making.
As part of the social assessment and focus group discussion
s, extensive
consultations with indigenous peoples’ organizations, GOI, and environmental organizations
have been carried out to identify issues that will need to be taken into account in ERCs
seeking technical assistance from the project.

14.

The
Harapan Rain
forest Ecosystem Restoration Concession is the only concession which is
fully operational and as such their experience is central to this document. Nevertheless, there
other types of projects such as from PERHUTANI, community forestry, and natural resource

management projects with communities living on the borders of national parks which can
provide input for t
his

framework. The main lessons is that the process should be clearly
define
d

and monitored properly, involving IPs representatives and IPs supporter
s NGOs.

15.

Before providing technical assistance to the 6 ER concession license holders/applicants
Burung Indonesia will ensure that
IPs have been
consulted
by the ERC manager
and actively
engaged in all decision
-
making processes, especially when
the ERC
int
ervention poses
potential adverse impacts to them as a community. The project must, with absolute certainty,

assure that the
IP
s do not suffer adverse effects during
or

after project implementation
,

as
well as receive culturally compatible social and econo
mic benefits.

16.

The
participating ERCs
must ensure at all times that
the
development processes

implemented
by the project foster full respect for the
IP
s' dignity, human rights and cultural uniqueness.

17.

Broad community support from
all
affected IPs
must be de
termined in accordance with their

respective laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference and

coercion,
and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the project activity,

in a language
and process understandable to t
he community. The conduct of field
-
based

investigation and
the process of Free and Prior Informed Cons
ultations
, will take into consideration the
primary and customary practices of

consensus
-
building.

6


18.

The ERC manager
must ensure that none of
the activitie
s of the ERC
will damage non
-
replicable cultural property. In cases where i.e. roads, irrigation, etc. will pass through sites
considered as cultural properties of the
IPs, the ERC manager
must exert its best effort to
relocate or redesign the pro
ject
, so
these sites can be preserved and remain intact in situ.

19.

The
IP
s should be consulted to ensure that their rights will not be

violated and that they
are

compensated for the use of any part of their domain
,

in a

manner that is acceptable to them.

20.

Where ERCs’
operations pose potential adverse impacts on the environment and the
socioeconomic
-
cultural
-
political lives of these IP communities, IPs must be informed of such
impacts and their rights to compensation.

21.

Should IPs grant their approval for ERC operations w
ith adverse impacts, the ERC license
holder/applicant must ensure that affected IP communities are included in the development of
action plans so they may meaningfully participate in the implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of the mitigation measures
agreed upon.

22.

Should potential effects be positive or beneficial to the IPs, specific plans shall be made so
the benefits are culturally responsive.

23.

Project implementers must adhere to the requirements for documentation of meetings
conducted with IP communi
ties, especially those related to the Free and Prior Informed
Consultations leading to broad community support of IPs.

24.

IP dedicated meetings shall be conducted for purposes of monitoring and evaluation of
mitigation measures.


Indonesian Regulations R
elated to Rights to Information and IPs


25.

Indonesia has adopted the United Nations declaration of IPs rights and Human Rights


26.

Ecosystem Restoration (ER)

is governed by the

Minister of Forestry Regulation No. P.61
Menhut
-
II 2008
, “
On Provisions And Procedu
res For Issuing Ecosystem Restoration Forest
Timber Utilisation Permits For Natural Forests In Production Forests Through Applications”

and PP50/2010
.
Article 1 states:

a)

Production Forest Areas are areas designated and/or established by the Government
to b
e maintained as permanent forests with the primary function of producing forest
products.

b)

Unproductive production forests are forests designated/allotted by the Minister as
locations for ER and/or plantation forest development.

c)

ER Timber Forest Utilisation

Permits for Natural Forest in Production Forests
hereafter referred to as IUPHHK
-
RE are permits as described in Article 1 number 14
of Government Regulation No. 6 Year 2007 in conjunction with Government
Regulation No. 3 Year 2008.

7


d)

ER means efforts to res
tore biotic elements (flora and fauna) and abiotic elements
(soil and water) to a region with native species in order to achieve biological and
ecosystem balance.

27.

Government Regulation,
6/2007,
Article
1
No.

14,
state
s
that

IUPHHK
E
cosystem
R
estora
tion in
natural forest
is

a
business permit that

is

awarded to develop
a site

with

important ecosystem function
s. The
function
s can be restored
through

activities, such as
maintenance
, protecti
on and ER
. These activities can

includ
e

planting, enrichment, pruning,
wildlife breeding, re
-
introduction of flora and fauna for the purpo
se of restoring biotic
elements

(flora and fauna) and non
-
biotic elements
(
soil, climate and topography
)
,

so that

an
equilibrium
within

biot
a

and its ecosystem is accomplished
.

28.

Non
e

of the government regulations or decrees that are specifically for ER (PP 6/2007
and

PP 3/2008
and Minister of Forestry decee No.

61/2008) address
es

the rights of traditional
communities. Nevertheless as Table
3

indicates,

there are l
egal mechanisms that
recognize
the

communities’
right to information before a development program or project is
implemented in their region, and freedom to agree or disagree without any pressure.

Table 3.

National Laws Relating to Community Rights to Information


Law No. 14/2
008 on Public In
-
formation
Transparency

Article 9 requires public entities to publish public six
-
monthly information periodicals. This information includes
information about the public entity, its activities and
performance, financial reports and other inf
ormation
regulated by law. This information should be disseminated
by means easily accessed by, and in language
understandable to, the public.

Article 11 also obliges public entities to provide information
to the public at all times. This includes listing

all public
information under their control, outcomes of decisions made
by the public entity, and its considerations, as well as all
existing policies, including supporting documents such as
predictions of annual expenditure and the public entity’s
agreeme
nts with third parties.


Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry

In relation to forestry, communities are permitted to provide
input on forestry plans, including project plans relating to
state forests. Article 68 paragraph 2 states that communities
can be informed about plans for forest allocation, forest
product utili
sation and forestry information; provide
information, suggestions, and considerations for forest
development; and undertake supervision of forestry
development, either directly or indirectly.

(Source: Steni, 2010, p.21)


29.

In addition, the

Perhutani

objectives (Peraturan pemerintah 14/2001) and Permenhut on
Community Forests (
Hutan Kemasyarakatan
)

objectives and facilitation (Permenhut
P37/2001)
there is

sufficient basis that IPs should be sufficiently consulted and IPs livelihood
should be supported

by the ecosystem restoration business plan and policies.
The main
8


challenge

is on the detail
ed

follow
-
up and monitoring system therefore this framework will
focus on the process and common agreement between stakeholders involved.


30.

The regulation
s that hav
e potential impact to
IP

s livelihood
s

within the ERCs are stated in
table 4 below ( in accordance to PP 6/2007 jo PP 3/2008):


Tabl
e

4
.
Activities that
are
allowed and not allowed to be undertaken in

the ER c
oncession


Activities

Regulation

Allowed

Not
al
l
owed

Remarks

Ecosystem

Restoration

activities

P.61/Menhut
-
II/2008

-

Native species

-

Non
-
native species


Utilization
of forest
area

PP No.6/2007
Article

32

-

Cultivating medicinal
plants

-

Cultivating ornament
al

plants

-

Cultivating mushroom
s

-

Breeding bees

-

Breeding wildlif
e

-

Breeding swallow bird
nest
s


-

No negative impacts
t
o
wards biophysics and
socio
-
economy

-

No mechanic
al or

heavy
equipment

-

No develo
ping any

facilities that change

the

lan
d
scape


Limitation of total
area for processing


Non timber
products
utilization

PP No.6/2007
Article

43
and

49.

-

R
attan
,
sagoo
, nipah and
bamb
oo
, including

planting, harvesting,
enrichment, maintaining,
and product marketing
activities

-

S
ap, bark, leaves, fruit or
seed
s and

eaglewood,
including

harvesting,
enrichment
,
maintaining,
and product marketing
activities


-

Protected wildlife and
flora stipulated under the
Act (UU) No. 5/1990,
concerning conservation
of natural resources and
the ecosystem

For non timber
forest products
except protected
wildlife and flora,
a
maxim
um
of 20
ton per
household
.


Ecosystem
services

utilization

PP No.6/2007
Aricle

33

-

W
ater flow service

and
water

-

E
cotourism

-

B
iod
iv
ersity protection

-

S
aving and protecting the
environment

-

A
bsorbing and/or storing
carbon


-

No cha
n
ges
to

the
lan
d
scape

-

No damage
to

environmental elements

-

And/or not reducing its
main function


Timber
utilization

PP No.6/2007
Article

31,
and

45

-

Timber products
harvested to support the
development of public
facilities for the local
community, at a
maximum of 50 (fifty)
cubic meters, or to fullfil
-

Timber collect
ed is not to
be used for any
commercial purposes.


9


individual requirements,
at a maximum of

-

20 (twenty) cubic meters
for every household.


29.

The above limitations will have an impact on community groups that utilize the concession
area and its products, both timber and non
-
timber, including water. There are communities
that utilize the forests for agricultural purposes but this is not reflected

in the ER
regulations
.
Also, activities undertaken by communities that are using land inside the concession needs
further clarification, along with the actual impact of these activities for the ecosystem and the
accomplishment of equilibrium within the pr
oduction forest.


Institutional S
etting


30.

The project imp
lementer is Burung Indonesia.

Burung
Indonesia will provide technical
assistance to 6 ERC license holders/applicants for them to better manage ERCs while taking
into account
IP livelihood interest
s. As part of this
pro
ject Burung Indonesia as implementing
agency will prepare MOUs, acceptable to the World Bank and MoFr, with participating

ERCs to be signed by the project Steering Committee. The ERC license holder/applicant will
need to prepare an In
digenous Peoples Plan (IPP) based on this IPPF
and World Bank OP
4.10
before TA can be provided by the project, in cases where the social assessment shows
IPs are present in or around the ERC in question.



Procedures


31.

In developing
the IPP
, there is an ev
er growing body of literature on how to move from the
more policy level guidelines to developing guidelines that are useful for specific projects.
2
.
Th
e procedures are divided into 5 steps
:


32.

Selection of ERCs

for TA
. It is expected that by mid 2012, lice
nses for several ERCs will
have been granted to allow the application of standards
developed by the project
in specific
areas. The project work specifically in 6 ER concessions to apply these concepts. The
concessions will be selected on the following basi
s:



the management plans has submitted to the Government in support of the application for
the license fall short of the full integration of the multi
-
use restoration concept;



the concession area contains globally important biodiversity;



the concession co
mpany has expressed a commitment to proceed with the management
approach of the project;



The concession company must agree to implement
the
safeguard

policies

in the ERC as
described in the safeguard instruments for this project
.




2

See for example: Free, Prior, and Informed Consent:
Principles and Approaches for Policy and Project Development
,

Bangkok,
February 2011 RECOFTC and GIZ
; Bernadius Steni, Beyond Carbon: Rights Based Safeguard Principles in Law (Jakarta,
Perkumpulan HuMa 2010).

10


33.

MOU
.

The project will wor
k under memoranda of understanding (MOU) between the
project Steering Committee and the ERC license applicant/holder, on terms acceptable to the
Bank. Commitments will be made under these MOUs for companies to incorporate
biodiversity management and commun
ity benefit sharing into the management plans, and
annual work plans for the concessions. Under these agreements, the project will provide TA
to identify the opportunities for payments for ecosystems services and for small business in
non
-
timber forest pro
ducts, and will make recommendations for maximizing the returns from
these sources of income to be incorporated into the technical operational plans for the
concession area. Recommendations will also be made on community participation in
protection and res
toration activities, small business opportunities using concession resources,
and benefit sharing of payments for environmental services. The ERC license
holder/applicant will agree to adhere to the environmental and social safeguards, and prepare
the site

specific ESMP and IPP and/or site specific ARPF as required.




34.

Baseline assessment
. The
ERC license holder/applicant

will undertake the baseline
assessments
as follows
:

a.

Identifying the community groups

and the extent of their dependence on the ER
concession. A profile of the community groups is necessary, including their origin,
place of living, number within the community, socio
-
economic conditions, the
relation and social structure among community mem
bers, and their interactions with
the ER site (including usage of land or forest products). The community groups are
then categorized based on their needs, which is used to set priorities and approach
strategies for developing agreements.

b.

When categorizing

the community groups based on origin, it is necessary to
distinguish between indigenous people and new migrants. Community groupings
based on place of living are determined by the distance of their houses to the ER
C

location. For categorizing community gr
oups based on socio
-
economic conditions
important divisions include land ownership outside the ecosystem restoration area,
level of household income and livelihood sources. Community groupings based on
the level of interaction with the ER area are determin
ed by the activities inside the ER
area, such as gardening or farming, collecting forest products and mining.

c.

The basis to identify IPs communities are:

i.

Self
-
identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and
recognition of this
identity by others;

ii.

Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral
territories in the project area, and to the natural resources in these habitats and
territories;

iii.

Customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that

are separate
from those of the dominant society and culture; and

iv.

An indigenous language, often different from the ma
j
ority in the area.

v.

In the case of Indonesia, please refer to explanation of target groups on page
four of this document.


d.

After categoriza
tion, the management of the ER
C

may determine which community
groups will be prioritized for discussion concerning the possibility of limitations to
access in the ER
C

area, including any possible impacts, and their solutions.

11


e.

Information can be collected f
rom literature, government data, and villagers living on
the border of the concession area, key informants, experts or researchers. Information
may also be obtained from NGOs such as AMAN, an organization that has worked
extensively with indigenous communi
ties throughout Indonesia.


35.

Impacts on

IPs
. In order to ensure there are no negative impacts on IPs’ communities, it is
necessary

to understand
their
level of dependency
on the

forest, what forest products that
they utilize, customary law
s
, local knowledge

(indigenous knowledge)
concerning
the
forest
ecosystem, population and their distribution

in
relation with other
groups.

36.

Management of
the
ER
C

will affect the traditional community when the activities that
are
undertaken inside the ER area

have an impact on

their
livelihoods.
Table
5 below
can be used
for analysing

possible impacts
on

IPs.

Tabl
e

5.
Example
s of p
ossible
i
mpacts on
i
ndigenous
c
ommunities in an ER
c
oncession


Ecosystem Restoration

Activities

Changes in access that
may occur

Posit
ve


Negati
ve

B
oundary demarcation

Access to the ER area
for

the indigenous

community will be
limited
.



Livelihood sources
may

be reduced

Inventory

of
potential
forest resources,
through groundcheck
and ethno
-
ecology
stud
ies.

Interaction
s between the
indigenous community

with E
R

mana
ge
ment

may

become more
intensive
.


Recognition
of

the
use

of
indigenous
knowledge

Uncertianty in
recognizing
property
rights
of
indigenous
knowledge

Utilization of non
timber forest products

The indigenous

community and E
R

management may utili
s
e
the same
commodities

leading to competition
for the same natural
resource.

Possible collaboration in
utili
s
ing
the same
natural resources.

Competition may occur
when

utili
s
ing
the same
natural resources.


37.

The pre
liminary impact assessment will be followed by two studies:

a.

Social assessment studies on the impact
. After an initial study has identified any
potential impacts, more in
-
depth studies are needed to ascertain social impacts.
For
example,
in

Tabl
e

5
,

the boundary demarcation may mean the livelihoods of the IPs
will be negatively affected.
Therefore,
further study is needed to better understand IP
activities in the ER concession area
, f
or example, the number of community members
that will be affected i
f access is restricted, the affect that this will have on
household
income
s, and the impact this will have for
women and other vulnerable groups
. W
hen
avoidance is not feasible, the study will need to recommend how to mitigate, or
compensate for such effe
cts.

12


b.

Study on forest zone usage and forest products and the impacts on ecosystem
restoration.
The study’s objective is to observe and analyze the impacts of any
activities that may be undertaken by the local community within the ER area,
including impacts
on the biodiversity and biophysic
al

condition
s

(rivers, water
sources, forest vegetation coverage, soil condition and micro climate). After analysis,
the level or magnitude of impacts on the ER
C

area, including any short, medium or
long term consequences w
ill be determined. Such a study will determine the activities
that can be undertaken without any impacts on the ER
C

site, and those activities that
must be discontinued.


38.

I
ndigenous
P
eoples Plan
.
The final step is the creation of an IPP.
Based on above
assessment
s

the
IPP
should
include
practical guidelines and frameworks on common
development with IPs. The manager of the ER
C

area will need to facilitate discussions with
communities concerning strategies to reduce any negative impacts due to the implemen
tation
of access limitation to the ER
C

area. Discussions should be participatory:

a.

Determine the consultation strategy inclusively so that everybody (including the
traditional community, traditional organizations, and any other local community
organizations
) has an equal opportunity to voice their concerns
.

b.

Using consultation methodologies that are appropriate to the social values and culture
of the impacted community, as well as providing attention to traditional women’s
groups and other vulnerable groups,
such as children, senior citizens and those with
physical or mental disabilities.

c.

Presentation meetings must be conducted in the local or native language. In addition,
facilitators must use simple and uncomplicated process flows during these
interactions w
ith IPs. Local patterns of social organization, religious beliefs and
resource use must be considered when preparing any development response that
affects the IPs.

d.

Providing complete and relevant information, which includes concept and planning,
as well as

the review of the results concerning the potential impacts during and after
the implementation of ER activities. This information must be in a language that is
easily understood by the impacted community.

e.

Topics for discussion include options to manage an
y negative impacts due to access
limitation. It is also necessary to discuss the criteria of target groups that will need
facilitation.

f.

Table 6
presents an example of discussion results that may be used to formulate
strategies for managing or reducing any
negative impacts due to access limitation.

g.

If the manager
of the
ERC

area
has differences or disagreements with any
affected
communities concerning the management of negative impacts due to access
limitations, the manager of the
ER

area must conduct negoti
ations with the local
community to resolve the differences or
disagreements.

h.

Implementing units must adhere to the requirements for documentation of meetings
conducted with IP communities, especially those which pertain to the process of Free
and Prior Inf
ormed Consultations leading to broad community support. It shall not
proceed with the project's civil works unless the corresponding documentation of
meetings with the
IP
communities is attached to the request, and that this
documentation indicates no obje
ction.

13


i.

Once there is agreement on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable then all
parties need to develop the “rules of the game” which will become the IP
P
.





Table 6
. Strategies to manage or reduce any negative impacts due to access limitation

Type of
Activity

Forms of
access
limitation

Community
group
s

affected
by access
limitation


Possible
impacts for
communities

C
riteria
of
target groups
to be
facilitated

Options
for
managing

negative impact
forms

Illegal gold
mining
(PETI)

Prohibited

Miners (labor,
collector,
secutity,
investor
)

Losing income
sources

Labor and
investor

Raising

awareness

Developing
environmently
friendly mining
practices for
villagers

P
lantation or
agriculture
activities inside
the area

All plantation
s

are closed
,
inc
luding
those
in the
surrounding
areas
that ha
ve

critical
ecosystem
s

Farmers

Prohibited
farmers will
lose their
income sources


Farmers
possess no land
in their village

Farmers have
no other
income sources


Developing
partnership
s

in
agroforestr
y

Developing
activities
in

the
village to
provide
alternative
s

for
income
sources.



Coordination, Supervision,

Monitoring

and Grievance Mechanism


39.

Part of IP
P

is the establishment of periodical meeting with IPs and others local stakeholders.
This will become a monitoring forum. The meeting, supervision activities will be done
periodically (frequency to be established during Project implementation) by

the Burung

Indonesia through their area representatives, who will involve the local IP representatives in
these meetings/visits..


40.

All complaints shall be discussed and negotiations must be carried out in the specific
communities where affected IPs live.
Facilitation will be carried out by a mutually agreed
upon mechanism/individual to be determined in the IPP. Such meetings and interactions with
affected IP households/communities must be documented and distributed to relevant
stakeholders.


41.

Local communit
ies and their supporter and other interested stakeholders may raise a
grievance at any

time to the ERC license holder/applicant, which will have in place and
notified to IPs and local communities
--

as part of the IPP
--

a contact point, process for
addres
sing complaints and a follow
-
up procedure.

14



42.

Grievances should be made to the ERC license holder, who should respond to grievances in
writing within 15 calendar days of receipt. Claims should be filed, included in project
monitoring, and a copy of the grie
vance should be provided to Burung Indonesia. If the
claimant is not satisfied with the response from Burung Indonesia, the grievance supporter or
representative may be submitted to the
World Bank task team in Jakarta.